DABAREH <dab’-a-re > . See DABERATH.

DABBESHETH <dab’-e-sheth > ([ tv,B,D” , dabbesheth ]; [ Dabasqai>, Dabasthai ]; the King James Version Dabbasheth, dab’a-sheth): A town on the western boundary of Zebulun ( Joshua 19:11). It is probably identical with the modern Dabsheh , a ruined site to the East of Acre.

DABERATH <dab’-e-rath > ([ tr”b]D;h” , ha-dabherath ], “pasture”; [ Dabeirw>q, Dabeiroth ]): A city in the territory of Issachar, on the boundary between that tribe and Zebulun ( Joshua 19:12). It was assigned to the Gershonite Levites ( Joshua 21:28; 1 Chronicles 6:72). The most probable identification is with Dabuiriyeh , a village on the lower western slopes of Tabor.

DABRIA <da’-bri-a > : One of the five who wrote down the visions of Esdras, described (2 Esdras 14:24) as “ready to write swiftly.”

DACUBI; DACOBI <da-ku’-bi > , <da-ko’-bi > , King James Version: Head of a family of gatekeepers (1 Esdras 5:28). See AKKUB; DAKUBI.

DADDEUS <da-de’-us > , the Revised Version (British and American); LODDEUS ([ Loddai~ov, Loddaios ), which see.

DAGGER <dag’-er > . See ARMOR, ARMS.

DAGON <da’-gon > ([ ˆ/gD; , daghon ]; apparently derived from [ gD; , dagh ], “fish”):

Name of the god of the Philistines (according to Jerome on Isaiah 46:1 of the Philistines generally); in the Bible, Dagon is associated with Gaza (Judges 16) but elsewhere with Ashdod (compare 1 Sa 5 and 1 Macc 10:83 f; 11:4); in 1 Chronicles 10:10 there is probably an error (compare the passage 1 Samuel 31:10). The god had his temple (“the house of Dagon”) and his priests. When the ark was captured by the Philistines, it was conducted to Ashdod where it was placed in the house of Dagon by the side of the idol. But on the morrow it was found that the idol lay prostrate before the ark of the Lord. It was restored to its place; but on the following day Dagon again lay on the ground before the ark, this time with the head and both hands severed from the body and lying upon the miphtan (the word is commonly interpreted to mean “threshold”; according to Winckler, it means “pedestal”); the body alone remained intact. The Hebrew says: “Dagon alone remained.” Whether we resort to an emendation ([ /gD; , dagho ], “his fish-part”) or not, commentators appear to be right in inferring that the idol was half-man, half-fish. Classic authors give this form to Derceto. The sacred writer adds that from that time on the priests of Dagon and all those that entered the house of Dagon refrained from stepping upon the miphtan of Dagon. See 1 Samuel 5:1-5. The prophet Zephaniah (1:9) speaks of an idolatrous practice which consisted in leaping over the miphtan . The Septuagint in 1 Samuel indeed adds the clause: “but they were accustomed to leap.” Leaping over the threshold was probably a feature of the Philistine ritual which the Hebrews explained in their way. A god Dagon seems to have been worshipped by the Canaanites; see BETH-DAGON.

LITERATURE Commentaries on Judges and 1 Samuel; Winckler, Altoriental.

Forschungen, III, 383. Max L. Margolis DAILY <da’-li > : This word, coming as it does from the Hebrew [ µ/y , yom ] “day,” and the Greek [hJme>ra, hemera ], suggests either day by day ( Exodus 5:13), that which is prepared for one daily ( Nehemiah 5:18), as e.g. our “daily bread,” meaning bread sufficient for that day ( Matthew 6:11); or day by day continuously, one day after another in succession, as “the daily burnt offering” ( Numbers 29:6 the King James Version), “daily ministration” ( Acts 6:1), and “daily in the temple” ( Acts 5:42 the King James Version). The meaning of the word “daily” as used in the Lord’s Prayer ( Matthew 6:11) seems to indicate sufficient for our need, whether we consider that need as a day at a time, or day after day as we are permitted to live. “Give us bread sufficient for our sustenance.” William E. Vans DAILY OFFERING OR SACRIFICE See SACRIFICE.

DAINTIES; DAINTY (MEATS) <dan’-tis > ([ t/M[“f]m” , maT`ammoth ], “things full of taste,” [ µyM[“n]m” , man`ammim ], [ ˆd;[\m” , ma`adhan ]; [liparo>v, liparos ], “fat,” “shining”): Jacob is represented as predicting of Asher, “He shall yield royal dainties” ( Genesis 49:20; compare parallel clause, “His bread shall be fat,” and Deuteronomy 33:24, “Let him dip his foot in oil”).

David, praying to be delivered from the ways of “men that work inquiry,” cries, “Let me not eat of their dainties” ( <19E104> Psalm 141:4). The man who sitteth “to eat with a ruler” ( Proverbs 23:1-3) is counseled, “If thou be a man given to appetite, be not desirous of his dainties; seeing they are deceitful food” (compare John’s words in the woes upon Babylon ( Revelation 18:14), “All things that were dainties and sumptuous are perished from thee,” and Homer’s Iliad (Pope). xviii.456). “Dainties,” then, are luxuries, costly, delicate and rare. This idea is common to all the words thus rendered; naturally associated with kings’ tables, and with the lives of those who are lovers of pleasure and luxury. By their associations and their softening effects they are to be abstained from or indulged in moderately as “deceitful food” by those who would live the simple and righteous life which wisdom sanctions. They are also “offered not from genuine hospitality, but with some by-ends.” He should also shun the dainties of the niggard ( Proverbs 23:6), who counts the cost ( Proverbs 23:7 the Revised Version, margin) of every morsel that his guest eats. See DELICATE; FOOD, etc.

George B. Eager DAISAN <da’-san > , <da’-i-san > ([ Daisa>n, Daisan ]): Head of a family of temple servants (1 Esdras 5:3:1) called Rezin in Ezra 2:48; Nehemiah 7:50, the interchange of “D” and “R” in Hebrew being not uncommon.

DAKUBI <da-ku’-bi > , <da-koo’-bi > ([ Dakou>b, Dakoub ], [ Dakoubi>, Dakoubi ]; the King James Version Dacobi): Head of a family of gate-keepers (1 Esdras 5:28) called “Akkub” in the canonical lists.

DALAIAH <da-la’-a > , <da-la-i’-a > . See DELAIAH.

DALAN <da’-lan > ([ Dala>n, Dalan ]; the King James Version Ladan): Head of a family that returned to Jerusalem, but which “could shew neither their families, nor their stock, how they were of Israel” (1 Esdras 5:37); corresponds to Delaiah ( Ezra 2:60). Another reading is “Asan.”

DALE; KING’S <dal > , [ Ël,M,h” qm,[e , `emeq hamelekh ]) : (1) “Absalom in his lifetime had taken and reared up for himself the pillar, which is in the king’s dale” ( 2 Samuel 18:18). According to Josephus (Ant., VII, x, 3) this was a marble pillar, which he calls Absalom’s hand” and it wa two furlongs from Jerusalem. Warren suggests that this dale was identical with theKING’ S GARDEN (which see), which he places at the open valley formed at the junction of the Tyropoen with the Kidron (see JERUSALEM ). The so-called Absalom’s Pillar, which the Jews still pelt with stones in reprobation of Absalom’s disobedience, and which a comparatively recent tradition associates with 2 Samuel 18:18, is a very much later structure, belonging to the Greco-Roman period, but showing Egyptian influence. (2) King’s Vale ( Genesis 14:17; the King James Version dale). See KING’S VALE; VALE.

E. W. G. Masterman DALETH <da’-leth > ([D, d ]): The 4th letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and as such used in Psalm 119 to designate the 4th section; transliterated in this Encyclopedia with the dagesh as d, and, without, as dh (= th in “the”). It came also to be used for the number four (4) , and with the dieresis for 4,000. With the apostrophe it is sometimes used as abbreviation for the tetragrammaton. For name, etc., see ALPHABET.

DALLY <dal’-i > : Occurs in The Wisdom of Solomon 12:26: “But they that would not be reformed by that correction wherein he dallied with them” ([paigni>oiv ejpitimh>sewv, paigniois epitimeseos ], “child play of correction”), the reference being to the earlier and lighter plagues of Egypt; Version (British and American) renders “by a mocking correction as of children,” “by a correction which was as children’s play,” Greek (as above). He first tried them by those lighter inflictions before sending on them the heavier. In later usage “daily” implies delay .

DALMANUTHA <dal-ma-nu’-tha > . See MAGADAN . Compare Mark 8:10; Matthew 15:39.

DALMATIA <dal-ma’-shi-a > ([ Dalmati>a, Dalmatia ], “deceitful”): A district of the Roman empire lying on the eastern shore of the Adriatic. Writing from Rome to Timothy during his second imprisonment (in 66 or 67 AD, according to Ramsay’s chronology), Paul records the departure of Titus to Dalmatia ( 2 Timothy 4:10). No mention is made of his special mission, and we cannot tell whether his object was to traverse regions hitherto unevangelized or to visit churches already formed. Nor can we determine with certainty the meaning of the word Dalmatia as here used. Originally it denoted the land of the barbarous Dalmatae or Delmatae, a warlike Illyrian tribe subjugated by the Romans after a long and stubborn resistance; it was then applied to the southern portion of the Roman province of Illyricum, lying between the river Titius (modern Kerka ) and the Macedonian frontier; later the name was extended to the entire province. On the whole it seems most probable that the apostle uses it in this last sense. See further under the word ILLYRICUM.

Marcus N. Tod DALPHON <dal’-fon > ([ ˆ/pl]D” , dalphon ], “crafty”): The second of the ten sons of Haman, slain by the Jews (Est 9:7).

DAM ([ µae , ‘em ], ordinary Hebrew word for “mother”): Hebrew law prohibited the destruction of the “dam” and the young of birds at the same time, commanding that if the young be taken from a nest the dam be allowed to escape ( Deuteronomy 22:6,7). In the same spirit it enjoined the taking of an animal for slaughter before it had been seven days with its “dam” ( Exodus 22:30; Leviticus 22:27; compare Exodus 23:19).

DAMAGE <dam’-aj > ([ al;b;j\ , chabhala’ ]): This word expresses any inflicted loss of value or permanent injury to persons or things. “Why should damage grow to the hurt of the kings?” ( Ezra 4:22). In Proverbs 26:6 “damage” means “wrong,” “injury” (Hebrew [ sm;j; , chamac ]). The translation of Est 7:4 is doubtful: “Although the adversary could not have compensated for the king’s damage” (the Revised Version, margin “For our affliction is not to be compared with the king’s damage” the King James Version “could not countervail the king’s damage”) but Hebrew [ qz,ne , nezeq ] (Est 7:4) and Aramaic [ qzin; , naziq ] ( Daniel 6:2) have the meaning of “molestation” or “annoyance” (see Ges.6 Buhl Dict. (15th edition) 489, 806, 908). We therefore ought to read `for that oppression would not have been worthy of the molestation of the king’ (Est 7:4) and `that the king should have no molestation’ ( Daniel 6:2). The Greek [zhmi>a, zemia ], “loss” and [zhmio>w, zemioo ], “to cause loss”; the Revised Version (British and American) therefore translates Acts 27:10 “will be with injury and much loss” (the King James Version “damage”), and 2 Corinthians 7:9 “that ye might suffer loss by us in nothing” (the King James Version “damage”). A. L. Breslich DAMARIS <dam’-a-ris > ([ Da>mariv, Damaris ], possibly a corruption of [da>maliv, damalis ], “a heifer”): The name of a female Christian of Athens, converted by Paul’s preaching ( Acts 17:34). The fact that she is mentioned in this passage together with Dionysius the Areopagite has led some, most probably in error, to regard her as his wife. The singling out of her name with that of Dionysius may indicate some personal or social distinction.

Compare Acts 17:12.

DAMASCENES <dam-a-senz’ > , <dam’-a-senz > [thlin Damaskhnw~n, ten polin Damaskenon ], “the city of the Damascenes”): The inhabitants of Damascus under Aretas the Arabian are so called ( 2 Corinthians 11:32).

DAMASCUS <da-mas’-kus > :

1. NAME:

The English name is the same as the Greek [ Damasko>v, Damaskos ]. The Hebrew name is [ qc,M,d” , Dammeseq ], but the Aramaic form [ qc,m,r]D” , Darmeseq ], occurs in 1 Chronicles 18:5; 2 Chronicles 28:5. The name appears in Egyptian inscriptions as Ti-mas-ku (16th century BC), and Sa-ra-mas-ki (13th century BC), which W. M. Muller, Asien u. Europa, 227, regards as representing Ti-ra-mas-ki , concluding from the “ra” in this form that Damascus had by that time passed under Aramaic influence. In the Tell el-Amarna Letters the forms Ti-ma-as-gi and Di-mas-ka occur.

The Arabic name is Dimashk esh-Sham (“Damascus of Syria”) usually contrasted to Esh-Sham simply. The meaning of the name Damascus is unknown. Esh-Sham (Syria) means “the left,” in contrast to the Yemen (Arabia) = “the right.”

2. SITUATION AND NATURAL FEATURES:

Damascus is situated (33 degrees 30’ North latitude, 36 degrees 18’ East longitude) in the Northwest corner of the Ghuta, a fertile plain about 2,300 ft. above sea level, West of Mt. Hermon. The part of the Ghuta East of the city is called el-Merj, the “meadow-land” of Damascus. The river Barada (see ASANA ) flows through Damascus and waters the plain, through which the Nahr el-Awaj (see PHARPAR ) also flows, a few miles South of the city. Surrounded on three sides by bare hills, and bordered on the East, its open side, by the desert, its well-watered and fertile Ghuta, with its streams and fountains, its fields and orchards, makes a vivid impression on the Arab of the desert. Arabic literature is rich in praises of Damascus, which is described as an earthly paradise. The European or American traveler is apt to feel that these praises are exaggerated, and it is perhaps only in early summer that the beauty of the innumerable fruit trees — apricots, pomegranates, walnuts and many others — justifies enthusiasm. To see Damascus as the Arab sees it, we must approach it, as he does, from the desert. The Barada (Abana) is the life blood of Damascus. Confined in a narrow gorge until close to the city, where it spreads itself in many channels over the plain, only to lose itself a few miles away in the marshes that fringe the desert, its whole strength is expended in making a small area between the hills and the desert really fertile. That is why a city on this site is inevitable and permanent. Damascus, almost defenseless from a military point of view, is the natural mart and factory of inland Syria. In the course of its long history it has more than once enjoyed and lost political supremacy, but in all the vicissitudes of political fortune it has remained the natural harbor of the Syrian desert.

3. THE CITY ITSELF:

Damascus lies along the main stream of the Barada, almost entirely on its south bank. The city is about a mile long (East to West) and about half a mile broad (North to South). On the south side a long suburb, consisting for the most part of a single street, called the Meidan, stretches for a mile beyond the line of the city wall, terminating at the Bawwabet Allah, the “Gate of God,” the starting-point of the Haj, the annual pilgrimage to Mecca. The city has thus roughly the shape of a broad-headed spoon, of which the Meidan is the handle. In the Greek period, a long, colonnaded street ran through the city, doubtless the “street which is called Straight” ( Acts 9:11). This street, along the course of which remains of columns have been discovered, runs westward from the Babesh-Sherki, the “East Gate.” Part of it is still called Derb el-Mustakim (“Straight Street”), but it is not certain that it has borne the name through all the intervening centuries. It runs between the Jewish and Christian quarters (on the left and right, respectively, going west), and terminates in the Suk el-Midhatiyeh, a bazaar built by Midhat Pasha, on the north of which is the main Moslem quarter, in which are the citadel and the Great Mosque. The houses are flat-roofed, and are usually built round a courtyard, in which is a fountain.

The streets, with the exception of Straight Street, are mostly narrow and tortuous, but on the west side of the city there are some good covered bazaars. Damascus is not rich in antiquities. The Omayyad Mosque, or Great Mosque, replaced a Christian church, which in its time had taken the place of a pagan temple. The site was doubtless occupied from time immemorial by the chief religious edifice of the city. A small part of the ancient Christian church is still extant. Part of the city wall has been preserved, with a foundation going back to Roman times, surmounted by Arab work. The traditional site of Paul’s escape ( Acts 9:25; Corinthians 11:33) and of the House of Naaman (2 Kings 5) are pointed out to the traveler, but the traditions are valueless. The charm of Damascus lies in the life of the bazaars, in the variety of types which may be seen there — the Druse, the Kurd, the Bedouin and many others — and in its historical associations. It has always been a manufacturing city. Our word “damask” bears witness to the fame of its textile industry, and the “Damascus blades” of the Crusading period were equally famous; and though Timur (Tamerlane) destroyed the trade in arms in 1399 by carrying away the armorers to Samarcand, Damascus is still a city of busy craftsmen in cloth and wood. Its antiquity casts a spell of romance upon it. After a traceable history of thirty-five centuries it is still a populous and flourishing city, and, in spite of the advent of the railway and even the electric street car, it still preserves the flavor of the East.

4. ITS HISTORY: (1) The Early Period (to circa 950 BC).

The origin of Damascus is unknown. Mention has already been made (section 1 ) of the references to the city in Egyptian inscriptions and in the Tell el-Amarna Letters. It appears once — possibly twice — in the history of Abraham. In Genesis 14:15 we read that Abraham pursued the four kings as far as Hobah, “which is on the left hand (i.e. the north) of Damascus.” But this is simply a geographical note which shows only that Damascus was well known at the time when Genesis 14 was written.

Greater interest attaches to Genesis 15:2, where Abraham complains that he is childless and that his heir is “Dammesek Eliezer” (English Revised Version), for which the Syriac version reads “Eliezer the Damaschul.” The clause, however, is hopelessly obscure, and it is doubtful whether it contains any reference to Damascus at all. In the time of David Damascus was an Aramean city, which assisted the neighboring Aramean states in their unsuccessful wars against David ( 2 Samuel 8:5 f). These campaigns resulted indirectly in the establishment of a powerful Aramean kingdom in Damascus. Rezon, son of Eliada, an officer in the army of Hadadezer, king of Zobah, escaped in the hour of defeat, and became a captain of banditti. Later he established himself in Damascus, and became its king ( 1 Kings 11:23 ff). He cherished a not unnatural animosity against Israel and the rise of a powerful and hostile kingdom in the Israelite frontier was a constant source of anxiety to Solomon ( 1 Kings 11:25). (2) The Aramean Kingdom (circa 950-732 BC).

Whether Rezon was himself the founder of a dynasty is not clear. He has been identified with Hezion, father of Tab-rimmon, and grandfather of Ben-hadad ( 1 Kings 15:18), but the identification, though a natural one, is insecure. Ben-hadad (Biridri) is the first king of Damascus, after Rezon, of whom we have any detailed knowledge. The disruption of the Hebrew kingdom afforded the Arameans an opportunity of playing off the rival Hebrew states against each other, and of bestowing their favors now on one, and now on the other. Benhadad was induced by Asa of Judah to accept a large bribe, or tribute, from the Temple treasures, and relieve Asa by attacking the Northern Kingdom ( 1 Kings 15:18 ff). Some years later (circa 880 BC) Ben-hadad (or his successor?) defeated Omri of Israel, annexed several Israelite cities, and secured the right of having Syrian “streets” (i.e. probably a bazaar for Syrian merchants) in Samaria ( Kings 20:34). Ben-hadad II (according to Winckler the two Ben-hadads are really identical, but this view, though just possible chronologically, conflicts with 1 Kings 20:34) was the great antagonist of Ahab. His campaigns against Israel are narrated in 1 Kings 20:22. At first successful, he was subsequently twice defeated by Ahab, and after the rout at Aphek was at the mercy of the conqueror, who treated him with generous leniency, claiming only the restoration of the lost Israelite towns, and the right of establishing an Israelite bazaar in Damascus. On the renewal of hostilities three years later Ahab fell before Ramoth-gilead, and his death relieved Ben-hadad of the only neighboring monarch who could ever challenge the superiority of Damascus. Further light is thrown upon the history of Damascus at this time by the Assyrian inscriptions. In BC the Assyrians defeated a coalition of Syrian and Palestine states (including Israel) under the leadership of Ben-hadad at Karqar. In 849 and 846 BC renewed attacks were made upon Damascus by the Assyrians, who, however, did not effect any considerable conquest. From this date until the fall of the city in 732 BC the power of the Aramean kingdom depended upon the activity or quiescence of Assyria. Hazael, who murdered Ben-hadad and usurped his throne circa 844 BC, was attacked in 842 and 839, but during the next thirty years Assyria made no further advance westward. Hazael was able to devote all his energies to his western neighbors, and Israel suffered severely at his hands. In 803 Mari’ of Damascus, who is probably identical with the Ben-hadad of 2 Kings 13:3, Hazael’s son, was made tributary to Ramman-nirari III of Assyria.

This blow weakened Aram, and afforded Jeroboam II of Israel an opportunity of avenging the defeats inflicted upon his country by Hazael.

In 773 Assyria again invaded the territory of Damascus. Tiglath-pileser III (745-727 BC) pushed vigorously westward, and in 738 Rezin of Damascus paid tribute. A year or two later he revolted, and attempted in concert with Pekah of Israel, to coerce Judah into joining an anti-Assyrian league ( Kings 15:37; 16:5; Isaiah 7). His punishment was swift and decisive. In the Assyrians advanced and laid siege to Damascus, which fell in 732.

Rezin was executed, his kingdom was overthrown, and the city suffered the fate which a few years later befell Samaria. (3) The Middle Period (circa 732 BC-650 AD).

Damascus had now lost its political importance, and for more than two centuries we have only one or two inconsiderable references to it. It is mentioned in an inscription of Sargon (722-705 BC) as having taken part in an unsuccessful insurrection along with Hamath and Arpad. There are incidental references to it in Jeremiah 49:23 ff and Ezekiel 27:18; 47:16 ff. In the Persian period Damascus, if not politically of great importance, was a prosperous city. The overthrow of the Persian empire by Alexander was soon followed (301 BC) by the establishment of the Seleucid kingdom of Syria, with Antioch as its capital, and Damascus lost its position as the chief city of Syria. The center of gravity was moved toward the sea, and the maritime commerce of the Levant became more important than the trade of Damascus with the interior. In 111 BC the Syrian kingdom was divided, and Antiochus Cyzicenus became king of Coele-Syria, with Damascus as his capital. His successors, Demetrius Eucaerus and Antiochus Dionysus, had troubled careers, being involved in domestic conflicts and in wars with the Parthians, with Alexander Janneus of Judea, and with Aretas the Nabatean, who obtained possession of Damascus in 85 BC. Tigranes, being of Armenia, held Syria for some years after this date, but was defeated by the Romans, and in 64 BC Pompey finally annexed the country. The position of Damascus during the first century and a half of Roman rule in Syria is obscure. For a time it was in Roman hands, and from 31 BC-33 AD its coins bear the names of Augustus or Tiberius. Subsequently it was again in the hands of the Nabateans, and was ruled by an ethnarch, or governor, appointed by Aretas, the Nabatean king. This ethnarch adopted a hostile attitude to Paul ( 2 Corinthians 11:32 f) . Later, in the time of Nero, it again became a Roman city. In the early history of Christianity Damascus, as compared with Antioch, played a very minor part. But it is memorable in Christian history on account of its associations with Paul’s conversion, and as the scene of his earliest Christian preaching ( Acts 9:1-25). All the New Testament references to the city relate to this event ( Acts 9:#25 1:25; 22:5- 11; 26:12,20; 2 Corinthians 11:32 f; Galatians 1:17). Afterward, under the early Byzantine emperor, Damascus, though important as an outpost of civilization on the edge of the desert, continued to be second to Antioch both politically and ecclesiastically. It was not until the Arabian conquest (634 AD when it passed out of Christian hands, and reverted to the desert, that it once more became a true capital. (4) Under Islam.

Damascus has now been a Moslem city, or rather a city under Moslem rule, for nearly thirteen centuries. For about a century after 650 AD it was the seat of the Omayyad caliphs, and enjoyed a position of preeminence in the Moslem world. Later it was supplanted by Bagdad, and in the 10th century it came under the rule of the Fatimites of Egypt. Toward the close of the 11th century the Seljuk Turks entered Syria and captured Damascus. In the period of the Crusades the city, though never of decisive importance, played a considerable part, and was for a time the headquarters of Saladin.

In 1300 it was plundered by the Tartars, and in 1399 Timur exacted an enormous ransom from it, and carried off its famous armorers, thus robbing it of one of its most important industries. Finally, in 1516 AD, the Osmanli Turks under Sultan Selim conquered Syria, and Damascus became, and still is, the capital of a province of the Ottoman Empire. C. H. Thomson DAMMESEK ELIEZER ( Genesis 15:2 the English Revised Version). See ELIEZER (1).

DAMN; DAMNATION; DAMNABLE <dam > , <dam-na’-shun > , <dam’-na-bl > : These words have undergone a change of meaning since the King James Version was made. They are derived from Latin damnare = “to inflict a loss,” “to condemn,” and that was their original meaning in English Now they denote exclusively the idea of everlasting punishment in hell. It is often difficult to determine which meaning was intended by the translators in the King James Version. They have been excluded altogether from the Revised Version (British and American). The words for which they stand in the King James Version are: (1) [ajpw>leia, apoleia ], “destruction,” translated “damnable” and “damnation” only in 2 Peter 21:3 (the Revised Version (British and American) “destructive,” “destruction”). False prophets taught doctrines calculated to destroy others, and themselves incurred the sentence of destruction such as overtook the fallen angels, the world in the Deluge, and the cities of the Plain. Apoleia occurs otherwise 16 times in the New Testament, and is always translated in the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) by either “perdition” or “destruction”: twice of waste of treasure ( Matthew 26:8 = Mark 14:4); twice of the beast that comes out of the abyss and goes into perdition ( Revelation 17:8,11). In all other cases, it refers to men, and defines the destiny that befalls them as the result of sin: Judas is the “son of perdition” ( John 17:12). Peter consigns Simon Magus and his money to perdition ( Acts 8:20). Some men are “vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction” ( Romans 9:22), and others, their “end is perdition” ( Philippians 3:19). It is the antithesis of salvation ( Hebrews 10:39; Philippians 1:28). Of the two ways of life, one leads to destruction ( Matthew 7:13). Whether it is utter, final and irretrievable destruction is not stated. (2) [kri>nw, krino ], translated “damned” only in the King James Version of 2 Thessalonians 2:12 (the Revised Version (British and American) “judged”) means “to judge” in the widest sense, “to form an opinion” ( Luke 7:43), and forensically “to test and try” an accused person. It can only acquire the sense of “judging guilty” or “condemning” from the context. (3) [katakri>nw, katakrino ], translated “damned” only in the King James Version of Mark 16:16; Romans 14:23 (“condemned” in the Revised Version (British and American)), means properly “to give judgment against” or “to condemn” and is so translated 17 times in the King James Version and always in the Revised Version (British and American). (4) [kri>siv, krisis ], translated “damnation” in the King James Version of Matthew 23:33; Mark 3:29; John 5:29 (the Revised Version (British and American) “judgment,” but in Mark 3:29, “sin” for [aJma>rthma, hamartema ]), means (a) judgment in general like krino , and is so used about 17 times, besides 14 times in the phrase “day of judgment”; (b) “condemnation,” like katakrino , about 14 times. (5) [kri>ma, krima ], translated in the King James Version “damnation” times ( Matthew 23:14 = Mark 12:40 = Luke 20:47; Romans 3:8; 13:2; 1 Corinthians 11:29; 1 Timothy 5:12), “condemnation” times, “judgment” 13 times, “law” and “avenged” once each; in the Revised Version (British and American) “condemnation” 9 t ( Matthew 23:14 only inserted in margin), “judgment” 17 times, and once in margin, “lawsuit” and “sentence” once each. “Judgment” may be neutral, an impartial act of the judge weighing the evidence (so in Matthew 7:2; Acts 24:25; Romans 11:33; Hebrews 6:2; 1 Peter 4:17; Revelation 20:4) and “lawsuit” ( 1 Corinthians 6:7); or it may be inferred from the context that judgment is unto condemnation (so in Romans 2:2,3; 5:16; Galatians 5:10; 2 Peter 2:3; Revelation 17:1; 18:20, and the Revised Version (British and American) Romans 13:2; 1 Corinthians 11:29). In places where krima and krisis are rightly translated “condemnation,” and where “judgment” regarded as an accomplished fact involves a sentence of guilt, they together with katakrino define the relation of a person to the supreme authority, as that of a criminal, found and held guilty, and liable to punishment. So the Roman empire regarded Jesus Christ, and the thief on the cross ( Luke 23:40; 24:20). But generally these words refer to man as a sinner against God, judged guilty by Him, and liable to the just penalty of sin. They imply nothing further as to the nature of the penalty or the state of man undergoing it, nor as to its duration. Nor does the word “eternal” ([aijw>n, aijw>niov, aion, aionios ], often wrongly translated “everlasting” in the King James Version) when added to them, determine the question of duration. Condemnation is an act in the moral universe, which cannot be determined under categories of time.

These terms define the action of God in relation to man’s conduct, as that of the Supreme Judge, but they express only one aspect of that relation which is only fully conceived, when coordinated with the more fundamental idea of God’s Fatherhood. See ESCHATOLOGY; JUDGMENT.

LITERATURE.

Salmond, Christian Doctrine of Immortality; Charles, Eschatology. T. Rees DAMSEL <dam’-zel > : A young, unmarried woman; a girl (lass); maiden (compare French demoiselle ). The Revised Version (British and American) in Matthew 26:69; John 18:17; Acts 12:13; 16:16 gives “maid” for [paidi>skh, paidiske ], “a girl,” i.e. (spec.) a maidservant or young female slave (the King James Version “damsel”), and “child” for [paidi>on, paidion ], “a half-grown boy or girl,” in Mark 5:39,40 bis. 41.

DAN (1) ([ ˆD; , dan ], “judge”; [ Da>n, Dan ]).

1. NAME:

The fifth of Jacob’s sons, the first borne to him by Bilhah, the maid of Rachel, to whom, as the child of her slave, he legally belonged. At his birth Rachel, whose barrenness had been a sore trial to her, exclaimed “God hath judged me .... and hath given me a son,” so she called his name Dan, i.e. “judge” ( Genesis 30:6). He was full brother of Naphtali. In Jacob’s Blessing there is an echo of Rachel’s words, “Daniel shall judge his people” ( Genesis 49:16). Of the patriarch Daniel almost nothing is recorded. Of his sons at the settlement in Egypt only one, Hushim, is mentioned ( Genesis 46:23). The name in Numbers 26:42 is Shuham.

2. THE TRIBE:

The tribe however stands second in point of numbers on leaving Egypt, furnishing 62,700 men of war ( Numbers 1:39); and at the second census they were 64,400 strong ( Numbers 26:43). The standard of the camp of Daniel in the desert march, with which were Asher and Naphtali, was on the north side of the tabernacle ( Numbers 2:25; 10:25; compare Joshua 6:9 the King James Version margin, “gathering host”). The prince of the tribe was Ahiezer ( Numbers 1:12). Among the spies Daniel was represented by Ammiel the son of Gemalli ( Numbers 13:12). Of the tribe of Daniel was Oholiab (the King James Version “Aholiab”) one of the wise-hearted artificers engaged in the construction of the tabernacle ( Exodus 31:6). One who was stoned for blasphemy was the son of a Danite woman ( Leviticus 24:10 f). At the ceremony of blessing and cursing, Daniel and Naphtali stood on Mount Ebal, while the other Rachel tribes were on Gerizim ( Deuteronomy 27:13). The prince of Daniel at the division of the land was Bukki the son of Jogli ( Numbers 34:22).

3. TERRITORY:

The portion assigned to Daniel adjoined those of Ephraim, Benjamin and Judah, and lay on the western slopes of the mountain. The reference in Judges 5:17: “And Dan, why did he remain in ships?” seems to mean that on the West, Daniel had reached the sea. But the passage is one of difficulty. We are told that the Amorites forced the children of Daniel into the mountain ( Judges 1:34), so they did not enjoy the richest part of their ideal portion, the fertile plain between the mountain and the sea. The strong hand of the house of Joseph kept the Amorites tributary, but did not drive them out. Later we find Daniel oppressed by the Philistines, against whom the heroic exploits of Samson were performed (Judges 14 ff). The expedition of the Danites recorded in Judges 18 is referred to in Joshua 19:47 ff.

4. THE DANITE RAID:

The story affords a priceless glimpse of the conditions prevailing in those days. Desiring an extension of territory, the Danites sent out spies, who recommended an attack upon Laish, a city at the north end of the Jordan valley. The people, possibly a colony from Sidon, were careless in their fancied security. The land was large, and there was “no want of anything that was in the earth.” The expedition of the 600, their dealings with Micah and his priest, their capture of Laish, and their founding of an idol shrine with priestly attendant, illustrate the strange mingling of lawlessness and superstition which was characteristic of the time. The town rebuilt on the site of Laish they called Dan — see following article. Perhaps Chronicles 2:14 may be taken to indicate that the Danites intermarried with the Phoenicians. Divided between its ancient seat in the South and the new territory in the North the tribe retained its place in Israel for a time ( Chronicles 12:35; 27:22), but it played no part of importance in the subsequent history. The name disappears from the genealogical lists of Chronicles; and it is not mentioned among the tribes in Revelation 7:5 ff.

Samson was the one great man produced by Dan, and he seems to have embodied the leading characteristics of the tribe: unsteady, unscrupulous, violent, possessed of a certain grim humor; stealthy in tactics — ”a serpent in the way, an adder in the path” ( Genesis 49:17) — but swift and strong in striking — ”a lion’s whelp, that leapeth forth from Bashan” ( Deuteronomy 33:22). Along with Abel, Daniel ranked as a city in which the true customs of old Israel were preserved ( 2 Samuel 20:18 Septuagint). W. Ewing DAN (2) A city familiar as marking the northern limit of the land of Israel in the common phrase “from Daniel even to Beer-sheba” ( Judges 20:1; Samuel 3:20, etc.). Its ancient name was Laish or Leshem ( Judges 18:7, etc.). It was probably an outlying settlement of Tyre of Sidon. Its inhabitants, pursuing the ends of peaceful traders, were defenseless against the onset of the Danite raiders. Having captured the city the Danites gave it the name of their own tribal ancestor (Judges 18). It lay in the valley near Beth-rehob ( Judges 18:28). Josephus places it near Mt. Lebanon and the fountain of the lesser Jordan, a day’s journey from Sidon (Ant., V, iii, 1; VIII, viii, 4; BJ, IV, i, 1). Eusebius, Onomasticon says it lay 4 Roman miles from Paneas on the way to Tyre, at the source of the Jordan. This points decisively to Tell el-Qady, in the plain West of Banias. The mound of this name — Kady is the exact Arabic equivalent of the Hebrew Dan — rises from among the bushes and reeds to a height varying from 40 to 80 ft.

The largest of all the springs of the Jordan rises on the west side. The waters join with those of a smaller spring on the other side to form Nahr el-Leddan which flows southward to meet the streams from Banias and Chasbeiyeh. The mound, which is the crater of an extinct volcano, has certain ancient remains on the south side, while the tomb of Sheikh Marzuk is sheltered by two holy trees. The sanctuary and ritual established by the Danites persisted as long as the house of God was in Shiloh, and the priesthood in this idolatrous shrine remained in the family of Jonathan till the conquest of Tiglath-pileser ( Judges 18:30; 2 Kings 15:29). Here Jeroboam I set up the golden calf. The ancient sanctity of the place would tend to promote the success of his scheme ( 1 Kings 12:28 f, etc.). The calf, according to a Jewish tradition, was taken away by Tiglath-pileser.

Daniel fell before Benhadad, king of Syria ( 1 Kings 15:20; Chronicles 16:4). It was regained by Jeroboam II ( 2 Kings 14:25). It shared the country’s fate at th hands of Tiglath-pileser ( 2 Kings 15:29).

It was to this district that Abraham pursued the army of Chedorlaomer ( Genesis 14:14). For Dr. G. A. Smith’s suggestion that Daniel may have been at Banias see HGHL1, 473, 480 f. W. Ewing DAN (3) ( Ezekiel 27:19 the King James Version). See VEDAN.

DANCING <dan’-sing > . See GAMES.

DANDLE <dan’-d’-l > . ([ [v”[‘v; , sha`-osha` ], a Pulpal form, from root ([ [[“v; , sha`-a` ]) with sense of to “be caressed”). Occurs in Isaiah 66:12, “shall be dandled upon the knees.”

DANGER <dan’-jer > : Danger does not express a state of reality but a possibility. In Matthew 5:21 f, however, and also the King James Version Mark 3:29 (the Revised Version (British and American) “but is guilty of an eternal sin”) the expression “danger” refers to a certainty, for the danger spoken of is in one case judgment which one brings upon himself, and in the other the committing of an unpardonable sin. Both are the necessary consequences of a man’s conduct. The reason for translating the Greek ([e]nocov, enochos ] (literally, “to be held in anything so one cannot escape”) by “is in danger,” instead of “guilty” or “liable,” may be due to the translator’s conception of these passages as a warning against such an act rather than as a statement of the judgment which stands pronounced over every man who commits the sin. A. L. Breslich DANIEL <dan’-yel > ([ laYeniD; , daniye’l ], [ laeniD; , dani’-el ], “God is my judge”; [ Danih>l, Daniel ]): (1) One of the sons of David ( 1 Chronicles 3:1). (2) A Levite of the family of Ithamar ( Ezra 8:2; Nehemiah 10:6). (3) A prophet of the time of Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus, the hero and author of the Book of Daniel.

1. EARLY LIFE:

We know nothing of the early life of Daniel, except what is recorded in the book bearing his name. Here it is said that he was one of the youths of royal or noble seed, who were carried captive by Nebuchadnezzar in the third year of Jehoiakim, king of Judah. These youths were without blemish, well-favored, skillful in all wisdom, endued with knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability to stand in the king’s palace.

The king commanded to teach them the knowledge and tongue of the Chaldeans; and appointed for them a daily portion of the king’s food and of the wine which he drank. After having been thus nourished for three years, they were to stand before the king. Ashpenaz, the master or chief of the eunuchs, into whose hands they had been entrusted, following a custom of the time, gave to each of these youths a new and Babylonian name. To Daniel, he gave the name Belteshazzar. In Babylonian this name was probably Belu-lita-sharri-usur, which means “O Bel, protect thou the hostage of the king,” a most appropriate name for one in the place which Daniel occupied as a hostage of Jehoiakim at the court of the king of Babylon. The youths were probably from 12 to 15 years of age at the time when they were carried captive. (For changes of names, compare Joseph changed to Zaphenath-paneah ( Genesis 41:45); Eliakim, to Jehoiakim ( 2 Kings 23:34); Mattaniah, to Zedekiah ( 2 Kings 24:17); and the tw names of the high priest Johanan’s brother in the Sachau Papyri, i.e. Ostan and Anani.)

Having purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the food and drink of the king, Daniel requested of Ashpenaz permission to eat vegetables and drink water. Through the favor of God, this request was granted, notwithstanding the fear of Ashpenaz that his head would be endangered to the king on account of the probably resulting poor appearance of the youths living upon this blood-diluting diet, in comparison with the expected healthy appearance of the others of their class. However, ten days’ trial having been first granted, and at the end of that time their countenances having been found fairer and their flesh fatter than the other youths’, the permission was made permanent; and God gave to Daniel and his companions knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom, and to Daniel understanding in all visions and dreams; so that at the end of the three years when the king communed with them, he found them much superior to all the magicians and enchanters in every matter of wisdom and understanding.

2. DREAM-INTERPRETER:

Daniel’s public activities were in harmony with his education. His first appearance was as an interpreter of the dream recorded in Daniel 2.

Nebuchadnezzar having seen in his dream a vision of a great image, excellent in brightness and terrible in appearance, its head of fine gold, its breast and its arms of silver, its belly and its thighs of brass, its legs of iron, its feet part of iron and part of clay, beheld a stone cut out without hands smiting the image and breaking it in pieces, until it became like chaff and was carried away by the wind; while the stone that smote the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth. When the king awoke from his troubled sleep, he forgot, or reigned that he had forgotten, the dream, and summoned the wise men of Babylon both to tell him the dream and to give the interpretation thereof. The wise men having said that they could not tell the dream, nor interpret it as long as it was untold, the king threatened them with death. Daniel, who seems not to have been present when the other wise men were before the king, when he was informed of the threat of the king, and that preparations were being made to slay all of the wise men of Babylon, himself and his three companions included, boldly went in to the king and requested that he would appoint a time for him to appear to show the interpretation, Then he went to his house, and he and his companions prayed, and the dream and its interpretation were made known unto Daniel. At the appointed time, the dream was explained and the four Hebrews were loaded with wealth and given high positions in the service of the king. In the 4th chapter, we have recorded Daniel’s interpretation of the dream of Nebuchadnezzar about the great tree that was hewn at the command of an angel, thus prefiguring the insanity of the king.

3. INTERPRETER OF SIGNS:

Daniel’s third great appearance in the book is in chapter 5, where he is called upon to explain the extraordinary writing upon the wall of Belshazzar’s palace, which foretold the end of the Babylonian empire and the incoming of the Medes and Persians. For this service Daniel was clothed with purple, a chain of gold put around his neck, and he was made the third ruler in the kingdom.

4. SEER OF VISIONS:

Daniel, however, was not merely an interpreter of other men’s visions. In the last six chapters we have recorded four or five of his own visions, all of which are taken up with revelations concerning the future history of the great world empires, especially in their relation to the people of God, and predictions of the final triumph of the Messiah’s kingdom.

5. OFFICIAL OF THE KINGS:

In addition to his duties as seer and as interpreter of signs and dreams, Daniel also stood high in the governmental service of Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, and Darius the Mede, and perhaps also of Cyrus. The Book of Dnl, our only reliable source of information on this subject, does not tell us much about his civil duties and performances. It does say, however, that he was chief of the wise men, that he was in the gate of the king, and that he was governor over the whole province of Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar; that Belshazzar made him the third ruler in his kingdom; and that Darius made him one of the three presidents to whom his hundred and twenty satraps were to give account; and that he even thought to set him over his whole kingdom. In all of these positions he seems to have conducted himself with faithfulness and judgment. While in the service of Darius the Mede, he aroused the antipathy of the other presidents and of the satraps.

Unable to find any fault with his official acts, they induced the king to make a decree, apparently general in form and purpose, but really aimed at Daniel alone. They saw that they could find no valid accusation against him, unless they found it in connection with something concerning the law of his God. They therefore caused the king to make a decree that no one should make a request of anyone for the space of thirty days, save of the king. Daniel, having publicly prayed three times a day as he was in the habit of doing, was caught in the act, accused, and on account of the irrevocability of a law of the Medes and Persians, was condemned in accordance with the decree to be cast into a den of lions. The king was much troubled at this, but was unable to withhold the punishment.

However, he expressed to Daniel his belief that his God in whom he trusted continually would deliver him; and so indeed it came to pass. For in the morning, when the king drew near to the mouth of the den, and called to him, Daniel said that God had sent His angel and shut the mouths of the lions. So Daniel was taken up unharmed, and at the command of the king his accusers, having been cast into tile den, were destroyed before they reached the bottom.

LITERATURE.

Besides the commentaries and other works mentioned in the article on the Book of Daniel, valuable information may be found in Josephus and in Payne Smith’s Lectures on Daniel. R. Dick Wilson DANIEL, BOOK OF <dan’-yel > :

I. NAME.

The Book of Daniel is rightly so called, whether we consider Daniel as the author of it, or as the principal person mentioned in it.

II. PLACE IN THE CANON.

In the English Bible, Daniel is placed among the Major Prophets, immediately after Ezk, thus following the order of the Septuagint and of the Latin Vulgate (Jerome’s Bible, 390-405 A.D.) In the Hebrew Bible, however, it is placed in the third division of the Canon, called the Kethuvim or writings, by the Hebrews, and the hagiographa, or holy writings, by the Seventy. It has been claimed, that Daniel was placed by the Jews in the third part of the Canon, either because they thought the inspiration of its author to be of a lower kind than was that of the other prophets, or because the book was written after the second or prophetical part of the Canon had been closed. It is more probable, that the book was placed in this part of the Hebrew Canon, because Daniel is not called a nabhi’ (“prophet”), but was rather a chozeh (“seer”) and a chakham (“wise man”).

None but the works of the nebhi’im were put in the second part of the Jewish Canon, the third being reserved for the heterogeneous works of seers, wise men, and priests, or for those that do not mention the name or work of a prophet, or that are poetical in form. A confusion has arisen, because the Greek word prophet is used to render the two Hebrew words nabhi’ and chozeh . In the Scriptures, God is said to speak to the former, whereas the latter see visions and dream dreams. Some have attempted to explain the position of Daniel by assuming that he had the prophetic gift without holding the prophetic office. It must be kept in mind that all reasons given to account for the order and place of many of the books in the Canon are purely conjectural, since we have no historical evidence bearing upon the subject earlier than the time of Jesus ben Sirach, who wrote probably about 180 BC.

III. DIVISIONS OF THE BOOK.

According to its subject-matter, the book falls naturally into two great divisions, each consisting of six chapters, the first portion containing the historical sections, and the second the apocalyptic, or predictive, portions; though the former is not devoid of predictions, nor the latter of historical statements. More specifically, the first chapter is introductory to the whole book; Daniel 2 through 6 describe some marvelous events in the history of Daniel and his three companions in their relations with the rulers of Babylon; and chapters 7 through 12 narrate some visions of Daniel concerning the great world-empires, especially in relation to the kingdom of God.

According to the languages in which the book is written, it may be divided into the Aramaic portion, extending from Daniel 2:4b to the end of chapter 7, and a Hebrew portion embracing the rest of the book.

IV. LANGUAGES.

The language of the book is partly Hebrew and partly a dialect of Aramaic, which has been called Chaldee, or Biblical Aramaic This Aramaic is almost exactly the same as that which is found in portions of Ezra. On account of the large number of Babylonian and Persian words characteristic of this Aramaic and of that of the papyri recently found in Egypt, as well as on account of the general similarity of the nominal, verbal and other forms, and of the syntactical construction, the Aramaic of this period might properly be called the Babylonian-Persian Aramaic With the exception of the sign used to denote the sound “dh,” and of the use of qoph in a few cases where Daniel has `ayin, the spelling in the papyri is the same in general as that in the Biblical books. Whether the change of spelling was made at a later time in the manuscripts of Daniel, or whether it was a peculiarity of the Babylonian Aramaic as distinguished from the Egyptian or whether it was due to the unifying, scientific genius of Daniel himself, we have no means at present to determine. In view of the fact that the Elephantine Papyri frequently employ the “d” sign to express the “dh” sound, and that it is always employed in Ezra to express it; in view further of the fact that the “z” sign is found as late as the earliest Nabatean inscription, that of 70 BC (see Euting, 349: 1, 2, 4) to express the “dh” sound, it seems fatuous to insist on the ground of the writing of these two sounds in the Book of Daniel, that it cannot have been written in the Persian period. As to the use of qoph and `ayin for the Aramaic sound which corresponds to the Hebrew tsadhe when equivalent to an Arabic dad, any hasty conclusion is debarred by the fact that the Aramaic papyri of the 5th century BC, the manuscripts of the Samaritan Targum and the Mandaic manuscripts written from 600 to 900 AD all employ the two letters to express the one sound. The writing of ‘aleph and he without any proper discrimination occurs in the papyri as well as in Daniel. The only serious objection to the early date of upon the ground of its spelling is that which is based upon the use of a final “n” in the pronominal suffix of the second and third persons masculine plural instead of the margin of the Aramaic papyri and of the Zakir and Sendschirli inscriptions. It is possible that was influenced in this by the corresponding forms of the Babylonian language. The Syriac and Mandaic dialects of the Aramaic agree with the Babylonian in the formation of the pronominal suffixes of the second and third persons masculine plural, as against the Hebrew, Arabic, Minaean, Sabean and Ethiopic. It is possible that the occurrence of “m” in some west Aramaic documents may have arisen through the influence of the Hebrew and Phoenician, and that pure Aramaic always had “n” just as we find it in Assyrian and Babylonian, and in all east Aramaic documents thus far discovered.

The supposition that the use of “y” in Daniel as a preformative of the third person masculine of the imperfect proves a Palestinian provenience has been shown to be untenable by the discovery that the earliest east Syriac also used “y”. (See M. Pognon, Inscriptions semitiques, premiere partie, 17.)

This inscription is dated 73 AD. This proof that in the earlier stages of its history the east Aramaic was in this respect the same as that found in Daniel is confirmed by the fact that the forms of the 3rd person of the imperfect found in the proper names on the Aramaic dockets of the Assyrian inscriptions also have the preformative y. (See Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum, II, 47.)

V. PURPOSE OF THE BOOK.

The book is not intended to give an account of the life of Daniel. It gives neither his lineage, nor his age, and recounts but a few of the events of his long career. Nor is it meant to give a record of the history of Israel during the exile, nor even of the captivity in Babylon. Its purpose is to show how by His providential guidance, His miraculous interventions, His foreknowledge and almighty power, the God of heaven controls and directs the forces of Nature and the history of nations, the lives of Hebrew captives and of the mightiest of the kings of the earth, for the accomplishment of His Divine and beneficent plans for His servants and people.

VI. UNITY.

The unity of the book was first denied by Spinoza, who suggested that the first part was taken from the chronological works of the Chaldeans, basing his supposition upon the difference of language between the former and latter parts. Newton followed Spinoza in suggesting two parts, but began his second division with Daniel 7, where the narrative passes over from the 3rd to the 1st person. Kohler follows Newton, claiming, however, that the visions were written by the Daniel of the exile, but that the first 6 chapters were composed by a later writer who also redacted the whole work. Von Orelli holds that certain prophecies of Daniel were enlarged and interpolated by a Jew living in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, in order to show his contemporaries the bearing of the predictions of the book upon those times of oppression. Zockler and Lange hold to the unity of the book in general; but the former thought that Daniel 11:5-45 is an interpolation; and the latter, that 10:1 through 11:44 and 12:5-13 have been inserted in the original work. Meinhold holds that the Aramaic portions existed as early as the times of Alexander the Great — a view to which Strack also inclines. Eichhorn held that the book consisted of ten different original sections, which are bound together merely by the circumstance that they are all concerned with Daniel and his three friends.

Finally, Deuteronomy Lagarde, believing that the fourth kingdom was the Roman, held that Daniel 7 was written about 69 AD. (For the best discussion of the controversies about the unity of Daniel, see Eichhorn, Einleitung, sections 612-19, and Buhl in See Hauck-Herzog, Realencyklopadie fur protestantische Theologie und Kirche, IV, 449-51.)

VII. GENUINENESS.

With the exception of the neo-Platonist Porphyry, a Greek non-Christian philosopher of the 3rd century AD, the genuineness of the Book of was denied by no one until the rise of the deistic movement in the 17th century.

The attacks upon the genuineness of the book have been based upon: (1) the predictions, (2) the miracles, (3) the text, (4) the language, (5) the historical statements. 1. The Predictions: The assailants of the genuineness of Daniel on the ground of the predictions found therein, may be divided into two classes — those who deny prediction in general, and those who claim that the apocalyptic character of the predictions of Daniel is a sufficient proof of their lack of genuineness. The first of these two classes includes properly those only who deny not merely Christianity, but theism; and the answering of them may safely be left to those who defend the doctrines of theism, and particularly of revelation. The second class of assailants is, however, of a different character, since it consists of those who are sincere believers in Christianity and predictive prophecy. They claim, however, that certain characteristics of definiteness and detail, distinguishing the predictive portions of the Book of Daniel from other predictions of the Old Testament, bring the genuineness of Daniel into question.

The kind of prediction found here, ordinarily called apocalyptic, is said to have arisen first in the 2nd century BC, when parts of the Book of Enoch and of the Sibylline Oracles were written; and a main characteristic of an apocalypse is said to be that it records past events as if they were still future, throwing the speaker back into some distant past time, for the purpose of producing on the reader the impression that the book contains real predictions, thus gaining credence for the statements of the writer and giving consolation to those who are thus led to believe in the providential foresight of God for those who trust in Him.

Since those who believe that God has spoken unto man by His Son and through the prophets will not be able to set limits to the extent and definiteness of the revelations which He may have seen fit to make through them, nor to prescribe the method, style, time and character of the revelations, this attack on the genuineness of Daniel may safely be left to the defenders of the possibility and the fact of a revelation. One who believes in these may logically believe in the genuineness of Daniel, as far as this objection goes. That there are spurious apocalypses no more proves that all are spurious than that there are spurious gospels or epistles proves that there are no genuine ones. The spurious epistles of Philaris do not prove that Cicero’s Letters are not genuine; nor do the false statements of 2 Macc, nor the many spurious Acts of the Apostles, prove that 1 Macc or Luke’s Acts of the Apostles is not genuine. Nor does the fact that the oldest portions of the spurious apocalypses which have been preserved to our time are thought to have been written in the 2nd century BC, prove that no apocalypses, either genuine or spurious, were written before that time. There must have been a beginning, a first apocalypse, at some time, if ever. Besides, if we admit that the earliest parts of the Book of Enoch and of the Sibylline Oracles were written about the middle of the 2nd century BC, whereas the Book of Esdras was written about 300 AD, 450 years later, we can see no good literary reason wh Daniel may not have antedated Enoch by 350 years. The period between 500 BC and 150 BC is so almost entirely devoid of all known Hebrew literary productions as to render it exceedingly precarious for anyone to express an opinion as to what works may have characterized that long space of time. 2. The Miracles: Secondly, as to the objections made against the Book of Daniel on the ground of the number or character of the miracles recorded, we shall only say that they affect the whole Christian system, which is full of the miraculous from beginning to end. If we begin to reject the books of the Bible because miraculous events are recorded in them, where indeed shall we stop? 3. The Text: Thirdly, a more serious objection, as far as Daniel itself is concerned, is the claim of Eichhorn that the original text of the Aramaic portion has been so thoroughly tampered with and changed, that we can no longer get at the genuine original composition. We ourselves can see no objection to the belief that these Aramaic portions were written first of all in Hebrew, or even, if you will, in Babylonian; nor to the supposition that some Greek translators modified the meaning in their version either intentionally, or through a misunderstanding of the original. We claim, however, that the composite Aramaic of Daniel agrees in almost every particular of orthography, etymology and syntax, with the Aramaic of the North Semitic inscriptions of the 9th, 8th and 7th centuries BC and of the Egyptian papyri of the 5th century BC, and that the vocabulary of Daniel has an admixture of Hebrew, Babylonian and Persian words similar to that of the papyri of the 5th century BC; whereas, it differs in composition from the Aramaic of the Nabateans, which is devoid of Persian, Hebrew, and Babylonian words, and is full of Arabisms, and also from that of the Palmyrenes, which is full of Greek words, while having but one or two Persian words, and no Hebrew or Babylonian.

As to different recensions, we meet with a similar difficulty in Jeremiah without anyone’s impugning on that account the genuineness of the work as a whole. As to interpolations of verses or sections, they are found in the Samaritan recension of the Hebrew text and in the Samaritan and other Targums, as also in certain places in the text of the New Testament, Josephus and many other ancient literary works, without causing us to disbelieve in the genuineness of the rest of their works, or of the works as a whole. 4. The Language: Fourthly, the objections to the genuineness of Daniel based on the presence in it of three Greek names of musical instruments and of a number of Persian words do not seem nearly as weighty today as they did a hundred years ago. The Greek inscriptions at Abu Simbal in Upper Egypt dating from the time of Psamtek II in the early part of the 6th century BC, the discovery of the Minoan inscriptions and ruins in Crete, the revelations of the wide commercial relations of the Phoenicians in the early part of the 1st millennium BC, the lately published inscriptions of Sennacherib about his campaigns in Cilicia against the Greek seafarers to which Alexander Polyhistor and Abydenus had referred, telling about his having carried many Greeks captive to Nineveh about 700 BC, the confirmation of the wealth and expensive ceremonies of Nebuchadnezzar made by his own building and other inscriptions, all assure us of the possibility of the use of Greek musical instruments at Babylon in the 6th century BC. This, taken along with the well-known fact that names of articles of commerce and especially of musical instruments go with the thing, leave no room to doubt that a writer of the 6th century BC may have known and used borrowed Greek terms. The Arameans being the great commercial middlemen between Egypt and Greece on the one hand and Babylon and the Orient on the other, and being in addition a subject people, would naturally adopt many foreign words into their vocabulary.

As to the presence of the so-called Persian words in Daniel, it must be remembered that many words which were formerly considered to be such have been found to be Babylonian. As to the others, perhaps all of them may be Median rather than Persian; and if so, the children of Israel who were carried captive to the cities of the Medes in the middle of the 8th century BC, and the, Arameans, many of whom were subject to the Medes, at least from the time of the fall of Nineveh about 607 BC, may well have adopted many words into their vocabulary from the language of their rulers. Daniel was not writing merely for the Jews who had been carried captive by Nebuchadnezzar, but for all Israelites throughout the world.

Hence, he would properly use a language which his scattered readers would understand rather than the purer idiom of Judea. Most of his foreign terms are names of officials, legal terms, and articles of clothing, for which there were no suitable terms existing in the earlier Hebrew or Aramaic There was nothing for a writer to do but to invent new terms, or to transfer the current foreign words into his native language. The latter was the preferable method and the one which he adopted. 5. The Historical Statements: Fifthly, objections to the genuineness of the Book of Daniel are made on the ground of the historical misstatements which are said to be found in it.

These may be classed as: (1) chronological, (2) geographical, and (3) various. (1) Chronological Objections.

The first chronological objection is derived from Daniel 1:1, where it is said that Nebuchadnezzar made an expedition against Jerusalem in the 3rd year of Jehoiakim, whereas Jeremiah seems to imply that the expedition was made in the 4th year of that king. As Daniel was writing primarily for the Jews of Babylon, he would naturally use the system of dating that was employed there; and this system differed in its method of denoting the 1st year of a reign from that used by the Egyptians and by the Jews of Jerusalem for whom Jeremiah wrote.

The second objection is derived from the fact that Daniel is said ( Daniel 1:21) to have lived unto the 1st year of Cyrus the king, whereas in Daniel 10:1 he is said to have seen a vision in the 3rd year of Cyrus, king of Persia. These statements are easily reconciled by supposing that in the former case it is the 1st year of Cyrus as king of Babylon, and in the second, the 3rd year of Cyrus as king of Persia.

The third chronological objection is based on Daniel 6:28, where it is said that Daniel prospered in the kingdom of Darius and in the kingdom of Cyrus the Persian. This statement is harmonized with the facts revealed by the monuments and with the statements of the book itself by supposing that Darius reigned synchronously with Cyrus, but as sub-king under him.

The fourth objection is based on Daniel 8:1, where Daniel is said to have seen a vision in the third year of Belshazzar the king. If we suppose that Belshazzar was king of the Chaldeans while his father was king of Babylon, just as Cambyses was king of Babylon while his father, Cyrus, was king of the lands, or as Nabonidus II seems to have been king of Harran while his father, Nabonidus I, was king of Babylon, this statement will harmonize with the other statements made with regard to Belshazzar. (2) Geographical Objections.

As to the geographical objections, three only need be considered as important. The first is, that Shushan seems to be spoken of in Daniel 7:2 as subject to Babylon, whereas it is supposed by some to have been at that time subject to Media. Here we can safely rest upon the opinion of Winckler, that at the division of the Assyrian dominions among the allied Medes and Babylonians, Elam became subject to Babylon rather than to Media. If, however, this opinion could be shown not to be true, we must remember that Daniel is said to have been at ShuShan in a vision.

The second geographical objection is based on the supposition that Nebuchadnezzar would not have gone against Jerusalem, leaving an Egyptian garrison at Carchemish in his rear, thus endangering his line of communication and a possible retreat to Babylon. This objection has no weight, now that the position of Carchemish has been shown to be, not at Ciressium, as formerly conjectured, but at Jirabis, 150 miles farther up the Euphrates. Carchemish would have cut off a retreat to Nineveh, but was far removed from the direct line of communication with Babylon.

The third geographical objection is derived from the statement that Darius placed 120 satraps in, or over, all his kingdom. The objection rests upon a false conception of the meaning of satrap and of the extent of a satrapy, there being no reason why a sub-king under Darius may not have had as many satraps under him as Sargon of Assyria had governors and deputies under him; and the latter king mentions 117 peoples and countries over which he appointed his deputies to rule in his place. (3) Other Objections.

Various other objections to the genuineness of Daniel have been made, the principal being those derived from the supposed non-existence of Kings Darius the Mede and Belshazzar the Chaldean, from the use of the word Chaldean to denote the wise men of Babylon, and from the silence of other historical sources as to many of the events recorded in Daniel. The discussion of the existence of Belshazzar and Darius the Mede will be found under BELSHAZZAR and DARIUS . As to the argument from silence in general, it may be said that it reduces itself in fact to the absence of all reference to Daniel on the monuments, in the Book of Ecclus, and in the post-exilic literature. As to the latter books it proves too much; for Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, as well as Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, refer to so few of the older canonical books and earlier historical persons and events, that it is not fair to expect them to refer to Daniel — at least, to use their not referring to him or his book as an argument against the existence of either before the time when they were written. As to Ecclesiasticus, we might have expected him to mention Daniel or the Song of Three Children; but who knows what reasons Ben Sira may have had for not placing them in his list of Hebrew heroes? Perhaps, since he held the views which later characterized the Sadducees, he may have passed Daniel by because of his views on the resurrection and on angels. Perhaps he failed to mention any of the four companions because none of their deeds had been wrought in Palestine; or because their deeds exalted too highly the heathen monarchies to which the Jews were subject. Or, more likely, the book may have been unknown to him, since very few copies at best of the whole Old Testament can have existed in his time, and the Book of Daniel may not have gained general currency in Palestine before it was made so preeminent by the fulfillment of its predictions in the Maccabean times.

It is not satisfactory to say that Ben Sira did not mention Daniel and his companions, because the stories concerning them had not yet been imbedded in a canonical book, inasmuch as he does place Simon, the high priest, among the greatest of Israel’s great men, although he is not mentioned in any canonical book. In conclusion, it may be said, that while it is impossible for us to determine why Ben Sira does not mention Daniel and his three companions among his worthies, if their deeds were known to him, it is even more impossible to understand how these stories concerning them cannot merely have arisen but have been accepted as true, between 180 BC, when Ecclesiasticus is thought to have been written, and 169 BC, when, according to 1 Maccabees, Matthias, the first of the Asmoneans, exhorted his brethren to follow the example of the fortitude of Ananias and his friends.

As to the absence of all mention of Daniel on the contemporary historical documents of Babylon and Persia, such mention is not to be expected, inasmuch as those documents give the names of none who occupied positions such as, or similar to, those which Daniel is said to have filled.

VIII. INTERPRETATION.

Questions of the interpretation of particular passages may be looked for in the commentaries and special works. As to the general question of the kind of prophecy found in the Book of Daniel, it has already been discussed above under the caption of “Genuineness.” As to the interpretation of the world monarchies which precede the monarchy of the Messiah Prince, it may be said, however, that the latest discoveries, ruling out as they do a separate Median empire that included Babylon, support the view that the four monarchies are the Babylonian, the Persian, the Greek, and the Roman. According to this view, Darius the Mede was only a sub-king under Cyrus the Persian. Other interpretations have been made by selecting the four empires from those of Assyria, Babylonia, Media, Persia, Medo- Persia, Alexander, the Seleucids, the Romans, and the Mohammedans. The first and the last of these have generally been excluded from serious consideration. The main dispute is as to whether the 4th empire was that of the Seleucids, or that of the Romans, the former view being held commonly by those who hold to the composition of in the 2nd century BC, and the latter by those who hold to the traditional view that it was written in the 6th century BC.

IX. DOCTRINES.

It is universally admitted that the teachings of Daniel with regard to angels and the resurrection are more explicit than those found elsewhere in the Old Testament. As to angels, Daniel attributes to them names, ranks, and functions not mentioned by others. It has become common in certain quarters to assert that these peculiarities of Daniel are due to Persian influences. The Babylonian monuments, however, have revealed the fact that the Babylonians believed in both good and evil spirits with names, ranks, and different functions. These spirits correspond in several respects to the Hebrew angels, and may well have afforded Daniel the background for his visions. Yet, in all such matters, it must be remembered that Daniel purports to give us a vision, or revelation; and a revelation cannot be bound by the ordinary laws of time and human influence.

As to the doctrine of the resurrection, it is generally admitted that Daniel adds some new and distinct features to that which is taught in the other canonical books of the Old Testament. But it will be noted that he does not dwell upon this doctrine, since he mentions it only in Daniel 12:2. The materials for his doctrine are to be found in Isaiah 26:14,21 and 66:24; Ezekiel 37:1-14, and in Job 14:12; 19:25; Hosea 6:2; 1 Kings 17; 2 Kings 4, and 8:1-5, as well as in the use of the words for sleep and awakening from sleep, or from the dust, for everlasting life or everlasting contempt in Isaiah 26:19; Psalm 76:6; 13:3; 127:2; Deuteronomy 31:16; 2 Samuel 7:12; 1 Kings 1:21; Job 7:21, and Jeremiah 20:11; 23:40. The essential ideas and phraseology of Daniel’s teachings are found in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. The first two parts of the books of Enoch and 2 Maccabees make much of the resurrection; but on the other hand, Ecclesiastes seems to believe not even in the immortality of the soul, and Wisdom and 1 Maccabees do not mention a resurrection of the body.

That the post-exilic prophets do not mention a resurrection does not prove that they knew nothing about Daniel any more than it proves that they knew nothing about Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel.

There are resemblances, it is true, between the teachings of Daniel with regard to the resurrection and those of the Avesta. But so are there between his doctrines and the ideas of the Egyptians, which had existed for millenniums before his time. Besides there is no proof of any derivation of doctrines from the Persians by the writers of the canonical books of the Jews; and, as we have seen above, both the ideas and verbiage of Daniel are to be found in the generally accepted early Hebrew literature. And finally, this attempt to find a natural origin for all Biblical ideas leaves out of sight the fact that the Scriptures contain revelations from God, which transcend the ordinary course of human development. To a Christian, therefore, there can be no reason for believing that the doctrines of Daniel may not have been promulgated in the 6th century BC. Commentaries and Introductions: The best commentaries on Daniel from a conservative point of view are those by Calvin, Moses Stuart, Keil, Zockler, Strong in Lange’s Bibelwerk, Fuller in the Speaker’s Commentary, Thomson in the Pulpit Commentary, and Wright, Daniel and His Critics. The best defenses of Daniel’s authenticity and genuineness are Hengstenberg, Authenticity of the Book of Daniel, Tregelles, Defense of the Authenticity, Auberlen, The Prophecies of Daniel, Fuller, Essay on the Authenticity of Daniel, Pusey, Daniel the Prophet (still the best of all), C. H. H. Wright, Daniel and His Critics, Kennedy, The Book of Daniel from the Christian Standpoint, Joseph Wilson, Daniel, and Sir Robert Anderson, Daniel in the Critics’ Den. One should consult also Pinches, The Old Testament in the Light of the Historical Records of Assyria and Babylonia, Clay, Light on the Old Testament from Babel, and Orr, The Problem of the Old Testament. For English readers, the radical school is best represented by Driver in his Literature of the Old Testament and in his Daniel; by Bevan, The Book of Daniel; by Prince, Commentary on Daniel, and by Cornill in his Introduction to the Old Testament.

X. APOCRYPHAL ADDITIONS.

In the Greek translations of Daniel three or four pieces are added which are not found in the original Hebrew or Aramaic text as it has come down to us. These are The Prayer of Azarias, The Song of the Three Children, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon. These additions have all been rejected from the Canon by the Protestant churches because they are not contained in the Hebrew Canon. In the Church of England they are “read for example of life and instruction of manners.” The Song of Three Children was “ordered in the rubric of the first Prayer Book of Edward VI (AD 1549) to be used in Lent as a responsory to the Old Testament Lesson at the Morning Prayer.” It contains the Prayer of Azarias from the midst of the fiery furnace, and the song of praise by the three children for their deliverance; the latter being couched largely in phrases borrowed from Psalm 148. Susanna presents to us the story of a virtuous woman who resisted the seductive attempts of two judges of the elders of the people, whose machinations were exposed through the wisdom of Daniel who convicted them of false witness by the evidence of their own mouth, so that they were put to death according to the law of Moses; and from that day forth Daniel was held in great reputation in the sight of the people. Bel and the Dragon contains three stories. The first relates how Daniel destroyed the image of Bel which Nebuchadnezzar worshipped, by showing by means of ashes strewn on the floor of the temple that the offerings to Bel were devoured by the priests who came secretly into the temple by night. The second tells how Daniel killed the Dragon by throwing lumps of mingled pitch, fat and hair into his mouth, so causing the Dragon to burst asunder.

The third gives a detailed account of the lions’ den, stating that there were seven lions and that Daniel lived in the den six days, being sustained by broken bread and pottage which a prophet named Habakkuk brought to him through the air, an angel of the Lord having taken him by the arm and borne him by the hair of his head and through the vehemency of his spirit set him in Babylon over the den, into which he dropped the food for Daniel’s use.

LITERATURE.

For commentaries on the additions to the Book of Daniel, see the works on Daniel cited above, and also The Apocrypha by Churton and others; the volume on the Apocrypha in Lange’s Commentary by Bissell; “The Apocrypha” by Wace in the Speaker’s Commentary, and Schurer, History of the Jewish People. R. Dick Wilson DANITES <dan’-its > ([ yniD;h” , ha-dani ]): Occurs as describing those belonging to Daniel in Judges 13:2; 18:1,11; 1 Chronicles 12:35.

DAN-JAAN <dan-ja’-an > ([ ˆ[“y” ˆD; , dan ya`-an ]; B, [ Dan, Daniel Eidan kai Oudan ]): A place visited by Joab and his officers when taking the census ( 2 Samuel 24:6). It is mentioned between Gilead and Sidon. Some would identify it with Khan Danian , a ruined site North of Achzib. The text is probably corrupt. Klostermann would read “toward Daniel and Ijon” (compare 1 Kings 15:20).

DANNAH <dan’-a > ([ hN;D” , dannah ]): One of the cities in the hill country of Judah ( Joshua 15:49) between Socoh and Kiriath-sannah (Debir), probably Idhna — the Iedna of the Onom — 8 miles W. of Hebron. See PEF, III, 305, 330.

DAPHNE <daf’-ne > ([ Da>fnh, Daphne ], “bay-tree”): A suburb of Antioch on the Orontes, according to Strabo and the Jerusalem itinerary, about furlongs, or 5 miles distant. It is identified with Beit el-Ma’ on the left bank of the river, to the Southwest of the city. Here were the famous grove and sanctuary of Apollo. The grove and shrine owed their origin to Seleucus Nicator. It was a place of great natural beauty, and the Seleucid kings spared no outlay in adding to its attractions. The precincts enjoyed the right of asylum. Hither fled Onias the high priest (171 BC) from the wrath of Menelaus whom he had offended by plain speech. To the disgust and indignation of Jew and Gentile alike, he was lured from the sanctuary by Andronicus and basely put to death (2 Macc 4:33-38). It sheltered fugitives dyed with villainy of every shade. It was the great pleasure resort of the citizens of Antioch; and it gained an evil repute for immorality, as witnessed by the proverbial Daphnici mores. In Tiberim defluxit Orontes , says Juvenal (iii.62), indicating one main source of the corruption that demoralized the imperial city. The decline of Daphne dates from the days of Christian ascendancy in the reign of Julian. The place is still musical with fountains and luxuriant with wild vegetation; but nothing now remains to suggest its former splendor. See ANTIOCH; Gibbon, Decline and Fall, chapter xxiii. W. Ewing DARA <dar’-a > ([ [r”D; , dara` ]). See DARDA.

DARDA <dar’-da > ([ [D”r]D” , darda` ], “pearl of wisdom”): One of the wise men to whom Solomon is compared ( 1 Kings 4:31). He was either a son of Mahol (ibid.) or a son of Zerah, son of Judah ( 1 Chronicles 2:6, where the corresponding name in the same list is given as DARA). In rabbinic lore the name has been interpreted as dor dea , “the generation of knowledge” — the generation of the wilderness.

DARE <dar > : The expression “to dare” in the Scriptures never has the meaning of “to defy,” “to challenge,” or “to terrify.” It is always found as the translation of [tolma>w, tolmao ], “to manifest courage.” This is particularly evident from 2 Corinthians 10:12, “for we are not bold to number or compare ourselves” (the King James Version “for we dare not make ourselves of the number”).

DARIC <dar’-ik > ([ ˆ/mK]r]D” , darkemon ], and [ ˆ/Kr]d”a” , ‘adharkon ]; [dareiko>v, dareikos ]): A Persian gold coin about a guinea or five dollars in value. The first form of the word occurs in 1 Chronicles 29:7; Ezra 2:69, and Nehemiah 7:70-72; the second in Ezra 8:27 and is rendered, “dram” in the King James Version and “daric” in the Revised Version (British and American). In the passage in Chronicles, it must refer to a weight, since at the time of David there were no coins, but in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah the Persian darics were current. See MONEY.

DARIUS <da-ri’-us > : The name of three or four kings mentioned in the Old Testament. In the original Persian it is spelled “Darayavaush”; in Babylonian, usually “Dariamush”; in Susian(?), “Tariyamaush”; in Egyptian “Antaryuash”; on Aramaic inscriptions, [ vw,hyrd ] or [ vwhwyrD]; in Hebrew, [ vw,y,r]D; , dareyawesh ]; in Greek, [ Darei~ov, Dareios ]; in Latin, “Darius.” In meaning it is probably connected with the new Persian word Dara, “king.” Herodotus says it means in Greek, [ jErxei>hv, Erxeies ], coercitor , “restrainer,” “compeller,” “commander.” (1) Darius the Mede ( Daniel 6:1; 11:1) was the son of Ahasuerus (Xerxes) of the seed of the Medes ( Daniel 9:1). He received the government of Belshazzar the Chaldean upon the death of that prince ( Daniel 5:30,31; 6:1), and was made king over the kingdom of the Chaldeans.

From Daniel 6:28 we may infer that Darius was king contemporaneously with Cyrus. Outside of the Book of Daniel there is no mention of Darius the Mede by name, though there are good reasons for identifying him with Gubaru, or Ugbaru, the governor of Gutium, who is said in the Nabunaid-Cyrus Chronicle to have been appointed by Cyrus as his governor of Babylon after its capture from the Chaldeans. Some reasons for this identification are as follows: (a) Gubaru is possibly a translation of Darius. The same radical letters in Arabic mean “king,” “compeller,” “restrainer.” In Hebrew, derivations of the root mean “lord,” “mistress,” “queen”; in Aramaic, “mighty,” “almighty.” (b) Gutium was the designation of the country North of Babylon and was in all possibility in the time of Cyrus a part of the province of Media. (c) But even if Gutium were not a part of Media at that time, it was the custom of Persian kings to appoint Medes as well as Persians to satrapies and to the command of armies. Hence, Darius-Gubaru may have been a Mede, even if Gutium were not a part of Media proper. (d) Since Daniel never calls Darius the Mede king of Media, or king of Persia, it is immaterial what his title or position may have been before he was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans. Since the realm of the Chaldeans never included either Media or Persia, there is absolutely no evidence in the Book of Daniel that its author ever meant to imply that Darius the Mede ever ruled over either Media or Persia. (e) That Gubaru is called governor (pihatu), and Darius the Mede, king, is no objection to this identification; for in ancient as well as modern oriental empires the governors of provinces and cities were often called kings.

Moreover, in the Aramaic language, no more appropriate word than “king” can be found to designate the ruler of a sub-kingdom, or province of the empire. (f) That Darius is said to have had 120 satraps under him does not conflict with this; for the Persian word “satrap” is indefinite as to the extent of his rule, just like the English word “governor.” Besides, Gubaru is said to have appointed pihatus under himself. If the kingdom of the Chaldeans which he received was as large as that of Sargon he may easily have appointed of these sub-rulers; for Sargon names 117 subject cities and countries over which he appointed his prefects and governors. (g) The peoples, nations and tongues of chapter 6 are no objection to this identification; for Babylonia itself at this time was inhabited by Babylonians, Chaldeans, Arabians, Arameans and Jews, and the kingdom of the Chaldeans embraced also Assyrians, Elamites, Phoenicians and others within its limits. (h) This identification is supported further by the fact that there is no other person known to history that can well be meant. Some, indeed, have thought that Darius the Mede was a reflection into the past of Darius Hystaspis; but this is rendered impossible inasmuch as the character, deeds and empire of Darius Hystaspis, which are well known to us from his own monuments and from the Greek historians, do not resemble what Daniel says of Darius the Mede. (2) Darius, the fourth king of Persia, called Hystaspes because he was the son of a Persian king named Hystaspis, is mentioned in Ezra (4:5, et al.), Haggai (1:1) and Zechariah (1:1). Upon the death of Cambyses, son and successor to Cyrus, Smerdis the Magian usurped the kingdom and was dethroned by seven Persian nobles from among whom Darius was selected to be king. After many rebellions and wars he succeeded in establishing himself firmly upon the throne (Ant., XI, i). He reorganized and enlarged the Persian empire. He is best known to general history from his conflict with Greece culminating at Marathon, and for his re-digging of the Suez Canal. In sacred history he stands forth as the king who enabled the Jews under Jeshua and Zerubbabel to rebuild the temple at Jerusalem. (3) Darius, called by the Greeks Nothus, was called Ochus before he became king. He reigned from 424 to 404 BC. In the Scriptures he is mentioned only in Nehemiah 12:22, where he is called Darius the Persian, probably to distinguish him from Darius the Mede. It is not necessary to suppose that Darius Codomannus who reigned from 336 to 330 BC, is meant by the author of Nehemiah 12, because he mentions Jaddua; for (a) Johanan, the father of this Jaddua, was high priest about 408 BC, as is clear from the Aramaic papyrus from Elephantine lately published by Professor Sachau of Berlin, and Jaddua may well have succeeded him in those troubled times before the death of Darius Nothus in BC. And (b) that a high priest named Jaddua met Alexander in 332 BC, is attested only by Josephus (Ant., XI, viii, 5). It is not fair to take the testimony of Josephus as to Jaddua without taking his testimony as to the meeting with Alexander and as to the appeal of Jaddua to the predictions of the Book of Daniel. But even if Josephus be right, there may have been two Jadduas, one high priest in 404 BC, and the other in 332 BC; or the one who was alive and exercising his functions in BC may still have been high priest in 332 BC. He need not have exceeded 90 years of age. According to the Eshki Harran inscription, which purports to have been written by himself, the priest of the temple in that city had served for 104 years. In our own time how many men have been vigorous in mind and body at the age of 90, or thereabouts; Bismarck and Gladstone, for example? R. Dick Wilson DARK; DARKNESS <dark > , <dark’-nes > ([ Ëv,j , choshekh ]; [sko>tov, skotos ]):

1. DARKNESS AND LIGHT IN PALESTINE:

The day and night, light and darkness, are notable antitheses in Palestine.

There the day does not slowly fade away into the night after a period of twilight, but before sunset there is the brightness of day, and when the sun has disappeared everything has changed and night is at hand. From sunset until the darkness of night is less than an hour.

2. SYMBOLIC USES:

In the Bible the main use of darkness is in contrast to light. Light is the symbol of God’s purity, wisdom and glory. Darkness is the opposite.

Miraculous occurrence of darkness in the land of Egypt for three days is recorded in Exodus 10:21,22, and at the death of Christ ( Matthew 27:45). See PLAGUES; ECLIPSE.

The figurative uses of darkness are many and various. It is used as a symbol (a) of moral depravity and its punishment. The wicked walk and work in darkness ( Psalm 82:5; Proverbs 2:13; John 3:19; Romans 13:12), and their reward is to “sit in darkness” ( <19A710> Psalm 107:10) or to be “cast forth into the outer darkness” ( Matthew 8:12); (b) of things mysterious or inexplicable ( 1 Kings 8:12; Psalm 97:2); (c) of trouble and affliction ( 2 Samuel 22:29; Job 5:14; Proverbs 20:20; Isaiah 9:2; compare Genesis 15:12); (d) of punishment ( Lamentations 3:2; Ezekiel 32:8; Zephaniah 1:15); (e) of death ( 1 Samuel 2:9; Job 10:21 f; Ecclesiastes 11:8); (f) of nothingness ( Job 3:4-6); (g) of human ignorance ( Job 19:8; 1 John 2:11). ”A dark (the Revised Version, margin “squalid”) place” ( 2 Peter 1:19) refers especially to the state of things described in 2 Peter 2. Alfred H. Joy DARKLY <dark’-li > : The word occurs in 1 Corinthians 13:12, “For now we see in a mirror, darkly,” in translation of the words [ejn aijni>gmati, en ainigmati ], the Revised Version, margin “in a riddle.” The contrast is with the “face to face” vision of Divine things in eternity. Earth’s best knowledge is partial, obscure, enigmatic, a broken reflection of the complete truth (“broken lights of Thee”).

DARKON <dar’-kon > ([ ˆ/qr]D” , darqon ], “carrier”): Ancestor of a subdivision of “Solomon’s servants,” so called, in post-exilic times ( Ezra 2:56; Nehemiah 7:58; Lozon, 1 Esdras 5:33).

DARK SAYINGS ( Proverbs 1:6; Psalm 78:2; singular, Psalm 49:4 (5) ; [ t/dyji , chidhoth ], singular [ hdyji , chidhah ], elsewhere rendered “riddle,” “proverb”): In the heading to the canonical Book of Proverbs, the general term “proverbs” is made to include “a proverb [ lv;m; , mashal ], and a figure (or, an interpretation, [ hx;ylm] , melitsah ]), the words (singular [ rb;D; , dabhar ]) of the wise, and their dark sayings (or, riddles).” The “proverb” is either a saying current among the people (compare 1 Samuel 10:12; “the proverb of the ancients” 24:13 (14) ), or a sentence of ethical wisdom composed by the order of wise men ([ µymik;j\ , chakhamim ]). Of the latter kind are the sententious maxims of the Wisdom literature (chiefly Proverbs, but also Job, Ecclesiastes, and among the uncanonical writings, Ecclesiasticus). They are characterized by a secular touch; wisdom, moreover, flourished among the neighbors of Israel as well; so in Edom and elsewhere. Whatever the date of the collection known as the “Proverbs of Solomon,” the wise men existed in Israel at a very early period; the prophets allude to them. But the Hebrew mashal is sometimes of a more elaborate character corresponding to our “parables”; frequently a vein of taunt runs through them, and they played an important part in compositions directed against other nations (compare Numbers 21:27). The prophets are fond of employing this genre of literary production; in their hands the mashal becomes a figurative or allegorical discourse (compare Ezekiel 21:5 ff (8 ff)). The mashal in the sense of a didactic poem occurs also in the Psalms (Pss 49 and 78). Hence, it is that “proverb” and “figure,” or “proverb” and “dark saying” are interchangeable terms. The “dark saying” is the popular “riddle” (compare Judges 14) raised to the dignity of elaborate production. It is in short an allegorical sentence requiring interpretation. Both prophets and psalmists avail themselves thereof. The word of God comes to the prophet in the form of a vision (compare the visions of Amos or Jeremiah), i.e. the truth presents itself to them in the form of a simile. To the perfect prophet of the type of Moses the revelation comes direct in the shape of the naked truth without the mediation of figures of speech or obscure utterances requiring elucidation (compare Numbers 12). In the same way Paul (1 Corinthians 13) distinguishes between the childish manner of speaking of things spiritual and the manner of a man: “For now we see in a mirror, darkly (Greek “in a riddle”); but then face to face.” The rabbis say that, whereas all the other prophets saw God and things Divine in a dim mirror, Moses saw them in a polished, clear mirror. Both Paul and the rabbis feel the difference between mediate and immediate vision, the revelation which requires dark figurative language as a vehicle and the clear perception which is the direct truth. Max L. Margolis DARLING <dar’-ling > ([ dyjy; , yachidh ], “only,” the King James Version margin, “only one”; the American Revised Version, margin, “dear life”): Used poetically for the life or soul ( Psalm 22:20; 35:17).

DART <dart > ([ 6je , chets ]; [be>lov, belos ]): A pointed missile weapon, as an arrow or light spear ( 2 Samuel 18:14; Job 41:26). See ARMOR; ARMS, III, 4; ARROW.

Figurative: (1) Of the penalty of sin ( Proverbs 7:23 the King James Version); (2) of strong suggestions and fierce temptations to evil ( Ephesians 6:16; compare 1 Macc 5:51 ).

DART-SNAKE <dart’-snake > ( Isaiah 34:15). See ARROWSNAKE.

DASH The idea of “to throw violently” or “to strike” with purpose of causing destruction is usually connected with the word “to dash.” There is perhaps but one exception to this: Psalm 91:12 and the quotations of this passage in the New Testament ( Matthew 4:6; Luke 4:11, [prosko>ptw, proskopto ]), have the meaning “to strike against accidentally” and not intentionally. Nahum 2:1, “he that dasheth in pieces” is doubtful. “He that scatters” would be in better harmony with the Hebrew [ 6ypime , mephits ], and the following description of destruction. In all other cases “to dash” is connected with the idea of destruction, especially the infliction of punishment which is usually expressed by [ vf”r; , raTash ], “to dash to the ground” ( 2 Kings 8:12; Isaiah 13:16 ff, et al., “to dash in pieces,” the King James Version simply “to dash”), but also by [ 6p”n; , naphats ], “to break to pieces” ( Psalm 2:9; 137:9, et al.). See also PUNISHMENTS.

A. L. Breslich DATES <dats > ([ vb”r; , debhash ]): Arabic, dibbs ( 2 Chronicles 31:5, King James Version margin); English Versions of the Bible HONEY (which see). See also PALM TREE.

DATHAN <da’-than > ([ ˆt;D] , dathan ], meaning and derivation unknown, though the name is found in Assyrian, in the records of Shalmaneser II): The son of Eliab the son of Pallu the son of Reuben ( Numbers 26:5 ff; Deuteronomy 11:6; <19A617> Psalm 106:17). He and his brother Abiram, with others, followed Korah the Levite in disputing the authority of Moses and Aaron in the wilderness (Numbers 16-17; 26; Deuteronomy 11:6; <19A617> Psalm 106:17). Other followers of Korah perished by fire before the tent of meeting, but Dathan and Abiram were swallowed up by the earth, with their families and their goods, at their tents. See KORAH.

Willis J. Beecher DATHEMA <dath’-e-ma > ([ ˆt;D; , Dathema ): A stronghold (1 Macc 5:29) in Gilead to which the Jews fled for refuge from the heathen (1 Macc 5:9). They were delivered by Judas and Jonathan his brother. It was within a night’s march from Bosora. It may possibly be identical with `Athaman which lies East of el-Muzerib .

DAUB <dob > : “To daub” always has the meaning “to cover,” “to smear with” in the Scriptures. Ezekiel compares the flatteries of the false prophets to a slight wall covered with whitewash (literally, “spittle”). See Ezekiel 13:10 ff; 22:28. In Exodus 2:3 “daubed it with slime and with pitch” (Hebrew [ hr;m]j]T”w” , wattachmerah ], denominative of [ rm;de , chemar ], “bitumen” or “asphalt”), “to daub” has the same meaning as in the Ezekiel passage.

DAUGHTER <do’-ter > ([ tB” , bath ]; [quga>thr, thugater]): Used in Scriptures in several more or less distinct senses: (a) for daughter in the ordinary, literal sense ( Genesis 46:25; Exodus 1:16); (b) daughter-in-law ( Ruth 2:2); (c) grand-daughter or other female descendant (Exodus 21; Luke 1:5; 13:16); (d) the women of a country, or of a place, taken collectively ( Luke 23:28), of a particular religion ( Malachi 2:11); (e) all the population of a place, taken collectively, especially in Prophets and poetic books ( Psalm 9:14; Isaiah 23:10; Jeremiah 46:24; Matthew 21:5); (f) used in familiar address, “Daughter, be of good comfort” ( Matthew 9:22 the King James Version; Mark 5:34; Luke 8:48); (g) women in general ( Proverbs 31:29); (h) the personification of towns or cities, as of the female sex ( Isaiah 47:1; Ezekiel 16:44,46; compare Nahum 3:4,7), especially of dependent towns and villages ( Psalm 48:11; Numbers 21:25 margin; Judges 1:27 margin); (i) in Hebrew idiom for person or thing belonging to or having the characteristics of that with which it is joined, as “daughter of ninety years,” of Sarah, ninety years old ( Genesis 17:17); “daughters of music,” singing birds, or singing women ( Ecclesiastes 12:4); daughters of a tree, i.e. branches; daughter of the eye, i.e. the pupil.

Daughters were not so highly prized as sons, not being usually mentioned by name. A father might sometimes sell his daughter as bondwoman ( Exodus 21:7); though not to a foreigner ( Exodus 21:8); daughters might sometimes inherit as did sons, but could not take the inheritance outside of the tribe ( Numbers 36:1-12). Edward Bagby Pollard DAUGHTER-IN-LAW See RELATIONSHIPS, FAMILY.

DAVID <da’-vid > ([ dwiD; , dawidh ], or [ dywiD; , dawidh ], “beloved”; [ Dauei>d, Daueid ], also in New Testament, Dauid , Dabid ; see Thayer’s Lexicon):

I. NAME AND GENEALOGY.

This name, which is written “defectively” in the older books, such as those of Samuel, but fully with the yodh in Chronicles and the later books, is derived, like the similar name Jedidish ( 2 Samuel 12:25), from a root meaning “to love.” The only person who bears this name in the Bible is the son of Jesse, the second king of Israel. His genealogy is given in the table appended to the Book of Ruth (4:18-22). Here the following points are to be noted: David belonged to the tribe of Judah: his ancestor Nahshon was chieftain of the whole tribe ( Numbers 1:7; 2:3; 1 Chronicles 2:10) and brother-in-law of Aaron the high priest ( Exodus 6:23). As no other descendants of Nahshon are mentioned, his authority probably descended to Jesse by right of primogeniture. This supposition is countenanced by the fact that Salma (Salmon), the name of the son of Nahshon and father of Boaz, is also the name of a grandson of Caleb who became “father” of Bethlehem, the home of Jesse ( 1 Chronicles 2:51). David was closely connected with the tribe of Moab, the mother of his grandfather Obed being Ruth the Moabitess. Of the wife or wives of Jesse we know nothing, and consequently are without information upon a most interesting point — the personality of the mother of David; but that she too may have been of the tribe of Moab is rendered probable by the fact that, when hard pressed, David placed his parents under the protection of the king of that country ( 1 Samuel 22:3,1).

II. EARLY YEARS.

The home of David when he comes upon the stage of history was the picturesque town of Bethlehem. 1. Shepherd: There his family had been settled for generations, indeed ever since the Israelite nation had overrun the land of Canaan. His father was apparently not only the chief man of the place, but he seems to have been chieftain of the whole clan to which he belonged — the clan of Judah. Although the country round Bethlehem is more fertile than that in the neighborhood of Jerusalem, the inhabitants joined to the cultivation of the soil the breeding of cattle ( Luke 2:8). David’s father, not only cultivated his ancestral fields, but kept flocks of sheep and goats as well. The flocks were sent out every day to pasture in the neighboring valleys attended by the herdsmen armed so as to defend themselves and their charge, not only against marauders from the surrounding deserts, but also from the lions and bears with which the country was then infested. David seems to have been in the habit of accompanying his father’s servants in their task ( 1 Samuel 17:20,22), and on occasion would be left in full charge by himself. Nor was his post at such times a sinecure. He had not only to keep a sharp lookout for thieves, but on more than one occasion had with no other weapon than his shepherd’s club or staff to rescue a lamb from the clutches of a lion or a bear ( 1 Samuel 17:34 ff). Such adventures, however, must have been rare, and David must often have watched eagerly the lengthening of the shadow which told of the approach of sunset, when he could drive his charge into the zariba for the night and return home. There is, indeed, no life more monotonous and enervating than that of an eastern shepherd, but David must have made good use of his idle time. He seems, in fact, to have made such good use of it as to have neglected his handful of sheep. The incidents of which he boasted to Saul would not have occurred, had his proper occupation taken up all his thoughts; but, like King Alfred, his head seems to have been filled with ideas far removed from his humble task. 2. Slinger: David, like Nelson, does not seem to have known what it was to be afraid, and it was not to be expected that he could be satisfied with the lot of the youngest of eight sons of the now aged chief ( 1 Samuel 17:12; Chronicles 2:13 ff). In the East every man is a soldier, and David’s bent was in that direction. The tribesmen of Benjamin near whose border his home was situated were famed through all Israel as slingers, some of whom could sling at a hair and not miss ( Judges 20:16). Taught, perhaps, by one of these, but certainly by dint of constant practice, David acquired an accuracy of aim which reminds one of the tales of William Tell or Robin Hood ( 1 Samuel 17:49). 3. Harpist: Another of the pastimes in the pursuit of which David spent many an hour of his youthful days was music. The instrument which he used was the “harp” (Hebrew [kinnor ]). This instrument had many forms, which may be seen on the Assyrian and Egyptian monuments; but the kind used by David was probably like the modern Arabic, rubaba, having only one or two strings, played not with a plectrum (Ant., VII, xii, 3) but by the hand (compare 1 Samuel 16:23, etc., which do not exclude a quill). Whatever the nature of the instrument was, David acquired such proficiency in playing it that his fame as a musician soon spread throughout the countryside ( 1 Samuel 16:18). With the passing of time he becomes the Hebrew Orpheus, in whose music birds and mountains joined (compare Koran, chapter 21 ). 4. Poet: To the accompaniment of his lyre David no doubt sang words, either of popular songs or of lyrics of his own composition, in that wailing eastern key which seems to be an imitation of the bleating of flocks. The verses he sang would recount his own adventures or the heroic prowess of the warrior of his clan, or celebrate the loveliness of some maiden of the tribe, or consist of elegies upon those slain in battle. That the name of David was long connected with music the reverse of sacred appears from the fact that Amos denounces the people of luxury of his time for improvising to the sound of the viol, inventing instruments of music, like David (6:5). (It is not clear to which clause “like David” belongs, probably to both.) The only remains of the secular poetry of David which have come down to us are his elegies on Saul and Jonathan and on Abner ( 2 Samuel 1:19-27; 3:33,14), which show him to have been a true poet. 5. Psalmist: Did David also compose religious verses? Was he “the sweet psalmist of Israel” ( 2 Samuel 23:1)? In the oldest account which we have, contained in the books of Samuel, David appears as a musician and as a secular poet only, for it is obvious the poetical passages, 2 Samuel 22:1-23:7, do not belong to the original form of that book but are thrust in in the middle of a long list of names of David’s soldiers. The position is the same in Amos 6:5. It is in the later books and passages that sacred music and psalms begin to be ascribed to him. Perhaps the earliest instance is the passage just cited containing the “last words” of David ( 2 Samuel 23:1-7). The Chronicler (about 300 BC) seems to put parts of Psalms 105; 96, and 106 into the mouth of David ( 1 Chronicles 16:7 ff), and Nehemiah 12:36 regards him apparently as the inventor of the instruments used in the Temple service ( 1 Chronicles 23:5), or as a player of sacred music. So too in the Septuagint psalter (Psalm 151:2) we read, “My hands made an organ, my fingers fashioned a psaltery”; and gradually the whole of the Psalms came to be ascribed to David as author.

In regard to this question it must be remembered that in the East at any rate there is no such distinction as that of sacred and secular. By sacred poetry we mean poetry which mentions the name of God or quotes Scripture, but the Hebrew or Arab poet will use the name of God as an accompaniment to a dance, and will freely sprinkle even comic poetry with citations from his sacred book. David must have composed sacred poems if he composed at all, and he would use his musical gift for the purposes of religion as readily as for those of amusement and pleasure ( 2 Samuel 6:14,15). Whether any of our psalms was composed by David is another question. The titles cannot be considered as conclusive evidence, and internal proofs of his authorship are wanting. Indeed the only psalm which claims to have been written by David is the 18th (= 2 Samuel 22). One cannot help wishing that the 23rd Psalm had been sung by the little herd lad as he watched his father’s flocks and guarded them from danger. 6. Tribesman: There are sayings of Mohammed that the happiest life is that of the shepherd, and that no one became a prophet who had not at one time tended a flock of sheep. What Mohammed meant was that the shepherd enjoys leisure and solitude for reflection and for plunging into those day dreams out of which prophets are made. If David, like the Arab poet Tarafa, indulged in sport, in music and in poetry, even to the neglect of his charge, he must have sought out themes on which to exercise his muse; and it must have been with no little chagrin that he learnt that whereas the tribes of Ephraim, Benjamin, Naphtali, Manasseh, Issachar, Zebulun, Levi, Dan, and even the non-Israelite tribes of Kenaz and the debatable land of Gilead could boast of having held the hegemony of Israel and led the nation in battle, his own tribe of Judah had played a quite subordinate part, and was not even mentioned in the national war song of Deborah. As contrasted with the poets of these tribes he could boast in his verses only of Ibzan who belonged to his own town of Bethlehem ( Judges 12:8).

The Jerahmeelites were no doubt a powerful clan, but neither they nor any other of the subdivisions of Judah had ever done anything for the common good. Indeed, when the twelve pathfinders had been sent in advance into Canaan, Judah had been represented by Caleb, a member of the Uitlander tribe of Kenaz ( Numbers 13:6). He became apparently the adopted son of Hezron and so David might claim kinship with him, and through him with Othniel the first of the judges ( Judges 1:13). David thus belonged to the least efficient of all the Israelite tribes except one, and one which, considering its size and wealth, had till now failed to play a worthy part in the confederacy. It is difficult to believe that the young David never dreamed of a day when his own tribe should take its true place among its fellows, and when the deliverer of Israel from its oppressors should belong for once to the tribe of Judah.

III. IN THE SERVICE OF SAUL.

The earliest events in the career of David are involved in some obscurity. 1. David First Meets Saul: This is due mainly to what appears to be an insoluble difficulty in 1 Samuel 16 and 17. In chapter 16, David is engaged to play before Saul in order to dispel is melancholy, and becomes his squire or armor-bearer (16:21), whereas in the following chapter he is unknown to Saul, who, after the death of Goliath, asks Abner who he is, and Abner replies that he does not know (17:55). This apparent contradiction may be accounted for by the following considerations: (a) 16:14-23 may be inserted out of its chronological order for the sake of the contrast with the section immediately preceding — ”the spirit of Yahweh came mightily upon David from that day forward .... the spirit of Yahweh departed from Saul” (16:13,14); (b) the fact of David becoming Saul’s squire does not imply constant personal attendance upon him; the text says David became an (not his) armor-bearer to Saul. The king would have many such squires: Joab, though only commander-in-chief, had, it seems, eighteen ( 2 Samuel 23:37 reads “armor-bearers”); (c) David would not play before Saul every day: his presence might not be required for a space of weeks or months; (d) Saul’s failure to recognize David may have been a result of the `evil spirit from Yahweh’ and Abner’s denial of knowledge may have been feigned out of jealousy. If we accept all the statements of the dramatis personae in these narratives we shall not get very far. 2. His First Exploit: The facts seem to have been somewhat as follows: It had become evident that Saul was not equal to the task to which he had been set — the task of breaking the Philistine power, and it became the duty of Samuel, as the vicar of Yahweh and as still holding very large powers, to look about for a successor. He turned to the tribe of Judah (the full brother of his own ancestor Levi), a tribe which was fast becoming the most powerful member of the federation. The headman of this clan was Jesse of Bethlehem. His name was well known in the country — Saul does not require to be told who he is ( 1 Samuel 16:18; 17:58) — but he was by this time advanced in years ( 1 Samuel 17:12). He had, however, many sons. Old men in the East often foretell a great future for a young boy (compare Luke 2:34).

Samuel saw that David was formed of other clay than his brothers, and he anointed him as he had done Saul ( 1 Samuel 10:1). But whereas the anointing of Saul was done surreptitiously and for a definite purpose which was explained at the time ( 1 Samuel 10:1), that of David was performed before his whole family, but with what object he was not told ( 1 Samuel 16:13). His brothers do not seem to have thought the matter of much consequence (compare 1 Samuel 17:28), and all David could conclude from it was that he was destined to some high office — perhaps that of Samuel’s successor (compare 1 Kings 19:15,16). It would have the effect of nerving him for any adventure and raising his hopes high and steeling his courage. Whether by accident or by contrivance he became attached to Saul as minstrel (compare 2 Kings 3:15) and subsequently as one of his armor-bearers. He would probably be at this time about twenty years of age. It must have been after an interval of some months that an event happened which made it impossible for Saul ever again to forget the existence of David. This was the famous duel between David and the Philistine Goliath, which saved the situation for Saul for the time (1 Samuel 17). In regard to this narrative it must be noted that 1 Samuel 17:12-31,41,50,55-58 and 18:1-5 are lacking in the best manuscript of the Septuagint, that is, the sending of David from Bethlehem and his fresh introduction to Saul and Saul’s failure to recognize him are left out. With the omission of these verses all the difficulties of the narrative vanish. For the reason why David could not wear the armor offered him was not because he was still a child, which is absurd in view of the fact that Saul was exceptionally tall ( 1 Samuel 9:2), but because he had had no practice with it ( 1 Samuel 17:39). It is ridiculous to suppose that David was not at this time full-grown, and that two armies stood by while a child advanced to engage a giant. The event gained for David the reputation won in modern times at the cannon’s mouth, but also the devoted friendship of Jonathan and the enmity of Saul ( 1 Samuel 18:1-9).

The next years of David’s life were spent in the service of Saul in his wars with the Philistines. David’s success where Saul had failed, however, instead of gratifying only inflamed the jealousy of the latter, and he determined to put David out of the way. More than once he attempted to do so with his own hand ( 1 Samuel 18:11; 19:10), but he also employed stratagem. It came to his ears that his daughter Michal, as well as his son Jonathan, loved David, and Saul undertook to give her to David on the condition of his killing one hundred Philistines. 3. Envy of Saul and Flight of David: The gruesome dowry was paid, and David became Saul’s son-in-law. The Hebrew text states that Saul first offered his elder daughter to David, and then failed to implement his promise ( 1 Samuel 18:17-19,21b), but this passage is not found in the Greek. David’s relation to Saul did not mitigate the hatred of the latter; indeed his enmity became so bitter that David determined upon flight. With the help of stratagem on the part of Michal, this was effected and David went to Samuel at Ramah for counsel and advice ( 1 Samuel 19:18). There Saul pursued him, but when he came into the presence of the prophet, his courage failed and he was overcome by the contagion of the prophetic ecstasy ( 1 Samuel 19:24) as he had been on a previous occasion ( 1 Samuel 10:11). David returned to Gibeah, while the coast was clear, to meet Jonathan, but Saul also returned immediately, his hatred more intense than before. David then continued his flight and came to Ahimelech, the priest at Nob ( 1 Samuel 21:1). It is sometimes supposed that we have here two inconsistent accounts of David’s flight, according to one of which he fled to Samuel at Ramah, and according to the other to Ahimelech at Nob; but there is no necessity for such a supposition, and even if it were correct, it would not clear up all the difficulties of the narrative. There is evidently much in these narratives that is left untold and our business should be to fill up the gaps in a way consistent with what we are given. That Saul made sure that David would not return is shown by the fact that he gave his daughter Michal to a man of the tribe of Benjamin as wife ( 1 Samuel 25:44). 4. Jonathan and David: The relation existing between Jonathan and David was one of pure friendship. There was no reason why it should not be so. A hereditary monarchy did not yet exist in Israel. The only previous attempt to establish such an institution — that of Gideon’s family (Judges 9) — though not of Gideon himself ( 1 Samuel 8:23) — had ended in failure. The principle followed hitherto had been that of election by the sheikhs or caids of the clans. To this Saul owed his position, for the lot was a kind of ballot.

Moreover, behind all national movements there lay the power of the prophets, the representatives of Yahweh. Saul was indebted for his election to Samuel, just as Barak was to Deborah ( Judges 4:6). Like the judges who preceded him he had been put forward to meet a definite crisis in the national affairs — the rise of the Philistine power ( 1 Samuel 9:16). Had he succeeded in crushing these invaders, the newly-established kingdom would in the absence of this bond of union have dissolved again into its elements, as had happened on every similar occasion before. He was the only judge who had failed to accomplish the task for which he was appointed, and he was the only one who had been appointed on the understanding that his son should succeed him, for this constitutes the distinction between king and judge. Moreover, not only was Saul aware that he had failed, but he saw before him the man who was ready to step into his place and succeed. His rival had, besides, the backing of the mass of the people and of Samuel who was still virtual head of the state and last court of appeal. It is not to be wondered at that Saul was hostile to David.

Jonathan, on the other hand, acquiesced in the turn things had taken and bowed to what he believed to be the inevitable. Such was his love for David that he asked only to be his [wazeer ] (vizier) when David came to the throne ( 1 Samuel 23:17). David’s position was perhaps the most difficult imaginable. He had to fight the battles of a king whose one idea was to bring about his ruin. He was the bosom friend of a prince whom he proposed to supplant in his inheritance. His hope of salvation lay in the death of his king, the father of his wife and of his best friend. The situation would in ordinary circumstances be intolerable, and it would have been impossible but for the fact that those concerned were obsessed by a profound belief in Fate. Jonathan bore no grudge against David for aiming at the throne, because to the throne he was destined by the will of Yahweh.

To David it would never occur that he had the choice of declining the high destiny in store for him. Had he had the power to refuse what he believed to be the decree of Fate, he would hardly escape censure for his ambition and disloyalty.

IV. DAVID IN EXILE. 1. David as Outlaw: From the moment of his flight David became an outlaw and remained so until the death of Saul. This period of his career is full of stirring adventures which remind us of Robert Bruce or William Wallace of Scotland. Like King Arthur and other heroes he carried a famous sword — the sword of Goliath ( 1 Samuel 21:9). Having obtained it of Ahimelech, he for the first time left Israelite territory and went to the Philistine city of Gath ( 1 Samuel 21:10). Not feeling safe here he left and took up his abode in the cave of Adullam ( 1 Samuel 22:1) in the country of Judah, almost within sight of his native Bethlehem. This cave was admirably suited to the outlaw’s purpose and no doubt David had many a time explored its recesses when a boy. Here he was joined by his parents and brothers, with their servants, as well as by all sorts of persons who were at war with the government, debtors, fugitives from justice, and discontented persons generally. David thus became the chief of a band of outlaws who numbered about 400. Of such stuff some of his bravest soldiers were made ( Samuel 23:13 ff). He had an augur, too, to direct his actions, and, after the massacre of the priests at Nob, a priest, Abiathar, carrying an ephod with which to cast lots ( 1 Samuel 22:5; 23:6). During this period he supported himself and his men by making raids on the Philistine outposts and levying blackmail on his own countrymen ( 1 Samuel 25:2 ff) in return for giving them his protection from the Philistines ( 1 Samuel 23:1 ff). Hard pressed both by Saul and the Philistines (who had established themselves even in Bethlehem) he committed his parents to the keeping of the king of Moab, and began to rove as a freebooter through the country ( 1 Samuel 23:5,15,25,29). On two occasions David had Saul in his power, but refused to seize the opportunity of taking his life (1 Samuel 24-26). Here again there are no adequate grounds for supposing we have two accounts of one and the same incident. During his wandering David’s followers increased in numbers (compare 1 Samuel 22:2; 23:13; 25:13). His chief lieutenant was his nephew Abishai, the son of his sister Zeruiah, but his brothers, Joab and Asahel, do not seem to have joined David yet. Another of his nephews, Jonathan the son of Shimei (Shammah), is mentioned ( 2 Samuel 21:21; compare 1 Samuel 16:9) and the Chronicler thinks many other knights joined him during this period ( 1 Chronicles 11:10 ff). The position of David at this time was very similar to that of the brigand Raisuli of late in Morocco. That there was some stability in it is shown by his taking two wives at this time — Ahinoam and Abigail ( 1 Samuel 25:42,43). 2. David Joins the Philistines: David now, abandoning all hope of ever conciliating the king ( 1 Samuel 27:1), made a move which shows at once his reckless daring and consummate genius. He offered the services of himself and his little army of 600 men to the enemies of his country. The town of Gath appears to have been an asylum for fugitive Israelites ( 1 Kings 2:39). David’s first impulse on his flight from Saul had been to seek safety there ( 1 Samuel 21:10-15). Then, however, he was the hero of Israel, whose assassination would be the highest gain to the Philistines; now he was the embittered antagonist of Saul, and was welcomed accordingly. Achish placed at his disposal the fortified town of Ziklag in the territory of the now extinct tribe of Simeon, and there he and his followers, each of whom had his family with him, took up their quarters for sixteen months ( 1 Samuel 27:6,7).

The advantages to David were many. He was safe at last from the persecution of Saul ( 1 Samuel 27:4); he could secure ample supplies by making raids upon the Amalekites and other tribes hostile to Israel toward the South ( 1 Samuel 27:8); and if the opportunity presented itself he could deal a serious blow at the Philistine arms. The position was no doubt a precarious one. It could last just as long as David could hoodwink Achish by persuading him that his raids were directed against his own tribe ( Samuel 27:10). This he succeeded in doing so completely that Achish would have taken him with him on the campaign which ended in the decisive battle of Gilboa, but the other chiefs, fearing treachery, refused to allow him to do so. David was forced to return with his followers to Ziklag, only to find that town razed to the ground and all the women and children carried off by his old enemies the Amalekites ( 1 Samuel 30:1,2). By the time he had recovered the spoil and returned in triumph to Ziklag the battle of Gilboa had been fought and Saul was slain. The conduct of David in his relations with the Philistines was not more reprehensible than that of the Cid who allied himself with Al-Mu’taman of Saragossa, or of Coriolanus who went over to the Volsci. David composed upon the death of Saul and Jonathan an elegy every sentence of which has become classic.

V. DAVID AS KING. 1. Civil War: David immediately removed from Ziklag and took up his quarters at Hebron, where he was at once anointed king over his own tribe of Judah.

Thus began the cleavage between Judah and Israel. Here he was joined, apparently for the first time, by his nephew Joab. Abner, however, loyal to his former master, had Esh-baal ( 1 Chronicles 8:33), son of Saul, anointed king over the remaining tribes at Mahanaim, a fortified town East of the Jordan. War continued between David and Abner for several years, fortune always favoring David. Seeing things were going against him Abner forced Esh-baal into a personal quarrel with himself and then transferred his allegiance and persuaded his side to transfer theirs to David ( 2 Samuel 3:21). He did not reap the fruit of his defection, as he was immediately after assassinated by Joab in revenge for the death of Asahel whom Abner had killed in self-defence ( 2 Samuel 3:27). Deprived of his chief support Esh-baal also fell a victim to assassination ( 2 Samuel 4:2 ff). David denounced both crimes with apparent sincerity. He composed an elegy and fasted for Abner ( 2 Samuel 3:33 ff) and avenged the death of Esh-baal ( 2 Samuel 4:9 ff). Yet these acts of violence laid the sovereignty of all Israel at his feet. Of the male heirs of Saul there remained only a son of Jonathan, Merib-baal ( 1 Chronicles 8:34) who was a crippled child of 7. David was therefore elected king over the nation ( <100501> Samuel 5:1 ff). His sovereignty of Judah is said to have lasted 7 1/2 years and that over the undivided people 33, making a reign of 40 years, beginning from David’s 30th year ( 2 Samuel 5:5; 1 Chronicles 3:4; in 2 Samuel 2:10 the text is probably corrupt). These are round numbers. 2. Conquests Abroad: King of all the Israelite tribes, David found his hands free to expel the foreigners who had invaded the sacred territory. His first step was to move his headquarters from the Southern Hebron, which he had been compelled at first to make his capital, to the more central Jerusalem. The fort here, which was still held by the aboriginal Jebusites, was stormed by Joab, David’s nephew, who also superintended the rebuilding for David. He was in consequence appointed commander-in-chief ( 1 Chronicles 11:6,8), a post which he held as long as David lived. The materials and the skilled workmen for the erection of the palace were supplied by Hiram of Tyre ( 2 Samuel 5:11). David now turned his attention to the surrounding tribes and peoples. The most formidable enemy, the Philistines, were worsted in several campaigns, and their power crippled ( 2 Samuel 5:17 ff; 8:1). In one of these David so nearly came by his death, that his people would not afterward permit him to take part in the fighting ( 2 Samuel 21:16,17). One of the first countries against which David turned his arms was the land of Moab, which he treated with a severity which would suggest that the Moabite king had ill-treated David’s father and mother, who had taken refuge with him ( 2 Samuel 8:2). Yet his conduct toward the sons of Ammon was even more cruel ( 2 Samuel 12:31), and for less cause (10:1 ff). The king of Zobah (Chalkis) was defeated ( 2 Samuel 8:3), and Israelite garrisons were placed in Syria of Damascus ( Samuel 8:6) and Edom ( 2 Samuel 8:14). The sons of Ammon formed a league with the Syrian kingdoms to the North and East of Palestine ( Samuel 10:6,16), but these also had no success. All these people became tributary to the kingdom of Israel under David ( 2 Samuel 10:18,19) except the sons of Ammon who were practically exterminated for the time being ( 2 Samuel 12:31). Thus, Israel became one of the “great powers” of the world during the reign of David and his immediate successor. 3. Political Situation: There is no doubt that the expansion of the boundaries of Israel at this period almost to their ideal limits ( Deuteronomy 11:24, etc.) was largely due to the fact that the two great empires of Egypt and Assyria were at the moment passing through a period of weakness and decay. The Assyrian monarchy was in a decadent state from about the year 1050 BC, and the 22nd Dynasty — to which Shishak belonged ( 1 Kings 14:25) — had not yet arisen. David, therefore, had a free hand when his time came and found no more formidable opposition than that of the petty states bordering upon Palestine. Against the combined forces of all the Israelite tribes these had never been able to effect much. 4. The Ark: It had been the custom of the Israelites on setting out upon expeditions in which the nation as a whole took part to carry with them the sacred box or “ark” which contained the two stone tables ( Joshua 4:7, etc.). When David had secured the fortress of Jebus for his metropolis one of his first thoughts was to bring into it this emblem of victory. It was then lying at Kiriath-jearim, possibly Abu Gosh about 8 miles Northwest of Jerusalem (compare Psalm 132). Owing to the sudden death of one of the drivers, which he interpreted as indicative of anger on the part of Yahweh, David left the ark at the house of a Philistine which happened to be near at hand.

Since no misfortune befell this person, but on the contrary much prosperity, David took courage after three months to bring the sacred chest and its contents into his royal city. The ceremony was conducted with military honors in 2 Samuel 6:1 and with religious dancing and music (6:5,14) and festivity (6:18,19). A tent was pitched for it, in which it remained (7:2), except when it was sent with the army to the seat of war (11:11; 15:24). David, however, had already built for himself a stone palace, and he wished now to add to it a chapel royal in the shape of a small temple, such as the neighboring kings had. He was the more anxious to so do since he had much of the material ready at hand in the precious metals which formed the most valuable part of the plunder of the conquered races, such as bronze from Chalkis (8:8), gold and silver (8:11) and the vessels which he had received as a present from the king of Hamath (8:10). He was persuaded, however, by the prophet Nathan to forego that task, on the ground of his having shed much human blood, and to leave it to his successor ( 1 Chronicles 22:8; 28:3).

VI. DOMESTIC LIFE. 1. His Wives and Children: In accordance with the practice of the kings of his time, David had several wives. His first wife was Michal, the younger daughter of Saul. When David fled from Saul she was given to Phaltiel, but was restored to David after Saul’s death. She does not appear to have borne any children. In Samuel 21:8 “Michal” should be Merab ( 1 Samuel 18:19). During the period of separation from Michal, David took to wife Ahinoam of Jezreel and Abigail the wife of Nabal ( 1 Samuel 25:43,12), who accompanied him to Ziklag ( 1 Samuel 27:3 ff), when they were among those captured by the Amalekites ( 1 Samuel 30:5). A fourth wife was the daughter of Talmai of Geshur, Maacah, whom he had captured in war ( 1 Samuel 27:8; 2 Samuel 3:3). When he removed to Hebron Ahinoam bore him his oldest son Amnon, and Abigail his second son Chileab or Daniel ( 2 Samuel 3:2,3; 1 Chronicles 3:1); his third son was Absalom, whose mother was Maacah, and his fourth Adonijah. His mother’s name was Haggith; nothing is known about her. Two other sons, Shephatiah and Ithream were also born in Hebron ( 2 Samuel 3:2-5; 1 Chronicles 3:1-4). When David added the kingdom of Israel to that of Judah, he, in accordance with custom, took more wives with a view to increase his state and dignity. One of these was Bathsheba, who became the mother of Solomon ( 2 Samuel 5:13 ff; 1 Chronicles 3:5 ff; 14:3 ff). David’s sons discharged priestly functions ( 2 Samuel 8:18; compare Nathan in Zechariah 12:12). 2. Domestic Troubles: It was perhaps inevitable that in so large a household the usual dissensions and crimes of the harem should have sprung up in plenty. A most unvarnished account of these is given in 2 Samuel 11 through 20 — it has been suggested by Abiathar the priest in order to avenge himself on Solomon for his disgrace ( 1 Kings 2:26,27), Solomon’s mother being Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11; 12). 1 Chronicles 13 recounts the wrong done to Tamar, the daughter of David and Maacah, and sister of Absalom, and how the last named, having avenged his sister’s honor by killing Amnon, his oldest brother, fled for asylum to his mother’s father, the king of-Geshur.

Thence after two years he returned (chapter 14), only to foment rebellion against his father (chapter 15), leading to civil war between David and Judah on the one side and Absalom and Israel on the other (chapters 16; 17), and ending in the death of himself (chapter 18) and of Amasa, David’s nephew, at the hands of his cousins Joab and Abishai (20:7 ff), as well as nearly precipitating the disruption of the newly founded kingdom (19:43).

The rebellion of Absalom was probably due to the fact of Solomon having been designated David’s successor (compare 12:24; 1 Chronicles 22:9), for Absalom had the best claim, Amnon being dead and Chileab apparently of no account.

VII. HIS OFFICIALS.

As David’s circumstances improved he required assistance in the management of his affairs. 1. Prophets: The beginning of his good fortune had been the friendship of the prophet Samuel ( 1 Samuel 16:13; 19:18). The prophet or seer was keeper of the king’s conscience and was not appointed by him, but claimed divine authority ( 2 Samuel 7:3,1 ff; 12:1 ff; 24:11 ff). Among the persons who discharged this duty for David were Gad the seer ( 1 Samuel 22:5) and Nathan the prophet ( 1 Kings 1:11 ff). All these are said to have written memoirs of their times ( 1 Chronicles 29:29; 2 Chronicles 9:29). 2. Priests: Next to the prophet came the priest. The kohen (priest) was, as the name indicates, a soothsayer or diviner. The duty of Abiathar, David’s first priest ( 1 Samuel 22:20 ff), was to carry the ephod — an object used for casting lots ( 1 Samuel 23:6 ff), in order to decide what to do in cases where there was no other way of making up one’s mind ( 1 Samuel 30:7). It is not to be confused with the dress of the same name ( Samuel 2:18). Later, at Hebron, Abiathar was given a colleague, Zadok ( 1 Chronicles 12:28), and it became their duty to carry the ark in expeditions ( 2 Samuel 15:24). Shortly after the death of David, Abiathar was deposed by Solomon for his part in Adonijah’s attempt to seize the throne ( 1 Kings 2:26,27), and Zadok remained sole priest to the king ( 1 Kings 2:35). David’s sons also acted in the same capacity ( 2 Samuel 8:18). An extra private priest is mentioned in 2 Samuel 20:26 (compare 23:26,38). 3. Military Officers: When still an outlaw David required the services of a henchman to take command of his men in his absence. This post was held at first by different persons according to circumstances, but generally, it seems, by his nephew Abishai ( 1 Samuel 26:6). It was only after the death of Saul that his brother Joab threw in his lot with David. His great military talents at once gave him a leading place, and as a reward for the capture of Jebus he was given the chief command, which he held against all rivals ( 2 Samuel 3:27; 20:10) during the whole reign. David’s special body-guard of Philistine troops — the Cherethites and Pelethites — were commanded by Benaiah, who in the following reign, succeeded Joab ( 1 Kings 2:35). 4. Other Officials: The office of recorder or magister memoriae was held during this reign and in the following by Jehoshaphat ( 2 Samuel 8:16); and that of secretary by Seraiah ( 2 Samuel 8:17), also called Shavsha ( 1 Chronicles 18:16) or Shisha ( 1 Kings 4:3). There were also the counselors, men noted for their great acumen and knowledge of human nature, such as Ahithophel and Hushai. 5. Mutual Rivalry: It was natural that there should be much mutual jealousy and rivalry among these officials, and that some of them should attach themselves to one of David’s many sons, others to another. Thus, Amnon is the special patron of David’s nephew Jonadab ( 2 Samuel 13:3; compare 21:21), and Absalom is backed by Amasa ( 2 Samuel 17:25). The claim of Adonijah to the throne is supported by Joab and Abiathar ( 1 Kings 1:7), as against that of Solomon who is backed by Nathan, Benaiah, Zadok ( Kings 1:8) and Hushai (compare Ant, VII, xiv, 4). Ahithophel sides with Absalom; Hushai with David ( 2 Samuel 15:12,32).

VIII. PERSONAL CHARACTER OF DAVID. 1. Chronicles: We would obtain a very different idea of the personal character of David if we drew our conclusions from the books of Samuel and Kings or from the books of Chronicles. There is no doubt whatever that the former books are much truer to fact, and any estimate or appreciation of David or of any of the other characters described must be based upon them. The Chronicler, on the other hand, is biased by the religious ideas of his own time and is prejudiced in favor of some of those whose biographies he writes and against others. He accordingly suppresses the dark passages of David’s life, e.g. the murder of Uriah (1 Chronicles 20), or sets them in a favorable light, e.g. by laying the blame of the census upon Satan ( 1 Chronicles 21:1). David’s success, especially as against Saul’s misfortune, is greatly exaggerated in 1 Chronicles 12:2,22. Ceremonial functions are greatly elaborated (chapter 16; compare 2 Samuel 6). The various orders of priests and singers in the second temple have their origin traced back to David (16:4 ff,37 ff; 1 Chronicles 23 through 27), and the temple of Solomon itself is to all intents and purposes built by him (chapters 22; 28). At the same time there may be much material in the shape of names and isolated statements not found in the older books, which so long as they are not tinged with the Chronicler’s pragmatism or “tendency,” may possibly be authentic records preserved within the circle of the priestly caste, e.g. we are told that Saul’s skull was fastened in the temple of Dagon ( Chronicles 10:10). There is no doubt that the true names of Ish-bosheth, Mephibosheth and Eliada ( 2 Samuel 2:8; 4:4; 5:16) were Ish-baal (Eshbaal), Merib-baal and Beeliada ( 1 Chronicles 8:33; 9:39; 8:34; 9:40; 14:7); that the old name of Jerusalem was Jebus (11:4,5; compare Judges 19:10,11); perhaps a son of David called Nogah has to be added to 2 Samuel 5:15 from 1 Chronicles 3:7; 14:6; in 2 Samuel 8:8 and 21:18, for Betah and Gob read Tebah (Tibhath) and Gezer ( Chronicles 18:8; Genesis 22:24; 1 Chronicles 20:4). The incident recounted in 2 Samuel 23:9 ff happened at Pasdammim ( Chronicles 11:13). Shammah the Harodite was the son of Elika ( Samuel 23:25; compare 1 Chronicles 11:27), and other names in this list have to be corrected after the readings of the Chronicler. Three (not seven) years of famine was the alternative offered to David ( 2 Samuel 24:13; compare 1 Chronicles 21:12). 2. Psalms: If we could believe that the Book of Psalms was in whole or in part the work of David, it would throw a flood of light upon the religious side of his nature. Indeed, we should know as much about his religious life as can well be known about anyone. Unfortunately the date and authorship of the Psalms are questions regarding which the most divergent opinions are held.

In the early Christian centuries all the Psalms were ascribed to David and, where necessary, explained as prophecies. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks of the Book of Psalms simply as “David” ( Hebrews 4:7). The Greek text, however, of that book ascribes only some 87 of the poems to David, and the Hebrew only 73. Some of these are not David’s, and in the whole book there is only one which professes from its contents to be his, namely, Psalm 18 (= 2 Samuel 22). The occasion on which a psalm was composed is stated only in the case of thirteen psalms, all of which are ascribed to David. Each of these is referred to some incident recorded in the books of Samuel, although sometimes the citation is erroneous (see PSALMS). The Septuagint supplies occasions to two or three more psalms; but all such statements are merely the conjectures of readers and scribes and are of no historical value. 3. Complex Character: To form a correct opinion of anyone is much more difficult than to state the facts of his life; to form an opinion which will be generally accepted is impossible. Of David’s character the most opposite estimates have been formed. On one hand he is extolled as a saint, and yet few men have committed worse crimes. The character of David must remain, like that of everyone, an insoluble enigma. A person is to be judged by his motives rather than by his actions, and one’s true motives are unknown even to oneself ( Jeremiah 17:9). There are several sides of David’s nature in regard to which there cannot be two opinions. 4. Physical Courage: Perhaps the feature of his character which stands out most prominently in his earlier years, at any rate, is his boundless physical courage. He never shirked danger ( 1 Samuel 17:28,34 ff) and delighted in hairbreadth escapes in 1 Samuel 26:6. Like most Semites he was fond of gambling and liked to take risks (18:26; compare 23:9; 30:7), even when modesty would have led him to decline them (17:32; compare Judges 8:20). A native indifference to the shedding of blood grew into a liking for it, giving rise to acts of gross cruelty ( 1 Samuel 27:9; 2 Samuel 8:2; 16:7, etc.). He had need, indeed, to be a brave man, considering the character of the men whom he ruled ( 1 Samuel 22:2). Yet he could rule them by gentleness as well as by force (30:23). All classes had unbounded confidence in his personal courage and soldierly qualities ( 2 Samuel 18:3), and were themselves driven to restrain his military ardor ( Samuel 21:17). 5. Moral Courage: Whether David possessed moral courage to an equal degree is another matter. Had he done so he would hardly have permitted the execution of seven sons of Saul ( 2 Samuel 21:1 ff), and that, too, at the cost of breaking his plighted word ( 1 Samuel 24:21); he would not have stood in awe of the sons of his sister Zeruiah ( 2 Samuel 3:39), and would have punished Joab instead of weakly invoking an imprecation on his head ( 2 Samuel 3:29), however much he might have felt the loss of his services. But in many matters his natural sense of justice was blunted by the superstitions of the age in which he lived. 6. Prudence: But David was even more prudent than courageous. He is so described by the person who recommended him (somewhat eulogistically) to Saul ( Samuel 16:18). Prudence or wisdom was indeed what his biographer most remarks in him ( 1 Samuel 18:5,30), and situated as he was he could not have too much of it. It shows itself in the fact that he consistently made as many friends and as few enemies as was possible. His wonderful foresight is shown in such acts as his conciliating the Judean chiefs with gifts taken from his spoil ( 1 Samuel 30:26 ff), in his commendation of the men of Ja-besh-gilead ( 2 Samuel 2:5-7), and in his reception of Abner ( Samuel 3:20). Yet it must be confessed that this constant looking forward to the future takes away from the spontaneity of his virtue. His gratitude is often a keen sense of favors to come. His kindness to Merib-baal did him no harm and some advantage (2 Samuel 9; 19:24 ff), and his clemency to Shimei helped to win him the tribe of Benjamin ( 2 Samuel 19:16 ff).

Even in his earliest youth he seems to have preferred to attain his ends by roundabout ways. The means by which he obtained introduction or reintroduction to Saul ( 1 Samuel 17:26 ff) afford some justification for the opinon which his oldest brother held of him ( 1 Samuel 17:28).

Perhaps nothing proves the genius of David better than his choice of Jebus as the capital of the country — which it still continues to be after a lapse of three thousand years. 7. Strategy: Yet it must be confessed that David’s prudence often degenerates into cunning. With true oriental subtlety he believed firmly in keeping one’s secret to oneself at all costs ( 1 Samuel 21:2). The manner in which he got himself out of Gath after this first visit there ( 1 Samuel 21:13) and the fact that he hoodwinked Achish during sixteen months (1 Samuel 27; 28:1; 29) may excite our admiration but not our respect. The Oriental, however, delights in a display of cunning and makes use of it without shame ( 2 Samuel 15:34), just as the European does in secret. There is something curiously modern in the diplomacy which David employed to ensure his own return in due state ( 2 Samuel 19:11 ff). We must remember, however, that David lived among persons hardly one of whom he could trust. Joab accuses Abner of deceit, while he himself was faithful to none except David ( 2 Samuel 3:25). Ziba accuses Merib-baal of treachery, and Merib-baal accuses Ziba of falsehood, and David cannot tell which is speaking the truth ( 2 Samuel 16:1 ff; 19:24 ff). David himself is out-witted by Joab, though with a friendly purpose ( 2 Samuel 14:1 ff). The wonder, therefore, is, not that David was guilty of occasional obliquity, but that he remained as straightforward and simple as he was. 8. Nobility: David was, indeed, a man very much ahead of the times in which he lived.

His fine elegies upon the death of Saul and Jonathan, Abner and Absalom show that his nature was untainted with malice. It was no superstitious fear but a high sense of honor which kept him back from putting out of his way his arch-enemy when he had him in his power (1 Samuel 24-26). He even attempts to find an excuse for him ( 1 Samuel 26:19), while depreciating himself ( 1 Samuel 24:14; 26:20) in phrases which are more than a mere oriental metonymy ( 2 Samuel 9:8). It was the ambition of his life to be the founder of a permanent dynasty ( 2 Samuel 7:29), yet he was willing that his house should be sacrificed to save his nation from destruction ( 2 Samuel 24:17). Like most Orientals he was endowed with a refinement of feeling unknown in the West. His refusal to drink of water obtained at the cost of bloodshed has become classic ( 2 Samuel 23:17).

And he seems to have been gifted with the saving sense of humor ( Samuel 26:15). That he was a religious person goes without saying (2 Samuel 7; 8:11). He probably did not believe that outside the land of Israel Yahweh ceased to rule: the expression used in 1 Samuel 26:19 is not a term of dogmatic theology. Like other Hebrews David had no theology.

He believed in Yahweh alone as the ruler, if not of the universe, at any rate of all the world known to him. He certainly did not believe in Chemosh or Milcom, whether in the lands of Moab and Ammon or out of them ( Samuel 12:30; for “their king” read Malcam (Milcom)). 9. David in Relation to His Family: David discharged, as most Orientals do, his duty toward his parents ( Samuel 22:3). To Michal, his first wife, his love was constant ( 2 Samuel 3:13), although she did not bear him any children. In accordance with the custom of the times, as his estate improved, he took other wives and slavegirls.

The favorite wife of his latter days was Bathsheba. His court made some show of splendor as contrasted with the dwellings of the peasantry and the farmer class ( 2 Samuel 19:28,35), but his palace was always small and plain, so that it could be left to the keeping of ten women when he removed from it ( 2 Samuel 15:16). David and Michal seem to have lived on terms of perfect equality ( 2 Samuel 6:20 ff). In this he contrasts somewhat with Ahab ( 1 Kings 21:5 ff). David’s chief weakness in regard to his family was his indulgence of some of his sons and favoring some above others, and want of firmness in regard to them. He could refuse them nothing ( 2 Samuel 13:27). His first favorite was his oldest son Amnon ( 2 Samuel 13:21, Septuagint). After the death of Amnon, Absalom became the favorite ( 2 Samuel 18:33), and after the death of Absalom, Adonijah ( 1 Kings 1:6). Yet David lived for two whole years in Jerusalem along with Absalom without seeing him ( Samuel 14:28), and he was succeeded not by Adonijah, but by Solomon, whose mother was the favorite wife of his later years. 10. David in Relation to His Friends: Not only did David know the value of having many friends, but he was capable of sincere attachment. There is no reason to doubt the sincerity of his love for Jonathan, although it is not so completely cut off from all suspicion of self-interest as is that of Jonathan for him. David, indeed, had the faculty of winning the confidence and love of all sorts and conditions of people, not only of Jonathan ( 1 Samuel 18:1 ff; 20; 23:16 ff), but of Jonathan’s sister Michal ( 1 Samuel 18:20), of the whole people ( Samuel 18:28 Septuagint; 2 Samuel 19:14), and even of his people’s enemies ( 2 Samuel 17:27 ff). His friendship lasted as long as the object of it lived ( 2 Samuel 1:17 ff; 10:1 f). In the case of his officers this was partly due to his faculty for choosing good men ( 2 Samuel 8:16 ff), so that the same persons often held the same offices during David’s life ( Samuel 20:23 ff). Yet the services of one of them at least were retained more by compulsion than by choice ( 2 Samuel 3:39). He seems, indeed, to have continued Joab in his post because he felt he could not do without him. Joab was devoted to David with the devotion of Caleb Balderstone to his master, and he was as utterly unscrupulous. He did not hesitate to commit any crime that would benefit David. The latter dared not perpetrate these atrocities himself, but he did not mind taking advantage of such a useful instrument, and never punished Joab for them, save with an impotent curse ( 2 Samuel 3:29). He dealt otherwise with malefactors who could be better spared ( 2 Samuel 1:14 ff; 4:9 ff). Indeed, a suspicious juryman might find that David put both Abner and Amasa, in the way of Joab ( Samuel 3:23 ff; 19:13; 4 ff). It does not say much for David that he fell so low as to fear losing the good opinion even of Joab, this ready instrument of his worst crime ( 2 Samuel 11:25). 11. His Success: One reason for the high position David held in the popular estimation was no doubt his almost uninterrupted success. He was regarded as the chosen of Heaven, by friend and foe alike ( 1 Samuel 23:17). Fortune seemed to favor him. Nothing could have been more timely than the death of Saul and Jonathan, of Ishbaal and Abner, of Absalom and Amasa, and he did not raise his hand against one of them. As a guerrilla chief with his 600 bandits he could keep at bay. Saul with his 3,000 picked men ( 1 Samuel 24:2; 26:2), but he was not a great general. Most of the old judges of Israel did in one pitched battle what David effected in a campaign ( 1 Samuel 18:30; 19:8; 23:1 ff; 2 Samuel 5:17 ff; 21:15 ff). Most of his conquests were won for him by Joab ( 1 Chronicles 11:6; 2 Samuel 11:1), who willingly accorded David the credit of what he himself had done ( Samuel 12:27,28; compare 2 Samuel 8:13; 1 Chronicles 18:11 with the title of Psalm 60). And to crown all, when he came to turn his arms east and west, he found his two most formidable opponents in these directions crippled and harmless. That he ever survived Saul he owed to a timely incursion of the Philistines ( 1 Samuel 23:24 ff), and his whole career is largely to be explained by the fact that, at the moment, the tribe of Judah as a whole was passing from insignificance to supremacy. 12. His Foreign Friends: In the prosecution of his military achievements David employed everyone who came to his hand as an instrument without any question of nationality.

This is not to impugn his patriotism. Eastern peoples are united not by the ties of country but of religion. Still it does seem strange that two of David’s best friends were two enemies of his nation — Nahash, king of the sons of Ammon ( 1 Samuel 11:1; 2 Samuel 10:1 ff) and Achish, lord of Gath ( 1 Samuel 21:10; 27; 28:1 ff; 29). He appears to have found the Philistines more reliable and trustworthy than the Hebrews. When he became king, his personal body-guard was composed of mercenaries of that nation — the Cherethites and Pelethites — with whom he had become acquainted when at Ziklag ( 1 Samuel 30:14; 2 Samuel 8:18; 20:23).

It was to a native of Gath that he committed the care of the sacred ark on its passage from Kiriath-jearim to Jerusalem ( 2 Samuel 6:10,11). When the rebellion broke out under Absalom, he committed one-third of his forces to a banished soldier of the same town, who had come to him a little while before with a band of followers ( 2 Samuel 15:19 ff; 18:2). Some of the soldiers in whom he placed the greatest confidence were Hittites ( 1 Samuel 26:6; 2 Samuel 11:6), and his commissariat was furnished by persons outside of Israel ( 2 Samuel 17:27; the Machir tribe were half Syrian; Gilead is the son of Machir, 1 Chronicles 7:14). The threshingfloor of a Jebusite became the site of the temple of Solomon ( 2 Samuel 24:18 ff). 13. Nemesis: David was a strong believer in the power of Nemesis, and that daughter of Night played a considerable part in his life. He felt a peculiar satisfaction in being undeservedly cursed by Shimei, from a conviction that poetic justice would in the end prevail ( 2 Samuel 16:12). He must have felt that the same unseen power was at work when his own oldest son was guilty of a crime such as his father had committed before him (2 Samuel 13 and 11), and when the grandfather of the wife of Uriah the Hittite became the enemy whom he had most to fear ( 2 Samuel 11:3; 23:34; compare Psalm 41:9; 55:12 f). And David’s own last hours, instead of being spent in repose and peace following upon a strenuous and successful life, were passed in meting out vengeance to those who had incurred his displeasure as well as commending those who had done him service ( Kings 2:5 ff). 14. References in the New Testament: Even as early as Ezekiel, David became the ruler who was to govern the restored people of Israel (34:23,14; 37:24). If there were to be a ruling house, it must be the Davidic dynasty; it did not occur to the Jews to think of any other solution ( Amos 9:11; Hosea 3:5; Jeremiah 30:9; Zechariah 12:8). That Jesus was descended from David ( Matthew 9:27, etc.) is proved by the fact that his enemies did not deny that he was so ( Matthew 22:41 ff). In the New Testament, David is regarded as the author of the Psalms ( Acts 4:25; Romans 4:6; Hebrews 4:7). He is also one of the Old Testament saints ( Hebrews 11:32) whose actions (unless otherwise stated) are to be imitated ( Matthew 12:3); but yet not to be compared with the Messiah ( Acts 2:29 ff; 13:36) who has power over the life to come ( Revelation 3:7) and who is “the Root of David” ( Revelation 5:5; 22:16).

LITERATURE. See the commentaries on the books of Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, and Psalms, and histories of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, especially Wellhausen and Kittel. A sketch of the life and historical position of David from the modern Continental point of view will be found in G.

Beer, Saul, David, Salomo, published by Mohr, Tubingen, 1906. Thomas Hunter Weir DAVID, CITY OF See ZION.

DAVID, ROOT OF <root > ([hJ rJi>za Dauei>d , he rhiza Daueid ], Revelation 5:5; 22:16):

Root here means stock, family, descendant, hence, “the Root of David” is that which descended from David, not that from which David descended.

Jesus Christ in His human nature and family connections was a descendant of David, a member of his family.

DAVID, TOWER OF <tou’-er > . See JERUSALEM.

DAWN; DAWNING <don > : The word means the approach of the morning light, the breaking of the day. There are several words in the Bible that indicate this. [ tv,n, , nesheph ], “twilight” of the morning ( Job 7:4; <19B9147> Psalm 119:147). The same word is used for evening twilight ( 1 Samuel 30:17; 2 Kings 7:5,7); [ rq,Boh” t/nP] , penoth ha-boqer ], “the turning” of the morning, the change from darkness to light, approach of the morning ( Judges 19:26); [ rj”v” yPe[“p][æ , ‘aph`-appe shachar ], “the eyelids” of the morning ( Job 3:9; 41:18 (10) ); [ rj”V”h” t/l[\ , aloth hashachar ], “the ascent” or “rise” of the morning ( Joshua 6:15); [ejpifw>skw, epiphosko ], “to grow light,” the approach of the dawn ( Matthew 28:1; Luke 23:54 margin); [diauga>zw, diaugazo ], “to grow bright, “lustrous” ( 2 Peter 1:19), “until the day dawn”; figurative of the Second Coming of Christ (compare 1:16). H. Porter DAY <da > ([ µ/y , yom ]; [hJme>ra, hemera ]): This common word has caused some trouble to plain readers, because they have not noticed that the word is used in several different senses in the English Bible. When the different uses of the word are understood the difficulty of interpretation vanishes.

We note several different uses of the word: (1) It sometimes means the time from daylight till dark. This popular meaning is easily discovered by the context, e.g. Genesis 1:5; 8:22, etc.

The marked periods of this daytime were morning, noon and night, as with us. See Psalm 55:17. The early hours were sometimes called “the cool of the day” ( Genesis 3:8). After the exile the day. or daytime was divided into twelve hours and the night into twelve (see Matthew 20:1-12; John 11:9; Acts 23:23); 6 a.m. would correspond to the first hour, 9 a.m. to the third; 12 noon to the sixth, etc. The hours were longer during the longer days and shorter during the shorter days, since they always counted 12 hours between sunrise and sunset. (2) Day also means a period of 24 hours, or the time from sunset to sunset.

In Bible usage the day begins with sunset (see Leviticus 23:32; Exodus 12:15-20; 2 Corinthians 11:25, where night is put before day). See DAY AND NIGHT. (3) The word “day” is also used of an indefinite period, e.g “the day” or “day that” means in general “that time” (see Genesis 2:4; Leviticus 14:2); “day of trouble” ( Psalm 20:1); “day of his wrath” ( Job 20:28); “day of Yahweh” ( Isaiah 2:12); “day of the Lord” ( 1 Corinthians 5:5; 1 Thessalonians 5:2; 2 Peter 3:10); “day of salvation” ( Corinthians 6:2);. “day of Jesus Christ” ( Philippians 1:6). (4) It is used figuratively also in John 9:4, where “while it is day” means “while I have opportunity to work, as daytime is the time for work.” In 1 Thessalonians 5:5,8, “sons of the day” means spiritually enlightened ones. (5) We must also bear in mind that with God time is not reckoned as with us (see Psalm 90:4; 2 Peter 3:8). (6) The apocalyptic use of the word “day” in Daniel 12:11; Revelation 2:10, etc., is difficult to define. It evidently does not mean a natural day. See APOCALYPSE. (7) On the meaning of “day” in the story of Creation we note (a) the word “day” is used of the whole period of creation ( Genesis 2:4); (b) these days are days of God, with whom one day is as a thousand years; the whole age or period of salvation is called “the day of salvation”; see above. So we believe that in harmony with Bible usage we may understand the creative days as creative periods. See also ASTRONOMY; CREATION; EVOLUTION.

G. H. Gerberding Figurative: The word “day” is used figuratively in many senses, some of which are here given. (1) The span of human life. — Genesis 5:4: “And the days of Adam .... were eight hundred years.” “And if thou wilt walk .... then I will lengthen thy days” ( 1 Kings 3:14; compare Psalm 90:12; Isaiah 38:5). (2) An indefinite time. — Existence in general: Genesis 3:14: “All the days of thy life” (compare Genesis 21:34; Numbers 9:19; Joshua 22:3; Luke 1:24; Acts 21:10). (3) A set time. — Genesis 25:24: “And when her days .... were fulfilled”; Daniel 12:13: “Thou shalt stand in thy lot, at the end of the days” (compare Leviticus 12:6; Daniel 2:44). (4) A historic period. — Genesis 6:4: “The Nephilim were in the earth in those days”; Judges 17:6: “In those days there was no king in Israel” (compare 1 Samuel 3:1; 1 Chronicles 5:17; Hosea 2:13). (5) Past time. — Psalm 18:18: “the day of my calamity”; Psalm 77:5: “I have considered the days of old” (of Micah 7:20; Malachi 3:7; Matthew 23:30). (6) Future time. — Deuteronomy 31:14: “Thy days approach that thou must die”; Psalm 72:7: “In his days shall ....” (compare Ezekiel 22:14; Joel 2:29; Matthew 24:19; 2 Peter 3:3; Revelation 9:6). (7) The eternal. — In Daniel 7:9,13, where God is called “the ancient of days.” (8) A season of opportunity. — John 9:4: “We must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work” (compare Romans 13:12,13; 1 Thessalonians 5:5-8). See DAY (4), above. (9) Time of salvation. — Specially referring to the hopes and prospects of the parousia (see ESCHATOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT ). Romans 13:12: “The night is far spent, and the day is at hand.” Henry E. Dosker DAY AND NIGHT ”Day,” [ µ/y , yom ]; ordinarily, the Hebrew “day” lasted from dawn to the coming forth of the starts ( Nehemiah 4:21). The context usually makes it clear whether the term “day” refers to the period of twenty-four hours or to daytime; when there was a possibility of confusion, the term [ hl;y]l” , laylah ], “night,” was added ( Genesis 7:4,12; 31:39). The “day” is reckoned from evening to evening, in accordance with the order noted in the account of Creation, namely, “And there was evening and there was morning, one day” ( Genesis 1:5); Leviticus 23:32 and Daniel 8:14 reflect the same mode of reckoning the day. The phrase [ rq,Bo br,[, , `erebh boker ], “evening-morning,” used in this last passage, is simply a variation of yom and laylah , “day” and “night”; it is the equivalent of the Greek [nucqh>meron, nuchthemeron ] ( 2 Corinthians 11:25). That the custom of reckoning the day as beginning in the evening and lasting until the following evening was probably of late origin is shown by the phrase “tarry all night” ( Judges 19:6-9); the context shows that the day is regarded as beginning in the morning; in the evening the day “declined,” and until the new day (morning) arrived it was necessary to “tarry all night” (compare also Numbers 11:32).

The transition of day to night begins before sunset and lasts till after sunset; the change of night to day begins before sunrise and continues until after sunrise. In both cases, neither `erebh , “evening,” nor boqer , “morning,” indicate an exact space of time (compare Genesis 8:11; Exodus 10:13; Deuteronomy 16:6). The term [ tv,n, , nesheph ], is used for both evening twilight and morning dawn (compare 1 Samuel 30:17; Kings 7:5,7; Job 7:4). Since there were no definite measurements of the time of day, the various periods were indicated by the natural changes of the day; thus “midday” was the time of the day when the sun mounted its highest ([ µyir;h’x; , cohorayim ]); afternoon was that part of the day when the sun declined ([ µ/Yh” t/fn] , neToth ha-yom ]); and evening was the time of the going down of the sun ([ br,[, , `erebh ]). “Between the evenings” ([ µyiB”r][æh; ˆ , ben ha-`arbayim ) was the interval between sunset and darkness. The day was not divided into hours until a late period. [ h[;v; , sha`ah ] = Aramaic ( Daniel 3:6), is common in Syriac and in later Hebrew; it denoted, originally, any short space of time, and only later came to be equivalent to our “hour” (Driver). The threefold division of the day into watches continued into post-exilic Roman times; but the Roman method of four divisions was also known ( Mark 13:35), where all four divisions are referred to: “at even” ([ojye>, opse ]), “midnight” ([mesonu>ktion, mesonuktion ]), “at cock crowing” ([ajlektorofwni>a, alektorophonia ]), “in the morning” ([prwi>, proi ]). These last extended from six to six o’clock (of also Matthew 14:25; Mark 13:35). Acts 12:4 speaks of four parties of four Roman soldiers (quaternions), each of whom had to keep guard during one watch of the night. In Berakhoth 3b, Rabbi Nathan (2nd century) knows of only three nightwatches; but the patriarch, Rabbi Judah, knows four. See also DAY.

Horace J. Wolf DAY BEFORE THE SABBATH ([hJ paraskeuh>, he paraskeue ], “preparation”): Considered as a day of preparation, in accordance with Exodus 16:23, both before the regular Sabbath and before a feast Sabbath ( Matthew 27:62; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 19:14,31,42). At 3 p.m., the Hebrews began to prepare their food for the next day, and to perform all labors which were forbidden to be done on the Sabbath and yet must be done. They bathed and purified themselves, dressed in festive apparel, set their tables, and lighted their lamps. On the day before Easter, the Hebrews of the later period made it their chief business to remove all leaven from the house ( 1 Corinthians 5:7). This custom of converting at least a portion of the day before the Sabbath into a holy day was recognized by the Romans to such an extent that, according to a rescript of Augustus, Jews need not appear in court after 3 p.m. on such days. Criminal cases were not brought before court on this day, and journeys exceeding 12 Roman miles were prohibited. The signal for the preparations was given by the priests by means of trumpets blown six times at intervals. Frank E. Hirsch DAY, BREAK OF See BREAK OF DAY.

DAY, JOSHUA’S LONG See BETH-HORON, BATTLE OF.

DAY, LAST ([hJ ejsca>th hJme>ra, he eschate hemera ]): Repeatedly used by Jesus in John (6:39,40,44,54; 11:24; 12:48) for the day of resurrection and judgment (see ESCHATOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT ). Compare the usage in the Old Testament ( Isaiah 2:2; Micah 4:1) and the New Testament ( Acts 2:17; 2 Timothy 3:1; 2 Peter 3:3; 1 John 2:18; Jude 1:18) of “last days” and “last time” to denote the Messianic age. See LATTER DAYS; LAST DAYS; LAST TIME.

In John 7:37, “the last day, the great day of the feast” refers to the eighth day of the feast of Tabernacles. This closing day was observed as a Sabbath ( Leviticus 23:36). On it the libation of water made on other days was not made; hence, the allusion of Jesus to Himself as the Giver of the living water. James Orr DAY, LORD’S See LORD’S DAY.

DAY OF ATONEMENT See ATONEMENT, DAY OF.

DAY OF CHRIST See DAY OF THE LORD.

DAY OF YAHWEH See DAY OF THE LORD.

DAY OF JUDGMENT See JUDGEMENT, LAST.

DAY OF THE LORD (YAHWEH) ([ h/;hy] µ/y , yom Yahweh ]; [hJ hJme>ra tou~ Kuri>ou, he hemera tou Kuriou ]): The idea is a common Old Testament one. It denotes the consummation of the kingdom of God and the absolute cessation of all attacks upon it ( Isaiah 2:12; 13:6,9; 34:8; Ezekiel 13:5; 30:3; Joel 1:15; 2:11; Amos 5:18; Zephaniah 1:14; Zechariah 14:1) It is a “day of visitation” ( Isaiah 10:3), a day “of the wrath of Yahweh” ( Ezekiel 7:19), a “great day of Yahweh” ( Zephaniah 1:14). The entire conception in the Old Testament is dark and foreboding.

On the other hand the New Testament idea is pervaded with the elements of hope and joy and victory. In the New Testament it is eminently the day of Christ, the day of His coming in the glory of His father. The very conception of Him as the “Son of Man” points to this day (E. Kuehl, Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu, 68). John 5:27: “And he gave him authority to execute judgment, because he is a son of man” (compare Matthew 24:27,30; Luke 12:8). It is true in the New Testament there is a dark background to the bright picture, for it still remains a “day of wrath”. ( Romans 2:5,6), a “great day” ( Revelation 6:17; Jude 1:6), a “day of God” ( 2 Peter 3:12), a “day of judgment” ( Matthew 10:15; 2 Peter 3:7; Romans 2:16). Sometimes it is called “that day” ( Matthew 7:22; 1 Thessalonians 5:4; 2 Timothy 4:8), and again it is called “the day” without any qualification whatever, as if it were the only day worth counting in all the history of the world and of the race ( 1 Corinthians 3:13). To the unbeliever, the New Testament depicts it as a day of terror; to the believer, as a day of joy. For on that day Christ will raise the dead, especially His own dead, the bodies of those that believed in Him — ”that of all that which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day” ( John 6:39). In that day He comes to His own ( Matthew 16:27), and therefore it is called “the day of our Lord Jesus” ( 2 Corinthians 1:14),”the day of Jesus Christ” or “of Christ” ( Philippians 1:6,10), the day when there “shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven” ( Matthew 24:30). All Paulinic literature is especially suffused with this longing for the “parousia,” the day of Christ’s glorious manifestation. The entire conception of that day centers therefore in Christ and points to the everlasting establishment of the kingdom of heaven, from which sin will be forever eliminated, and in which the antithesis between Nature and grace will be changed into an everlasting synthesis. See also ESCHATOLOGY (OF THE OLD TESTAMENT AND NEW TESTAMENT).

Henry E. Dosker DAY’S JOURNEY <jur’-ni > ([ µ/y Ër,D, , derekh yom ], Genesis 30:36; Numbers 10:33; 11:31; [hJme>rav oJdo>v, hemeras hodos ], Luke 2:44): The common way of estimating distances in the East is by hours and days. This is natural in a country where roads are mere bridle paths or non-existent, as in the desert.

The distance traveled must of course differ largely according to the difficulties of the way, and it is more important to know where night will overtake the traveler than the actual distance accomplished. A day’s journey is now commonly reckoned at about 3 miles per hour, the distance usually covered by a loaded mule, the number of hours being about 8.

Hence, a day’s journey is about 24 miles, and this may be taken as a fair estimate for Bible times. H. Porter DAYS, LAST See LAST DAYS.

DAYSMAN <daz’-man > ([ jk”y; , yakhach ], “to argue, decide, convince,” the Revised Version (British and American) UMPIRE): The use of this word appears to have been more common in the 16th century than at the later date of the translation of the King James Version, when its adoption was infrequent.

The oldest instance of the term given in the Oxford English Dictionary is Plumpton Corresp. (1489), p. 82: “Sir, the dayesmen cannot agre us.” It appears also in the 1551 edition of the Old Testament in 1 Samuel 2:25, where the English Versions of the Bible “judge” is translated “dayes-man.”

Tyndale’s translation has for Exodus 21:22, “He shall paye as the dayesmen appoynte him” (EV as the “judges determine”). See also Edmund Spenser’s Faerie Queene, ii, c. 8, published in 1590. As used in the King James Version ( Job 9:33) the word means an arbitrator, umpire, referee; one who stands in a judicial capacity between two parties, and decides upon the merits of their arguments or case at law. “Neither is there-any daysman (the Revised Version (British and American) “umpire”) betwixt us, that might lay his hand upon us both” (compare Genesis 31:37). It was the eastern custom for a judge to lay his hands upon the heads of the two parties in disagreement, thus emphasizing his adjudicatory capacity and his desire to render an unbiased verdict. Job might consider a human judge as capable of acting as an umpire upon his own claims, but no man was worthy to question the purposes of Yahweh, or metaphorically, to “lay his hands upon” Him.

In the New Testament ( 1 Corinthians 4:3, [ajnqrwpi>nh, anthropine ], [hJme>ra, hemera ]) “man’s judgment” is literally, “man’s day,” in the sense of a day fixed for the trial of a case. Both Tyndale and Coverdale so translate. See also 1 Timothy 2:5, where the Saviour is termed the “one mediator .... between God and men.” Here the word understands a pleader, an advocate before an umpire, rather than the adjudicator himself (see Job 19:25-27). Arthur Walwyn Evans DAYSPRING <da’-spring > : This beautiful English word, in current use in the time of the King James Version, is found in the Old Testament as the translation of [ rj”v” , shachar ], “Hast thou .... caused the dayspring to know his place?” ( Job 38:12 the King James Version). This is no doubt intended literally for the dawn. The “place” of the dayspring is the particular point of the horizon at which the sun comes up on any given day. This slowly changes day by day through the year, moving northward from midwinter till midsummer, and back again southward from midsummer to midwinter. See ASTRONOMY , I, 2. Also once in the New Testament for [ajnatolh>, anatole ], “a rising.” “The dayspring from on high hath visited us” (the King James Version; the Revised Version (British and American) “shall visit us,” Luke 1:78). Also in Apocrypha, “At the dayspring pray unto thee” (AV; the Revised Version (British and American) “plead with thee at the dawning of the light,” The Wisdom of Solomon 16:28). Both the Hebrew and Greek words, however, are of frequent occurrence, but variously rendered “dawn,” “break of day,” “morning,” “sunrise,” “east.” Note especially “the spring of the day” ( 1 Samuel 9:26), “the day began to spring” ( Judges 19:25). Used with heliou, “sun,” for rising of the sun ( Revelation 7:2; 16:12). In the Septuagint the same Greek word is used for Hebrew [tsemach], “branch,” to designate the Messiah ( Jeremiah 23:5; Zechariah 6:12. But this sense of the word is wholly unknown in profane Greek The word is also employed in Septuagint to express the rising of a heavenly body, as the moon ( Isaiah 60:19). This is good Greek See the kindred verb anatello , “to rise” (the Septuagint, Isaiah 60:1; Malachi 4:2).

What is the meaning of anatole in Luke 1:78? Certainly not branch; that does not fit any of the facts, unless it be rendered “branch of light” (see Reynolds, John the Baptist, 115). It occurs in Zacharias’ hymn over the birth of his son. The ode consists of two parts, “The glory and security of the Messiah’s kingdom,” and “The glory of the Forerunner.” The expression before us is in the latter part. It naturally refers, therefore, not to the Messiah himself, but to John. He is the dayspring from on high who hath visited the people who sat in darkness and the shadow of death. With Godet we believe that the picture is borrowed from the caravan which has missed its way in the desert. The unfortunate pilgrims, overtaken by the night, are sitting down expecting death, when suddenly a star brightly beams above them. They take courage at the sight. The whole caravan leaps to its feet. It is the herald of the coming day and soon they see the great orb himself filling the east with orient pearl and gold. Is not one tempted to go a little farther and see here the morning star, herald of the coming sun to be obliterated by his rising? `He must wax, but I must wane’ ( John 3:30). What was John’s work but, by his own testimony, to guide the benighted pilgrims into the way of peace, that is, to Him who was the Prince of Peace? If, however, as by most commentators, it be taken to refer to the Messiah, it probably implies prophetic knowledge that the conception of Jesus had already taken place, and that the Messianic era was at hand, when the Jewish world should be filled with spiritual splendor. See DAY-STAR.

G. H. Trever DAY-STAR ([ rj”v”AˆB, lleyhe , helel ben-shachar ], Isaiah 14:12; [fwsfo>rov, phosphoros ], 2 Peter 1:19): The Old Testament passage is rendered in the King James Version “Lucifer, son of the morning,” in the King James Version margin and the Revised Version (British and American) “daystar,” i.e. the morning star. The reference is to the king of Babylon ( Isaiah 14:4). In 2 Peter 1:19, “Until .... the daystar arise in your hearts,” the word is literally, “light-bringer.” It is applicable, therefore, not only to the planet Venus, seen as a morning star, herald of the dawn, but to the sun itself, and is used here as a title of our Lord. See ASTRONOMY, I, 6.

DAY, THAT (THE) See DAY OF THE LORD.

DEACON; DEACONESS <de’-k’-n > , <de’-k’-n-es > : The term [dia>konov, diakonos ], and its cognates occur many times in the New Testament, as do its synonyms [uJphre>thv, huperetes ], and [dou~lov, doulos ], with their respective cognates. It may be said in general that the terms denote the service or ministration of the bondservant (doulos ), underling (huperetes ) or helper (diakonos ), in all shades and gradations of meaning both literal and metaphorical. It would serve no useful purpose to list and discuss all the passages in detail. Christianity has from the beginning stood for filial service to God and His kingdom and for brotherly helpfulness to man, and hence, terms expressive of these functions abound in the New Testament.

It behooves us to inquire whether and where they occur in a technical sense sufficiently defined to denote the institution of a special ecclesiastical office, from which the historical diaconate may confidently be said to be derived.

Many have sought the origin of the diaconate in the institution of the Seven at Jerusalem (Acts 6), and this view was countenanced by many of the church Fathers. The Seven were appointed to “serve tables” (diakonein trapezais ), in order to permit the Twelve to “continue stedfastly in prayer, and in the ministry (diakonia ) of the word.” They are not called deacons (diakonoi ), and the qualifications required are not the same as those prescribed by Paul in 1 Timothy 3:8-12; furthermore, Stephen appears in Acts preeminently as a preacher, and Philip as an evangelist. Paul clearly recognizes women as deaconesses, but will not permit a woman to teach ( 1 Timothy 2:12). The obvious conclusion is that the Seven may be called the first deacons only in the sense that they were the earliest recorded helpers of the Twelve as directors of the church, and that they served in the capacity, among others, of specially appointed ministrants to the poor.

Paul says, “I commend unto you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant (the Revised Version, margin “or, deaconess”) of the church that is at Cenchrea” ( Romans 16:1). This is by many taken as referring to an officially appointed deaconess; but the fact that there is in the earlier group of Paul’s epistles no clear evidence of the institution of the diaconate, makes against this interpretation. Phoebe was clearly an honored helper in the church closely associated with that at Corinth, where likewise evidence of special ecclesiastical organization is wanting.

In Philippians 1:1 Paul and Timothy send greetings “to all the saints .... at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons.” Here then we find mention of “deacons” in a way to suggest a formal diaconate; but the want of definition as to their qualifications and duties renders it impossible to affirm with certainty the existence of the office.

In 1 Timothy 3:8-12, after prescribing the qualifications and the method of appointment of a bishop or overseer, Paul continues: “Deacons in like manner must be grave, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. And let these also first be proved; then let them serve as deacons, if they be blameless. Women in like manner must be grave, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. Let deacons be husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.” Deacons and deaconesses are here provided for, and the character of their qualifications makes it clear that they were to be appointed as dispensers of alms, who should come into close personal relations with the poor.

We conclude, therefore, that the Seven and Phoebe did not exercise the diaconate in a technical sense, which appears first certainly in 1 Timothy 3, although it is not improbably recognized in Philippians 1:1, and was foreshadowed in the various agencies for the dispensing of alms and the care of the poor of the church instituted in various churches at an earlier date. See also BISHOP; CHURCH; CHURCH GOVERNMENT.

William Arthur Heidel DEAD <ded > ([ tWm , muth ]; [nekro>v, nekros ]): Used in several senses: (1) as a substantive, denoting the body deprived of life, as when Abraham speaks of burying his dead (Genesis 23); (2) as a collective noun including all those that have passed away from life (as Revelation 20:12). In several passages dead in this sense is used in contrast to the quick or living (as Numbers 16:48). This collective mode of expression is used when resurrection is described as “rising from the dead”; (3) as an adjective, coupled with body, carcass or man, as Deuteronomy 14:8 the King James Version; (4) most frequently it is used as a complement of the verb “to be,” referring to the condition of being deceased or the period of death, e.g. 2 Samuel 12:19; Mark 5:35; (5) in the sense of being liable to death it occurs in Genesis 20:3; Exodus 12:33; 2 Samuel 16:9; (6) as an intensive adjective it is used in the phrase “dead sleep,” to mean profound sleep simulating death ( Psalm 76:6); (7) figuratively “dead” is used to express the spiritual condition of those who are unable to attain to the life of faith. They are dead in trespasses, as in Ephesians 2:1, or conversely, those who by the New Birth are delivered from sin, are said to be dead to the Law (as Colossians 2:20, etc.). A faith which does not show its life in the practical virtues of Christianity is called dead ( James 2:17); (8) in Romans 4:19; Hebrews 11:12, “dead” signifies the senile condition of loss of vigor and virility.

The passage in Job (26:5), wherein in the King James Version “dead things” seem to mean things that never had life, is more accurately translated in the Revised Version (British and American) as “they that are deceased,” i.e. the shades of the dead.

There are few references to the physical accompaniments of the act of dying. Deborah has a poetical account of the death of Sisera ( Judges 5:24 ff), and in Ecclesiastes 12, where the failure of the bodily faculties in old age culminates in death, it is pictorially compared to the breaking of a lamp extinguishing the flame (“golden” being probably used of “oil,” as it is in Zechariah 4:12), and the loosing of the silver [chebhel] or chain by which the lamp is suspended in the tent of the Arabic The dead body defiled those who touched it ( Leviticus 11:31) and therefore sepulture took place speedily, as in the case of Lazarus ( John 11:17-39) and Ananias and Sapphira ( Acts 5:6-10). This practice is still followed by the The uselessness of the dead is the subject of proverb ( Ecclesiastes 9:4) utterly worthless ( 1 Samuel 24:14; 2 Samuel 9:8; 16:9). Macalister See DEAD BODY CORPSE. < > “mortal (Hebrew , “hateful,” “foul”) enemy” ( Psalm 17:9), and general panic (Hebrew , “death,” 1 Samuel 5:11). “deadly wound” (Greek ), better “death-stroke,” as in the Revised ( ti meste thanatephorou words convey the idea of “causing or bringing death” and occur in classical reptiles, deadly potions, mortal wounds and fatal contagion. Luering The name given by Greek and Latin writers to the remarkable inland lake ARABAH In the Bible it is called the Salt Sea ( Genesis 14:3; Deuteronomy ` ). ( Joshua 3:16); and the (East) called Lut (Sea of Lot). By the time of Asphaltires (Ant., I, ix) from the quantities of bitumen or asphalt wadies.

I. PRESENT AREA.

The length of the lake from North to South is 47 miles; its greatest width is 10 miles narrowing down to less than 2 miles opposite Point Molyneux on el-Lisan. Its area is approximately 300 square miles. From various levelings its surface is found to be 1,292 ft. below that of the Mediterranean, while its greatest depth, near the eastern shore 10 miles South of the mouth of the Jordan is 1,278 ft. But the level varies from 10 to 15 ft. semiannually, and more at longer intervals; and we are not sure from which one of these levels the above figures have been derived. Throughout the northern half of the lake on the East side the descent to the extreme depth is very rapid; while from the western side the depth increases more gradually, especially at the extreme northern end, where the lake has been filled in by the delta of the Jordan.

About two-thirds of the distance to the southern end, the peninsula, el- Lisan (“the Tongue”), projects from the East more than half-way across the lake, being in the shape, however, of a boot rather than a tongue, with the toe to the North, forming a bay between it and the eastern mainland.

The head of this bay has been largely filled in by the debris brought down by Wady Kerak, and Wady Ben Hamid, and shoals very gradually down to the greatest depths to the North. The toe of this peninsula is named Point Costigan, and the heel, Point Molyneux, after two travelers who lost their lives about the middle of the 19th century in pioneer attempts to explore the lake. Over the entire area South of Point Molyneux, the water is shallow, being nowhere more than 15 ft. deep, and for the most part not over 10 ft., and in some places less than 6 ft. In high water, the lake extends a mile or more beyond low-water mark, over the Mud Flat (Sebkah) at the south end.

From the history of the crossing of the Jordan by Joshua and the expedition of Chedorlaomer when Lot was captured, it is evident that the outlines of the sea were essentially the same 3,500 years ago as they are now, showing that there has been no radical change in climatic conditions since then.

II. FORMER ENLARGEMENT.

But if we go back a few thousand years into prehistoric times the evidence is abundant that the valley has witnessed remarkable climatic changes (see ARABAH ). At Ain Abu Werideh, about 40 miles beyond the south end of the lake, Hull in 1883 discovered deposits of an abandoned shore line 1,400 ft. above its level (see ). A pronounced abandoned shore line at the 650 ft. level had been observed first by afterward by many travelers. But from the more detailed examination made by Professor Huntington in 1909 (see Palestine and Its Transformation) five abandoned shore lines of marked size have been above the present level of the lake: 1,430, 640, 430, 300 and 250 ft. He writes that “at its greatest extent the sea stretched at least 30 miles south of Galilee and the Waters of Merom, and sent an arm into the Vale of .... Lacustrine deposits exist in the Jordan valley shortly south of the Sea of Jisr el-Mujamiyeh, as the modern railroad bridge is lacustrine, lies under some untilted whitish clays, also apparently about 840 ft. below that of the Mediterranean Sea, or 450 above the Dead Sea. .... So far as can be detected by the aneroid the highest deposits There are also numerous minor strands below the 250 ft. major strand.

These are estimated by 30 and 12 ft. above the lake successively, It is noted, also, that the lower beaches all show less erosion than those above them. This certainly points period, while on the other hand there is much evidence that there has been a considerable rise in the water within the historic period. Date palms and little distance from the present shore where the water is several feet deep.

These are of such size as to show that for many years the soil in which they Merrill noticed such trees standing in the water 40 ft. from the shore, near the Northeast palms and tamarisks can now be seen submerged to a similar extent along the western shore. In company of Arabs ford the lake from Point Molyneux to the west side, and been stuck into the bottom. In 1838 Robinson found the water at such a stage that the ford was impracticable and so it has been reported by all Forder, having recently examined the evidence for the Palestine Exploration Fund, learns from the older Arabs that formerly there was a well-known causeway leading from el-Lisan opposite Wady Kerak to Wady Umm Baghek, across which sheep, goats and men could pass, while camels and mules could be driven across anywhere in the water. Moreover the Arab guide said that the channel “was so narrow that the people of his tribe used to sit on the edge of the Lisan and parley with Arabs from the west as to the return of cattle that had been stolen by one or other of the parties.” (See PEFS (April, 1910), 112.)

III. LEVEL OF, IN EARLY HISTORIC TIMES.

Numerous general considerations indicate that in the early historic period the level of the water was so much lower than now that much of the bay South of Point Molyneux was dry land. In Joshua 15:2,5 f the south border of Judah is said to extend from “the bay (tongue, Lisan) that looketh southward”; while the “border of the north quarter was from the bay (tongue, Lisan) of the sea at the end of the Jordan; and the border went up to Beth-hoglah, and passed along by the north of Beth-arabah.” If the limits of the north end of the Dead Sea were the same then as now the boundary must have turned down to the mouth of the Jordan by a sharp angle. But according to the description it runs almost exactly East and West from beyond Jerusalem to Beth-hoglah, and nothing is said about any change in direction, while elsewhere, any such abrupt change in direction as is here supposed is carefully noted. Furthermore, in detailing the boundary of Benjamin ( Joshua 18:19) we are told that “the border passed along to the side of Beth-hoglah northward; and the goings out of the border were at the north bay (tongue, Lisan) of the Salt Sea, at the south end of the Jordan: this was the south border.” This can hardly have any other meaning than that the north end of the Dead Sea was at Bethhoglah.

From these data Mr. Clermont-Ganneau (see Recueil d’archeologie orientale, V (1902), 267-80) inferred that in the time of Joshua the level of the sea was so much higher than now that a tongue-like extension reached the vicinity of Beth-hoglah, while the underlying topography was essentially the same as now. On the contrary, our present knowledge of the geologic forces in operation would indicate that at that time the Dead Sea was considerably lower than now, and that its rise to its present level has been partly caused by the silting up of a bay which formerly extended to Beth-hoglah.

The geological evidence concerning this point is so interesting, and of so much importance in its bearing upon our interpretation of various historical statements concerning the region, that it is worth while to present it see ARABAH the Dead Sea is determined by the equilibrium established between the evaporation (estimated at 20,000,000 cubic ft. per diem) over the area and present area of the sea is, in round numbers, 300 square miles. The historical evidence shows that this evaporating surface has not varied of the Jordan upon this area, as well as of the deltas of several other streams, must have been very great since that period. The effect of this rise until it overflowed enough of the low land at the south end to restore the equilibrium. encroachments have tended to narrow the limits of the original lake. The sediment deposited by the Jordan, at the north end of the Dead Sea, is the Sea of Galilee — the latter serving as a catch-basin to retain the sediment brought down from the upper part of the valley. The narrow channel which the Jordan has eroded in the sedimentary plain through which it flows ( JORDAN, VALLEY OF ), is approximately half formerly filled this has been swept into the head of the sea, while the Jarmuk, the from the bordering heights of Gilead, three or four thousand ft. above the number of shorter tributaries which descend an equal amount from the mountains of Galilee, to this part of the Jordan is not less than 3,000 square miles.

All writers are impressed by the evidence of the torrential floods which fill permits the water after each rainfall to run off without delay, and so intensifies its eroding power. The well-known figure of our Lord Matthew 7:26 built upon the sand, when the rains descend and the winds beat upon it, is drawn from Nature. The delta terraces at the mouths of such mountain debouch on the lowlands are formed and re-formed with extreme rapidity, each succeeding storm tending to wash the previous delta down to lower levels and carry away whatever was built upon it.

The storms which descend upon the plains of Gilead, as well as those upon the Judean hills, are exceedingly destructive. For though the rainfall at Jerusalem, according to the observations of Chaplin (see J. Glaisher, “On the Fall of Rain at Jerusalem,” PEFS (January, 1894), 39) averages but inches annually, ranging from 32,21 inches in 1878 to 13,19 inches in 1870, nearly all occurs in the three winter months, and therefore in quantities to be most effective in erosive capacity. And this is effective upon both sides of the Jordan valley, in which the rainfall is very slight. “Day after day,” Tristram remarks, “we have seen the clouds, after pouring their fatness on Samaria and Judea, pass over the valley, and then descend in torrents on the hills of Gilead and Moab,” a phenomenon naturally resulting from the rising column of heated air coming up from the torrid conditions of the depressed Jordan valley.

Tristram (The Land of Moab,23,24) gives a vivid description of the effect of a storm near Jerusalem. As his party was encamped during the night the whole slope upon which they pitched became a shallow stream, while “the deep ravines of the wilderness of Judah (were) covered with torrents, and tiny cascades rolling down from every rock. .... So easily disintegrated is the soft limestone of these wadies, that the rain of a few hours .... did more to deepen and widen the channels than the storms of several years could effect on a Northumbrian hillside. No geologist could watch the effect of this storm without being convinced that in calculating the progress of denudation, other factors than that of time must be taken into account, and that denudation may proceed most rapidly where rains are most uncertain.”

Lieutenant Lynch writes that while ascending the Kerak “there came a shout of thunder from the dense cloud which had gathered at the summit of the gorge, followed by a rain, compared to which the gentle showers of our more favored clime are as dew drops to the overflowing cistern. .... The black and threatening cloud soon enveloped the mountain tops, the lightning playing across it in incessant flashes, while the loud thunder reverberated from side to side of the appalling chasm. Between the peals we soon heard a roaring and continuous sound. It was the torrent from the rain cloud, sweeping in a long line of foam down the steep declivity, bearing along huge fragments of rocks, which, striking against each other, sounded like mimic thunder.”

I can bear similar testimony from observations when traveling in Turkestan seen raging upon the mountains 20 miles away, where it spent its entire force without shedding a drop upon the plain. Upon skirting the base of the distance 2 or 3 ft. deep with debris which had been washed down by the cloudburst. No one can have any proper comprehension of the erosive extent and the steepness of the descent from the highlands on either side, Mountains would be called arroyos. After the debris has been brought into the Jordan by these torrents, and the rise of water makes it “overflow all its All these considerations indicate that the deltas of the streams coming into the valley of the Jordan and the Dead Sea must be increasing at an other deltas upon which direct observations have been made. The Mississippi River is sweeping into the Gulf of Mexico sediment at a rate extending from the Rocky Mountains to the Alleghenies, in a little less than 5,000 years. The 1,464 years, while the river Po is reducing its level a foot in 729 years. So Po filled up its valley that the city of Adria, which was The Tigris and Euphrates rivers have silted up the head of the Persian Gulf nearly 100 miles. (See Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms, 233.) From these considerations it is a conservative estimate that the tributaries of the sediment enough to lower the basin one foot in 2,000 years, so that since the time of Abraham 167,270,400,000 cubic feet of solid matter have been into consideration the probable depth of water at the north end of the sea, it is, therefore, not an extravagant supposition that the Jordan delta has evaporating surface to that extent and causing the level of the water to rise, and extend an equal amount over the low lands at the south end.

At the same time the other streams coming directly into the lake have been contributing deltas to narrow its margin at various points. The Kerak, the Amen and the Zerka Ma’ain bring in an immense amount of sediment from the East; el-Hessi, el-Jeib and el-Fikri from the South; and Wady el.

Muhauwdt, el-Areyeh and the Kedron, with numerous smaller intermediate streams, from the West. A detailed examination of these deposits will serve the double purpose of establishing the point in question and of giving a vivid conception of the sea and its surroundings.

Throughout the lower part of its course the river Jordan flows as has been already said, through a narrow gorge called the Zor, which the river has eroded in the soft sedimentary deposits which cover the bottom of the valley (or Ghor) from side to side. Opposite Jericho the Ghor is about miles wide. The Zor, however, does not average more than one-half mile in width and is about 100 ft. lower than the general level of the Ghor, But at “the Jews’ Castle.” about 8 miles from the mouth of the Jordan, the Zor begins to enlarge and merge into a true delta. The embankment of the Zor slopes away in a Southwest direction till it reaches the Judean mountains at Khurbet Kumran. 10 miles distant, leaving a triangle of low land between it and the Dead Sea averaging fully one mile in width and being nearly miles wide opposite the mouth of the Jordan. The face of the embankment separating the Zor from the Ghor has in several places been deeply cut into by the small wadies which come down from the western mountains, and the wash from these wadies as well as that from more temporary streams after every shower has-considerably raised the western border of the Zor throughout this distance. But it can safely be estimated that the original boundary of the Dead Sea has here been encroached upon to the extent of 10 or 15 square miles. Again, upon the eastern side of the Jordan the other limb of the delta, though smaller, is equally in evidence. Merrill (East of the Jordan, 223, 224), in describing his survey of the region, says he was compelled to walk for some hours along the shore and then north to reach his horses, which evidently had been coming over the harder and more elevated surface of the Ghor. “The plain.” he says, “for many square miles north of the sea is like ashes in which we often. sank over shoe.”

Returning to the Northwest corner of the lake we find the delta deposit which we left at Khurbet Kumran extending 2 miles farther south with an average width of one-half mile to Ras Feshkah, which rises abruptly from the water’s edge, and renders it impossible for travelers to follow along the shore. But just beyond Ras Feshkah a delta half a mile or more in length and width is projected into the sea at the mouth of Nar, which comes down from Jerusalem and is known in its upper portions as This is the wady which passes the convent of Mar such a striking manner in Ezekiel 47. Like most of the other wadies coming defiles and has built up a delta at its mouth covered with “fragments of rock or boulders swept along by the torrent in its periodical overflows” Saulcy, I, 137, 138).

From Feshkah to Ras bordered with a deposit of sand and gravel averaging a half a mile in width, while opposite Derajeh and Wady from Bethlehem and the wilderness of Tekoah) the width is, fully one mile.

Saulcy noted what geologists call a “cone of dejection” where “the gravel washed down Ras Mersid, again, obstructs the passage along the shore almost as Ras Feshkah, but farther south there is no other gedi, connected in such an interesting manner with the history of David and with numerous other events of national mile broad and a mile in length.” This consists of material brought down for the most part by el-’Areijeh, which descends from the vicinity of Hebron with one branch passing through leading from the west side of the Dead Sea to the hills of Judea follows the wady.

Between En- Sebbeh (Masada), a distance of 10 miles, the space numerous wadies course their way bringing down an immense projecting deltas were noticed by Robinson as he looked southward from the height above En- ”One feature of the sea,” he says, “struck us immediately, which was unexpected to us, namely, the number of shoal-like points and peninsulas or islands. Below us on the South were two such projecting banks on the western shore, composed probably of pebbles and gravel, extending out into the sea for a considerable distance. The larger and more important of these is on the South of the spot called Birket el-Khulil, a little bay or indentation in the western precipice, where the water, flowing into shallow basins when it is high, evaporates, and deposits salt. This spot is just South of the mouth of Wady el-Khubarah” (BR, I, 501). One of these deltas is described by Deuteronomy Saulcy as 500 yds. in breadth and another as indefinitely larger.

Six miles South of Masada, probably at the mouth of Wady Umm Baghek, Lynch notes a delta extending “half a mile out into the sea.” Still farther South the combined delta of the Wady Zuweirah and Wady Muhauwat covers an area of 2 or 3 square miles, and is dotted with boulders and fragments of rock a foot or more in diameter, which have been washed over the area by the torrential floods. Beyond Jebel Usdum, Wady el- Fikreh, draining an area of 200 or 300 square miles, has deposited an immense amount of coarse sediment on the West side of the Sebkah (a mud flat which was formerly occupied, probably by a projection of the Dead Sea). Into the South end of the depression, extending from the Sebkah to the Ascent of Akrabbim, deltas of Wady el-Jeib, Wady el- Khanzireh and Wady Tufileh have in connection with Wady Fikreh encroached upon the valley to the extent of 12 or 15 square miles.

Although these wadies drain an area of more than 3,000 sq. miles, and the granitic formations over which they pass have been so disintegrated by atmospheric influences that an excessive amount of coarse sediment is carried along by them (see Hull, Mount Seir, etc., 104-106). In ascending them, one encounters every indication of occasional destructive floods.

Following up the eastern shore, Wady el-Hessi coming down from the mountains of Edom has built up the plain of Safieh which pushes out into the neck of the Sebkah and covers an area of 3 or 4 square miles. Farther North, Wady Kerak and Wady Beni Hamid have with their deltas encroached to the extent of 2 or 3 square miles upon the head of the bay, projecting into the Lisan east of Point Costigan. Still farther North, Wady Mojib (the Arnon) and Wady Zerka Ma’ain (coming down from the hot springs of Callirrhoe) have built up less pronounced deltas because of the greater depth of the water on the East side, but even so they are by no means inconsiderable, in each case projecting a half-mile or more into the lake.

Putting all these items together, there can be little doubt that the area of the since the time of Abraham and that this has resulted in a rise of the general level of the water sufficient to overflow a considerable portion of the only escape from this conclusion is the supposition that the rainfall of the region is less than it was at the dawn of history, and so the smaller this we have no adequate evidence. On the contrary there is abundant evidence that the climatic conditions connected with the production of the Siddim by Amraphel and his confederates (Genesis 14). credibility to the persistent tradition that the sites of Sodom and Gomorrah are covered by the shallow water at the South end of the sea, and also to supposition that they were at the South end of the sea) was like the garden of the Lord; for that plain was then much larger than it is now, and was apparent. Furthermore, this supposed lower level of the lake in early times may have greatly facilitated the passage of armies and caravans from one statements relating to the earliest periods of occupation. Even now the road at the base of Usdum which is open at low water is impassable at high water. On the last of December, 1883, Professor Hull (Mount etc., 133) traversed the shore at the base of the salt cliffs along a gravel terrace 100 ft. wide, which “abruptly terminated in a descent of about 5 ft. the 1st of January, 1901, the water along the base of the salt cliffs was so deep that it was impossible for my party to pass along the shore. It is easy margin of shore which could be traversed on the West side from one end to the other.

As in the case of all enclosed basins, the waters of the Dead Sea are impregnated to an excessive degree with saline matter. “The salt which but is mostly the chloride and bromide of magnesium and calcium, so that they are not merely a strong brine, but rather resemble the mother liquors of a saltpan left after the common salt has crystallized out” (Dawson, Egypt and Syria, 123). The following analysis is given by Booth and Muckle of water brought by Commander Lynch and taken by him May from 195 fathoms deep opposite the mouth of Wady Zerka Ma’ain. Other analyses vary from this more or less, owing doubtless to the different localities and depths from which the specimens had been obtained.

Specific gravity at 60 degrees ......... 1,22742 Chloride of magnesium ................... 145,8971 Chloride of calcium ..................... 31.0746 Chloride of sodium ...................... 78,5537 Chloride of potassium ................... 6,5860 Bromide of potassium .................... 1,3741 Sulphate of lime ........................ 0,7012 sub-total : 264,1867 Water ................................... 735,8133 Total : 1000.0000 Total amount of solid matter found by direct experiment .................. 264.0000 What is here labeled bromide of potassium, however, is called by most other analysts bromide of magnesium, it being difficult to separate and distinguish these elements in composition. The large percentage of bromide, of which but a trace is found in the ocean, is supposed to have been derived from volcanic emanations. As compared with sea water, it is worthy of note that that of the Dead Sea yields 26 lbs. of salts to 100 lbs. of water, whereas that of the Atlantic yields only 6 lbs. in the same quantity. Lake Urumiah is as salty as the Dead Sea.

As results of this salinity the water is excessively buoyant and is destructive of all forms of animal life. Lynch found that his metal boats sank an inch deeper in the Jordan when equally heavily laden than they did in the Dead Sea. All travelers who bathe in it relate that when they throw themselves upon their backs their bodies will be half out of the water. Josephus (BJ, IV, viii, 4) relates that the emperor Vespasian caused certain men who could not swim to be thrown into the water with their hands tied behind them, and they floated on the surface. Dead fish and various shells are indeed often found upon the shore, but they have evidently been brought in by the tributary fresh-water streams, or belong to species which live in the brackish pools of the bordering lagoons, which are abundantly supplied with fresh water. The report extensively circulated in earlier times that birds did not fly over the lake has no foundation in fact, since some species of birds are known even to light upon the surface and frolick upon the waters. The whole depression is subject to frequent storms of wind blowing through its length. These produce waves whose force is very destructive of boats encountering them because of the high specific gravity of the water; but for the same reason the waves rapidly subside after a storm, so that the general appearance of the lake is placid in the extreme.

The source from which these saline matters have been derived has been a subject of much speculation — some having supposed that it was derived from the dissolution of the salt cliffs in Jebel Usdum. But this theory is disproved by the fact that common salt forms but a small portion of the material held in solution by the water. It is more correct to regard this salt mountain as a deposit precipitated from the saturated brine which had accumulated, as we have supposed, during the Cretaceous age. Probably salt is now being deposited at the bottom of the lake from the present saturated solution to appear in some future age in the wreck of progressive geological changes. The salts of the Dead Sea, like those in all similarly enclosed basins, have been brought in by the streams of water from all over the drainage basin. Such streams always contain more or less solid matter in solution, which becomes concentrated through the evaporation which takes. place over enclosed basins. The ocean is the great reservoir of such deposits, but is too large to be affected to the extent noticeable in smaller basins. The extreme salinity of the Dead Sea water shows both the long continuance of the isolation of the basin and the abundance of soluble matter contained in the rocks of the inscribed area. The great extent of recent volcanic rocks, especially in the region East of the Jordan, accounts for the large relative proportion of some of the ingredients.

V. CLIMATE.

Because of the great depression below sea level, the climate is excessively warm, so that palms and other tropical trees flourish on the borders of the rivers wherever fresh water finds soil on which to spread itself. Snow never falls upon the lake, though it frequently covers the hills of Judea and the plateau of Moab. As already explained the rainfall in the Jordan valley is less than on the bordering mountains. During the winter season the Arab tribes go down to the valley with their flocks of sheep and goats and camp upon the surrounding plains. But the excessive heat of the summer, rising sometimes to 130 degrees F., drives them back to the hills again.

VI. ROADS.

Except at the North end, the approaches to the Dead Sea are few and very difficult to travel. On the West side the nearest approach is at En-gedi, and this down a winding descent of 2,000 ft. where a few men at the top of the cliff could hold an army at bay below. The path up Wady Zuweirah from the North end of Jebel Usdum is scarcely better. Upon the South end the path leads up Wady Fikreh for a considerable distance on the West side of the Mud Flat, and then crosses over to the Wady el-Jeib, up whose torrential bed during the dry season caravans can find their way through the Arabah to Akabah. More difficult paths lead up from the East of the Mud Flat into the Arabah, and through the mountains of Moab to Petra into the plains beyond and the Pilgrim route from Damascus to Mecca.

From the Lisan a difficult path leads up Wady Kerak to the fortress of the same name 20 miles distant and 5,000 ft. above the lake. Another path a little farther north leads up the Wady Beni Hamid to Ar of Moab. From the Arnon to the North end of the Dead Sea the mountains are so precipitous that travel along the shore is now practically impossible. But there are, according to Tristram (The Land of Moab, 355), remnants of an “old and well-engineered road of ancient times” extending as far South at least as the Zerka Ma’ain.

VII. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS.

There are numerous points around the border of the lake of special interest: 1. The Plain of the Jordan: When Lot and Abraham looked down from the heights of Bethel ( Genesis 13:10 ff) they are said to have beheld “all the Plain of the Jordan, that it was well watered every where, before Yahweh destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, like the garden of Yahweh, like the land of Egypt, as thou goest unto Zoar. So Lot chose him all the Plain of the Jordan; and Lot journeyed east: .... and Lot dwelt in the cities of the Plain, and moved his tent as far as Sodom.” The word here translated “Plain” is kikkar (Ciccar), meaning “circle,” and indicating the appearance from Bethel of the Jordan valley surrounding the North end of the Dead Sea. From this fact, many recent writers have located Sodom and Gomorrah at that end of the sea (see CITIES OF THE PLAIN ). But it is by no means certain that it is necessary thus to narrow down the meaning of the phrase. Though the South end. of the Dead Sea is not visible from the heights of Bethel, it is so connected with the general depression that it may well have been in the minds of Abraham and Lot as they were dividing the country between them, one choosing the plain, a part of which was visible, the other remaining on the bordering mountainous area, so different in all its natural resources and conditions. The extent of the region chosen by Lot may therefore be left to be determined by other considerations. 2. Ain Jidi (En-gedi): Ain Jidi, “fountain of the kid” (?) (see EN-GEDI ) is an oasis at the base of the western cliffs about half-way between the North and the South ends of the lake, fed by springs of warm water which burst from beneath the overhanging cliffs. The 650 ft. shore line composed of shingle and calcareous marl is here prominent, and, as already remarked, there is an extensive gravel terrace at the present water level. Palms and vines formerly flourished here (Song 1:14), but now only a few bushes of acacia and tamarisk are to be found. From time immemorial, however, it has been the terminus of the principal trail which zig-zags up the cliffs to the plateau, across which paths lead to Hebron and Bethlehem. 3. The Fortress of Masada: The Fortress of Masada was the last stronghold held by the fanatical Jews (Zealots) after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, and offers a bird’s-eye view of the Dead Sea, which is as instructive as it is interesting.

It is situated half-way between Jebel Usdum and En-gedi, directly opposite the northern promontory of el-Lisan. Here on a precipitous height, 2,000 ft. above the sea, is a plateau about 700 yds. long, and 200 wide, adorned with ruins of dwellings, palaces and temples of the Herodian age. Standing upon this height one sees the outlines of the Roman camp, near the shore of the sea, and those of another camp in a depression several hundred yards to the West, from which the final attack of the besiegers was made over a pathway constructed along a sloping ridge. Here many miles away from their base of supplies the Romans slowly but irresistibly drew in their besieging lines to the final tragic consummation when the last remnant of the defenders committed suicide (BJ, VII, ix, 1). The view gives one a profound impression of the difficulties attending military campaigns in all that region. Upon lifting up one’s eyes to take in the broader view, he sees the Dead Sea in its whole length with the low ridge of Jebel Usdum, the Valley of Salt, the Ascent of Akrabbim, the depression of the Arabah, and Mt. Hor, to the South, while across the whole horizon to the East is the long wall of Moab dissected by Wady Kerak and the river Arnon, leading up to the strongholds of Ker, Aroer and Dibon, of Moab; while immediately in the front are the white cliffs of el-Lisan, and to the North, near by, the green oasis of En-gedi, and, dimmed by distance, the plains of Jericho, and the cluster of peaks surrounding Mt. Pisgah; while the sea itself sparkles like a gem of brilliant azure in the midst of its desolate surroundings, giving no token of the deadly elements which permeate its water. 4. Jebel Usdum (Mount of Sodom): Jebel Usdum (Mount of Sodom) is a salt mountain extending 7 or 8 miles along the Southwest shore of the lake and on the West side of the Valley of Salt to its southern boundary. Its name is derived from the traditional belief that Sodom was located at the South end of the sea; but, on the other hand, it is not unlikely that the name would become attached to it because of its seeming to contain the pillar of salt, which, according to the ordinary translation, marked the place where Lot’s wife was overwhelmed.

The mountain rises 600 ft. above the lake, and has a general level surface except where streams have worn furrows and gullies in it. The eastern face presents a precipitous wall of rock salt, which, as said above, at the time of my visit (January, 1901), was washed by the waves of the lake making it impossible to pass along its base. At other times. when the water is low, travelers can pass along the whole length of the shore. This wall of salt presents much the appearance of a glacier, the salt being as transparent as ice, while the action of the waves has hollowed out extensive and picturesque caverns and left isolated towers and connected pinnacles of salt often resembling a Gothic cathedral. These towers and pinnacles are, of course, being displaced from time to time, while others are formed to continue the illusion. Any pillar of salt known to the ancients must be entirely different from those which meet the eye of the modern traveler. It follows also as a matter of course that the gradual dissolution of this salt must partly account for the excessive salinity of the Dead Sea.

It is uncertain how deep the deposit extends below the surface. It rises upward 200 or 300 ft., where it is capped by consolidated strata of sedimentary material, consisting of sand and loam, which most geologists think was deposited at the time of the formation of the 650 ft. terrace already described, and which they connect with the climatic conditions of the Glacial period.

This view is presented as follows by Professor B. K. Emerson: “In the earlier portion of the post-glacial stadium, a final sinking of a fraction of the bottom of the trough, near the South end of the lake, dissected the low salt plateau, sinking its central parts beneath the salt waters, while fragments remain buttressed against the great walls of the trench forming the plains of Jebel Usdum and the peninsula el-Lisan with the swampy Sebkah between. .... It exposed the wonderful eastern wall of Jebel Usdum: 7 miles long, with 30-45 m. of clear blue salt at the base, capped by 125- 140 m. of gypsum-bearing marls impregnated with sulphur, and conglomerates at times cemented by bitumen” (“Geological Myths,” Proc.

Am. Assoc. for Adv. of Sci. (1896), 110, 111). If this was the case there has been a depression of the South end of the Dead Sea to the extent of several hundred feet within a comparatively few thousand years, in which case the traditional view that Sodom and Gomorrah were overwhelmed by Dead Sea water at the time of their destruction would refer to an occurrence exactly in line with movements that have been practically continuous during Tertiary, Glacial, and post-Glacial times.

With more reason, Lartet contends that this salt is a Cretaceous or Tertiary deposit covered with late Tertiary strata, in which case the sinking of the block between Jebel Usdum and el-Lisan, for the most part, took place at a much earlier date than the formation of the 650 ft. terrace. A striking corollary of this supposition would be that the climatic conditions have been practically the same during all of the post-Carboniferous times, there having been cycles of moist and dry climate in that region succeeding each other during all these geological periods.

The Vale of Siddim ( Genesis 14:3,8,10) is probably the same as the Valley of Salt ( 2 Kings 14:7; 1 Chronicles 18:12; 2 Chronicles 25:11). 5. Vale of Siddim: This is in all probability the plain extending from the southern end of the Dead Sea to the “Ascent of Akrabbim” which crosses the valley from side to side, and forms the southern margin of the Ghor. At present the area of the vale is about 50 square miles; but if our theory concerning the lower level of the Dead Sea in the time of Abraham is correct, it may then have included a considerable portion of the lagoon South of el-Lisan and so have been a third larger than now. In Genesis 14:10 the vale is said to have been full of slime (that is, of bitumen or asphalt) pits. In modern times masses of asphalt are occasionally found floating in the southern part of the Dead Sea. After the earthquake of 1834 a large quantity was cast upon the shore near the Southwest corner of the lake,3 tons of which were brought to market by the Arab natives. After the earthquake of January, 1837, a mass of asphalt was driven aground on the West side not far from Jebel Usdum. The neighboring Arabs swam off to it, cut it up with axes and carried it to market by the camel load, and sold it to the value of several thousand dollars. At earlier times such occurrences seem to have been still more frequent. Josephus affirms that “the sea in many places sends up black masses of asphalt having the form and size of headless oxen”; while Diodorus Siculus relates that the bitumen (asphalt) was thrown up in masses covering sometimes two or three acres and having the appearance of islands (Josephus, BJ, IV, viii, 4; Diod. Sic. ii.48; Pliny, NH, vii.13; Tac.

Hist. verse 6; Dioscor., Deuteronomy re Med., i.99).

Since asphalt is a product of petroleum from which the volatile elements have been evaporated, the ultimate source of these masses is doubtless to be found in the extensive beds of bituminous limestone which appear in numerous places on both sides of the Dead Sea. An outcrop of it can be observed at Neby Mousa, on the road from Jerusalem to Jericho, which Dawson describes as resembling dry chalk saturated with coal tar. When long weathered this becomes white and chalky at the surface, so that a mass of it, quite white externally, reveals an intense blackness when broken. It is this that the people of Bethlehem call “Dead Sea stone,” and which they carve into various ornamental articles and expose for sale.

Some specimens of it are sufficiently bituminous to burn with flame like cannel-coal. These beds are still more abundant around the South end of the lake and doubtless underlie the whole region, and for all time must have been exuding bituminous and gaseous matter, but much more abundantly in former times than now.

In these accumulations of bitumen at the South end of the Ghor we probably have the incentive which led the Babylonians under Amraphel and Chedorlaomer to make such long expeditions for the sake of conquering the region and holding it under their power. Bitumen was much in demand in Babylonia. 6. El-Lisan: El-Lisan (the Tongue), which projects half-way across the lake from the mouth of Wady Kerak, is, like Jebel Usdum, a promontory of white calcareous sediment containing beds of salt and gypsum, and breaking off on its western side in a cliff 300 ft. high. Its upper surface rises in terraces to the 600 ft. level on the East, as Jebel Usdum does on the West. The length of the promontory from North to South is 9 miles. This corresponds so closely in general structure and appearance to Jebel Usdum on the opposite side of the lake that we find it difficult to doubt theory of Professor Emerson, stated above, that the formation originally extended across and that a block of the original bottom of the lake has dropped down, leaving these remnants upon the sides. Frequent occurrences similar to this are noted by the United States geologists in the Rocky Mountain region.

VIII. HISTORY.

Difficulty of access has prevented the Dead Sea from playing any important part in history except as an obstruction both to commerce and to military movements. Boats have never been used upon it to any considerable extent. From earliest times salt has been gathered on its western shores and carried up to market over the difficult paths leading to Jerusalem. A similar commerce has been carried on in bitumen; that from the Dead Sea being specially prized in Egypt, while as already remarked, it is by no means improbable that the pits of bitumen which abounded in the “Vale of Siddim” were the chief attraction leading the kings of Babylonia to undertake long expeditions for the conquest of the region. Productive as may have been the plain at the South end of the sea, it was too far outside the caravan route leading through Petra to the South end of the Arabah and the mines of the Sinaitic Peninsula to divert the course of travel. Still the settlements on the eastern border of the Vale of Siddim were of sufficient importance in medieval times to induce the Crusaders to visit the region and leave their marks upon it. The Arabian town of Zoghar, probably the Biblical Zoar, appears at one time to have been a most important place, and was the center of considerable commercial activity.

Indigo was grown there, and the oasis was noted for its fine species of dates. The country round about abounded in springs and there was much arable land (see Leviticus Strange, Palestine under the Moslems, 286 ff).

The hot springs upon the eastern shore of the Dead Sea at Callirrhoe some distance up the Wady Zerka Ma’ain were much resorted to for their medicinal properties. Here Herod came as a last resort, to secure relief from his loathsome malady, but failed of help. The fortress of Macherus, where John the Baptist was imprisoned, is situated but a few miles South of the Zerka Ma’ain, but access to this region is possible only through a difficult road leading over the mountains a few miles East of the sea.

On four occasions important military expeditions were conducted along the narrow defiles which border the Southwest end of the Dead Sea: (1) That of Amraphel and his confederates from Babylonia, who seem first to have opened the way past Petra to the mines of the Sinaitic Peninsula, and then to have swept northward through the land of the Amalekites and Amorites and come down to the Dead Sea at En-gedi, and then to have turned to subdue the Cities of the Plain, where Lot was dwelling. This accomplished, they probably retreated along the west shore of the lake, which very likely afforded at that time a complete passageway to the valley of the Jordan. Or they may have gone on eastward to the line of the present pilgrim route from Damascus to Mecca and followed it northward. (2) In the early part of the reign of Jehoshaphat (2 Chronicles 20), the Moabites, Ammonites and some other tribes joined together, forming a large army, and, following around the South end of the Dead Sea, marched along the West shore to En-gedi, and having ascended the zigzag path leading up the precipitous heights to the wilderness of Tekoa, were there thrown into confusion and utterly annihilated. (3) Not many years later Jehoram and Jehoshaphat “fetched a compass (the Revised Version (British and American) “made a circuit”) of seven days’ journey” ( 2 Kings 3:9) around the South end of the Dead Sea and attacked the Moabites in their own country, but returned without completing the conquest. The particulars of this expedition are given in Kings 3 and in the inscription on the Moabite Stone. (4) The Romans shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem conducted a long siege of the fortress of Masada, of which an account has already been given in a previous section (VII, 3). All their supplies must have come down the tortuous path to En-gedi and thence been brought along the western shore to the camp, the remains of which are still to be seen at the base of the fortress.

For many centuries, indeed for nearly 1,800 years, the Dead Sea remained a mystery, and its geology and physical characteristics were practically unknown. The first intimation of the depression of the lake below sea level was furnished in 1837 by Moore and Beke, who made some imperfect experiments with boiling water from which they inferred a depression of 500 ft. In 1841 Lieutenant Simmons of the British navy, by trigonometrical observations, estimated the depression to be 1,312 ft. In 1835. Costigan, and again in 1847 Lieutenant Molyneux ventured upon the sea in boats; but the early death of both, consequent upon their exposures, prevented their making any full reports. Appropriately, however, their names have been attached to prominent points on the Lisan. In 1848 Lieutenant Lynch, of the United States navy, was dispatched to explore the Jordan and the Dead Sea. The results of this expedition were most important. Soundings of the depths were carefully and systematically conducted, and levels were run from the Dead Sea by Jerusalem to the Mediterranean, giving the depression at the surface of the Dead Sea as 1,316,7 ft., and its greatest depth 1,278 ft. More recently Sir C. W. Wilson in connection with the Ordinance Survey of Palestine carried levels over the same route with the result of reducing the depression to 1,292 ft., which is now generally accepted to be correct. But as already stated the stage of water in the lake is not given, and that is known to vary at least 15 ft. annually, and still more at longer intervals.

LITERATURE.

Hull, Mount Seir, Sinai and Western Palestine, 1889; Huntington, Palestine and Its Transformation, 1911; Lartet, Voyage d’exploration de la Mer Morte, 1880; Lynch, Report of U.S. Expedition to the Jordan and Dead Sea, 1852; Robinson, BR, 1841; Deuteronomy Saulcy, Voyage dans la Syrie, 1853; Tristram, Land of Israel, 2nd edition, 1872, The Land of Moab, 1873; G. A. Smith, HGHL; Wright; Scientific Confirmations of Old Testament Hist, 1906, and Journal of Biblical Lit., 1911. George Frederick Wright DEAD, STATE OF THE See HADES.

DEAF <def > ([ vreje , cheresh ]; [kwfo>v, kophos ]): Used either in the physical sense, or figuratively as expressing unwillingness to hear the Divine message ( Psalm 58:4), or incapacity to understand it for want of spirituality ( Psalm 38:13). The prophetic utterances were sufficiently forcible to compel even such to hear ( Isaiah 42:18; 43:8) and thereby to receive the Divine mercy ( Isaiah 29:18; 35:5).

The expression “deaf adder that stoppeth her car” ( Psalm 58:4) alludes to a curious notion that the adder, to avoid hearing the voice of the charmer, laid its head with one car on the ground and stopped the other with the tip of its tail (Diary of John Manninghan , 1602). The adder is called deaf by Shakespeare (2 Hen VI, iii, 2, 76; Troilus and Cressida, ii, 2, 172). The erroneous idea probably arose from the absence of external ears.

Physical deafness was regarded as a judgment from God ( Exodus 4:11; Micah 7:16), and it was consequently impious to curse the deaf ( Leviticus 19:14). In New Testament times deafness and kindred defects were attributed to evil spirits ( Mark 9:18 ff). See DUMB.

Alex. Macalister DEAL <del > : The noun “deal” is not found in the Revised Version (British and American). The King James Version translation of [ ˆ/rC;[i , `issaron ], “the tenth deal” ( Exodus 29:40; Leviticus 14:10, et al.) is rendered uniformly “the tenth part” in the Revised Version (British and American) (see WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ). The verb “to deal” often means “to apportion,” “to distribute” (compare 2 Samuel 6:19; 1 Chronicles 16:3; Isaiah 58:7; Romans 12:3), but more frequently it is used in the sense of “to act” “to do,” “to have transaction of any kind with.” In the Psalms “to deal” always means “to confer benefit,” “to deal bountifully,” with the exception of <19A525> Psalm 105:25, where it means “to deal subtly with.” The expression “to deal,” i.e. “to be engaged in,” is not found in the Scriptures. The translation of [sugcra>omai, sugchraomai ], in John 4:9, “Jews have no dealings with Samaritans,” conveys the idea that they have nothing in common. A. L. Breslich DEAR; DEARLY <der > , <der’-li > (“held at a great price,” “highly valued”): In Acts 20:24, Paul does not hold his life “dear” ([ti>miov, timios ], “at a price”); compare 1 Corinthians 3:12, “costly stones”; 1 Peter 1:19, “precious blood.” Luke 7:2, the servant was “dear” to the centurion ([e]ntimov, entimos ], “highly prized”; compare Philippians 2:29; Peter 2:6). 1 Thessalonians 2:8, “very dear to us” ([ajgaphto>v, agapetos ], “beloved”). In the Revised Version (British and American), agapetos is generally translated “beloved.” “Dearly” before “beloved” of the King James Version is omitted in all passages in the Revised Version (British and American). The word “dear” occurs but once in the Old Testament, namely, Jeremiah 31:20. the Revised Version (British and American) correctly changes “dear Son” of the King James Version ( Colossians 1:13) into “the Son of his love.” H. E. Jacobs DEARTH <durth > . See FAMINE.

DEATH ([ tw,m; , maweth ]; [qa>natov, thanatos ]):

PHYSIOLOGICAL AND FIGURATIVE VIEW The word “Death” is used in the sense of (1) the process of dying ( Genesis 21:16); (2) the period of decease ( Genesis 27:7); (3) as a possible synonym for poison ( 2 Kings 4:40); (4) as descriptive of person in danger of perishing ( Judges 15:18; “in deaths oft” 2 Corinthians 11:23). In this sense the shadow of death is a familiar expression in Job, the Psalms and the Prophets; (5) death is personified in 1 Corinthians 15:55 and Revelation 20:14. Deliverance from this catastrophe is called the “issues from death” ( Psalm 68:20 the King James Version; translated “escape” in the Revised Version (British and American)). Judicial execution, “putting to death,” is mentioned 39 times in the Levitical Law.

Figuratively: Death is the loss of spiritual life as in Romans 8:6; and the final state of the unregenerate is called the “second death” in Revelation 20:14. Alex. Macalister THEOLOGICAL VIEW 1. Conception of Sin and Death: According to Genesis 2:17, God gave to man, created in His own image, the command not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and added thereto the warning, “in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.” Though not exclusively, reference is certainly made here in the first place to bodily death. Yet because death by no means came upon Adam and Eve on the day of their transgression, but took place hundreds of years later, the expression, “in the day that,” must be conceived in a wider sense, or the delay of death must be attributed to the entering-in of mercy ( Genesis 3:15). However this may be, Genesis 2:17 places a close connection between man’s death and his transgression of God’s commandment, thereby attaching to death a religious and ethical significance, and on the other hand makes the life of man dependent on his obedience to God. This religious-ethical nature of life and death is not only decidedly and clearly expressed in Genesis 2, but it is the fundamental thought of the whole of Scripture and forms an essential element in the revelations of salvation. The theologians of early and more recent times, who have denied the spiritual significance of death and have separated the connection between ethical and physical life, usually endeavor to trace back their opinions to Scripture; and those passages which undoubtedly see in death a punishment for sin ( Genesis 2:17; John 8:44; Romans 5:12; 6:23; 1 Corinthians 15:21), they take as individual opinions, which form no part of the organism of revelation. But this endeavor shuts out the organic character of the revelation of salvation. It is true that death in Holy Scripture is often measured by the weakness and frailty of human nature ( Genesis 3:19; Job 14:1,12; Psalm 39:5,6; 90:5; 103:14,15; Ecclesiastes 3:20, etc.). Death is seldom connected with the transgression of the first man either in the Old Testament or the New Testament, or mentioned as a specified punishment for sin ( John 8:44; Romans 5:12; 6:23; 1 Corinthians 15:21; James 1:15); for the most part it is portrayed as something natural ( Genesis 5:5; 9:29; 15:15; 25:8, etc.), a long life being presented as a blessing in contrast to death in the midst of days as a disaster and a judgment ( <19A223> Psalm 102:23 f; Isaiah 65:20). But all this is not contrary to the idea that death is a consequence of, and a punishment for, sin. Daily, everyone who agrees with Scripture that death is held out as a punishment for sin, speaks in the same way. Death, though come into the world through sin, is nevertheless at the same time a consequence of man’s physical and frail existence now; it could therefore be threatened as a punishment to man, because he was taken out of the ground and was made a living soul, of the earth earthy ( Genesis 2:7; 1 Corinthians 15:45,47). If he had remained obedient, he would not have returned to dust ( Genesis 3:19), but have pressed forward on the path of spiritual development ( 1 Corinthians 15:46,51); his return to dust was possible simply because he was made from dust (see ADAM IN THE NEW TESTAMENT ). Thus, although death is in this way a consequence of sin, yet a long life is felt to be a blessing and death a disaster and a judgment, above all when man is taken away in the bloom of his youth or the strength of his years. There is nothing strange, therefore, in the manner in which Scripture speaks about death; we all express ourselves daily in the same way, though we at the same time consider it as the wages of sin. Beneath the ordinary, everyday expressions about death lies the deep consciousness that it is unnatural and contrary to our innermost being. 2. The Meaning of Death: This is decidedly expressed in Scripture much more so even than among ourselves. For we are influenced always more or less by the Greek, Platonic idea, that the body dies, yet the soul is immortal. Such an idea is utterly contrary to the Israelite consciousness, and is nowhere found in the Old Testament. The whole man dies, when in death the spirit ( <19E604> Psalm 146:4; Ecclesiastes 12:7), or soul ( Genesis 35:18; 2 Samuel 1:9; 1 Kings 17:21; Jon 4:3), goes out of a man. Not only his body, but his soul also returns to a state of death and belongs to the nether-world; therefore the Old Testament can speak of a death of one’s soul ( Genesis 37:21 (Hebrew); Numbers 23:10 m; Deuteronomy 22:21; Judges 16:30; Job 36:14; Psalm 78:50), and of defilement by coming in contact with a dead body ( Leviticus 19:28; 21:11; 22:4; Numbers 5:2; 6:6; 9:6; 19:10 ff; Deuteronomy 14:1; Haggai 2:13). This death of man is not annihilation, however, but a deprivation of all that makes for life on earth. The Sheol (she’ol ) is in contrast with the land of the living in every respect ( Job 28:13; Proverbs 15:24; Ezekiel 26:20; 32:23); it is an abode of darkness and the shadow of death ( Job 10:21,22; Psalm 88:12; 143:3), a place of destruction, yea destruction itself ( Job 26:6; 28:22; 31:12; Psalm 88:11; Proverbs 27:20), without any order ( Job 10:22), a land of rest, of silence, of oblivion ( Job 3:13,17,18; Psalm 94:17; 115:17), where God and man are no longer to be seen ( Isaiah 38:11), God no longer praised or thanked ( Psalm 6:5; 115:17), His perfections no more acknowledged ( Psalm 88:10-13; Isaiah 38:18,19), His wonders not contemplated ( Psalm 88:12), where the dead are unconscious, do no more work, take no account of anything, possess no knowledge nor wisdom, neither have any more a portion in anything that is done under the sun ( Ecclesiastes 9:5,6,10).

The dead (“the Shades” the Revised Version, margin; compare article DECEASED) are asleep ( Job 26:5; Proverbs 2:18; 9:18; 21:6; Psalm 88:11; Isaiah 14:9), weakened ( Isaiah 14:10) and without strength ( Psalm 88:4). 3. Light in the Darkness: The dread of death was felt much more deeply therefore by the Israelites than by ourselves. Death to them was separation from all that they loved, from God, from His service, from His law, from His people, from His land, from all the rich companionship in which they lived. But now in this darkness appears the light of the revelation of salvation from on high. The God of Israel is the living God and the fountain of all life ( Deuteronomy 5:26; Joshua 3:10; Psalm 36:9). He is the Creator of heaven and earth, whose power knows no bounds and whose dominion extends over life and death ( Deuteronomy 32:39; 1 Samuel 2:6; Psalm 90:3).

He gave life to man ( Genesis 1:26; 2:7), and creates and sustains every man still ( Job 32:8; 33:4; 34:14; <19A429> Psalm 104:29; Ecclesiastes 12:7). He connects life with the keeping of His law and appoints death for the transgression of it ( Genesis 2:17; Leviticus 18:5; Deuteronomy 30:20; 32:47). He lives in heaven, but is present also by His spirit in Sheol ( <19D907> Psalm 139:7,8). Sheol and Abaddon are open to Him even as the hearts of the children of men ( Job 26:6; 38:17; Proverbs 15:11). He kills and makes alive, brings down into Sheol and raises from thence again ( Deuteronomy 32:39; 1 Samuel 2:6; Kings 5:7). He lengthens life for those who keep His commandments ( Exodus 20:12; Job 5:26), gives escape from death, can deliver when death menaces ( Psalm 68:20; Isaiah 38:5; Jeremiah 15:20; Daniel 3:26), can take Enoch and Elijah to Himself without dying ( Genesis 5:24; 2 Kings 2:11), can restore the dead to life ( Kings 17:22; 2 Kings 4:34; 13:21). He can even bring death wholly to nothing and completely triumph over its power by rising from the dead ( Job 14:13-15; 19:25-27; Hosea 6:2; 13:14; Isaiah 25:8; 26:19; Ezekiel 37:11,12; Daniel 12:2). 4. Spiritual Significance: This revelation by degrees rejects the old contrast between life on earth and the disconsolate existence after death, in the dark place of Sheol, and puts another in its place. The physical contrast between life and death gradually makes way for the moral and spiritual difference between a life spent in the fear of the Lord, and a life in the service of sin. The man who serves God is alive ( Genesis 2:17); life is involved in the keeping of His commandments ( Leviticus 18:5; Deuteronomy 30:20); His word is life ( Deuteronomy 8:3; 32:47). Life is still for the most part understood to mean length of days ( Proverbs 2:18; 3:16; 10:30; Isaiah 65:20).

Nevertheless it is remarkable that Proverbs often mentions death and Sheol in connection with the godless (2:18; 5:5; 7:27; 9:18), and on the other hand only speaks of life in connection with the righteous. Wisdom, righteousness, the fear of the Lord is the way of life (8:35,36; 11:19; 12:28; 13:14; 14:27; 19:23). The wicked is driven away in his wickedness, but the righteous hath hope in his death (14:32). Blessed is he who has the Lord for his God ( Deuteronomy 33:29; Psalm 1:1,2; 2:12; 32:1,2; 33:12; 34:9, etc.); he is comforted in the greatest adversity ( Psalm 73:25-28; Habakkuk 3:17-19), and sees a light arise for him behind physical death ( Genesis 49:18; Job 14:13-15; 16:16-21; 19:25-27; Psalm 73:23-26). The godless on the contrary, although enjoying for a time much prosperity, perish and come to an end ( Psalm 1:4-6; 73:18- 20; Isaiah 48:22; Malachi 4:3, etc.).

The righteous of the Old Testament truly are continually occupied with the problem that the lot of man on earth often corresponds so little to his spiritual worth, but he strengthens himself with the conviction that for the righteous it will be well, and for the wicked, ill ( Ecclesiastes 8:12,13; Isaiah 3:10,11). If they do not realize it in the present, they look forward to the future and hope for the day in which God’s justice will extend salvation to the righteous, and His anger will be visited on the wicked in judgment. So in the Old Testament the revelation of the new covenant is prepared wherein Christ by His appearance hath abolished death and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel ( 2 Timothy 1:10). See ABOLISH. This everlasting life is already here on earth presented to man by faith, and it is his portion also in the hour of death ( John 3:36; 11:25,26). On the other hand, he who lives in sin and is disobedient to the Son of God, is in his living dead ( Matthew 8:22; Luke 15:32; John 3:36; 8:24; Ephesians 2:1; Colossians 2:13); he shall never see life, but shall pass by bodily death into the second death ( Revelation 2:11; 20:6,14; 21:8). 5. Death in Non-Christian Religions and in Science: This view of Scripture upon death goes much deeper than that which is found in other religions, but it nevertheless receives support from the unanimous witness of humanity with regard to its unnaturalness and dread.

The so-called nature-peoples even feel that death is much more of an enigma than life; Tiele (Inleiding tot de goddienst-artenschap, II (1900), 202, referring to Andrew Lang, Modern Mythology, chapter xiii) says rightly, that all peoples have the conviction that man by nature is immortal, that immortality wants no proof, but that death is a mystery and must be explained. Touching complaints arise in the hearts of all men on the frailty and vanity of life, and the whole of mankind fears death as a mysterious power. Man finds comfort in death only when he hopes it will be an end to a still more miserable life. Seneca may be taken as interpreter of some philosophers when he says: Stultitia est timore morris mori (“It is stupid to die through the fear of death”) and some may be able, like a Socrates or a Cato, to face death calmly and courageously; what have these few to say to the millions, who through fear of death are all their lifetime subject to bondage ( Hebrews 2:15)? Such a mystery has death remained up to the present day. It may be said with Kassowitz, Verworm and others that the “cell” is the beginning, and the old, gray man is the natural end of an uninterrupted life-development, or with Metschnikoff, that science will one day so lengthen life that it will fade away like a rose at last and death lose all its dread; death still is no less a riddle, and one which swallows up all the strength of life. When one considers, besides, that a number of creatures, plants, trees, animals, reach a much higher age than man; that the larger half of mankind dies before or shortly after birth; that another large percentage dies in the bloom of youth or in the prime of life; that the law of the survival of the fittest is true only when the fact of the survival is taken as a proof of their fitness; that the graybeards, who, spent and decrepit, go down to the grave, form a very small number; then the enigma of death increases more and more in mysteriousness. The endeavors to bring death into connection with certain activities of the organism and to explain it by increasing weight, by growth or by fertility, have all led to shipwreck.

When Weismann took refuge in the immortality of the “einzellige Protozoen,” he raised a hypothesis which not only found many opponents, but which also left mortality of the “Korperplasma” an insoluble mystery (Beth, “Ueber Ursache und Zweck des Todes, Glauben und Wissen (1909), 285-304, 335-48). Thus, science certainly does not compel us to review Scripture on this point, but rather furnishes a strong proof of the mysterious majesty of death. When Pelagius, Socinus, Schleiermacher, Ritschl and a number of other theologians and philosophers separate death from its connection with sin, they are not compelled to do so by science, but are led by a defective insight into the relation between ethos and phusis . Misery and death are not absolutely always consequences and punishment of a great personal transgression ( Luke 13:2; John 9:3); but that they are connected with sin, we learn from the experience of every day. Who can number the victims of mammonism, alcoholism and licentiousness? Even spiritual sins exercise their influence on corporal life; envy is a rottenness of the bones ( Proverbs 14:30). This connection is taught us in a great measure by Scripture, when it placed the not yet fallen man in a Paradise, where death had not yet entered, and eternal life was not yet possessed and enjoyed; when it sends fallen man, who, however, is destined for redemption, into a world full of misery and death; and at last assigns to the wholly renewed man a new heaven and a new earth, where death, sorrow, crying or pain shall no longer exist ( Revelation 21:4).

Finally, Scripture is not the book of death, but of life, of everlasting life through Jesus Christ our Lord. It tells us, in oft-repeated and unmistakable terms, of the dreaded reality of death, but it proclaims to us still more loudly the wonderful power of the life which is in Christ Jesus. See also DECEASE.

Herman Bavinck oJ deu>terov qa>natov, rybiD] rbiD] rybiD] Dabei>r,

1. THE MEANING OF THE NAME: (1) Debir is usually accepted as meaning “back,” but this is doubtful; the word debhir is used to denote the “holy of holies” ( 1 Kings 6:5).

According to Sayce (HDB), “the city must have been a sacred one with a well-known temple.” Kiriath-sepher is translated “town of books,” and Sayce and others consider that in all probability there was a great storehouse of clay tablets here; perhaps the name may have been qiryath copher , “town of scribes.” Kiriath-sannah ( Joshua 15:49) is probably a corruption of Kiriath-sepher ; the Septuagint has here as in references to the latter [po>liv gramma>twn, polis grammaton ], “town of books.”

2. THE SITE:

Unfortunately this site, important even if the speculations about the books are doubtful, is still a matter of uncertainty. Edh-Dhaheriyeh , some miles Southwest of Hebron, has a good deal of support. It was unquestionably a site of importance in ancient times as the meeting-place of several roads; it is in the Negeb (compare Judges 1:15), in the neighborhood of the probable site of Anab ( Joshua 11:21; 15:50); it is a dry site, but there are “upper” and “lower” springs about 6 1/2 miles to the North. A more thorough examination of the site than has as yet been undertaken might produce added proofs in favor of this identification. No other suggestion has any great probability. See PEF, III, 402; PEFS, 1875. (2) Debir , on the border between Judah and Benjamin ( Joshua 15:7), must have been somewhere East of Jerusalem not far from the modern Jericho road. Thoghgret ed Debr , “the pass of the rear,” half a mile Southwest of the Tal`at ed Dumm (see ADUMMIN ), close to the so-called, “Inn of the Good Samaritan,” may be an echo of the name which has lingered in the neighborhood. Many authorities consider that there is no place-name in this reference at all, the text being corrupt. (3) Debir the Revised Version, margin, Lidebir ( Joshua 13:26), a town on the border of Gad, near Mahanaim; Ibdar, South of the Yarmuk has been suggested. May be identical with Lo-debar ( 2 Samuel 9:4). E. W. G. Masterman DEBORAH <deb’-o-ra > ([ hr;/bD] , debhorah ], signifying “bee”): (1) Rebekah’s nurse, who died near Bethel and was buried under “the oak of weeping” ( Genesis 35:8 margin). (2) A prophetess, fourth in the order of the “judges.” In aftertime a palm tree, known as the “palm tree of Deborah,” was shown between Ramah and Bethel, beneath which the prophetess was wont to administer justice.

Like the rest of the “judges” she became a leader of her people in times of national distress. This time the oppressor was Jabin, king of Hazor, whose general was Sisera. Deborah summoned Barak of Kedesh-naphtali and delivered to him the Divine message to meet Sisera in battle by the brook Kishon. Barak induced Deborah to accompany him; they were joined by 10,000 men of Zebulun and Naphtali. The battle took place by the brook Kishon, and Sisera’s army was thoroughly routed. While Barak pursued the fleeing army, Sisera escaped and sought refuge with Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite, near Kedesh. The brave woman, the prototype of Judith, put the Canaanite general to sleep by offering him a draft of milk and then slew him by driving a peg into his temple. Thus runs the story in Judges 4.

It is on the whole substantiated by the ode in chapter 5 which is ascribed jointly to Deborah and Barak. It is possible that the editor mistook the archaic form [ yTim]q” , qamti ], in 5:7 which should be rendered “thou arosedst” instead of “I arose.” Certainly the ode was composed by a person who, if not a contemporary of the event, was very near it in point of time.

The song is spoken of as one of the oldest pieces of Hebrew literature.

Great difficulties meet the exegete. Nevertheless the general substance is clear. The Lord is described as having come from Sinai near the “field of Edom” to take part in the battle; `for from heaven they fought, the very stars from their courses fought against Sisera’ (5:20). The nation was in a sad plight, oppressed by a mighty king, and the tribes loth to submerge their separatist tendencies. Some, like Reuben, Gilead, Daniel and Asher remained away. A community by the name of Meroz is singled out for blame, `because they came not to the help of Yahweh, to the help of Yahweh among the mighty’ (5:23; compare the Revised Version, margin).

Ephraim, Issachar, Machir, Benjamin were among the followers of Barak; “Zebulun .... jeopardized their lives unto the death, and Naphtali, upon the high places of the field” (verse 18). According to the song, the battle was fought at Taanach by the waters of Megiddo; Sisera’s host was swept away by “that ancient river, the river Kishon” (verse 21). Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite, receives here due reward of praise for her heroic act.

The paean vividly paints the waiting of Sisera’s mother for the homecoming of the general; the delay is ascribed to the great booty which the conqueror is distributing among his Canaanite host. “So let all thine enemies perish,” concludes the song; “O Yahweh: but let them that love him be as the sun when he goeth forth in his might.” It is a song in praise of the “righteous acts” of the Lord, His work of victory which Israel’s leaders, `the long-haired princes,’ wrought, giving their lives freely to the nation’s cause. And the nation was sore bestead because it had become faithless to the Lord and chosen new gods. Out of the conflict came, for the time being, victory and moral purification; and the inspiring genius of it all was a woman in Israel, the prophetess Deborah. (3) Tobit’s grandmother (the King James Version “Debora,” Tobit 1:8). Max L. Margolis DEBT; DEBTOR <det > , <det’-er > : It is difficult nowadays to think of debt without associating with it the idea of interest, and even usury. Certain it is that this idea is associated with the Old Testament idea of the word, at least in the later period of Old Testament history. This is true of the New Testament entire. The Hebrew word ([ yvin] , neshi ]) always carries with it the idea of “biting interest” (compare 2 Kings 4:7). The Greek words [da>neion, daneion ] ( Matthew 18:27), and [ojfeilh>, opheile ] ( Matthew 18:32), may point only to the fact of indebtedness; the idea of interest, however, is clearly taught in the New Testament (compare Matthew 25:27).

Quite extensive legislation is provided in the Old Testament governing the matter of debt and debtors. Indebtedness and loaning had not, however, the commercial aspect among the Jews so characteristic of the nations surrounding Palestine. Indeed the Mosaic legislation was seemingly intended to guard against just such commercialism. It was looked upon as a misfortune to be in debt; it indicated poverty brought on probably by blighted harvests; consequently those in debt were to be looked upon with pity and dealt with in leniency. There must be no oppression of the poor under such circumstances ( Exodus 22:25; Deuteronomy 23:19,20; Ezekiel 18:18). Even where a pledge is given and received, certain restrictions are thrown around it, e.g. the creditor must not take a mill, nor a necessary garment, nor a widow’s ox, etc., in pledge ( Exodus 22:25-27; Deuteronomy 24:6,10-13; Job 22:6; Amos 2:8). And further, the pledge is to be restored in some instances “before the sun goeth down” ( Exodus 22:26,27), and in all cases full redemption in the seventh and jubilee years ( Nehemiah 10:31, etc.). The Jews were strictly exhorted to take no interest at all from their own nation ( Exodus 22:25; Deuteronomy 23:19,20). Strangers, however, might be charged interest (ibid.). A devout Jew would not lend money to another Jew on interest.

It would seem that as Israel came into contact with the surrounding nations, debt became increasingly a commercial matter. The Mosaic laws regarding clemency toward the poor who were compelled for the time being to become debtors were utterly disregarded, and the poor were oppressed by the rich. An illustration of the severity with which debtors came to be dealt with is to be found in 2 Kings 4:1-7, in which, because of the inability of a widow to pay a small debt contracted by her dead husband, the woman complains to the prophet that the creditors have come to sell her two children in order that the debt might be paid. Strangely the prophet, while helping the widow by miraculously multiplying the oil in order that the debt might be paid, says nothing by way of condemnation of such conduct on the part of the creditors. Are we to understand by this that commercialism had already so powerful a grip upon Israel that even to a prophet the practice had come to seem proper, or at least expected? The debtor himself or his family might be sold for debt, or the debtor might become a slave for a certain length of time until the debt was paid ( Leviticus 25:39,47; Isaiah 50:1). So oppressive had the commercial system in Israel become that the debtor cursed the creditor and the creditor the debtor ( Jeremiah 15:10). Sometimes debtors were outlawed, as in the case of the men who came to David in the cave of Adullam ( Samuel 22:2). That the matter of borrowing and lending had assumed very grievous proportions is evident from the very sharp warnings concerning the matter in the Book of Proverbs (6:1; 11:15; 20:16, etc.).

The teaching of the New Testament on this subject is confined very largely to the parables of our Lord. Some think that the expression, “Owe no man anything” ( Romans 13:8), is an absolute warning against indebtedness.

Quite a noticeable advance in the matter of debts and debtors is noticed as we enter the time of the New Testament. We read of bankers, exchangers, moneychangers, interest, investments, usury ( Matthew 25:16-27; John 2:13-17). The taking of interest does not seem to be explicitly condemned in the New Testament. The person of the debtor, as well as his family and lands, could be seized for non-payment of debt ( Matthew 18:21-26). Indeed, the debtor was often cast into prison and tormented because of non-payment ( Matthew 18:30,34). That compassion and leniency should be exercised toward those in debt is the clear teaching of Christ in the parables of the Unmerciful Servant ( Matthew 18:23-35) and the Two Debtors ( Luke 7:41-43).

Figurative: Debt and debtor are used in a moral sense also as indicating the obligation of a righteous life which we owe to God. To fall short in righteous living is to become a debtor. For this reason we pray, “Forgive us our debts” ( Matthew 6:12). Those who are ministered to in spiritual things are said to be debtors to those who minister to them ( Romans 15:27). To make a vow to God is to put one’s self in debt in a moral sense ( Matthew 23:16-18; the Revised Version, margin “bound by his oath”).

In a deeply spiritual sense the apostle Paul professed to be in debt to all men in that he owed them the opportunity to do them good ( Romans 1:14).

The parables of Jesus as above named are rich with comforting truth. How beautiful is the willingness of God, the great and Divine Creditor, to release us from our indebtedness! Just so ought we to be imitators of the Father in heaven who is merciful. William Evans DECALOGUE <dek’-a-log > . See TEN COMMANDMENTS.

DECAPOLIS <de-kap’-o-lis > ([ Deka>poliv, Dekapolis ]): The name given to the region occupied by a league of “ten cities” ( Matthew 4:25; Mark 5:20; 7:31), which Eusebius defines (in Onomastica) as “lying in the Peraea, round Hippos, Pella and Gadara.” Such combinations of Greek cities arose as Rome assumed dominion in the East, to promote their common interests in trade and commerce, and for mutual protection against the peoples surrounding them. This particular league seems to have been constituted about the time of Pompey’s campaign in Syria, 65 BC, by which several cities in Decapolis dated their eras. They were independent of the local tetrarchy, and answerable directly to the governor of Syria. They enjoyed the rights of association and asylum; they struck their own coinage, paid imperial taxes and were liable to military service (Ant., XIV, iv, 4; BJ, I, vii, 7; II, xviii, 3; III, ix, 7; Vita, 65, 74). Of the ten cities, Scythopolis, the ancient Bethshean, alone, the capital of the league, was on the West side of Jordan. The names given by Pliny (NH, v.18) are Scythopolis (Beisan ), Hippos (Susiyeh ), Gadara (Umm Qeis ), Pella (Fahil ), Philadelphia (`Amman ), Gerasa (Jerash ), Dion (Adun? ), Canatha (Qanawat ), Damascus and Raphana. The last named is not identified, and Dion is uncertain. Other cities joined the league, and Ptolemy, who omits Raphans, gives a list of 18. The Greek inhabitants were never on good terms with the Jews; and the herd of swine ( Mark 5:11 ff) indicates contempt for what was probably regarded as Jewish prejudice. The ruins still seen at Gadara, but especially at Kanawat (see KENATH ) and Jerash, of temples, theaters and other public buildings, attest the splendor of these cities in their day. W. Ewing DECAY <de-ka’ > : Although this word is still in good use in both its literal sense, of the putrefaction of either animal or vegetable matter, and its derived sense, denoting any deterioration, decline or gradual failure, the Revised Version (British and American) has replaced it by other expressions in Leviticus 25:35; Ecclesiastes 10:18; Isaiah 44:26; Hebrews 8:13; in some of these cases with a gain in accuracy of translation. In Nehemiah 4:10 ([ lv”K; , kashal ], “to be feeble,” “stumble”) the Revised Version (British and American) retains “is decayed”; in Job 14:11 ([ brej; , charebh ], “to be dried up”) the American Standard Revised Version substitutes “wasteth,” and in John 11:39 the American Standard Revised Version has “the body decayeth” instead of the more literal translation offensive to modern ears ([o]zei, ozei ], “emits a smell”). F. K. Farr DECEASE, IN THE OLD TESTAMENT AND APOCYPHRA <de-ses’ > ([ ap;r; , rapha’ ], plural repha’im , “ghosts,” “shades,” is translated by “dead,” “dead body,” and “deceased” in both the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American)): The word seems to mean “soft,” “inert,” but its etymology is uncertain (see REPHAIM ).

The various writers of the Old Testament present, as is to be expected on such a subject, different conceptions of the condition of the deceased. In the beginning probably a vague idea of the continuation of existence was held, without the activities ( Isaiah 59:10) and the joys of the present life ( Psalm 49:17). They dwell in the “land of forgetfulness” ( Job 14:21; Psalm 88:5; compare Isaiah 26:14), they “tremble” of cold ( Job 26:5), they totter and “stumble at noonday as in the twilight” ( Isaiah 59:10), their voice is described as low and muttering or chirping ( Isaiah 8:19; 29:4), which may refer to the peculiar pitch of the voice of the spirit medium when a spirit speaks through him. (The calling up of the dead, which was strictly forbidden to Israel ( Leviticus 19:31; 20:27) is referred to in 1 Samuel 28:13 and perhaps in Isaiah 14:9.) The deceased are separated from their friends; love and hatred have both ceased with them ( Ecclesiastes 9:5,6); “There is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in Sheol” ( Ecclesiastes 9:10). The deceased are unable to praise Yahweh ( Psalm 6:5; 88:10-12; Isaiah 38:18; Baruch 2:17; Sirach 17:27,28). Nor does there seem to have been at first an anticipation of reward or punishment after death ( Psalm 88:10; Sirach 41:4), probably because the shades were supposed to be lacking the organs by which either reward or punishment could be perceived; nevertheless they are still in the realm of God’s power ( 1 Samuel 2:6; Psalm 86:13; 139:8; Proverbs 15:11; Isaiah 7:11; Hosea 13:14; Amos 9:2; Tobit 13:2).

Gradually the possibility of a return of the departed was conceived ( Genesis 5:24; 2 Kings 13:21; Psalm 49:15; 73:24; 86:13; Hosea 13:14; The Wisdom of Solomon 3:1-7; 4:13,14; 6:18,19; 10:14).

Even here it is often more the idea of the immortality of the soul than that of the resurrection of the body, and some of these passages may be interpreted as allegorical expressions for a temporal rescue from great disaster (e.g. 1 Samuel 2:6); nevertheless this interpretation presupposes the existence of a deliverance from the shadows of Sheol to a better life in the presence of Yahweh. Some passages refer clearly to such an escape at the end of the age ( Daniel 12:2; Isaiah 26:19). Only very few of the Old Testament believers reached the sublime faith of Job (19:25,26) and none the blessed expectation taught in the New Testament, for none but Christ has “brought life and immortality to light” ( Timothy 1:10; John 5:28,29).

The opinion that the dead or at least the newly buried could partake of the food which was placed in graves, a custom which recent excavations have clearly shown to have been almost universal in Palestine, and which is referred to in Deuteronomy 26:14 and Tobit 4:17, was soon doubted (Sirach 30:18), and food and drink prepared for the funeral was henceforth intended as the “bread of comfort” and the “cup of consolation” for the mourners ( Jeremiah 16:7; 2 Samuel 3:35; Ezekiel 24:17).

Similarly the offering and burning of incense, originally an homage to the deceased, became a relief for the mourner ( 2 Chronicles 16:14; 21:19; Jeremiah 34:5). See also The Wisdom of Solomon 3:2; 7:6; Sirach 38:23, and articles on CORPSE; DEATH; HADES; SHEOL . H. L. E. Luering DECEASE, IN NEW TESTAMENT <de-ses’ > ([teleuta>w, teleutao ], “to come to an end,” “married and deceased” ( Matthew 22:25)): With [qana>tw|, thanato ], “death,” “die the death” ( Matthew 15:4; Mark 7:10, the Revised Version, margin “surely die”). Elsewhere the word is translated “die” ( Matthew 2:19; 9:18; Mark 9:48 and often; Hebrews 11:22, the Revised Version (British and American) “end was nigh”).

Also the substantive, [e]xodov, exodos ], “exodus,” “exit,” “departure,” “his decease which he was about to accomplish” ( Luke 9:31, the Revised Version, margin “departure”); “after my decease” ( 2 Peter 1:15, the Revised Version, margin “departure”).

DECEIT <de-set’ > ([ hm;r]mi , mirmah ;] ([do>lov, dolos ]): The intentional misleading or beguiling of another; in Scripture represented as a companion of many other forms of wickedness, as cursing ( Psalm 10:7), hatred ( Proverbs 26:24), theft, covetousness, adultery, murder ( Mark 7:22; Romans 1:29). The Revised Version (British and American) introduces the word in Proverbs 14:25; 2 Thessalonians 2:10; but in such passages as Psalm 55:11; Proverbs 20:17; 26:26; Thessalonians 2:3, renders a variety of words, more accurately than the King James Version, by “oppression,” “falsehood,” “guile,” “error.”

DECEIVABLENESS; DECEIVE <de-sev’-a-b’-l-nes > , <de-sev’ > ([ av;n; , nasha’ ], “to lead astray”): “The pride of thy heart hath deceived thee” ( Jeremiah 49:16), i.e. “Thy stern mountain fastnesses have persuaded thee that thou art impregnable.” In Jeremiah 20:7, “O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived,” [ ht;P; , pathah ], signifies “to be enticed,” “persuaded,” as in the American Standard Revised Version and the Revised Version, margin.

In the Old Testament most often, and in the New Testament regularly, the various words rendered in the King James Version “deceive” denote some deliberate misleading in the moral or spiritual realm. False prophets ( Jeremiah 29:8), false teachers ( Ephesians 5:6) and Satan himself ( Revelation 12:9) are deceivers in this sense. In the gospels, the King James Version “deceive” ([plana>w, planao ], 9 times Matthew 24:4,5 parallel Mark 13:5,6 parallel Luke 21:8; Matthew 24:11,24; John 7:12,47) becomes in the Revised Version (British and American) “lead astray”; the same change is made in 1 John 2:26; 3:7; but elsewhere (13 t) both the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) render planao by “deceive.” ”Deceivableness” ([ajpa>th, apate ]), only in 2 Thessalonians 2:10, signifies power to deceive, not liability to deception; the Revised Version (British and American) “deceit.” F. K. Farr DECENTLY <de’-sent-li > ([eujschmo>nwv, euschemonos ]): Only once is this word found in our English Bible ( 1 Corinthians 14:40). It is in the last verse of that remarkable chapter on the proper use of spiritual gifts in the church and the proper conduct of public worship. It does not refer here to absence of impurity or obscenity. It rather refers to good order in the conduct of public worship. All things that are done and said in public worship are to be in harmony with that becoming and reverent spirit and tone that befit the true worshippers of God.

DECISION <de-sizh’-un > : Has several different shades of meaning. It expresses the formation of a judgment on a matter under consideration. It expresses the quality of being firm or positive in one’s actions. It expresses the termination of a contest or question in favor of one side or the other, as the decision of the battle, or the decision of the judge.

1. NATIONAL DECISIONS:

Until recent times the decision of disputed points between nations was determined by force of arms. Thus the questions of dispute were decided between Israel and the surrounding tribes, between Israel and Assyria, between Israel and Egypt, and later between Judea and Rome.

2. JUDICIAL DECISIONS:

In the earliest times the questions of dispute between individuals were decided by the patriarch who was the head of the family. When Israel became a nation men were appointed to decide the difficulties between the people. At first this was one of the most important duties of Moses, but when the task became too great he appointed judges to assist him (see Exodus 18:13-26). One important function of those who are called judges was to decide the difficulties between the people (see Judges 4:4,5). The kings also decided questions of dispute between individuals (see 2 Samuel 15:1-6; 1 Kings 3:16-28). As the people developed in their national ideals the decisions in judicial matters were rendered by councils appointed for that purpose.

3. METHODS OF FORMING DECISIONS:

Perplexing questions were many times decided by the casting of lots. The people believed that God would in this way direct them to the right decision ( Proverbs 16:33; Joshua 7:10-21; 14:2; 1 Samuel 10:20 f). Casting lots must have been a common method of deciding perplexing questions (see 1 Samuel 14:41,42; Jon 1:7). It was resorted to by the apostles to decide which of the two men they had selected should take the place of Judas ( Acts 1:21-26). The custom gradually lost in favor, and decisions, even of perplexing questions, were formed by considering all the facts. See AUGURY IV, 3; LOTS.

A. W. Fortune DECISION, VALLEY OF See JEHOSHAPHAT, VALLEY OF.

DECLARATION; DECLARE <dek-la-ra’-shun > , <deklar’ > : “Declare” is the translation of a variety of Hebrew and Greek words in the Old Testament and New Testament, appearing to bear uniformly the meaning “to make known,” “set forth,” rather than (the older meaning) “to explain” ( Deuteronomy 1:5).

Declaration (Est 10:2 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) “full account”; Job 13:17; Ecclesiasticus 43:6; Luke 11 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) “narrative”; 2 Corinthians 8:19 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) “to show”) has the like meaning.

DECLINE <de-klin’ > ([ rWs , cur], or [ rWc , sur], [ hf;n; , naTah ]): In the King James Version this word occurs 9 times in its original sense (now obsolete) of “turn aside.” the Revised Version (British and American) substitutes “turn aside” in Exodus 23:2; Deuteronomy 17:11; 2 Chronicles 34:2; Job 23:11. In <19A211> Psalm 102:11; 109:23, the lengthening shadows of afternoon are said to “decline,” and the Revised Version (British and American) introduces the word in the same general sense in Judges 19:8; 2 Kings 20:10; Jeremiah 6:4. See AFTERNOON.

DEDAN; DEDANITES <de’-dan > , <de’dan-its > (the King James Version Dedanim, ded’-a-nim; [ ˆd;D] , dedhan ], “low,” [ µynid;D] , dedhanim ]): An Arabian people named in Genesis 10:7 as descended from Cush; in Genesis 25:3 as descended from Keturah. Evidently, they were, like the related Sheba (Sabaeans), of mixed race (compare Genesis 10:7,28). In Isaiah 21:13 allusion is made to the “caravans of Dedanites” in the wilds of Arabia, and Ezekiel mentions them as supplying Tyre with precious things ( Ezekiel 27:20; in verse 15, “Dedan” should probably be read as in Septuagint, “Rodan,” i.e.

Rhodians). The name seems still to linger in the island of Dadan, on the border of the Persian Gulf. It is found also in Min. and Sab. inscriptions (Glazer, II, 392 ff). James Orr DEDICATE; DEDICATION <ded’-i-kat > , <ded-ika’-shun > ([ hK;nuj\ , chanukkah ], “initiation,” “consecration”; [ vdeq; , qadhesh ], “to be clean,” “sanctify”; [ µr,he , cherem ], “a thing devoted (to God)”): Often used in Hebrew of the consecration of persons, but usually in the English Versions of the Bible of the setting apart of things to a sacred use, as of the altar ( Numbers 7:10 f,84,88; compare Daniel 3:2,3, “the dedication of the image”), of silver and gold ( 2 Samuel 8:11; 2 Kings 12:4), of the Temple ( 1 Kings 8:63; Ezra 6:16 f; compare Exodus 29:44), of the wall of Jerusalem ( Nehemiah 12:27), of private dwellings ( Deuteronomy 20:5). the Revised Version (British and American) substitutes “devoted” for “dedicated” in Ezekiel 44:29. See CONSECRATION; SANCTIFICATION.

DEDICATION, FEAST OF <ded-i-ka’-shun > ([ta< ejgkai>nia, ta egkainia ], John 10:22): A feast held by the Jews throughout the country for eight days, commencing on the 25th Kiclev (December), in commemoration of the cleansing of the temple and dedication of the altar by Judas Maccabeus after their desecration by Antiochus Epiphanes (1 Macc 4:56,59). The feast was to be kept “with mirth and gladness.” 2 Macc 10:6,7 says it was kept like the Feast of the Tabernacles, with the carrying of palm and other branches, and the singing of psalms. Josephus calls it “Lights,” from the joy which accompanied it (Ant., XII, vii, 7). At this winter feast Jesus delivered in the temple the discourse recorded in John 10:24 ff, at Jerusalem. James Orr DEED <ded > : Used in its ordinary modern sense in EV. In the Old Testament it is used to translates five Hebrew words: gemylah , literally, “recompense” ( Isaiah 59:18); dabhar , literally, “word,” “thing” ( 2 Chronicles 35:27 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) “acts”; Est 1:17,18; Jeremiah 5:28); ma`aseh ( Genesis 20:9; 44:15; Ezra 9:13); `alilah ( 1 Chronicles 16:8 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) “doings”; <19A501> Psalm 105:1 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) “doings”); po`al ( Psalm 28:4 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) “work”; Jeremiah 25:14). In the New Testament “deed” very frequently translates [e]rgon, ergon ] (same root as English “work”; compare “energy”), which is still more frequently (espescially in the Revised Version (British and American)) rendered “work.” In Luke 23:51; Acts 19:18; Romans 8:13; Colossians 3:9 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) “doings,” it stands for Greek [pra~xiv, praxis ] (literally, “a doing,” “transaction”), each time in a bad sense, equivalent to wicked deed, crime, a meaning which is frequently associated with the plural of praxis (compare English “practices” in the sense of trickery; so often in Polybius; Deissmann maintains that praxis was a technical term in magic), although in Matthew 16:27 (the King James Version “works”) and Romans 12:4 the same Greek word has a neutral meaning. In James 1:25 the King James Version “deed” is the translation of Greek [poi>hsiv, poiesis ], more correctly rendered “doing” in the Revised Version (British and American). D. Miall Edwards DEEP ([ µ/hT] , tehom ]; [a]bussov, abussos ], Luke 8:31 the King James Version; Romans 10:7 the King James Version; [ba>qov, bathos ], Luke 5:4; [buqo>v, buthos ], 2 Corinthians 11:25): The Hebrew word (“water in commotion”) is used (1) of the primeval watery waste ( Genesis 1:2), where some suggest a connection with Babylonian Tiamat in the creation-epic; (2) of the sea ( Isaiah 51:10 and commonly); (3) of the subterranean reservoir of water ( Genesis 7:11; 8:2; 49:25; Deuteronomy 33:13; Ezekiel 31:4, etc.). In the Revised Version (British and American) the Greek word first noted is rendered, literally, “abyss.” See ABYSS; also ASTRONOMY, III, 7.

DEEP SLEEP See SLEEP, DEEP.

DEER <der > ([ lY;a” , ‘ayyal ], feminine [ hl;Y;a” , ‘ayyalah ], and [ tl,Y,a” , ‘ayyeleth ] (compare Arabic, ‘ayyal and ‘iyal , “deer” and [ lyia” , ‘ayil ], “ram,” and Latin caper and capra , “goat,” caprea , capreolus , “wild goat,” “chamois,” or “roe deer”); [ rWmj]y” , yachmur ] (compare Arabic, yachmur , “deer”); [ hl;[\y” , ya`alah ], feminine of [ l[ey; , ya`el ] (compare Arabic, wa`l , “Pers wild goat”); [ ybix] , tsebhi ], and feminine [ hY;bix] , tsebhiyah ] (compare Arabic, zabi and feminine zabiyah , “gazelle”]; [ rp,[o , `opher ] (compare Arabic, ghafr and ghufr , “young of the mountain goat”)):

Of the words in the preceding list, the writer believes that only the first two, i.e. ‘ayyal (with its feminine forms) and yachmur should be translated “deer,” ‘ayyal for the roe deer and yachmur for the fallow deer. Further, he believes that ya`el (including ya`alah ) should be translated “ibex,” and tsebhi , “gazelle.” `Opher is the young of a roe deer or of a gazelle. ‘Ayyal and its feminine forms are regularly in English Versions of the Bible rendered “hart” and “hind,” terms which are more commonly applied to the male and female of the red deer, Cervus elaphus, which inhabits Great Britain, the continent of Europe, the Caucasus and Asia Minor, but which has never been reported as far south as Syria or Palestine. The roe deer, Capreolus caprea, however, which inhabits the British Isles, the greater part of Europe, the Caucasus and Persia, is certainly found in Palestine.

The museum of the Syrian Protestant College at Beirut possesses the skeleton of a roe deer which was shot in the mountains near Tyre. As late as 1890 it was fairly common in southern Lebanon and Carmel, but has now (1912) become very scarce. The fallow deer, Cervus dama, is a native of Northern Africa and countries about the Mediterranean. It is found in central Europe and Great Britain, where it has been introduced from its more southern habitat. A variety of the fallow deer, sometimes counted as a separate species under the name of Cervus Mesopotamicus, inhabits northeastern Mesopotamia and Persia. It may in former times have been found in Palestine, and Tristram reports having seen the fallow deer in Galilee (Fauna and Flora of Pal), but while Tristram was a remarkably acute observer, he appears sometimes to have been too readily satisfied, and his observations, when unaccompanied, as in this case, by specimens, are to be accepted with caution. Now ‘ayyal (and its feminine forms) occurs in the Bible 22 times, while yachmur occurs only twice, i.e. in the list of clean animals in Deuteronomy 14:5, and in 1 Kings 4:23, in the list of animals provided for Solomon’s table. In both places the King James Version has “fallow deer” and the Revised Version (British and American) “roebuck.” In view of the fact that the roe deer has within recent years been common in Palestine, while the occurrence of the fallow deer must be considered doubtful, it seems fair to render ‘ayyal “roe deer” or “roebuck,” leaving yachmur for fallow deer.

The Arabs call the roe deer both ‘ayyal and wa`l . Wa`l is the proper name of the Persian wild goat, Capra aegagrus, and is also often used for the Arabic or Sinaitic ibex, Capra beden, though only by those who do not live within its range. Where the ibex is at home it is always called beden. This looseness of nomenclature must be taken into account, and we have no reason to suppose that the Hebrews were more exact than are the Arabs.

There are many examples of this in English, e.g. panther, coney, rabbit (in America), locust, adder and many others. Ya`el (including ya`alah ) occurs 4 times. In Job 39:1; <19A418> Psalm 104:18; 1 Samuel 24:2, English Versions of the Bible render ya`el by “wild goat.” For ya`alah in Proverbs 5:19, the King James Version has “roe,” while the Revised Version (British and American) has “doe,” which is noncommittal, since the name, “doe,” may be applied to the female of a deer or of an ibex. Since the Arabic, wa`l, which is etymologically closely akin to ya`el , means the Persian wild goat, it might be supposed that that animal was meant, were it not that it inhabits the plains of the Syrian desert, and not the mountains of Southern Palestine, where the ibex lives. At least two of the passages clearly indicate the latter locality, i.e. <19A418> Psalm 104:18: “The high mountains are for the wild goats,” and 1 Samuel 24:2: “Saul .... went to seek David and his men upon the rocks of the wild goats.” The conclusion then seems irresistible that ya`el , and consequently ya`alah , is the ibex. Tsebhi (including tsebhiyah ) is uniformly rendered “roe” or “roebuck” in the King James Version, while the Revised Version (British and American), either in the text or in the margin, has in most cases “gazelle.” In two places “roe” is retained in the Revised Version (British and American) without comment, i.e. 2 Samuel 2:18: “Asahel was as light of foot as a wild roe,” and 1 Chronicles 12:8: “were as swift as the roes upon the mountains.” ‘Ayyal and tsebhi occur together in Deuteronomy 12:15,22; 14:5; 15:22; 1 Kings 4:23; Song 2:9,17, i.e. in 7 of the passages in which we find tsebhi . If therefore it be accepted that ‘ayyal is the roe deer, it follows that tsebhi must be something else. Now the gazelle is common in Palestine and satisfies perfectly every passage in which we find tsebhi . Further, one of the Arabic names of the gazelle is zabi, a word which is etymologically much nearer to tsebhi than appears in this transliteration. ‘Opher is akin to `aphar , “dust,” and has reference to the color of the young of the deer or gazelle, to both of which it is applied. In Song 2:9,17 and 8:14, we have `opher ha-’ayyalim , English Versions of the Bible “young hart,” literally, “fawn of the roe deer.” In Song 4:5 and 7:3, we have `opharim te’ome tsebhiyah , the King James Version “young roes that are twins,” the Revised Version (British and American) “fawns that are twins of a roe,” the Revised Version, margin “gazelle” (for “roe”). For further reference to these questions, see ZOOLOGY .

With the exception of mere lists of animals, as in Deuteronomy 14 and Kings 4, the treatment of these animals is highly poetical, and shows much appreciation of their grace and beauty. Alfred Ely Day DEFAME; DEFAMING <de-fam’ > , <de-fam’-ing > : These words occur but twice in the King James Version, and are translations of [ hB;Di , dibbah ], “slander,” from dabhath , “to slander,” or spread an evil report, and [blasfhme>w, blasphemeo ], “to speak injuriously” of anyone ( Jeremiah 20:10; Corinthians 4:13). “To defame” differs from “to revile” in that the former refers to public slander, the latter to personal abuse.

DEFECT; DEFECTIVE <de-fekt’ > , <de-fekt’-iv > ([h[tthma, hettema ], “loss,” “a defect”): Occurs in 1 Corinthians 6:7: “Nay, already it is altogether a defect in you (the King James Version “there is utterly a fault among you”), that ye have lawsuits one with another.” “Defect” means “want or absence of something necessary for completeness” (the Revised Version, margin “a loss to you”).

The meaning of the passage in the Revised Version (British and American) is that when Christians have lawsuits one with another it produces a lack of something which brings them short of completeness, they suffer a spiritual loss or defeat, and perhaps defect is not quite strong enough fully to express that idea.

Defective: Sirach 49:4 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) “committed trespass.” A. W. Fortune DEFENCE <de-fens’ > . See COURTS, JUDICIAL.

DEFENCED See FORTIFICATION.

DEFER <de-fur’ > ([ rj”a; , ‘achar ] (in Hiphil), [ Ër”a; , ‘arakh ] (in Hiphil), [ Ëv”m; , mashakh ] (in Niphal), “to postpone,” more or less definitely; “delay”): In Old Testament passages such as Isaiah 48:9; Ezekiel 12:25,28; Daniel 9:19, the idea of indefinite postponement agrees with the Hebrew and with the context. In the only New Testament occurrence of the word [ajnaba>llw, anaballo ], in the middle voice, Acts 24:22) a definite postponement is implied.

DEFILE; DEFILEMENT <de-fil’ > , <de-fil’-ment > (Anglo-Saxon, afylau, etc.; Middle English, defoulen, “make foul,” “pollute,” render (the King James Version) Hebrew roots (the Revised Version (British and American) six): [ l[“G; , ga`al ], “defile”; [ ll”j; , chalal ], “defile” (from “untie, loosen, open,” i.e. “make common,” hence, “profane”); [ tnej; , chaneph ], “incline away” (from right or religion), hence, “profane,” “defile” ( Jeremiah 3:9, the American Standard Revised Version “pollute”); [ amef; , Tame’ ], the principal root, over 250 times translated “defile” 74 times “to become, or render, unclean”; [ tn”f; , Tanaph ], “to soil” (Song 5:3); [ ll”[; , `alal ], “deal severely, or decidedly, with,” “roll” ( Job 16:15, the King James Version, the American Revised Version, margin); [ hn;[; , `anah ], “humble” ( Genesis 34:2 the King James Version, the American Standard Revised Version “humble”); [ vd”q; , qadhash ], “separate,” “sanctify,” “devote to religious use,” hence, “forfeit” ( Deuteronomy 22:9 the King James Version, the American Standard Revised Version “forfeit,” margin “consecrated”). They also render 6 (the King James Version) Greek roots (American Revised Version, 4): [koino>v, koinos ], etc., “common” or “unclean,” because appertaining to the outside world and not to the people of God, opposite of katharos , “clean,” used 13 times; [miai>nw, miaino ], [mi>asma, miasma ], [miasmo>v, miasmos ], “stain,” “tinge,” “dye”: “In their dreamings defile the flesh,” Jude 1:8; [molu>nw, moluno ], “stain,” “contaminate”: “not defile their garments” ( Revelation 3:4); [spilo>w, spiloo ], “spot,” “stain”: “defile the whole body” ( James 3:6); [fqei>rw, phtheiro ], “corrupt,” “destroy”: the temple of God ( 1 Corinthians 3:17 the King James Version, the American Standard Revised Version “destroyeth”); [ajrsenokoi>thv, arsenokoites ]: “defile themselves with men” ( 1 Timothy 1:10 the King James Version, the American Standard Revised Version “abusers of”)):

1. DEFILEMENT IN THE OLD TESTAMENT:

Defilement in the Old Testament was physical, sexual, ethical, ceremonial, religious, the last four, especially, overlapping. (1) Physical: “I have washed my feet; how shall I defile them?” (Song 5:3). (2) Sexual: which might be ceremonial or moral; of individuals by illicit intercourse ( Leviticus 18:20), or by intercourse at forbidden times ( Leviticus 15:24; 1 Samuel 21:5); of the land by adultery: “Shall not that land be greatly defiled?” ( Jeremiah 3:1 the American Standard Revised Version “polluted,” usually substituted where the moral or religious predominates over the ceremonial). (3) Ethical: “Your hands are defiled with blood” ( Isaiah 59:3); “Neither shall they defile themselves any more with .... any of their transgressions” ( Ezekiel 37:23). (4) Ceremonial: to render ceremonially unclean, i.e. disqualified for religious service or worship, and capable of communicating the disqualification. (a) Persons were defiled by contact with carcasses of unclean animals ( Leviticus 11:24); or with any carcass ( Leviticus 17:15); by eating a carcass ( Leviticus 22:8); by contact with issues from the body, one’s own or another’s, e.g. abnormal issues from the genitals, male or female ( Leviticus 15:2,25); menstruation ( Leviticus 15:19); by contact with anyone thus unclean ( Leviticus 15:24); copulation ( Leviticus 15:16-18); uncleanness after childbirth ( Leviticus 12:2-5); by contact with unclean persons ( Leviticus 5:3), or unclean things ( Leviticus 22:6), or with leprosy (especially defiling; Leviticus 13:14), or with the dead ( Numbers 6:12), or with one unclean by such contact ( Numbers 19:22), or by funeral rites ( Leviticus 21:1); by contact with creeping things ( Leviticus 22:5), or with unclean animals ( Leviticus 11:26). (b) Holy objects were ceremonially defiled by the contact, entrance or approach of the defiled ( Leviticus 15:31; Numbers 19:13); by the presence of dead bodies, or any remains of the dead ( Ezekiel 9:7; Kings 23:16: Josiah’s defilement of heathen altars by the ashes of the priests); by the entrance of foreigners ( Psalm 79:1; see Acts 21:28); by forbidden treatment, as the altar by being tooled ( Exodus 20:25); objects in general by contact with the unclean. Ceremonial defilement, strictly considered, implied, not sin, but ritual unfitness. (5) Religious: not always easily distinguished or entirely distinguishable from the ceremonial, still less from the ethical, but in which the central attitude and relationship to Yahweh as covenant God and God of righteousness, was more fully in question. The land might be defiled by bloodshed ( Numbers 35:33), especially of the just or innocent; by adultery ( Jeremiah 3:1); by idolatry and idolatrous practices, like sacrificing children to idols, etc. ( Leviticus 20:3; <19A639> Psalm 106:39); the temple or altar by disrespect ( Malachi 1:7,12); by offering the unclean ( Haggai 2:14); by any sort of unrighteousness ( Ezekiel 36:17); by the presence of idols or idolatrous paraphernalia ( Jeremiah 7:30).

2. DEFILEMENT IN NEW TESTAMENT:

The scope of defilement in its various degrees (direct, or primary, as from the person or thing defiled; indirect, or secondary, tertiary, or even further, by contact with the defiled) had been greatly widened by rabbinism into a complex and immensely burdensome system whose shadow falls over the whole New Testament life. Specific mentions are comparatively few.

Physical defilement is not mentioned. Sexual defilement appears, in a figurative sense: “These are they that were not defiled with women” ( Revelation 14:4). Ceremonial defilement is found in, but not approved by, the New Testament. Examples are: by eating with unwashed, “common,” not ceremonially cleansed, hands ( Mark 7:2); by eating unclean, “common,” food ( Acts 10:14; Peter’s vision); by intimate association with Gentiles, such as eating with them (not expressly forbidden in Mosaic law; Acts 11:3), or entering into their houses ( John 18:28; the Pharisees refusing to enter the Pretorium); by the presence of Gentiles in the Temple ( Acts 21:28).

But with Christ’s decisive and revolutionary dictum ( Mark 7:19): “This he said, making all meats clean,” etc., and with the command in Peter’s vision: “What God hath cleansed, make not thou common” ( Acts 10:15), and with Paul’s bold and consistent teaching: “All things indeed are clean” ( Romans 14:20, etc.), the idea of ceremonial or ritual defilement, having accomplished its educative purpose, passed. Defilement in the New Testament teaching, therefore, is uniformly ethical or spiritual, the two constantly merging. The ethical is found more predominantly in: “The things which proceed out of the mouth come forth out of the heart; and they defile the man” ( Matthew 15:18); “that did not defile their garments” ( Revelation 3:4); “defileth the whole body” ( James 3:6).

The spiritual seems to predominate in: “defiled and unbelieving” ( Titus 1:15); “conscience being weak is defiled” (by concession to idolatry.) ( Corinthians 8:7); “lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby the many be defiled” ( Hebrews 12:15). For the supposed origins of the idea and details of defilement, as from hygienic or aesthetic causes, “natural aversions,” “taboo,” “totemism,” associations with ideas of death, or evil life, religious symbolism, etc., see POLLUTION; PURIFICATION; UNCLEAN . Whatever use God may have made of ideas and feelings common among many nations in some form, the Divine purpose was clearly to impress deeply and indelibly on the Israelites the ideas of holiness and sacredness in general, and of Yahweh’s holiness, and their own required holiness and separateness in particular, thus preparing for the deep New Testament teachings of sin, and of spiritual consecration and sanctification. Philip Wendell Crannell DEFY <de-fi’ > ([ tr”h; , charaph ], [ µ[“z; , za`am ]): In 1 Samuel 17:10,25,26,36,45 (the story of David and Goliath) and kindred passages, this word is used in its most familiar sense — ”to taunt,” “challenge to combat” (Hebrew charaph ). In Numbers 23:7,8 “denounce” would be a better translation than “defy” (Hebrew za`am ).

DEGENERATE <de-jen’-er-at > : Only in Jeremiah 2:21, where Judah is compared to a “noble vine” which it “turned into the degenerate branches of a foreign vine.” It represents Hebrew curim = “stray” or “degenerate (shoots),” from cur = “to turn aside,” especially to turn aside from the right path (Greek pikria , literally, “bitterness”).

DEGREE <de-gre’ > ([ hl;[\m” , ma`alah ], “a going up” or “ascent,” hence, a staircase or flight of steps; “rank”: [tapeino>v, tapeinos ], “low”): By derivation it should mean “a step down” (Latin, de, down, gradus, step). It is used, however, of any step, up or down; then of grade or rank, whether high or low. (1) In its literal sense of step (as of a stair), it is used in the plural to translate Hebrew ma`aloth (“steps”), in the parallel passages 2 Kings 20:9-11 the King James Version (5 t); Isaiah 38:8 the King James Version (3 t), where we read of the “degrees” (the Revised Version (British and American) “steps”) on the “dial of Ahaz” (Hebrew “steps of Ahaz”). See DIAL OF AHAZ . It seems to mean steps or progressive movements of the body toward a certain place in the phrase “A Song of Degrees” (the Revised Version (British and American) “Ascents”), which forms the title of each of the Psalms 120 through 134, probably because they were sung on the way up to the great feasts at Jerusalem. See PSALMS (2) The secondary (but now the more usual) sense of rank, order, grade is found in the following passages: (a) 1 Chronicles 15:18, “their brethren of the second (degree),” literally, “of the seconds” (Hebrew mishnim ; compare 2 Chronicles 28:7, “Elkanah that was next to the king,” Hebrew, “the king’s second,” i.e. in rank); (b) 1 Chronicles 17:17, “a man of high degree” (Hebrew ma`alah , “step”); (c) Psalm 62:9, “men of low degree .... men of high degree,” a paraphrase of Hebrew “sons of man .... sons of man,” the first “man” being Hebrew ‘adham (“common humanity”; compare Greek anthropos , Latin homo, Welsh dyn), and the second Hebrew ‘ish (man in a superior sense; compare Greek aner , Latin vir, Welsh gwr) ; (d) “of low degree” for Greek tapeinos in Sirach 11:1; Luke 1:52; James 1:9; (e) In 1 Timothy 3:13 the King James Version “a good degree” (Greek bathmos kalos , the Revised Version (British and American) “a good standing”) is assured to those who have “served well as deacons.” Some take this to mean promotion to a higher official position in the church; but it probably means simply a position of moral weight and influence in the church gained by faithfulness in service (so Hort). D. Miall Edwards DEGREES, SONGS OF ([ t/l[\M”j” ryvi , shir ha-ma`aloth ]; Septuagint [wj|dh< tw~n ajnabaqmw~n, ode ton anabathmon ]; Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390- 405 A.D.) canticum graduum , the Revised Version (British and American) “a song of ascents”): The title prefixed to 15 psalms (Pss 120 through 134) as to the significance of which there are four views: (1) The Jewish interpretation. According to the Mishna, Middoth 2 5, Cukkah 51b, there was in the temple a semi-circular flight of stairs with 15 steps which led from the court of the men of Israel down to the court of the women. Upon these stairs the Levites played on musical instruments on the evening of the first day of Tabernacles. Later Jewish writers say that the 15 psalms derived their title from the 15 steps. (2) Gesenius, Delitzsch and others affirm that these psalms derive their name from the step-like progressive rhythm of their thoughts. They are called Songs of Degrees because they move forward climactically by means of the resumption of the immediately preceding word. But this characteristic is not found in several of the group. (3) Theodoret and other Fathers explain these 15 hymns as traveling songs of the returning exiles. In Ezra 7:9 the return from exile is called “the going up (ha-ma`alah ) from Babylon.” Several of the group suit this situation quite well, but others presuppose the temple and its stated services. (4) The most probable view is that the hymns were sung by pilgrim bands on their way to the three great festivals of the Jewish year. The journey to Jerusalem was called a “going up,” whether the worshipper came from north or south, east or west. All of the songs are suitable for use on such occasions. Hence, the title Pilgrim Psalms is preferred by many scholars. See DIAL OF AHAZ.

John Richard Sampey DEHAITES <de-ha’-tez > ([ aweh;D, , dehawe’ ]; the King James Version Dehavites): A people enumerated in Ezra 4:9 with Elamites, ere, as among those settled by the Assyrian king Osnappar (Assurbanipal) in Samaria. The identification is uncertain.

DEHORT <de-hort’ > ([ajpostre>fw, apostrepho ]; the Revised Version (British and American) DISSUADE): Not found in the English Bible; once only in Apocrypha (1 Macc 9:9). An obsolete English word; the opposite of “exhort.” It means “to dissuade,” “to forbid,” “to restrain from.”

DEKAR <de’-kar > ([ rq,D, , deqer ], “lancer”): Father of one of Solomon’s commissaries ( 1 Kings 4:9 the King James Version). See BEN-DEKER.

DELAIAH <de-la’-ya > ([ hy;l;D] , delayah ], “God has raised”): (1) A descendant of David ( 1 Chronicles 3:24; the King James Version “Dalaiah”). (2) One of David’s priests and leader of the 23rd course ( 1 Chronicles 24:18). (3) One of the princes who pleaded with Jehoiakim not to destroy the roll containing the prophecies of Jeremiah ( Jeremiah 36:12,25). (4) The ancestor of a post-exilic family whose genealogy was lost ( Ezra 2:60; Nehemiah 7:62; 1 Esdras 5:37 margin). See DALAN. (5) The father of timorous Shemaiah ( Nehemiah 6:10).

DELAY <de-la’ > : The noun “delay” ( Acts 25:17, “I made no delay”; the King James Version “without any delay”) means “procrastination.” The verb “to delay” ( Exodus 22:29; [ rj”a; , ‘achar ]) involves the idea “to stop for a time,” the people being admonished not to discontinue a custom. The Pil. perfect of [ vWB, bush ] ( Exodus 32:1), “Moses delayed to come,” expresses not only the fact that he tarried, but also the disappointment on the part of the people, being under the impression that he possibly was put to shame and had failed in his mission, which also better explains the consequent action of the people. “To delay” ([croni>zw, chronizo ]) is used transitively in Matthew 24:48 (the Revised Version (British and American) “My lord tarrieth”) and in Luke 12:45. The meaning here is “to prolong,” “to defer.” A. L. Breslich DELECTABLE <de-lek’-ta-bl > ([ dm”h; , chamadh ], “to desire”): Found only in Isaiah 44:9, King James Version: “Their delectable things shall not profit,” the King James Version margin”desirable.” the American Standard Revised Version translates: “the things that they delight in.” The reference is to idols or images. Delitzsch renders the phrase: “Their darlings are good for nothing.” The word may be traced back to the Latin delectabilis , “pleasant,” or “delightful.”

DELICACY <del’-i-ka-si > ([to< strh~nov, to strenos ]): Found only in Revelation 18:3, King James Version: “The merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.” the Revised Version (British and American) has very properly changed delicacies to “wantonness,” and “luxury” in the margin, which is much nearer to the original.

DELICATE; DELICATELY <del’-i-kat > , <del’-i-kat-li > ([ ˆd,[e , `edhen ], [ gno[; , `anogh ]; [ejn trufh~|, en truphe ]): “Delicate” usually an adjective, but once a substantive ( Jeremiah 51:34 the King James Version). “He hath filled his belly (the Revised Version (British and American) “maw”) with my delicates.” the Revised Version (British and American) retains the word, but the American Standard Revised Version very properly has replaced it with “delicacies.”

In Sirach 30:18, the Revised Version (British and American) agatha , “good things.” The adjective seems to have two meanings, though not easily distinguished: (1) tenderly reared, and (2) wanton or voluptuous. In Deuteronomy 28:54,56; Isaiah 47:1; Jeremiah 6:2, “luxurious” or “daintily bred” would certainly be nearer the original than “delicate.” “Delicate children” of Micah 1:16, the King James Version, is changed by the Revised Version (British and American) to “children of thy delight,” i.e. beloved children, rather than children begotten in passion. The adverb “delicately” is employed in the same sense as the adjective ( Lamentations 4:5; Luke 7:25). In the old English writers “delicate” is often used for voluptuous: “Dives for his delicate life to the devil went” (Piers Ploughman). The meaning of “delicately” (ma`adhan ) in 1 Samuel 15:32 (the King James Version) is a real puzzle. The King James Version reads, “And Agag came unto him delicately,” with a possible suggestion of weakness or fear. the American Standard Revised Version and the Revised Version, margin substitute “cheerfully.” Others, by metathesis or change of consonants in the Hebrew word, translation “in bonds” or “fetters.” W. W. Davies DELICIOUSLY <de-lish’-us-li > ([strhnia>w, streniao ] “to live hard or wantonly”): “She (Babylon) .... lived deliciously” ( Revelation 18:7,9 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) “wantonly,” the Revised Version, margin “luxuriously”).

DELIGHT <de-lit’ > (verb, [ 6pej; , chaphets ], [ hx;r; , ratsah ], [ [[“v; , sha`a` ]; [sunh>domai, sunedomai ]): “To delight” is most frequently expressed by chaphets , which means originally “to bend” (compare Job 40:17, “He moveth his tail”), hence, “to incline to,” “take pleasure in.” It is used of God’s pleasure in His people ( Numbers 14:8; 2 Samuel 22:20; Psalm 18:19, etc.), and in righteousness, etc. ( Isaiah 66:4; Jeremiah 9:24; Micah 7:18, etc.), also of man’s delight in God and His will ( Psalm 40:8; 73:25; the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American), “There is none upon earth that I desire besides thee”), and in other objects ( Genesis 34:19; 1 Samuel 18:22; Est 2:14; Isaiah 66:3); sha`a` , “to stroke,” “caress,” “be fond of,” occurs in Psalm 94:19, “Thy comforts delight my soul”; 119:16,47,70, “I will delight myself in thy statutes.” Similarly, Paul says ( Romans 7:22), “I delight (sunedomai ) in (margin, the Revised Version (British and American) “Greek with”) the law of God after the inward man.” This is the only occurrence of the word in the New Testament. ”To delight one’s self” (in the Lord) is represented chiefly by `anagh ( Job 22:26; 27:10; Psalm 37:4,11; Isaiah 58:14).

Delight (noun), chiefly chephets ( 1 Samuel 15:22; Psalm 1:2; 16:3), ratson ( Proverbs 11:1,20; 12,22; 15:8), sha`ashu`im ( <19B924> Psalm 119:24,77,92,143,174; Proverbs 8:30,31). the Revised Version (British and American) has “delight” for “desire” ( Nehemiah 1:11; Psalm 22:8; 51:16), for “observe,” different reading ( Proverbs 23:26), “no delight in” for “smell in” ( Amos 5:21), “delightest in me” for “favorest me” ( Psalm 41:11), “his delight shall be in” (m “Hebrew `scent’ “) for “of quick understanding” ( Isaiah 11:3).

The element of joy, of delight in God and His law and will, in the Hebrew religion is noteworthy as being something which we are apt to fall beneath even in the clearer light of Christianity. W. L. Walker DELIGHTSOME <de-lit’-sum > : [ 6p,je , chephets ], is rendered “delightsome”: Malachi 3:12, “Ye shall be a delightsome land,” literally, “a land of delight.”

DELILAH <de-li’-la > ([ hl;yliD] , delilah ], “dainty one,” perhaps; Septuagint [ Daleida>, Daleida ], [ Dalida>, Dalida ]): The woman who betrayed Samson to the Philistines (Judges 16). She was presumably a Philistine, though that is not expressly stated. She is not spoken of as Samson’s wife, though many have understood the account in that way. The Philistines paid her a tremendously high price for her services. The account indicates that for beauty, personal charm, mental ability, self-command, nerve, she was quite a wonderful woman, a woman to be admired for some qualities which she exhibits, even while she is to be utterly disapproved. See SAMSON.

Willis J. Beecher DELIVER <de-liv’-er > ([ lx”n; , natsal ], [ ˆt”n; , nathan ]; [rJu>omai, rhuomai ], [paradi>dwmi, paradidomi ]): Occurs very frequently in the Old Testament and represents various Hebrew terms. The English word is used in two senses, (1) “to set free,” etc., (2) “to give up or over.” (1) The word most often translated “deliver” in the first sense is natsal , meaning originally, perhaps, “to draw out.” It is used of all kinds of deliverance ( Genesis 32:11; Psalm 25:20; 143:9, etc.; Jeremiah 7:10; Ezekiel 3:19, etc.; Zephaniah 1:18, etc.). The Aramaic netsal occurs in Daniel 3:29; 6:14; 8:4,7; yasha` , “to save,” in Judges 3:9,31 the King James Version, etc.; malaT, “to let or cause to escape,” in Isaiah 46:2, “recover,” etc. In the New Testament rhuomai, “to rescue,” is most frequently translated “deliver” in this sense ( Matthew 6:13 the King James Version, “Deliver us from evil”); katargeo, “to make useless” or “without effect” ( Romans 7:6 the Revised Version (British and American), “discharged”). In the New Testament “save” takes largely the place of “deliver” in the Old Testament, and the idea is raised to the spiritual and eternal. (2) For “deliver” in the sense of “give over, up,” etc., the most frequent word is nathan, the common word for “to give” ( Genesis 32:16; 40:13 the King James Version; Exodus 5:18). Other words are maghan ( Hosea 11:8, the King James Version and the English Revised Version “How shall I deliver thee Israel?” i.e. “How shall I give thee up?” as in the first clause of the verse, with a different word (nathan ), the American Standard Revised Version “How shall I cast thee off?”), yehabh , Aramaic ( Ezra 5:14). In the New Testament paradidomi, “to give over to,” is most frequent ( Matthew 5:25; 11:27, “All things have been delivered (given or made over) unto me of my Father”; Mark 7:13; Luke 1:2; 1 Timothy 1:20, etc.); charizomai , “to grant as a favor” ( Acts 25:11,16 the King James Version). (3) Yaladh , “to bring forth,” is also rendered “deliver” in the sense of childbirth ( Genesis 25:24; Exodus 1:19, etc.). In the New Testament this sense is borne by [ti>ktw, tikto ] ( Luke 1:57; 2:6; Revelation 12:2,4), and [genna>w, gennao ] ( John 16:21).

In the Revised Version (British and American) there are many changes, such as, for “deliver,” “restore” ( Genesis 37:22; 40:13; Exodus 22:26; Deuteronomy 24:13); for “delivered,” “defended” ( Chronicles 11:14); for “cannot deliver thee,” “neither .... turn thee aside” ( Job 36:18); for “betray,” “betrayed” we have “deliver,” “delivered up,” etc. ( Matthew 10:4 margin; Mark 13:12; 14:10 f; Luke 21:16); for “delivered into chains,” “committed to pits” ( 2 Peter 2:4, margin “some ancient authorities read chains”; compare The Wisdom of Solomon 17:17); “Deliver us from evil,” omitted in Luke 11:4, margin “Many ancient authorities add but deliver us from the evil one (or, from evil).” W. L. Walker DELOS <de’-los > ([ Dh~lov, Delos ]): An island, now deserted, one of the Cyclades in the Aegean Sea, about 3 miles long and 1 mile broad, with a rocky mountain (Cynthus) several hundred feet high in the center. In antiquity Delos enjoyed great prosperity. According to Greek legend the island once floated on the surface of the water, until Poseidon fastened it on four diamond pillars for the wandering Leto, who, like Io, was pursued by the vengeful Hera. It was here that Apollo and Artemis were born; hence, the island was sacred, and became one of the chief seats of worship of the two deities. Numerous temples embellished Delos. The most magnificent was that of Apollo, which contained a colossal statue of the god, a dedicatory offering of the Naxians. This temple was a sanctuary visited by all the Greeks, who came from far and near to worship at the deity’s shrine. There was a Dorian peripteral temple in Delos from the beginning of the 4th century BC. To the North was a remarkable altar composed entirely of oxhorns.

The various Ionian cities sent sacred embassies (theoriai ) with rich offerings. There was also a celebrated oracle in Delos which was accounted one of the most trustworthy in the world. Every five years the famous Delian festival was celebrated with prophecies, athletic contests and games of every kind. All the nations of Greece participated.

The earliest inhabitants of Delos were Carians; but about 1000 BC the island was occupied by Ionians. For a long time it enjoyed independence.

In 478 Delos was chosen as the place for the convention of the representatives of the Greek states for deliberation about means for defense against Persia. The treasury of the Athenian Confederacy was kept here after 476. The island became independent of Athens in 454. During the 2nd and 1st centuries BC it became one of the chief ports of the Aegean. This was partly due to its location, and partly to the fact that the Romans, after 190 BC, favored the island as a rival to the sea-power of Rhodes. In 166 Delos was given to Athens; the inhabitants fled to Achea, and the island was colonized by Athenians, together with Romans.

The ruins of the city of Delos, which became a flourishing commercial port, are to the North of the temple. It became the center of trade between Alexandria and the Black Sea, and was for a long time one of the chief slave markets of the Greek world. But Delos received a severe blow, from which it never recovered, in the war between Rome and Mithridates. The latter’s general landed in 88 BC and massacred many, and sold the remainder of the defenseless people, and sacked and destroyed the city together with the temple and its countless treasures. At the conclusion of peace (84) Delos came into the possession of the Romans, who later gave it back to Athens. Under the Empire the island lost its importance entirely.

Delos was one of the states to which Rome addressed letters in behalf of the Jews (138-137 BC; see 1 Macc 15:16-23). Among those who came to Delos from the East must have been many of this nation. Josephus cites in full a decree passed in Delos which confirmed the Jewish exemption from military service (Ant., XIV, x, 4).

The excavations of the French have laid bare 8 temples within the sacred enclosure (Apollo, Artemis, Dionysus). Numerous statues, dating from the earliest times of Greek art down to the latest, have been discovered; also 2,000 inscriptions, among which was an inventory of the temple treasure.

By the side of Delos, across a very narrow strait, lies Rheneia, another island which was the burying-ground of Delos; for on the sacred isle neither births, deaths nor burials were permitted. In 426 BC Delos was “purified” by the Athenians — by the removal of the bodies that had been interred there previously.

LITERATURE.

Lebegue, Recherches sur Delos (Paris, 1876); V. v. Schoffer, Deuteronomy Deli Insulae rebus, Berliner Studien fur klass. Phil. (Berlin, 1889); Homolle, S. Reinach and others, in the Bulletin de corresp. Hellen. (VI, 1-167; VII, 103-25, 329-73; VIII, 75-158; XIV, 389-511; XV, 113- 68); Homolle, Archives de l’intendance sacree a Delos; Jebb, Journal of Hellenic Studies (1880), 7-62. J. E. Harry DELUGE, OF NOAH, THE <del’-uj >

1. THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNT:

The means described in Genesis 6 through 8 by which the Lord destroyed, on account of their wickedness, all the members of the human race except Noah and his family. According to the account, Noah was warned of the event 120 years before ( Genesis 6:3; 1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:5).

During all this time he is said to have been a “preacher of righteousness” “while the ark was a preparing,” when we may well suppose (according to theory to be presently propounded) the physical events leading up to the final catastrophe may have given point to his preaching. When the catastrophe came, the physical means employed were twofold, namely, the breaking up of the “fountains of the great deep” and the opening of “the windows of heaven” ( Genesis 7:11). But the rain is spoken of as continuing as a main cause only 40 days, while the waters continued to prevail for 150 days ( Genesis 7:24), when ( Genesis 8:2,3) “the fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained; and the waters returned from off the earth continually,” so that after 10 months the ark rested upon “the mountains of Ararat” (not the peak of Mount Ararat, but the highlands of Armenia in the upper part of the valley of the Euphrates and Tigris; see ARARAT ). Here it rested 40 days before the water subsided sufficiently to suggest disembarking, when a raven (which could easily find its food on the carcasses of the animals which had been destroyed) was sent forth, and did not return ( Genesis 8:7); but a dove sent out at the same time found no rest and returned empty to the ark ( Genesis 8:9). After 7 days, however, it was sent out again and returned with a fresh olive leaf ( Genesis 8:11). After 7 days more the dove was sent forth again and did not return. After 56 days more of waiting Noah and his family departed from the ark. 2. “NOAH’S LOG BOOK”:

The following are the leading points in the story which has been appropriately styled by Sir William Dawson “Noah’s log book” (see Southeast Bishop’s article in Biblical Sac. (1906), 510-17, and Joseph B.

Davidson in the author’s Scientific Confirmations of Old Testament History, 180-184).

It will thus be seen that there is no need of supposing any duplication and overlapping of accounts in the Biblical story. There is continual progress in the account from beginning to end, with only such repetitions for literary effect as we are familiar with in oriental writings. In Genesis 6:5 through 7:13 the wickedness of the world is assigned as the reason which prevailed in the Divine counsels for bringing about the contemplated catastrophe. While emphasizing the righteousness of Noah which led to his preservation, 6:13-21 contains the direction for the making of the ark and of the preparations to bring into it a certain number of animals. This preparation having been made, the order was given (7:1-4) for the embarkation which (7:5) was duly accomplished. We are then told that Noah and his family, and beasts both clean and unclean, were shut up in the ark during the prevalence of the water and its final subsidence. Altogether the account is most graphic and impressive (see W. H. Green, Unity of the Book of Genesis, 83 ff).

Compared with other traditions of the Deluge, the Biblical account appears in a most favorable light, while the general prevalence of such traditions strongly confirms the reality of the Biblical story.

3. THE EGYPTIAN TRADITION:

An Egyptian legend of the Deluge is referred to in Plato’s Timaeus, where the gods are said to have purified the earth by a great flood of water from which only a few shepherds escaped by climbing to the summit of a high mountain. In the Egyptian documents themselves, however, we find only that Ra’ the creator, on account of the insolence of man, proceeded to exterminate him by a deluge of blood which flowed up to Heliopolis, the home of the gods; but the heinousness of the deed so affected him that he repented and swore never more to destroy mankind.

4. THE INDIAN TRADITION:

In Indian mythology there is no reference to the Flood in the Rig Veda, but in the laws of Manu we are told that a fish said to Manu, “A deluge will sweep all creatures away ..... Build a vessel and worship me. When the waters rise enter the vessel and I will save thee ..... When the Deluge came, he had entered the vessel. .... Manu fastened the cable of the ship to the horn of the fish, by which means the latter made it pass over the mountains of the North. The fish said: `I have saved thee; fasten the vessel to a tree that the water may not sweep it away while thou art in the mountain; and in proportion as the waters decrease, thou shalt descend.’ Manu descended with the waters, and this is what is called the Descent of Manu on the mountains of the North. The Deluge had carried away all creatures, and Manu remained alone” (translated by Max Muller).

5. THE CHINESE TRADITION:

The Chinese tradition is embodied in sublime language in their book of Li- Ki: “And now the pillars of heaven were broken, the earth shook to its very foundation; the sun and the stars changed their motions; the earth fell to pieces, and the waters enclosed within its bosom burst forth with violence, and overflowed. Man having rebelled against heaven, the system of the universe was totally disordered, and the grand harmony of nature destroyed. All these evils arose from man’s despising the supreme power of the universe. He fixed his looks upon terrestrial objects and loved them to excess, until gradually he became transformed into the objects which he loved, and celestial reason entirely abandoned him.”

6. THE GREEK TRADITION:

The Greeks, according to Plutarch, had five different traditions of the Deluge, that of Deucalion being the most important. According to this, Prometheus warned his son Deucalion of the flood which Zeus had resolved to bring upon the earth by reason of its wickedness. Accordingly, Deucalion constructed an ark and took refuge in it, but with his vessel was stranded on Mount Parnassus in Thessaly, whereupon they disembarked and repopulated the earth by the fantastic process revealed to them by the goddess Themis of throwing stones about them, those which Deucalion threw becoming men and those which Pyrrha threw becoming women.

Lucian’s form of the legend, however, is less fantastic and more nearly in line with Semitic tradition. In the Greek legend as in the Semitic, a dove is sent forth which returns both a first and a second time, its feet being tinged with mud the second time, intimating the abatement of the flood. But neither Homer nor Hesiod have this tradition. Probably it was borrowed from the Semites or the Hindus.

7. THE BRITISH TRADITION:

In Britain there is a Druid legend that on account of the profligacy of mankind, the Supreme Being sent a flood upon the earth when “the waves of the sea lifted themselves on high round the border of Britain. The rain poured down from heaven and the waters covered the earth.” But the patriarch, distinguished for his integrity, had been shut up with a select company in a strong ship which bore them safely upon the summit of the waters (Editor Davies in his Mythology and Rites of British Druids). From these the world was again repopulated. There are various forms of this legend but they all agree in substance.

8. THE AMERICAN INDIAN TRADITIONS:

Among the American Indians traditions of the Deluge were found by travelers to be widely disseminated. Mr. Catlin says, “Among the different tribes which I visited in North, South, and Central America, not a tribe exists that has not related to me distinct or vague traditions of such a calamity, in which one, or three, or eight persons were saved above the waters upon the top of a high mountain” (quoted by Wm. Restelle in Biblical Sac. (January, 1907), 157). While many, perhaps most, of these traditions bear the stamp of Christian influence through the early missionaries, the Mexican legend bears evident marks of originality.

According to it the 4th age was one of water, when all men were turned into fishes except Tezpi and his wife Hochiquetzal and their children, who with many animals took refuge in a ship which sailed safely over the tumultuous waters which overwhelmed the earth. When the flood subsided the ship stranded on Mount Cohuacan, whereupon he sent forth a vulture which did not return, and then a humming bird which returned with some leaves in its beak. The Peruvian story differs from this in many particulars.

According to it a single man and woman took refuge in a box and floated hundreds of miles from Cuzco to an unknown land where they made clay images of all races, and animated them.

The Moravian missionary Cranz, in his History of Greenland, says that “the first missionaries among the Greenlanders found a tolerably distinct tradition of the Deluge” to the effect that “the earth was once tilted over and all men were drowned” except one “who smote afterward upon the ground with a stick and thence came out a woman with whom he peopled the earth again.” Moreover, the Greenlanders point to the remains of fishes and bones of a whale on high mountains where men never could have dwelt, as proof that the earth was once flooded. Among the North American Indians generally legends of the Deluge are so embellished that they become extremely fantastic, but in many of them there are peculiarities which point unquestionably to a common origin of extreme antiquity.

The unprejudiced reader cannot rise from the study of the subject without agreeing in general with Francois Lenormant, who writes: “As the case now stands, we do not hesitate to declare that, far from being a myth, the Biblical Deluge is a real and historical fact, having, to say the least, left its impress on the ancestors of three races — Aryan, or Indo-European, Semitic, or Syrio-Arabian, Chamitic, or Kushite — that is to say on the three great civilized races of the ancient world, those which constitute the higher humanity — before the ancestors of these races had as yet separated, and in the part of Asia together inhabited” (Contemporary Review, November, 1879).

9. THE BABYLONIAN TRADITION:

The most instructive of these traditions are those which have come down to us from Babylonia, which until recently were known to us only through the Greek historian Berosus of the 4th century BC, who narrates that a great deluge happened at some indefinite time in the past during the reign of Xisuthrus, son of Ardates. Xisuthrus was warned beforehand by the deity Cronos, and told to build a ship and take with him his friends and relations and all the different animals with all necessary food and trust himself fearlessly to the deep, whereupon he built “a vessel 5 stadia (3,000 ft.) long and 2 stadia (1,200 ft.) broad.” After the flood subsided Xisuthrus, like Noah, sent out birds which returned to him again. After waiting some days and sending them out a second time, they returned with their feet tinged with mud. Upon the third trial they returned no more, whereupon they disembarked and Xisuthrus with his wife, daughter and pilot offered sacrifice to the gods and were translated to live with the gods.

It was found that the place where they were was “the land of Armenia,” but they were told to return to Babylon. Berosus concluded his account by saying that “the vessel being thus stranded in Armenia, some part of it yet remains in the Corcyrean mountains.”

10. CUNEIFORM TABLETS:

An earlier and far more important tradition was found inscribed on cuneiform tablets in Babylonia dating from 3000 BC. These were discovered by George Smith in 1870 and filled as many as 180 lines. The human hero of the account, corresponding to Noah of the Bible and Xisuthrus of Berosus, is Gilgamesh, who lived is Shurippak, a city full of violence, on the banks of the Euphrates. He was warned of an approaching flood and exhorted to pull down his house and build a ship and cause “seed of life of every sort to go up into it.” The ship, he says, was to be “exact in its dimensions, equal in its breadth and its length. .... Its sides were cubits high, the border of its top equaled 140 cubits. .... I constructed it in 6 stories, dividing it into 7 compartments. Its floors I divided into chambers. .... I chose a mast (or rudder pole), and supplied what was necessary. Six sars of bitumen I poured over the outside; three sars of bitumen over the inside.” After embarking, the storm broke with fearful violence and the steering of the ship was handed over to Bezur-Bel, the ship man. But amidst the roll of thunder and the march of mountain waves the helm was wrenched from the pilot’s hands and the pouring rain and the lightning flashes dismayed all hearts. “Like a battle charge upon mankind” the water rushed so that the gods even were dismayed at the flood and cowered like dogs, taking refuge in the heaven of Anu while Ishtar screamed like a woman in travail, and repenting of her anger, resolved to save a few and “to give birth to my people” till like “the fry of fishes they fill the sea.” The ship was therefore turned to the country of Nizir (Armenia).

It is worthy of notice that the cuneiform tablet exhibits as much variety of style as does the Biblical account. Plain narrative and rhetorical prose are intermingled in both accounts, a fact which effectually disposes of the critical theory which regards the Biblical account as a clumsy combination made in later times by piecing together two or more independent traditions.

Evidently the piecing together, if there was any, had been accomplished early in Babylonian history. See BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA.

On comparing the Biblical account with that of the cuneiform tablets, the following similarities and contrasts are brought to light: (1) That the cuneiform inscription is from start to finish polytheistic (II. 3- 17), whereas the narrative in Genesis is monotheistic. (2) The cuneiform agrees with the Biblical narrative in making the Deluge a Divine punishment for the wickedness of the world (II. 5, 6). (3) The names differ to a degree that is irreconcilable with our present knowledge. (4) The dimensions of the ark as given in Genesis (6:15) are reasonable, while those of Berosus and the cuneiform tablets are unreasonable.

According to Gen, the ark was 300 cubits (562 1/2 ft.) long, 50 cubits (93 2/3 ft.) wide, and 30 cubits (56 1/4 ft.) deep, which are the natural proportions for a ship of that size, being in fact very close to those of the great steamers which are now constructed to cross the Atlantic. The “Celtic” of the White Star line, built in 1901, is 700 ft. long, 75 ft. wide and 49 1/3 ft. deep. The dimensions of the “Great Eastern,” built in (692 ft. long, 83 ft. broad, and 58 ft. deep), are still closer to those of the ark. The cuneiform tablets represent the length, width and depth each as 140 cubits (262 ft.) (II. 22, 23, 38-41), the dimensions of an entirely unseaworthy structure. According to Berosus, it was 5 stadia (3,000 ft.) and 2 stadia (1,200 ft.) broad; while Origen (Against Celsus, 4,41), represented it to be 135,000 ft. (25 miles) long, and 3,750 ft. (3/4 mile) wide. (5) In the Biblical account, nothing is introduced conflicting with the sublime conception of holiness and the peculiar combination of justice and mercy ascribed to God throughout the Bible, and illustrated in the general scheme of providential government manifest in the order of Nature and in history; while, in the cuneiform tablets, the Deluge is occasioned by a quarrel among the gods, and the few survivors escape, not by reason of a merciful plan, but by a mistake which aroused the anger of Bel (II. 146- 50). (6) In all the accounts, the ark is represented as floating up stream.

According to Gen, it was not, as is usually translated, on “Mount Ararat” (8:4), but in the “mountains of Ararat,” designating an indefinite region in Armenia upon which the ark rested; according to the inscriptions, it was in Nizir (II. 115-20), a region which is watered by the Zab and the Tornadus; while, according to Berosus, it was on the Corcyrean Mountains, included in the same indefinite area. In all three cases, its resting-place is in the direction of the headwaters of the Euphrates valley, while the scene of the building is clearly laid in the lower part of the valley. (7) Again, in the Biblical narrative, the spread of the water floating the ark is represented to have been occasioned, not so much by the rain which fell, as by the breaking-up of “all the fountains of the great deep” ( Genesis 7:11), which very naturally describes phenomena connected with one of the extensive downward movements of the earth’s crust with which geology has made us familiar. The sinking of the land below the level of the ocean is equivalent, in its effects, to the rising of the water above it, and is accurately expressed by the phrases used in the sacred narrative. This appears, not only in the language concerning the breaking-up of the great deep which describes the coming-on of the Flood, but also in the description of its termination, in which it is said, that the “fountains also of the deep .... were stopped, .... and the waters returned from off the earth continually” ( Genesis 8:2,3). Nothing is said of this in the other accounts. (8) The cuneiform tablets agree in general with the two other accounts respecting the collecting of the animals for preservation, but differ from Genesis in not mentioning the sevens of clean animals and in including others beside the family of the builder (II. 66-69). (9) The cuneiform inscription is peculiar in providing the structure with a mast, and putting it in charge of a pilot (II. 45, 70, 71). (10) The accounts differ decidedly in the duration of the Flood. According to the ordinary interpretation of the Biblical account, the Deluge continued a year and 17 days; whereas, according to the cuneiform tablets, it lasted only 14 days (II. 103-7, 117-22). (11) All accounts agree in sending out birds; but, according to Genesis (8:8) a raven was first sent out, and then in succession two doves (8:8-12); while the cuneiform inscription mentions the dove and the raven in reverse order from Gen, and adds a swallow (II. 121-30). (12) All accounts agree in the building of an altar and offering a sacrifice after leaving the ark. But the cuneiform inscription is overlaid with a polytheistic coloring: “The gods like flies swarmed about the sacrifices” (II. 132-43). (13) According to the Biblical account, Noah survived the Flood for a long time; whereas Nuhnapishtim and his wife were at once deified and taken to heaven (II. 177-80). (14) Both accounts agree in saying that the human race is not again to be destroyed by a flood ( Genesis 9:11; II. 162-69).

Close inspection of these peculiarities makes it evident that the narrative in Genesis carries upon its face an appearance of reality not found in the other accounts. It is scarcely possible that the reasonable dimensions of the ark, its floating up stream, and the references to the breaking-up of the fountains of the great deep should have been hit upon by accident. It is in the highest degree improbable that correct statements of such unobvious facts should be due to the accident of legendary guesswork. At the same time, the duration of the Deluge, according to Genesis, affords opportunity for a gradual progress of events which best accords with scientific conceptions of geological movements. If, as the most probable interpretation would imply, the water began to recede after 150 days from the beginning of the Flood and fell 15 cubits in 74 days, that would only be 3 2/3 inches per day — a rate which would be imperceptible to an ordinary observer. Nor is it necessary to suppose that the entire flooded area was uncovered when Noah disembarked. The emergence of the land may have continued for an indefinite period, permitting the prevailing water to modify the climate of all western and central Asia for many centuries.

Evidence that this was the case will be found in a later paragraph.

11. WAS THE FLOOD UNIVERSAL?:

In considering the credibility of the Biblical story we encounter at the outset the question whether the narrative compels us to believe the Flood to have been universal. In answer, it is sufficient to suggest that since the purpose of the judgment was the destruction of the human race, all the universality which it is necessary to infer from the language would be only such as was sufficient to accomplish that object. If man was at that time limited to the Euphrates valley, the submergence of that area would meet all the necessary conditions. Such a limitation is more easily accepted from the fact that general phrases like “Everybody knows,” “The whole country was aroused,” are never in literature literally interpreted. When it is said ( Genesis 41:54-57) that the famine was “in all lands,” and over “all the face of the earth,” and that “all countries came into Egypt .... to buy grain,” no one supposes that it is intended to imply that the irrigated plains of Babylonia, from which the patriarchs had emigrated, were suffering from drought like Palestine (For other examples of the familiar use of this hyperbole, see Deuteronomy 2:25; Job 37:3; Acts 2:25; Romans 1:8.)

As to the extent to which the human race was spread over the earth at the time of the Flood, two suppositions are possible. First, that of Hugh Miller (Testimony of the Rocks) that, owing to the shortness of the antediluvian chronology, and the violence and moral corruption of the people, population had not spread beyond the boundary of western Asia. An insuperable objection to this theory is that the later discoveries have brought to light remains of prehistoric man from all over the northern hemisphere, showing that long before the time of the Flood he had become widely scattered.

Another theory, supported by much evidence, is that, in connection with the enormous physical changes in the earth’s surface during the closing scenes of the Glacial epoch, man had perished from off the face of the earth except in the valley of the Euphrates, and that the Noachian Deluge is the final catastrophe in that series of destructive events (see ANTEDILUVIANS ). The facts concerning the Glacial epoch naturally lead up to this conclusion. For during the entire epoch, and especially at its close, the conditions affecting the level of the land surfaces of the northern hemisphere were extremely abnormal, and continued so until some time after man had appeared on the earth.

The Glacial epoch followed upon, and probably was a consequence of, an extensive elevation of all the land surfaces of the northern hemisphere at the close of the Tertiary period. This elevation was certainly as much as 2,000 ft. over the northern part of the United States, and over Canada and Northern Europe. Snow accumulated over this high land until the ice formed by it was certainly a mile thick, and some of the best authorities say 2, or even 3 miles. The surface over which this was spread amounted to 2,000,000 square miles in Europe and 4,000,000 in North America. The total amount of the accumulation would therefore be 6,000,000 cubic miles at the lowest calculation, or twice or three times that amount if the largest estimates are accepted. (For detailed evidence see Wright, Ice Age in North America, 5th edition) But in either case the transference of so much weight from the ocean beds to the land surfaces of the northern hemisphere brings into the problem a physical force sufficient to produce incalculable effects. The weight of 6,000,000 cubic miles of ice would be twenty-four thousand million million (24,000,000,000,000,000) tons, which is equal to that of the entire North American continent above sea level. Furthermore this weight was first removed from the ocean beds, thus disturbing still more the balance of forces which secure the stability of the land. The geological evidence is abundant that in connection with the overloading of the land surfaces in the Northern Hemisphere, and probably by reason of it, the glaciated area and a considerable margin outside of it sank down until it was depressed far below the present level. The post-Glacial depression in North America was certainly 600 ft. below sea level at Montreal, and several hundred feet lower further north. In Sweden the post-Glacial sea beaches show a depression of the land 1,000 ft. below the sea.

The evidences of a long-continued post-Glacial subsidence of the Aral- Caspian basin and much of the surrounding area is equally conclusive. At Trebizond, on the Black Sea, there is an extensive recent sea beach clinging to the precipitous volcanic mountain back of the city 750 ft. above the present water level. The gravel in this beach is so fresh as to compel a belief in its recent origin, while it certainly has been deposited by a body of water standing at that elevation after the rock erosion of the region had been almost entirely effected. The deposit is about 100 ft. thick, and extends along the precipitous face of the mountain for a half-mile or more.

So extensive is it that it furnishes an attractive building place for a monastery. When the water was high enough to build up this shore line, it would cover all the plains of southern Russia, of Western Siberia and of the Aral-Caspian depression in Turkestan. Similar terraces of corresponding height are reported by competent authorities on the south shore of the Crimea and at Baku, on the Caspian Sea.

Further and most interesting evidence of this post-Glacial land depression is found in the existence of Arctic seal 2,000 miles from the Arctic Ocean in bodies of water as widely separated as the Caspian Sea, the Aral Sea and Lake Baikal. Lake Baikal is now 1,500 ft. above sea level. It is evident, therefore, that there must have been a recent depression of the whole area to admit the migration of this species to that distant locality. There are also clear indications of a smaller depression around the eastern shores of the Mediterranean Sea, where there are abandoned sea beaches from 200 to 300 ft. above tide, which abound in species of shells identical with those now living nearby.

These are found in Egypt, in the valley of the Red Sea, and in the vicinity of Joppa and Beirut. During their formation Asia and Africa must have been separated by a wide stretch of water connecting the Mediterranean with the Red Sea. The effect of such lingering wide expanses of water upon the climate of Western Asia must have been profound, and would naturally provide those conditions which would favor the early development of the human race in Armenia (where even now at an elevation of 5,000 ft. the vine is indigenous), from which the second distribution of mankind is said to have taken place.

Furthermore there is indubitable evidence that the rainfall in central Asia was, at a comparatively recent time, immensely greater than it has been in the historic period, indicating that gradual passage from the conditions connected with the Deluge to those of the present time, at which we have hinted above. At the present time the evaporation over the Aral Sea is so great that two rivers (the ancient Oxus and the Jaxartes), coming down from the heights of central Asia, each with a volume as great as that of Niagara, do not suffice to cause an overflow into the Caspian Sea. But the existence of such an overflow during the prehistoric period is so plain that it has been proposed to utilize its channel (which is a mile wide and as distinctly marked as that of any living stream) for a canal.

Owing to the comparatively brief duration of the Noachian Deluge proper, we cannot expect to find many positive indications of its occurrence.

Nevertheless, Professor Prestwich (than whom there has been no higher geological authority in England during the last century) adduces an array of facts relating to Western Europe and the Mediterranean basin which cannot be ignored (see Phil. Trans. of the Royal Soc. of London, CXXIV (1893), 903-84; Wright, Scientific Confirmation of the Old Testament History, 238-82). Among these evidences one of the most convincing is to be found in the cave of San Ciro at the base of the mountains surrounding the plain of Palermo in Sicily. In this cave there was found an immense mass of the bones of hippopotami of all ages down to the fetus, mingled with a few of the deer, ox and elephant. These were so fresh when discovered that they were cut into ornaments and polished and still retained a considerable amount of their nitrogenous matter. Twenty tons of these bones were shipped for commercial purposes in the first six months after their discovery. Evidently the animals furnishing these bones had taken refuge in this cave to escape the rising water which had driven them in from the surrounding plains and cooped them up in the amphitheater of mountains during a gradual depression of the land. Similar collections of bones are found in various ossiferous fissures, in England and Western Europe, notably in the Rock of Gibraltar and at Santenay, a few miles South of Chalons in central France, where there is an accumulation of bones in fissures 1,000 ft. above the sea, similar in many respects to that in the cave described at San Ciro, though the bones of hippopotami did not appear in these places; but the bones of wolves, bears, horses and oxen, none of which had been gnawed by carnivora, were indiscriminately commingled as though swept in by all-pervading currents of water. Still further evidence is adduced in the deposits connected with what is called the rubble drift on both sides of the English Channel and on the Jersey Islands. Here in various localities, notably at Brighton, England, and near Calais, France, elephant bones and human implements occur beneath deep deposits of unassorted drift, which is not glacial nor the product of limited and local streams of water, but can be accounted for only by general waves of translation produced when the land was being reelevated from beneath the water by a series of such sudden earthquake shocks as cause the tidal waves which are often so destructive.

Thus, while we cannot appeal to geology for direct proof of the Noachian Deluge, recent geological discoveries do show that such a catastrophe is perfectly credible from a scientific point of view; and the supposition that there was a universal destruction of the human race, in the northern hemisphere at least, in connection with the floods accompanying the melting off of the glacial ice is supported by a great amount of evidence.

There was certainly an extensive destruction of animal species associated with man during that period. In Europe the great Irish elk, the machairodus, the cave lion, the rhinoceros, the hippopotamus and the elephant disappeared with prehistoric man, amid the floods at the close of the Glacial epoch. In North America equally large felines, together with horses, tapirs, llamas, great mastodons and elephants and the huge megalonyx went to destruction in connection with the same floods that destroyed so large a part of the human race during the dramatic closing scenes of the period. It is, therefore, by no means difficult for an all-round geologist to believe in a final catastrophe such as is described in Gen. If we disbelieve in the Biblical Deluge it is not because we know too much geology, but too little. George Frederick Wright DELUSION <de-lu’-zhun > : (1) Isaiah 66:4, “I also will choose their delusions” (the Revised Version, margin “mockings”), Hebrew ta`alulim , which occurs only here and Isaiah 3:4 (where it is translated “babes,” the Revised Version, margin “childishness”). Its meaning is somewhat ambiguous. The best translation seems to be “wantonness,” “caprice.” “Their wanton dealing, i.e. that inflicted on them” (BDB). Other translations suggested are “insults” (Skinner), “freaks of fortune” (Cheyne), “follies” (Whitehouse).

Septuagint has empaigmata , “mockings,” Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) illusiones . (2) 2 Thessalonians 2:11 the King James Version, “God shall send them strong delusion” (the Revised Version (British and American) “God sendeth them a working of error”), [pla>nh, plane ], “a wandering,” “a roaming about,” in the New Testament “error” either of opinion or of conduct. D. Miall Edwards DEMAND <de-mand’ > : The peremptory, imperative sense is absent from this word in its occurrences in the King James Version, where it means no more than “ask,” “inquire” (compare French, demander ) one or the other of which the Revised Version (British and American) substitutes in 2 Samuel 11:7; Matthew 2:4; Luke 3:14; 17:20; Acts 21:33. the Revised Version (British and American) retains “demand” in Exodus 5:14; Job 38:3; 40:7; 42:4; Daniel 2:27; and inserts it (the King James Version “require”) in Nehemiah 5:18.

DEMAS <de’-mas > ([ Dhma~v, Demas ], “popular”): According to Colossians 4:14; 2 Timothy 4:10; Philem 1:24, one who was for a time a “fellowworker” with Paul at Rome (Col, Philem), but at last, “having loved this present world,” forsook the apostle and betook himself to Thessalonica (2 Tim). No other particulars are given concerning him. See APOSTASY; DEMETRIUS.

DEMETRIUS (1) <de-me’-tri-us > ([ Dhmh>triov, Demetrios ], “of” or “belonging to Demeter,” an ordinary name in Greece): (1) Demetrius I, surnamed [ Swth>r, Soter ] (“saviour”), was the son of Seleucus IV (Philopator). He was sent as a boy to Rome, by his father, to serve as a hostage, and remained there quietly during his father’s life. He was detained also during the reign of his uncle, ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES (which see) from 175 to 164 BC; but when Antiochus died Demetrius, who was now a young man of 23 (Polyb. xxxi.12), chafed at a longer detention, particularly as his cousin, Antiochus Eupator, a boy of 9, succeeded to the kingdom with Lysias as his guardian. The Roman Senate, however, refused to listen to his plea for the restoration to Syria, because, as Polybius says, they felt surer of their power over Syria with a mere boy as king.

In the meantime, a quarrel had arisen between Ptolemy Philometor and Euergetes Physkon (Livy Epit. 46; Diod. Sic. fr xi), and Gnaeus Octavius, who had been sent to quell the disorder, was assassinated in Syria, while plundering the country. Demetrius, taking advantage of the troubled condition of affairs, consulted with his friend Polybius as to the advisability of attempting to seize the throne of Syria (op. cit. xxxi. 19). The historian advised him not to stumble twice on the same stone, but to venture something worthy of a king, so after a second unsuccessful appeal to the Senate, Demetrius escaped to Tripolis, and from there advanced to Antioch where he was proclaimed king (162 BC). His first act was to put to death young Antiochus, his cousin, and his minister Lysias (Appian, Syriac., c. 47; Ant, XII, x, 1; 1 Macc 7:1-4; 2 Macc 14:1,2).

As soon as he was established in power, Demetrius made an attempt to placate the Romans by sending them valuable gifts as well as the assassin of Gn. Octavius (Polyb. xxi.23); and he then tried to secure the Hellenizing party by sending his friend BACCHIDES (which see) to make the wicked Alcimus high priest. After a violent struggle and much treachery on the part of Bacchides (Ant., XII, x, 2), the latter left the country, having charged all the people to obey Alcimus, who was protected by an army.

The Jews under Judas resented his presence, and Judas inflicted severe punishment on all who had gone over to Alcimus (1 Macc 7:24). Alcimus, in fear, sent a message for aid to Demetrius, who sent to his assistance Nicanor, the best disposed and most faithful of his friends, who had accompanied him in his flight from Rome (Ant., XII, x, 4). On his arrival in Judea, he attempted to win by guile, but Judas saw through his treachery, and Nicanor was forced to fight openly, suffering two signal defeats, the first at Capharsalama (1 Macc 7:31,32), and the second (in which Nicanor himself was killed), at Adasa (1 Macc 7:39 ff; 2 Macc 15:26 ff).

In a short while, however, Demetrius, hearing of the death of Nicanor, sent Bacchides and Alcimus into Judea again (1 Macc 9:1). Judas arose against them with an army of 3,000 men, but when these saw that 20,000 opposed them, the greater part of them deserted, and Judas, with an army of 800, lost his life, like another Leonidas, on the field of battle (1 Macc 9:4,6,18).

Then Bacchides took the wicked men and made them lords of the country (1 Macc 9:25); while Jonathan, who was appointed successor to Judas, fled with his friends (1 Macc 9:29 ff).

During the next seven years, Demetrius succeeded in alienating both the Romans (Polyb. xxxii.20) and his own people, and ALEXANDER BALAS (which see) was put forward as a claimant to the throne, his supporters maintaining that he was the son of Antiochus Epiphanes (1 Macc 10:1-21; Ant, XIII, ii, 1-3). Both Alexander and Demetrius made bids for the support of the Jews, the former offering the high-priesthood and the title of King’s Friend (1 Macc 10:20), and the latter freedom from taxes, tributes and customs (1 Macc 10:28 ff). Alexander’s bait proved more alluring, since the Jews “gave no credence” to the words of Demetrius, and with the aid of the Maccabees, he vied with Demetrius for the space of two years for the complete sovereignty of Syria. At the end of this time, a decisive battle took place, in which Demetrius was slain, and Alexander became king of Syria (150 BC) (1 Macc 10:48-50; Ant, XIII, ii, 4; Polyb. iii.5; see also MACCABEES ). (2) Demetrius II, surnamed [ Nika>twr, Nikator ] (“conqueror”), was the son of Demetrius Soter. When Balas was warring with Demetrius I, he sent his son to a place of safety in Crete. Three years after his father’s death (147 BC), the unpopularity of Alexander gave the young man an opportunity to return and seize the government. He landed in Cilicia with Cretan mercenaries and secured the support of all Syria with the exception of Judea (1 Macc 10:67 ff). Apollonius, his general, the governor of Coele- Syria, who essayed the conquest of the Jews, was defeated at Azotus with great loss.

Ptolemy Philometor, whose daughter was the wife of Alexander Balas, now entered into the struggle, and taking Cleopatra, his daughter, from Alexander, he gave her to Demetrius (1 Macc 11:12). He then joined Demetrius’ army and the combined forces inflicted a defeat on Balas (145 BC), and from this Demetrius received his surname Nikator (Ant., XIII, iv, 8; 1 Macc 11:14 ff).

Jonathan now concluded a favorable treaty with Demetrius, whereby three Samaritan provinces were added to Judea and the whole country was made exempt from tax (1 Macc 11:20-37; Ant, XIII, iv, 9). Demetrius then dismissed his army except the foreigners, thinking himself safe with the loyalty of the Jews assured. In the meantime, Tryphon, one of Balas’ generals, set up the son of Alexander, Antiochus, as a claimant to the throne, and secured the assistance of the discarded army of Demetrius.

Jonathan’s aid was sought and he quelled the rebellion, on condition that the Syrian garrison be removed from Jerusalem (1 Macc 11:41-52; Ant, XIII, v, 2-3).

The king, however, falsified all that he had said, and kept none of his promises, so the Jews, deserting him, took sides with Tryphon and supported the claims of the boy Antiochus (1 Macc 11:53-59; Ant, XIII, v, 5-11 ). Demetrius’ generals then entered Syria but were defeated by Jonathan at Hazor (1 Macc 11:63-74), and by skillful generalship he made futile a second attempt at invasion (1 Macc 12:24 ff).

Tryphon, who was now master of Syria, broke faith with Jonathan (1 Macc 12:40) and essayed the conquest of Judea. Jonathan was killed by treachery, and Simon, his successor, made proposals of peace to Demetrius, who agreed to let bygones be bygones (1 Macc 13:36-40; Ant, XIII, vi, 7). Demetrius then left Simon to carry on the war, and set out to Parthia, ostensibly to secure the assistance of the king, Mithridates, against Tryphon (1 Macc 14:1). Here he was captured and imprisoned (14:3; Ant, XIII, v, 11; Josephus, however, puts this event in 140 rather than 138 BC).

After an imprisonment of ten years, he was released and resumed the sovereignty 128 BC, but becoming involved in a quarrel with Ptolemy Physkon, he was defeated in battle at Damascus. From this place, he fled to Tyre, where he was murdered in 125 BC, according to some, at the instigation of Cleopatra, his wife (Josephus, Ant, XIII, ix, 3). (3) Demetrius III, [ Eu]kairov, Eukairos ] (“the fortunate”), was the son of Antiochus Grypus, and grandson of Demetrius Nikator. When his father died, civil war arose, in which his two elder brothers lost their lives, while Philip, the third brother, secured part of Syria as his domain. Demetrius then took up his abode in Coele-Syria with Damascus as his capital (Ant., XIII, xiii, 4; BJ, I, iv, 4).

War now broke out in Judea between Alexander Janneus and his Pharisee subjects, who invited Demetrius to aid them. Thinking this a good opportunity to extend his realm, he joined the insurgent Jews and together they defeated Janneus near Shechem (Ant., XIII, xiv, 1; BJ, 1, iv, 5).

The Jews then deserted Demetrius, and he withdrew to Berea, which was in the possession of his brother Philip. Demetrius besieged him, and Philip summoned the Parthians to his assistance. The tables were turned, and Demetrius, besieged in his camp and starved into submission, was taken prisoner and sent to Arsaces, who held him captive until his death (Ant., XIII, xiv, 3). The dates of his reign are not certain. Arthur J. Kinsella DEMETRIUS (2) <de-me’-tri-us > ([ Dhmh>triov, Demetrios ], “belonging to Ceres”): The name of two persons: (1) A Christian disciple praised by John ( 3 John 1:12). (2) A silversmith of Ephesus who manufactured the little silver shrines of the goddess Diana to sell to the visiting pilgrims ( Acts 19:23 ff).

Because the teachings of Paul were injuring the trade of the silversmiths, there arose a riot of which Demetrius was the chief. Upon an inscription which Mr. Wood discovered among the ruins of the city, there appeared the name Demetrius, a warden of the Ephesian temple for the year 57 AD, and some authors believe the temple warden to be identical with the ringleader of the rebellion. The name, however, has been most common among the Greeks of every age. Because of its frequent use it cannot be supposed that Demetrius, the disciple of 3 John 1:12, was the silversmith of Ephesus, nor that Demas of 2 Timothy 4:10, who bore the name in a contracted form, may be identified with him. E. J. Banks DEMON; DEMONIAC; DEMONOLOGY <dem’-mon > , <de-mo’-ni-ak > , <de-mon-ol’-o-ji > ([ Daimo>nion, daimonion ], earlier form [dai>mwn, daimon ] = [pneu~ma ajka>qarton, ponhro>n, pneuma akatharton, poneron ], “demon,” “unclean or evil spirit,” incorrectly rendered “devil” in the King James Version):

I. DEFINITION.

The word daimon or daimonion seems originally to have had two closely related meanings; a deity, and a spirit, superhuman but not supernatural. In the former sense the term occurs in the Septuagint translation of Deuteronomy 32:17; <19A637> Psalm 106:37; Acts 17:18. The second of these meanings, which involves a general reference to vaguely conceived personal beings akin to men and yet belonging to the unseen realm, leads to the application of the term to the peculiar and restricted class of beings designated “demons” in the New Testament.

II. THE ORIGIN OF BIBLICAL DEMONOLOGY.

An interesting scheme of development has been suggested (by Baudissin and others) in which Biblical demonism is brought through polytheism into connection with primitive animism. 1. The Evolutionary Theory: A simple criticism of this theory, which is now the ascendant, will serve fittingly to introduce what should be said specifically concerning Biblical demonology. (1) Animism, which is one branch of that general primitive view of things which is designated as spiritism, is theory that all Nature is alive (see Ladd, Phil. Rel., I, 89 f) and that all natural processes are due to the operation of living wills. (2) Polytheism is supposed to be the outcome of animism. The vaguely conceived spirits of the earlier conception are advanced to the position of deities with names, fixed characters and specific functions, organized into a pantheon. (3) Biblical demonology is supposed to be due to the solvent of monotheism upon contemporary polytheism. The Hebrews were brought into contact with surrounding nations, especially during the Persian, Babylonian and Greek periods, and monotheism made room for heathenism by reducing its deities to the dimension of demons.

They are not denied all objective reality, but are denied the dignity and prerogatives of deity. 2. Objections to the Theory: The objections to this ingenious theory are too many and too serious to be overcome. (1) The genetic connection between animism and polytheism is not clear. In fact, the specific religious character of animism is altogether problematical. It belongs to the category of primitive philosophy rather than of religion. It is difficult to trace the process by which spirits unnamed and with characteristics of the vaguest become deities — especially is it difficult to understand how certain spirits only are advanced to the standing of deities. More serious still, polytheism and animism have coexisted without close combination or real assimilation (see Sayce, Babylonia and Assyria, 232; Rogers, Religion of Babylonia and Assyria,75 f) for a long course of history. It looks as if animism and polytheism had a different raison d’etre, origin and development. It is, at least, unsafe to construct a theory on the basis of so insecure a connection. (2) The interpretation of heathen deities as demons by no means indicates that polytheism is the source of Biblical demonology. On general principles, it seems far more likely that the category of demons was already familiar, and that connection with polytheism brought about an extension of its application. A glance at the Old Testament will show how comparatively slight and unimportant has been the bearing of heathen polytheism upon Biblical thought. The demonology of the Old Testament is confined to the following passages: Leviticus 16:21,22; 17:7; Isaiah 13:21; 34:13; Deuteronomy 32:17; <19A637> Psalm 106:37 (elsewhere commented upon; see COMMUNION WITH DEMONS ). Gesenius well says of Leviticus 16:21 that it is “vexed with the numerous conjectures of interpreters.” If the prevalent modern view is accepted we find in it an actual meeting-point of popular superstition and the religion of Yahweh (see AZAZEL ). According to Driver (HDB, I, 207), this item in the Levitical ritual “was intended as a symbolical declaration that the land and the people are now purged from guilt, their sins being handed over to the evil spirit to whom they are held to belong, and whose home is in the desolate wilderness remote from human habitations (verse 22, into a land cut off).” A more striking instance could scarcely be sought of the way in which the religion of Yahweh kept the popular spiritism at a safe distance. Leviticus 17:7 (see COMMUNION WITH DEMONS ) refers to participation in the rites of heathen worship. The two passages — Isaiah 13:20,21; 34:13,14 — are poetical and really imply nothing as to the writer’s own belief. Creatures both seen and unseen supposed to inhabit places deserted of man are used, as any poet might use them, to furnish the details for a vivid word-picture of uninhabited solitude. There is no direct evidence that the narrative of the Fall ( Genesis 3:1-19) has any connection with demonology (see HDB, I, 590 note), and the suggestion of Whitehouse that the mention of satyrs and night-monsters of current mythology with such creatures as jackals, etc., implies “that demons were held to reside more or less in all these animal denizens of the ruined solitude” is clearly fanciful. It is almost startling to find that all that can possibly be affirmed of demonology in the Old Testament is confined to a small group of passages which are either legal or poetical and which all furnish examples of the inhibiting power of high religious conceptions upon the minds of a naturally superstitious and imaginative people. Even if we add all the passages in which a real existence seems to be granted to heathen deities (e.g. Numbers 21:29; Isaiah 19:1, etc.) and interpret them in the extreme sense, we are still compelled to affirm that evidence is lacking to prove the influence of polytheism in the formation of the Biblical doctrine of demons. (3) This theory breaks down in another still more vital particular. The demonology of the Bible is not of kin either with primitive animism or popular Sere demonism. In what follows we shall address ourselves to New Testament demonology — that of the Old Testament being a negligible quantity.

III. NEW TESTAMENT DEMONOLOGY.

The most marked and significant fact of New Testament demonology is that it provides no materials for a discussion of the nature and characteristics of demons. Whitehouse says (HDB, I, 593) that New Testament demonology “is in all its broad characteristics the demonology of the contemporary Judaism stripped of its cruder and exaggerated features.” How much short of the whole truth this statement comes will appear later, but as it stands it defines the specific direction of inquiry into the New Testament treatment of demons; namely, to explain its freedom from the crude and exaggerated features of popular demonism. The presence among New Testament writers of an influence curbing curiosity and restraining the imagination is of all things the most important for us to discover and emphasize. In four of its most vital features the New Testament attitude on this subject differs from all popular conceptions: (a) in the absence of all imaginative details concerning demons; (b) in the emphasis placed upon the moral character of demons and their connection with the ethical disorders of the human race; (c) in the absence of confidence in magical methods of any kind in dealing with demons; (d) in its intense restrictions of the sphere of demoniacal operations.

A brief treatment under each of these heads will serve to present an ordered statement of the most important facts. (a) In the New Testament we are told practically nothing about the origin, nature, characteristics or habits of demons. In a highly figurative passage ( Matthew 12:43) our Lord speaks of demons as passing through “waterless places,” and in the story of the Gadarene demoniac ( Luke 8:31) the “abyss” is mentioned as the place of their ultimate detention. The method of their control over human beings is represented in two contrasted ways (compare Mark 1:23 ff; Luke 4:33 ff), indicating that there was no fixed mode of regarding it. With these three scant items our direct information ceases. We are compelled to infer from the effects given in the limited number of specific instances narrated. And it is worthy of more than passing mention that no theoretical discussion of demons occurs. The center of interest in the Gospels is the person of Jesus, the sufferers and the cures. Interest in the demons as such is absent. Certain passages seem to indicate that the demons were able to speak (see Mark 1:24,26,34; Luke 4:41, etc.), but comparing these statements with others (compare Mark 1:23; Luke 8:28) it is seen that no distinction is drawn between the cries of the tormented in the paroxysms of their complaint and the cries attributed to the demons themselves. In other particulars the representation is consistent. The demons belong to the unseen world, they are incapable of manifestation except in in the disorders which they cause — there are no materializations, no grotesque narratives of appearances and disappearances, no morbid dealing with repulsive details, no license of speculation in the narratives. In contrast with this reticence is not merely the demonology of primitive people, but also that of the noncanonical Jewish books. In the Book of Enoch demons are said to be fallen angels, while Josephus holds that they are the spirits of the wicked dead. In the rabbinical writings speculation has run riot in discussing the origin, nature and habits of demons. They are represented as the offspring of Adam and Eve in conjunction with male and female spirits, as being themselves sexed and capable of reproduction as well as performing all other physical functions. Details are given of their numbers, haunts and habits, of times and places where they are especially dangerous, and of ways and methods of breaking their power (see EXORCISM ). Full sweep is also given to the imagination in descriptive narratives, oftentimes of the most morbid and unwholesome character, of their doings among men. After reading some of these narratives one can agree with Edersheim when he says, “Greater contrast could scarcely be conceived than between what we read in the New Testament and the views and practices mentioned in Rabbinic writings” (LTJM, II, 776). (b) It is also clearly to be noted that while in its original application the term daimonion is morally indifferent, in New Testament usage the demon is invariably an ethically evil being. This differentiates the New Testament treatment from extra-canonical Jewish writings. In the New Testament demons belong to the kingdom of Satan whose power it is the mission of Christ to destroy. It deepens and intensifies its representations of the earnestness of human life and its moral issues by extending the sphere of moral struggle to the invisible world. It clearly teaches that the power of Christ extends to the world of evil spirits and that faith in Him is adequate protection against any evils to which men may be exposed. (For significance of this point see Plummer, Luke (ICC), 132-33.) (c) The New Testament demonology differs from all others by its negation of the power of magic rites to deliver from the affliction.

Magic which is clearly separable from religion at that specific point (see Gwatkin, Knowledge of God, I, 249) rests upon and is dependent upon spiritism. The ancient Babylonian incantation texts, forming a surprisingly large proportion of the extant documents, are addressed directly to the supposed activities and powers of demons. These beings, who are not trusted and prayed to in the sense in which deities are, command confidence and call forth prayer, are dealt with by magic rites and formulas (see Rogers, op. cit., 144). Even the Jewish noncanonical writings contain numerous forms of words and ceremonies for the expulsion of demons. In the New Testament there is no magic.

The deliverance from a demon is a spiritual and ethical process (see EXORCISM ). (d) In the New Testament the range of activities attributed to demons is greatly restricted. According to Babylonian ideas: “These demons were everywhere; they lurked in every corner, watching for their prey.

The city streets knew their malevolent presence, the rivers, the seas, the tops of mountains; they appeared sometimes as serpents gliding noiselessly upon their victims, as birds horrid of mien flying resistlessly to destroy or afflict, as beings in human forms, grotesque, malformed, awe-inspiring through their hideousness. To these demons all sorts of misfortune were ascribed — a toothache; a headache, a broken bone, a raging fever, an outburst of anger, of jealousy, of incomprehensible disease” (Rogers, op. cit., 145). In the extra-canonical Jewish sources the same exuberance of fancy appears in attributing all kinds of ills of mind and body to innumerable, swarming hosts of demons lying in wait for men and besieging them with attacks and ills of all descriptions. Of this affluence of morbid fancy there is no hint in the New Testament. A careful analysis of the instances will show the importance of this fact.

There are, taking repetitions and all, about 80 references to demons in the New Testament. In 11 instances the distinction between demonpossession and diseases ordinarily caused is clearly made ( Matthew 4:24; 8:16; 10:8; Mark 1:32,34; 6:13; 16:17,18; Luke 4:40,41; 9:1; 13:32; Acts 19:12). The results of demon-possession are not exclusively mental or nervous ( Matthew 9:32,33; 12:22). They are distinctly and peculiarly mental in two instances only (Gadarene maniac, Matthew 8:28 and parallels, and Acts 19:13 f). Epilepsy is specified in one case only ( Matthew 17:15). There is distinction made between demonized and epileptic, and demonized and lunatic ( Matthew 4:24). There is distinction made between diseases caused by demons and the same disease not so caused (compare Matthew 12:22; 15:30). In most of the instances no specific symptoms are mentioned. In an equally large proportion, however, there are occasional fits of mental excitement often due to the presence and teaching of Christ.

CONCLUSIONS:

A summary of the entire material leads to the conclusion that, in the New Testament cases of demon-possession, we have a specific type of disturbance, physical or mental, distinguishable not so much by its symptoms which were often of the most general character, as by its accompaniments. The aura, so to say, which surrounded the patient, served to distinguish his symptoms and to point out the special cause to which his suffering was attributed. Another unique feature of New Testament demonology should be emphasized. While this group of disorders is attributed to demons, the victims are treated as sick folk and are healed.

The whole atmosphere surrounding the narrative of these incidents is calm, lofty and pervaded with the spirit of Christ. When one remembers the manifold cruelties inspired by the unreasoning fear of demons, which make the annals of savage medicine a nightmare of unimaginable horrors, we cannot but feel the worldwide difference between the Biblical narratives and all others, both of ancient and modern times, with which we are acquainted. Every feature of the New Testament narratives points to the conclusion that in them we have trustworthy reports of actual cures. This is more important for New Testament faith than any other conclusion could possibly be.

It is also evident that Jesus treated these cases of invaded personality, of bondage of depression, of helpless fear, as due to a real superhuman cause, to meet and overcome which He addressed Himself. The most distinctive and important words we have upon this obscure and difficult subject, upon which we know far too little to speak with any assurance or authority, are these: “This kind can come out by nothing, save by prayer” ( Mark 9:29).

LITERATURE. (1) The most accessible statement of Baudissin’s theory is in Whitehouse’s article “Demons,” etc., in Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes). (2) For extra-canonical Jewish ideas use Lange, Apocrypha, 118, 134; Edersheim, LTJM, Appendices XIII, XVI. (3) For spirit-lore in general see Ladd, Phil. Rel., index under the word, and standard books on Anthropology and Philosophy of Religion under Spiritism. (4) For Babylonian demonology see summary in Rogers, Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, 144 ff. Louis Matthews Sweet DEMOPHON <dem’-o-fon > ([ Dhmofw~n, Demophon ]): A Syrian general in Palestine under Antiochus V (Eupator) who continued to harass the Jews after covenants had been made between Lysias and Judas Maccabeus (2 Macc 12:2).

DEN ([ ˆ/[m; , ma`on ], [ hn;/[m] , me`onah ], “habitation”; [ hr;[;m] , me`arah ], and [sph>laion, spelaion ], “cave”; [ hr;Wam] , me’urah ] ( Isaiah 11:8), “a light-hole,” from [ r/a , ‘or ], “light,” perhaps for me`arah ; [ Ës , cokh ] ( Psalm 10:9 the King James Version), and [ hK;su , cukkah ] ( Job 38:40), “a covert,” elsewhere “booth”; [ br,a, , ‘erebh ] ( Job 37:8), “covert,” as in the Revised Version (British and American); [ bGO, gobh ]; compare Arabic jubb, “pit” ( Daniel 6:7); [ t/rh;n]mi , minharoth ], “fissure” or “cleft” ( Judges 6:2)): In the limestone mountains of Palestine caves, large and small, are abundant, the calcium carbonate, of which the rock is mainly composed, being dissolved by the water as it trickles over them or through their crevices. Even on the plains, by a similar process, pits or “lime sinks” are formed, which are sometimes used by the Arabs for storing straw or grain. Of this sort may have been the pit, bor, into which Joseph was cast by his brethren ( Genesis 37:20). Caves and crevices and sometimes spaces among piled-up boulders at the foot of a cliff or in a stream bed are used as dens by jackals, wolves and other wild animals. Even the people, for longer or shorter periods, have lived as troglodytes. Compare Judges 6:2: “Because of Midian the children of Israel made them the dens (minharoth ) which are in the mountains, and the caves (me`arah ), and the strongholds (metsadh ).” The precipitous sides of the valleys contain many caves converted by a little labor into human habitations. Notable instances are the valley of the Kidron near Mar-Saba , and Wadi-ul-Chamam near the Sea of Tiberias. See CAVE.

Alfred Ely Day DENARIUS <de-na’-ri-us > ([dhna>rion, denarion ]): A Roman silver coin, 25 of which went to the aureus, the standard gold coin of the empire in the time of Augustus, which was equal in value to about one guinea or $5,25; more exactly œ1.0,6 = $5.00, the œ = $4,866. Hence, the value of the denarius would be about 20 cents and this was the ordinary wage of a soldier and a day laborer. The word is uniformly rendered “penny” in the King James Version and “shilling” in the American Standard Revised Version, except in Matthew 22:19; Mark 12:15 and Luke 20:24, where the Latin word is used, since in these passsages it refers to the coin in which tribute was paid to the Roman government. See MONEY.

H. Porter DENOUNCE <de-nouns’ > : Occurs in Deuteronomy 30:18: “I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish.” It is used here in the obsolete sense of “to declare,” to make known in a solemn manner. It is not found in the Bible with the regular meaning of “to censure,” “arraign,” etc.

DENY <de-ni’ > : This word is characteristic of the New Testament rather than the Old Testament, although it translates three different Hebrew originals, namely, [ vj”K; , kachash ], “to lie,” “disown” ( Genesis 18:15; Joshua 24:27; Job 8:18; 31:28; Proverbs 30:9); [ [n”m; , mana` ], “to withhold,” “keep back” ( 1 Kings 20:7; Proverbs 30:7); [ bWv , shubh ], “to turn back,” “say no” ( 1 Kings 2:16).

In the New Testament, [ajntile>gw, antilego ], is once translated “deny,” in the case of the Sadducees who denied the resurrection ( Luke 20:27 the King James Version), and where it carries the sense of speaking against the doctrine. But the word commonly is [ajrne>omai, arneomai ], with or without the prefix ap- . In the absence of the prefix the sense is “to disown,” but when it is added it means “to disown totally” or to the fullest extent. In the milder sense it is found in Matthew 10:33; 26:70,72; of Simon Peter, Mark 14:68,70 ( Acts 3:13,14; 2 Timothy 2:12,13; 2 Peter 2:1; 1 John 2:22,23; Jude 1:4; Revelation 2:13; 3:8).

But it is significant that the sterner meaning is associated with Matthew 16:24 and its parallels, where Christ calls upon him who would be His disciple to deny himself and take up his cross and follow Him. See also PETER, SIMON.

James M. Gray DEPOSIT <de-poz’-it > ([paraqh>kh, paratheke ], 1 Timothy 6:20; 2 Timothy 1:12,14 the Revised Version, margin, paraphrased in both the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) into “that which is committed” (see COMMEND )): The noun was used in the classical Greek, just as its English equivalents, for “that which is placed with another for safe keeping,” a charge committed to another’s hands, consisting often of money or property; compare Exodus 22:7; Leviticus 6:2. This practice was common in days when there were no banks. (1) In 1 Timothy 6:20; also 2 Timothy 1:14, the reference is to a deposit which God makes with man, and for which man is to give a reckoning. The context shows that this deposit is the Christian faith, “the pattern of sound words” ( 2 Timothy 1:13), that which is contrasted with the “oppositions of the knowledge which is falsely so called” ( 1 Timothy 6:20). “Keep the talent of the Christian faith safe and undiminished” (Vincentius Lirenensis). (2) In 2 Timothy 1:12, the deposit is one which man makes with God.

The key to the meaning of this expression is found probably in Psalm 31:5: “Into thy hand I commend my spirit: Thou hast redeemed me,” i.e. “All that I am, with all my interests, have been entrusted to Thy safe keeping, and, therefore, I have no anxieties with respect to the future. The day of reckoning, `that day,’ will show how faithful are the hands that hold this trust.” H. E. Jacobs DEPTH See ABYSS.

DEPUTY <dep’-u-ti > : This is the correct rendering of [ bXni , nitsabh ] ( 1 Kings 22:47). In Est 8:9 and 9:3 the term improperly represents [ ˆg;s; , caghan ], in the King James Version, and is corrected to “governor” in the Revised Version (British and American). In the New Testament “deputy” represents [ajnqu>patov, anthupatos ] ( Acts 13:7,8,12; 18:12; 19:38), which the Revised Version (British and American) correctly renders “proconsul” (which see). The Roman proconsuls were officers invested with consular power over a district outside the city, usually for one year. Originally they were retiring consuls, but after Augustus the title was given to governors of senatorial provinces, whether they had held the office of consul or not.

The proconsul exercised judicial as well as military power in his province, and his authority was absolute, except as he might be held accountable at the expiration of his office. See GOVERNMENT.

William Arthur Heidel DERBE <dur’-be > ([ De>rbh, Derbe ], Acts 14:20,21; 16:1; [ Derbai~ov, Derbaios ], 20:4; [ Derbh>thv, Derbetes ], Strabo, Cicero): A city in the extreme Southeast corner of the Lycaonian plain is mentioned twice as having been visited by Paul (on his first and second missionary journeys respectively), and it may now be regarded as highly probable that he passed through it on his third journey (to the churches of Galatia). The view that these churches were in South Galatia is now accepted by the majority of English and American scholars, and a traveler passing through the Cilician Gates to Southern Galatia must have traversed the territory of Derbe.

1. HISTORY:

Derbe is first mentioned as the seat of Antipater, who entertained Cicero, the Roman orator and governor of Cilicia. When the kingdom of Amyntas passed, at his death in 25 BC, to the Romans, it was made into a province and called Galatia (see GALATIA ). This province included Laranda as well as Derbe on the extreme. Southeast, and for a time Laranda was the frontier city looking toward Cappadocia and Cilicia and Syria via the Cilician Gates. But between 37 and 41 AD Laranda was transferred to the “protected” kingdom of Antiochus, and Derbe became the frontier city. It was the last city on distinctively Roman territory, on the road leading from Southern Galatia to the East; it was here that commerce entering the province had to pay the customs dues. Strabo records this fact when he calls Derbe a limen or “customs station.” It owed its importance (and consequently its visit from Paul on his first journey) to this fact, and to its position on a great Roman road leading from Antioch, the capital of Southern Galatia, to Iconium, Laranda, Heracleia-Cybistra, and the Cilician Gates. Roman milestones have been found along the line of this road, one at a point 15 miles Northwest of Derbe. It was one of those Lycaonian cities honored with the title “Claudian” by the emperor Claudius; its coins bear the legend “Claudio-Derbe.” This implied considerable importance and prosperity as well as strong pro-Roman feeling; yet we do not find Derbe standing aloof, like the Roman colonies Iconium and Lystra, from the Common Council of Lycaonian cities (Koinon Lykaonias ).

Derbe remained in the province Galatia till about 135 AD, when it passed to the jurisdiction of the triple province Cilicia-Isauria-Lycaonia. It continued in this division till 295 AD, and was then included in the newly formed province Isauria. This arrangement lasted till about 372 AD, when Lycaonia, including Derbe, was formed into a separate province. The statement of Stephanus of Byzantium that Derbe was “a fortress of Isauria” originated in the arrangement which existed from 295 to 372 AD. Coins of the city represent Heracles, Fortuna and a winged Victory writing on a shield (after the pattern of the Venus of Melos, in the Louvre, Paris).

Derbe is mentioned several times in the records of the church councils. A bishop, Daphnus of Derbe, was present at the Council of Constantinople in 381.

2. SITUATION:

The site of Derbe was approximately fixed by the American explorer Sterrett, and more accurately by Sir W. M. Ramsay, who, after carefully examining all the ruins in the neighborhood, placed it at Gudelisin. Up to 1911, certain epigraphic evidence fixing the site had not been found, but Ramsay’s identification meets all the conditions, and cannot be far wrong.

On the East, Derbe was conterminous with Laranda, on the Northeast with Barata in the Kara Dagh. It bordered on the territory of Iconium on the Northwest, and on Isauria on the West. Its territory touched the foothills of Taurus on the South, and the site commands a fine view of the great mountain called Hadji Baba or the Pilgrim Father. The Greeks of the district say that the name is a reminiscence of Paul, “over whose travels” the mountain “stood as a silent witness.”

The remains are mostly of the late Roman and Byzantine periods, but pottery of an earlier date has been found on the site. An inscription of a village on the territory of Derbe records the erection of a building by two architects from Lystra. A line of boundary stones, separating the territory of Derbe from that of Barata, is still standing. It probably belongs to an early delimitation of the territory of the frontier town of Galatia (Ramsay).

3. PAUL AT DERBE:

In Acts 14:20,21, it is narrated that Paul and Barnabas, after being driven out of Lystra, departed to Derbe, where they “preached the gospel .... and made many disciples.” But they did not further. Paul’s mission included only the centers of Greco-Roman civilization; it was no part of his plan to pass over the frontier of the province into non-Roman territory.

This aspect of his purpose is illustrated by the reference to Derbe on his second journey ( Acts 16:1). Paul started from Antioch and “went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches” (15:41). “Then he came to Derbe and Lystra” (16:1 the King James Version). The unwarned reader might forget that in going from Cilicia to Derbe, Paul must have, passed through a considerable part of Antiochus’ territory, and visited the important cities of Heracleia-Cybistra and Laranda. But his work ends with the Roman Cilicia and begins again with the Roman Galatia; to him, the intervening country is a blank. Concentration of effort, and utilization only of the most fully prepared material were the characteristics of Paul’s missionary journeys in Asia Minor. That Paul was successful in Derbe may be gathered (as Ramsay points out) from the fact that he does not mention Derbe among the places where he had suffered persecution ( 2 Timothy 3:11). Gaius of Derbe (among others) accompanied Paul to Jerusalem, in charge of the donations of the churches to the poor in that city ( Acts 20:4).

LITERATURE.

The only complete account of Derbe is that given in Sir W. M. Ramsay’s Cities of Paul, 385-404. On Paul’s mission there, see the same author’s Paul the Traveler and Roman Citizen, 119, 178. Many inscriptions of the later Roman period are collected in Sterrett, Wolfe Expedition to Asia Minor, Numbers 18-52. The principal ancient authorities, besides Acts, are Cicero Ad Fam. xiii.73; Strabo xxx.569; Ptolemeus, v.6, 17; Steph. Byz., Hierocl., 675; Notit, Episcop., I, 404, and the Acta Conciliorum. W. M. Calder DERISION <de-rizh’-un > : Three verbs are so translated [ 6Wl , luts ], “scorn” ( <19B951> Psalm 119:51); [ g[“l; , la`agh ], “mock” ( Psalm 2:4; 59:8; Ezekiel 23:32); and [ qj”c; , sachaq ], “laugh at” ( Job 30:1; Exodus 32:25 margin, “a whispering”; compare The Wisdom of Solomon 5:3). This word is found almost exclusively in the Psalms and Prophets; Jeremiah is fond of it. It is used both as a substantive and a verb, the latter in the phrase “to have in derision:” DESCEND; DESCENT <de-send’ > , <de-sent’ > ([ dr”y; , yaradh ]; [katabai>nw, katabaino ], “go down”); ([kata>basiv, katabasis ]): Of Yahweh ( Exodus 34:5); of the Spirit ( Matthew 3:16); of angels ( Genesis 28:12; Matthew 28:2; John 1:51); of Christ ( 1 Thessalonians 4:16; Ephesians 4:9). “He also descended into the lower parts of the earth” is variously interpreted, the two chief interpretations being the one of the incarnation, and the other of the “descent into hell” ( 1 Peter 3:19). The former regards the clause “of the earth,” an appositive genitive, as when we speak of “the city of Rome,” namely, “the lower parts, i.e. the earth.” The other regards the genitive as possessive, or, with Meyer, as governed by the comparative, i.e. “parts lower than the earth.” For the former view, see full discussion in Eadie; for the latter, Ellicott and especially Meyer, in commentaries on Eph. H. E. Jacobs DESCENT, OF JESUS <de-sent’ > . See APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS.

DESCRIBE <de-skrib’ > : This verb, now obsolete, in the sense used in Joshua 18:4,6,8,9 and Judges 8:14, is a translation of [ bt”K; , kathabh ], usually rendered “to write” or “inscribe.” But in the above passages it has the Old English meaning of dividing into parts or into lots, as for example: “Walk through the land, and describe it according to their inheritance” ( Joshua 18:4); that is, describe in writing the location and size of the several parcels of land thus portioned out. In Judges 8:14 “described” should be translated “wrote down a list of.” “Describe” occurs twice in the King James Version of the New Testament ( Romans 4:6 and 10:5), where [le>gw, lego ], and [gra>fw, grapho ], are both rendered “describeth.” the Revised Version (British and American) corrects both, and substitutes “pronounceth” in the first and “writeth” in the second passage.

Description = “list” (1 Esdras 5:39). W. W. Davies DESCRY <de-skri’ > : This word like “describe” came into the English through the French descrire (Latin, describere); it occurs only in the King James Version of Judges 1:23: “And the house of Joseph sent to Bethel.” [ rWT, tur ] the verb thus translated, signifies “to explore” or “examine,” and the Revised Version (British and American) correctly renders “sent to spy out.”

DESERT <dez’-ert > [ rB;d]mi , midhbar ], [ hB;r]j; , chorbah ], [ ˆ/mviy] , yeshimon ], [ hb;r;[\ , `arabhah ], [ hYxi , tsiyah ], [ WhTo , tohu ]; [e]rhmov, eremos ], [ejrhmi>a, eremia ]): Midhbar , the commonest word for “desert,” more often rendered “wilderness,” is perhaps from the root dabhar , in the sense of “to drive,” i.e. a place for driving or pasturing flocks. Yeshimon is from yasham, “to be empty”, chorbah (compare Arabic kharib, “to lie waste”; khirbah , “a ruin”; kharab , “devastation”), from charabh “to be dry”; compare also `arabh , “to be dry,” and `arabhah , “a desert” or “the Arabah” (see CHAMPAIGN ). For ‘erets tsiyah ( Psalm 63:1; Isaiah 41:18), “a dry land,” compare tsiyim , “wild beasts of the desert” ( Isaiah 13:21, etc.). Tohu , variously rendered “without form” ( Genesis 1:2 the King James Version), “empty space,” the King James Version “empty place” ( Job 26:7), “waste,” the King James Version “nothing” ( Job 6:18), “confusion,” the Revised Version, margin, “wasteness” ( Isaiah 24:10 the English Revised Version), may be compared with Arabic tah, “to go astray” at-Tih, “the desert of the wandering.” In the New Testament we find eremos and eremia : “The child (John) .... was in the deserts till the day of his showing unto Israel” ( Luke 1:80); “Our fathers did eat manna in the desert” ( John 6:31 the King James Version).

The desert as known to the Israelites was not a waste of sand, as those are apt to imagine who have in mind the pictures of the Sahara. Great expanses of sand, it is true, are found in Arabia, but the nearest one, an-Nufud, was several days’ journey distant from the farthest southeast reached by the Israelites in their wanderings. Most of the desert of Sinai and of Palestine is land that needs only water to make it fruitful. East of the Jordan, the line between “the desert” and “the sown” lies about along the line of the Chijaz railway. To the West there is barely enough water to support the crops of wheat; to the East there is too little. Near the line of demarcation, the yield of wheat depends strictly upon the rainfall. A few inches more or less of rain in the year determines whether the grain can reach maturity or not.

The latent fertility of the desert lands is demonstrated by the season of scant rains, when they become carpeted with herbage and flowers. It is marvelous, too, how the camels, sheep and goats, even in the dry season, will find something to crop where the traveler sees nothing but absolute barrenness. The long wandering of the Israelites in “the desert” was made possible by the existence of food for their flocks and herds. Compare Psalm 65:11,12: “Thou crownest the year with thy goodness; And thy paths drop fatness.

They drop upon the pastures of the Wilderness.

And the hills are girded with joy”; and also Joel 2:22: “The pastures of the wilderness do spring.” ”The desert” or “the wilderness” (ha-midhbar) usually signifies the desert of the wandering, or the northern part of the Sinaitic Peninsula. Compare Exodus 3:1 King James Version: “MOSES .... led theflock (of Jethro) to the backside of the desert”; Exodus 5:3 King James Version: “Let us go .... three days’ journey into the desert”; Exodus 19:2 King James Version: “They .... were come to the desert of Sinai”; Exodus 23:31 King James Version: “I will set thy bounds from the Red Sea even unto the sea of the Philistines, and from the desert unto the river” (Euphrates).

Other uncultivated or pasture regions are known as Wilderness of Beersheba ( Genesis 21:14), West of Judah ( Judges 1:16), West of En-gedi ( 1 Samuel 24:1), West of Gibeon ( 2 Samuel 2:24), West of Maon ( 1 Samuel 23:24), West of Damascus; compare Arabic Badiyetush- Sham ( 1 Kings 19:15), etc. Midhbar yam , “the wilderness of the sea” ( Isaiah 21:1), may perhaps be that part of Arabia bordering upon the Persian Gulf.

Aside from the towns and fields, practically all the land was midhbar or “desert,” for this term included mountain, plain and valley. The terms, “desert of En-gedi,” “desert of Maon,” etc., do not indicate circumscribed areas, but are applied in a general way to the lands about these places. To obtain water, the shepherds with their flocks traverse long distances to the wells, springs or streams, usually arranging to reach the water about the middle of the day and rest about it for an hour or so, taking shelter from the sun in the shadows of the rocks, perhaps under some overhanging ledge. Alfred Ely Day DESIRE <de-zir’ > : The verb “to desire” in the Scriptures usually means “to long for,” “to ask for,” “to demand,” and may be used in a good or bad sense (compare Deuteronomy 7:25 the King James Version). the Revised Version (British and American) frequently renders the more literal meaning of the Hebrew. Compare Job 20:20, “delight”; Proverbs 21:20, “precious”; Psalm 40:6, “delight”; [aijte>w, aiteo ] (except Colossians 1:9), and [ejrwta>w, erotao ] (except Luke 7:36) are rendered “to ask” and [zhte>w, zeteo ], “to seek” (compare Luke 9:9 et. al.). The Hebrew [ ts”K; , kacaph ], literally, “to lose in value,” is translated ( Zephaniah 2:1) by “hath no shame” (the Revised Version, margin “longing,” the King James Version “not desired”). The literal translation “to lose in value,” “to degenerate,” would be more in harmony with the context than the translations offered. The Hebrew [ hD;m]j, , chemdah ] ( 2 Chronicles 21:20, “without being desired”), means according to the Arabic “to praise,” “to give thanks.” The context brings in contrast the burial of the king Jehoram with that of his fathers. In the latter case there was “burning,” i.e. recognition and praise, but when Jehoram died, there was no chemdah , i.e. there was no praise for his services rendered to the kingdom.

For “desire” in Ecclesiastes 12:5, see CAPERBERRY . A. L. Breslich DESIRE OF ALL NATIONS This phrase occurs only in Haggai 2:7 (King James Version, the English Revised Version “desirable things,” the American Revised Version, margin “things desired”), and is commonly applied to the Messiah.

At the erection of the temple in Ezra’s time, the older men who had seen the more magnificent house of Solomon were disappointed and distressed at the comparison. The prophet, therefore, is directed to encourage them by the assurance that Yahweh is with them nevertheless, and in a little while will shake the heavens, the earth, the sea, the dry land and the nations, and “the desire of all nations” shall come, and the house shall be filled with glory, so that “the later glory of this house shall be greater than the former.” (1) Many expositors refer the prophecy to the first advent of Christ. The shaking of the heavens, the earth, the sea and the dry land is the figurative setting of the shaking of the nations, while this latter expression refers to those changes of earthly dominion coincident with the overthrow of the Persians by the Greeks, the Greeks by the Romans, and so on down to the beginning of our era. The house then in process of construction was filled with glory by the later presence of the Messiah, which glory was greater than the Shekinah of Solomon’s time. Objections are presented to this view as follows: First, there is the element of time. Five centuries, more or less, elapsed between the building of Ezra’s temple and the first advent of Christ, and the men of Ezra’s time needed comfort for the present. Then there is the difficulty of associating the physical phenomena with any shaking of the nations occurring atthe first advent. Furthermore, in what sense, it is asked, could Christ, when He came, be said to be the desire of all nations? And finally, what comfort would a Jew find in this magnifying of the Gentiles? (2) These difficulties, though not insuperable, lead others to apply the prophecy to the second advent of Christ. The Jews are to be restored to Jerusalem, and another temple is to be built (Ezekiel 40 through 48). The shaking of the nations and the physical phenomena find their fulfillment in the “Great Tribulation” so often spoken of in the Old Testament and Revelation, and which is followed by the coming of Christ in glory to set up His kingdom ( Malachi 3:1; Matthew 24:29,30 and other places).

Some of the difficulties spoken of in the first instance apply here also, but not all of them, while others are common to both interpretations. One such common difficulty is that Ezra’s temple can hardly be identified with that of the time of Herod and Christ, and certainly not with that of Ezekiel; which is met, however, by saying that all the temples, including Solomon’s, are treated as but one “house” — the house of the Lord, in the religious sense, at least, if not architecturally. Another such difficulty touches the question of time, which, whether it includes five centuries or twenty, is met by the principle that to the prophets, “ascending in heart to God and the eternity of God, all times and all things of this world are only a mere point.” When the precise time of particular events is not revealed, they sometimes describe them as continuous, and sometimes blend two events together, having a near or partial, and also a remote or complete fulfillment. “They saw the future in space rather than in time, or the perspective rather than the actual distance.” It is noted that the Lord Jesus so blends together the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, AD 70, and the days of the anti-Christ at the end of this age, that it is difficult to separate them, and to say which belongs exclusively to either (Matthew 24). That the words may have an ultimate fulfillment in the second advent of Christ receives strength from a comparison of Haggai 2:21,22 with Hebrews 12:26,27. The writer of that epistle condenses the two passages in Haggai 2:6,7 and Haggai 2:21,22, implying that it was one and the same shaking, of which the former verses denote the beginning, and the latter the end. The shaking, in other words, began introductory to the first advent and will be finished at the second. Concerning the former, compare Matthew 3:17; 27:51; 28:2; Acts 2:2; 4:31, and concerning the latter, Matthew 24:7; Revelation 16:20; 20:11 (Bengel, quoted by Canon Faussett). (3) Other expositors seek to cut the Gordian knot by altogether denying the application to the Messiah, and translating “the desire of all nations” by “the beauty,” or “the desirable things of all nations,” i.e. their precious gifts (see Isaiah 60:5,11; 61:6). This application is defended in the following way: (a) The Hebrew word means the quality and not the thing desired; (b) the Messiah was not desired by all the nations when He came; (c) the verb “shall come” is plural, which requires the noun to be understood in the plural, whereas if the Messiah be intended, the noun is singular; (d) “The silver is mine,” etc. ( Haggai 2:8) accords with the translation “the desirable things of all nations”; (e) the agreement of the Septuagint and Syriac versions with such rendering.

All these arguments, however, can be fairly met by counter-arguments, leaving the reader still in doubt. (a) An abstract noun is often put for the concrete; (b) the result shows that while the Jews rejected Christ, the Gentiles received and hence, desired Him; (c) where two nouns stand together after the manner of “the desire” and “nations,” the verb agrees in number sometimes with the latter, even though the former be its nominative; (d) the 8th verse of the prophecy can be harmonized about as easily with one view as the other; (e) the King James Version is sustained by the Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) and early Jewish rabbis. James M. Gray DESOLATE <des’-o-lat > (very frequently in the Old Testament for [ µmev; , shamem ], and its derivatives; less frequently, [ brej; , charebh ], and its derivatives, and other words. In the New Testament it stands for [e]rhmov, eremos ] ( Matthew 23:38; Acts 1:20; Galatians 4:27) eremoo ( Revelation 17:16), and monoo ( 1 Timothy 5:5)): From Latin de, intens., solus, alone. Several shades of meaning can be distinguished: (1) Its primary sense is “left lonely,” “forlorn,” e.g. Psalm 25:16, “Have mercy upon me; for I am desolate” (Hebrew yachidh , “alone”); Timothy 5:5, “she that is a widow indeed, and desolate” (Greek memonomene , “left alone”). (2) In the sense of “laid waste,” “destitute of inhabitants,” e.g. Jeremiah 4:7, “to make thy land desolate, that thy cities be laid waste, without inhabitant.” (3) With the meaning “comfortless,” “afflicted,” e.g. <19E304> Psalm 143:4, “My heart within me is desolate.” (4) In the sense of “barren,” “childless,” “unfruitful,” e.g. Job 15:34; Isaiah 49:21 (Hebrew galmudh ). D. Miall Edwards DESOLATION, ABOMINATION OF See ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION.

DESPAIR <de-spar’ > : The substantive only in 2 Corinthians 4:8, “perplexed, but not in (the Revised Version (British and American) “yet not unto”) despair,” literally, “being at a loss, but not utterly at a loss.” “Unto despair” here conveys the force of the Greek prefix ex (“utterly,” “out and out”).

Desperate, in Job 6:26; Isaiah 17:11. In the latter instance, the Hebrew adjective is derived from a verb = “to be sick,” and the literally, rendering would be “incurable” (compare Job 34:6, “my wound is incurable”). Desperately in Jeremiah 17:9 the King James Version, where the heart is said to be “desperately (i.e. incurably) wicked” or “sick.”

DESPITE; DESPITEFUL <de-spit’ > , <de-spit’-fool > : “Despite” is from Latin despectus , “a looking down upon.” As a noun (= “contempt”) it is now generally used in its shortened form, “spite,” while the longer form is used as a preposition (= “in spite of”). In English Versions of the Bible it is always a noun. In the Old Testament it translates Hebrew she’aT , in Ezekiel 25:6, and in the Revised Version (British and American) Ezekiel 25:15; 36:5 (“with despite of soul”). In Hebrews 10:29 (“hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace”) it stands for Greek enubrizo , “to treat with contempt.” The adjective “despiteful” occurs in the King James Version Ezekiel 25:15; 36:5; Sirach 31:31 (“despiteful words,” the Revised Version (British and American) “a word of reproach”); Romans 1:30 (the Revised Version (British and American) “insolent” = Greek hubristes , from huper, “above”; compare English “uppish”). D. Miall Edwards DESSAU <des’-o > , <des’-a-u > ([ Dessaou>, Dessaou ] (2 Macc 14:16)): the Revised Version (British and American) LESSAU (which see).

DESTINY, (MENI) <des’-ti-ni > : A god of Good Luck, possibly the Pleiades. See ASTROLOGY, 10; MENI.

DESTROYER <de-stroi’-er > : In several passages the word designates a supernatural agent of destruction, or destroying angel, executing Divine judgment. (1) In Exodus 12:23, of the “destroyer” who smote the first-born in Egypt, again referred to under the same title in Hebrews 11:28 the Revised Version (British and American) (the King James Version “he that destroyed”). (2) In Job 33:22, “the destroyers” (literally, “they that cause to die”) = the angels of death that are ready to take away a man’s life during severe illness. No exact parallel to this is found in the Old Testament. The nearest approach is “the angel that destroyed the people” by pestilence ( Samuel 24:16,17 parallel 1 Chronicles 21:15,16); the angel that smote the Assyrians ( 2 Kings 19:35 = Isaiah 37:36 parallel 2 Chronicles 32:21); “angels of evil” ( Psalm 78:49). (3) In the Apocrypha, “the destroyer” is once referred to as “the minister of punishment” (Revised Version; literally, “him who was punishing”), who brought death into the world (The Wisdom of Solomon 18:22-25). (4) In 1 Corinthians 10:10, “the destroyer” is the angelic agent to whose instrumentality Paul attributes the plague of Numbers 16:46-49.

In later Jewish theology (the Targums and Midrash), the “destroyer” or “angel of death” appears under the name Sammael (i.e. the poison of God), who was once an arch-angel before the throne of God, and who caused the serpent to tempt Eve. According to Weber, he is not to be distinguished from Satan. The chief distinction between the “destroyer” of early thought and the Sammael of later Judaism is that the former was regarded as the emissary of Yahweh, and subservient to His will, and sometimes was not clearly distinguished from Yahweh Himself, whereas the latter was regarded as a perfectly distinct individuality, acting in independence or semi-independence, and from purely malicious and evil motives. The change was largely due to the influence of Persian dualism, which made good and evil to be independent powers. D. Miall Edwards DESTRUCTION <de-struk’-shun > : In the King James Version this word translates over Hebrew words in the Old Testament, and 4 words in the New Testament.

Of these the most interesting, as having a technical sense, is ‘abhaddon (from verb ‘abhadh , “to be lost,” “to perish”). It is found 6 times in the Wisdom Literature, and nowhere else in the Old Testament; compare Revelation 9:11. See ABADDON.

DESTRUCTION, CITY OF; HELIOPOLIS OR CITY OF THE SUN ( Isaiah 19:18). See ASTRONOMY, I, 2; IR-HA-HERES; ON.

DETERMINATE <de-tur’-mi-nat > ([wJrisme>nov, horismenos ], “determined,” “fixed”): Only in Acts 2:23, “by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of. God,” Greek horismenos , from horizo , “to set boundaries,” “determine,” “settle” (compare English word “horizon” — literally, “that which bounds”). It is remarkable that Peter in one and the same sentence speaks of the death of Christ from two quite distinct points of view. (1) From the historical standpoint, it was a crime perpetrated by men who were morally responsible for their deed (“him .... ye by the hand of lawless men did crucify and slay”). (2) From the standpoint of Divine teleology, it was part of an eternal plan (“by the determinate,” etc.). No effort is made to demonstrate the logical consistency of the two ideas. They represent two aspects of the one fact. The same Greek word is used in Luke 22:22, where Christ speaks of His betrayal as taking place “as it was (the Revised Version (British and American) “hath been”) determined” (kata to horismenon ).

Compare Luke 24:26. D. Miall Edwards DETERMINE <de-tur’-min > : (1) “To resolve,” “decide.” This is the primary meaning of the word and it is also the one that is the most common. In the New Testament the Greek word [kri>nw, krino ], is translated “determine,” and it has the above meaning ( Acts 20:16; 25:25; 1 Corinthians 2:2). The word occurs frequently in the Old Testament with this meaning (see Exodus 21:22; 1 Samuel 20:7,9,33). (2) “To decree,” “ordain,” “mark out.” The Greek word that is rendered “determine” with this meaning is horizo. See DETERMINATE.

The Hebrew term charats is translated “determine” with the above meaning; as “his days are determined” ( Job 14:5); “a destruction is determined” ( Isaiah 10:22); “desolations are determined” ( Daniel 9:26). The Hebrew term mishpaT , which means “judgment” or “sentence,” is translated “determination” in Zephaniah 3:8. A. W. Fortune.

DETESTABLE, THINGS <de-tes’-ta-b’-l > , ([ 6WQvi , shiqquts ]; [ 6q,v, , sheqets ], synonymous with [ Hb;[ewOT, to`ebhah ], “abomination,” “abominable thing”): The translation of shiqqutsim in Jeremiah 16:18; Ezekiel 5:11; 7:20; 11:18,21; 37:23; a term always applied to idol-worship or to objects connected with idolatry; often also translated “abomination,” as in 1 Kings 11:5,7 (bis); Jeremiah 4:1; Ezekiel 20:7,8,30. Sheqets , translated “abomination,” is applied in the Scriptures to that which is ceremonially unclean ( Leviticus 7:21), creatures forbidden as food, as water animals without fins or scales in Leviticus 11:10-12, birds of prey and the like (verse 18), winged creeping things (verses 20,23), creeping vermin (verses 41 f).

Compare also Isaiah 66:17. By partaking of the food of the animals in question one makes himself detestable ( Leviticus 11:43; 20:25).

Similarly the idolatrous appurtenances are to be held in detestation; nothing of the kind should be appropriated for private use ( Deuteronomy 7:26). See ABOMINATION. Max L. Margolis DEUEL <du’-el > , <de-u’-el > [ laeW[D] , de`u’el ], “knowledge of God”): A Gadite, the father of Eliasaph, the representative of the tribe of Gad in the censustaking ( Numbers 1:14), in making the offering of the tribe at the dedication of the altar ( Numbers 7:42,47), and as leader of the host of the tribe of the children of Gad in the wilderness ( Numbers 10:20).

Called Reuel in Numbers 2:14, d (d) being confused with r (r).

DEUTERO-CANONICAL, BOOKS <du-ter-o-ka-non’-i-kal > : A term sometimes used to designate certain books, which by the Council of Trent were included in the Old Testament, but which the Protestant churches designated as apocryphal (see APOCRYPHA ), and also certain books of the New Testament which for a long time were not accepted by the whole church as Scripture. Webster says the term pertains to “a second Canon or ecclesiastical writing of inferior authority,” and the history of these books shows that they were all at times regarded by a part of the church as being inferior to the others and some of them are so regarded today. This second Canon includes Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclusiasticus, 2 Esdras, 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees of the Old Testament, and Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation of the New Testament.

1. THE OLD TESTAMENT BOOKS:

The Old Testament books under consideration were not in the Hebrew Canon and they were originally designated as apocryphal. The Septuagint contained many of the apocrphyal books, and among these were most of those which we have designated deutero-canonical. The Septuagint was perhaps the Greek Bible of New Testament times and it continued to be the Old Testament of the early church, and hence, these books were widely distributed. It seems, however, that they did not continue to hold their place along with the other books, for Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, in his Festal Epistle in 367 gave a list of the books of the Bible which were to be read, and at the close of this list he said: “There are also other books besides these, not canonized, yet set by the Fathers to be read to those who have just come up and who wish to be informed as to the word of godliness: Wisdom, Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, the so-called Teaching of the Apes, and the Shepherd of Hermas.” Jerome also made a distinction between the apocryphal books and the others. In his Preface, after enumerating the books contained in the Hebrew Canon, he adds: “This prologue I write as a preface to the books to be translated by us from the Hebrew into Latin, that we may know that all the books which are not of this number are apocrphyal; therefore Wisdom, which is commonly ascribed to Solomon as its author, and the book of Jesus the son of Sirach, Judith, Tobit and the Shepher are not in the Canon.” Rufinus made the same distinction as did Jerome. He declared that “these books are not canonical, but have been called by our forefathers ecclesiastical.”

Augustine included these books in his list which he published in 397. He begins the list thus: “The entire canon of Scripture is comprised in these books.” Then follows a list of the books which includes Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 2 Esdras, Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, and it closes with these words: “In these 44 books is comprised all the authority of the Old Testament.” Inasmuch as these books were regarded by the church at large as ecclesiastical and helpful, and Augustine had given them canonical sanction, they rapidly gained in favor and most of them are found in the great manuscripts. See CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

2. THE NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS:

It is not probable that there was any general council of the church in those early centuries that set apart the various books of the New Testament and canonized them as Scripture for the whole church. There was no single historical event which brought together the New Testament books which were everywhere to be regarded as Scripture. These books did not make the same progress in the various provinces and churches. A careful study of conditions reveals the fact that there was no uniform New Testament canon in the church during at least the first 3 centuries. The Ethiopic church, for example, had 35 books in its New Testament, while the Syrian church had only 22 books.

From an early date the churches were practically agreed on those books which are sometimes designated as the protocanonical, and which Eusebius designated as the homologoumena. They differed, however, in regard to the 7 disputed books which form a part of the so-called deutero-canon, and which Eusebius designated as the antilegomena. They also differed in regard to other ecclesiastical writings, for there was no fixed line between canonical and non-canonical books. While there was perhaps no council of the church that had passed on the books and declared them canonical, it is undoubtedly true that before the close of the 2nd century all the books that are in our New Testament, with the exception of those under consideration, had become recognized as Scripture in all orthodox churches.

The history of these seven books reveals the fact that although some of them were early used by the Fathers, they afterward fell into disfavor. That is especially true of Hebrews and Revelation. Generally speaking, it can be said that at the close of the 2nd century the 7 books under consideration had failed to receive any such general recognition as had the rest; however, all, with perhaps the exception of 2 Peter, had been used by some of the Fathers. He was freely attested by Clement of Rome and Justin Martyr; James by Hermas and probably by Clement of Rome; 2 John, 3 John and Jude by the Muratorian Fragment; Revelation by Hermas and Justin Martyr who names John as its author. See CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

Jerome, who prepared the Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) in the closing years of the 4th century, accepted all 7 of the doubtful books, yet he held that 2 John and 3 John were written by the Presbyter, and he intimated that 2 Peter and Jude were still rejected by some, and he said the Latins did not receive He among the canonical Scriptures, neither did the Greek churches receive Augustine, who was one of the great leaders during the last part of the 4th century and the first part of the 5th, accepted without question the 7 disputed books. These books had gradually gained in favor and the position of Jerome and Augustine practically settled their canonicity for the orthodox churches. The Council of Carthage, held in 397, adopted the catalogue of Augustine. This catalogue contained all the disputed books both of the New Testament and the Old Testament.

SINCE THE REFORMATION.

The Canon of Augustine became the Canon of the majority of the churches and the Old Testament books which he accepted were added to the Vulgate, but there were some who still held to the Canon of Jerome. The awakening of the Reformation inevitably led to a reinvestigation of the Canon, since the Bible was made the source of authority, and some of the disputed books of the New Testament were again questioned by the Reformers. The position given the Bible by the Reformers led the Roman church to reaffirm its sanction and definitely to fix the books that should be accepted. Accordingly the Council of Trent, which convened in 1546, made the Canon of Augustine, which included the 7 apocphyal books of the Old Testament, and the 7 disputed books of the New Testament, the Canon of the church, and it pronounced a curse upon those who did not receive these books. The Protestants at first followed the example of Rome and adopted these books which had long had the sanction of usage as their Bible. Gradually, however, the questioned books of the Old Testament were separated from the others. That was true in Coverdale’s translation, and in Matthew’s Bible they were not only separated from the others but they were prefaced with the words, “the volume of the book called Hagiographa.” In Cranmer’s Bible, Hagiographa was changed into Apocrypha, and this passed through the succeeding edition into the King James Version. A. W. Fortune DEUTERONOMY <du-ter-on’-o-mi > :

1. NAME:

In Hebrew [ µyrib;D]h” hL,ae , ‘elleh ha-debharim ], “these are the words”; in Greek, [ Deuterono>mion, Deuteronomion ], “second law”; whence the Latin deuteronomii, and the English Deuteronomy. The Greek title is due to a mistranslation by the Septuagint of the clause in Deuteronomy 17:18 rendered, “and he shall write for himself this repetition of the law.”

The Hebrew really means “and he shall write out for himself a copy of this law.” However, the error on which the English title rests is not serious, as Deuteronomy is in a very true sense a repetition of the law.

2. WHAT DEUTERONOMY IS:

Deuteronomy is the last of the five books of the Pentateuch, or “five-fifths of the Law.” It possesses an individuality and impressiveness of its own. In Exodus — Numbers Yahweh is represented as speaking unto Moses, whereas in Deuteronomy, Moses is represented as speaking at Yahweh’s command to Israel (1:1-4; 5:1; 29:1). It is a hortatory recapitulation of various addresses delivered at various times and places in the desert wanderings — a sort of homily on the constitution, the essence or gist of Moses’ instructions to Israel during the forty years of their desert experience. It is “a Book of Reviews”; a translation of Israel’s redemptive history into living principles; not so much a history as a commentary. There is much of retrospect in it, but its main outlook is forward. The rabbins speak of it as “the Book of Reproofs.” It is the text of all prophecy; a manual of evangelical oratory; possessing “all the warmth of a Bernard, the flaming zeal of a Savonarola, and the tender, gracious sympathy of a Francis of Assisi.” The author’s interest is entirely moral. His one supreme purpose is to arouse Israel’s loyalty to Yahweh and to His revealed law.

Taken as a whole the book is an exposition of the great commandment, “Thou shalt love Yahweh thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.” It was from Deuteronomy that Jesus summarized the whole of the Old Covenant in a single sentence ( Matthew 22:37; compare Deuteronomy 6:5), and from it He drew His weapons with which to vanquish the tempter ( Matthew 4:4,7,10; compare Deuteronomy 8:3; 6:16,13).

3. ANALYSIS:

Deuteronomy is composed of three discourses, followed by three short appendices: (1) 1:1 through 4:43, historical; a review of God’s dealings with Israel, specifying in great detail where and when delivered (1:1-5), recounting in broad oratorical outlines the chief events in the nation’s experience from Horeb to Moab (1:6 through 3:29), on which the author bases an earnest appeal to the people to be faithful and obedient, and in particular to keep clear of all possible idolatry (4:1-40). Appended to this first discourse is a brief note (4:41-43) concerning Moses’ appointment of three cities of refuge on the East side of the Jordan. (2) 4:44 through 26:19, hortatory and legal; introduced by a superscription (4:44-49), and consisting of a resume of Israel’s moral and civil statutes, testimonies and judgments. Analyzed in greater detail, this second discourse is composed of two main sections: (a) chapters 5 through 11, an extended exposition of the Ten Commandments on which theocracy was based; (b) chapters 12 through 26, a code of special statutes concerning worship, purity, tithes, the three annual feasts, the administration of justice, kings, priests, prophets, war, and the private and social life of the people. The spirit of this discourse is most ethical and religious.

The tone is that of a father no less than that of a legislator. A spirit of humanity pervades the entire discourse. Holiness is its ideal. (3) 27:1 through 31:30, predictive and minatory; the subject of this third discourse being “the blessings of obedience and the curses of disobedience.” This section begins with directions to inscribe these laws on plastered stones to be set up on Mt. Ebal (27:1-10), to be ratified by an antiphonal ritual of blessings and cursings from the two adjacent mountains, Gerizim and Ebal (27:11-26). These are followed by solemn warnings against disobedience (28:1 through 29:1), and fresh exhortations to accept the terms of the new covenant made in Moab, and to choose between life and death (29:2 through 30:20).

Moses’ farewell charge to Israel and his formal commission of Joshua close the discourse (Deuteronomy 31). The section is filled with predictions, which were woefully verified in Israel’s later history. The three appendices, spoken of above, close the book: (a) Moses’ Song (Deuteronomy 32), which the great Lawgiver taught the people (the Law was given to the priests, Deuteronomy 31:24-27); (b) Moses’ Blessing (Deuteronomy 33), which forecast the future for the various tribes (Simeon only being omitted); (c) a brief account of Moses’ death and burial (Deuteronomy 34) with a noble panegyric on him as the greatest prophet Israel ever had. Thus closes this majestic and marvelously interesting and practical book. Its keyword is “possess”; its central thought is “Yahweh has chosen Israel, let Israel choose Yahweh.”

4. RULING IDEAS:

The great central thought of Deuteronomy is the unique relation which Yahweh as a unique God sustains to Israel as a unique people. “Hear O Israel; Yahweh our God is one Yahweh.” The monotheism of Deuteronomy is very explicit. Following from this, as a necessary corollary almost, is the other great teaching of the book, the unity of the sanctuary.

The motto of the book might be said to be, “One God, one sanctuary.” (1) Yahweh, a Unique God.

Yahweh is the only God, “There is none else besides him” Deuteronomy (4:35,39; 6:4; 32:39), “He is God of gods, and Lord of lords” (10:17), “the living God” (5:26), “the faithful God, who keepeth covenant and lovingkindness with them that love him and keep his commandments” (7:9), who abominates graven images and every species of idolatry (7:25,26; 12:31; 13:14; 18:12; 20:18; 27:15), to whom belong the heavens and the earth (10:14), who rules over all the nations (7:19), whose relation to Israel is near and personal (28:58), even that of a Father (32:6), whose being is spiritual (4:12,15), and whose name is “Rock” (32:4,15,18,30,31).

Being such a God, He is jealous of all rivals (7:4; 29:24-26; 31:16,17), and hence, all temptations to idolatry must be utterly removed from the land, the Canaanites must be completely exterminated and all their altars, pillars, Asherim and images destroyed (7:1-5,16; 20:16-18; 12:2,3). (2) Israel, a Unique People.

The old Israel had become unique through the covenant which Yahweh made with them at Horeb, creating out of them “a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation” ( Exodus 19:6). The new Israel who had been born in the desert were to inherit the blessings vouchsafed to their fathers, through the covenant just now being made in Moab ( Deuteronomy 26:16-19; 27:9; 29:1; 5:2,3). By means of it they became the heirs of all the promises given unto their fathers the patriarchs ( Deuteronomy 4:31; 7:12; 8:18; 29:13); they too became holy and peculiar, and especially beloved of Yahweh ( Deuteronomy 7:6; 14:2,21; 26:18,19; 28:9; 4:37), disciplined, indeed, but for their own good ( Deuteronomy 8:2,3,5,16), to be established as a people, as Yahweh’s peculiar lot and inheritance ( Deuteronomy 32:6,9; 4:7). (3) The Relation between Yahweh and Israel a Unique Relation.

Other nations feared their deities; Israel was expected not only to fear Yahweh but to love Him and cleave to Him ( Deuteronomy 4:10; 5:29; 6:5; 10:12,20; 11:1,13,12; 13:3,4; 17:19; 19:9; 28:58; 30:6,16,20; 31:12,13). The highest privileges are theirs because they are partakers of the covenant blessings; all others are strangers and foreigners, except they be admitted into Israel by special permission ( Deuteronomy 23:1-8).

5. UNITY:

The essential unity of the great kernel of Deuteronomy (Deuteronomy through 26) is recognized and freely allowed by nearly everyone (e.g.

Kautzsch, Kuenen, Dillmann, Driver). Some would even defend the unity of the whole of Deuteronomy 1 through 26 (Knobel, Graf, Kosters, Colenso, Kleinert). No other book of the Old Testament, unless it be the prophecies of Ezekiel, bears such unmistakable signs of unity in aim, language and thought. “The literary style of Deuteronomy,” says Driver, “is very marked and individual; in his command of a chaste, yet warm and persuasive eloquence, the author of Deuteronomy stands unique among the writers of the OT” (Deuteronomy, lxxvii, lxxxviii). Many striking expressions characterize the style of this wonderful book of oratory: e.g. “cause to inherit”; “Hear O Israel”; the oft-repeated root, meaning in the Qal verb-species “learn,” and in the Piel verb-species “teach”; “be willing”; “so shalt thou exterminate the evil from thy midst”; “as at this day”; “that it may be well with thee”; “the land whither thou goest in to possess it”; “with all thy heart and with all thy soul”; and many others, all of which occur frequently in Deuteronomy and rarely elsewhere in the Old Testament, thus binding, so far as style can, the different sections of the book into one solid unit. Barring various titles and editorial additions ( Deuteronomy 1:1-5; 4:44-49; 29:1; 33:1,7,9,22; 34:1) and a few archaeological notes such as Deuteronomy 2:10-12,20-23; 3:9,11,14; 10:6-9, and of course the last chapter, which gives an account of Moses’ death, there is every reason necessary for supposing that the book is a unit.

Few writings in the entire field of literature have so clear a unity of purpose or so uniform a style of address.

6. AUTHORSHIP:

There is one passage bearing upon the authorship of Deuteronomy wherein it is stated most explicitly that Moses wrote “this law.” It reads, “And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi. ....

And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished (i.e. to the end), that Moses commanded the Levites, that bare the ark of the covenant of Yahweh, saying, Take this book of the law, and put it by the side of the ark of the covenant of Yahweh your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee” ( Deuteronomy 31:9,24-27). This passage is of more than traditional value, and should not be ignored as is so often done (e.g. by Ryle, article “Deuteronomy,” HDB). It is not enough to say that Moses was the great fountain-head of Hebrew law, that he gave oral but not written statutes, or, that Moses was only the traditional source of these statutes. For it is distinctly and emphatically stated that “Moses wrote this law.” And it is further declared ( Deuteronomy 31:22) that “Moses wrote this song,” contained in Deuteronomy 32. Now, these statements are either true, or they are false. There is no escape. The authorship of no other book in the Old Testament is so explicitly emphasized. The present writer believes that Moses actually wrote the great body of Deuteronomy, and for the following general reasons: (1) Deuteronomy as a Whole Is Eminently Appropriate to What We Know of Moses’ Times.

It closes most fittingly the formative period of Israel’s history. The historical situation from first to last is that of Moses. The references to foreign neighbors — Egypt, Canaan, Amalek, Ammon, Moab, Edom — are in every case to those who flourished in Moses’ own times. As a law book its teaching is based upon the Ten Commandments. If Moses gave the Ten Commandments, then surely he may have written the Book of Deuteronomy also. Besides, the Code of Hammurabi, which antedates Moses by at least 700 years, makes it possible certainly that Moses also left laws in codified or written form. (2) Deuteronomy Is Represented as Emanating from Moses.

The language is language put into Moses’ mouth. Nearly forty times his name occurs, and in the majority of instances as the authoritative author of the subject-matter. The first person is used predominatingly throughout: “I commanded Joshua at that time” Deuteronomy (3:21); and “I charged your judges at that time” (1:16); “And I commanded you at that time” (1:18); “I have led you forty years in the wilderness” (29:5). “The language surely purports to come from Moses; and if it was not actually used by him, it is a most remarkable case of impersonation, if not of literary forgery, for the writer represents himself as reproducing, not what Moses might have said, but the exact words of Moses” (Zerbe, The Antiquity of Hebrew Writing and Lit., 1911, 261). (3) Deuteronomy Is a Military Law Book, a Code of Conquest, a Book of Exhortation.

It was intended primarily neither for Israel in the desert nor for Israel settled in Canaan, but for Israel on the borderland, eager for conquest. It is expressly stated that Moses taught Israel these statutes and judgments in order that they should obey them in the land which they were about to enter (4:5,14; 5:31). They must expel the aborigines (7:1; 9:1-3; 20:17; 31:3), but in their warfare they must observe certain laws in keeping with theocracy (20:1-20; 23:9-14; 21:10-14; 31:6,7), and, when they have finally dispossessed their enemies, they must settle down to agricultural life and live no longer as nomads but as citizens of a civilized land (19:14; 22:8-10; 24:19-21). All these laws are regulations which should become binding in the future only (compare Kittel, History Of the Hebrews, I, 32).

Coupled with them are prophetic exhortations which seem to be genuine, and to have had their birth in Moses’ soul. Indeed the great outstanding feature of Deuteronomy is its parenetic or hortatory character. Its exhortations have not only a military ring as though written on the eve of battle, but again and again warn Israel against allowing themselves to be conquered in religion through the seductions of idolatry. The book in short is the message of one who is interested in Israel’s political and religious future. There is a paternal vein running throughout it which marks it with a genuine Mosaic, not a merely fictitious or artificial, stamp. It is these general features, so characteristic of the entire book, which compel one to believe in its Mosaic authorship.

7. DEUTERONOMY SPOKEN TWICE:

Certain literary features exist in Deuteronomy which lead the present writer to think that the bulk of the book was spoken twice; once, to the first generation between Horeb and Kadesh-barnea in the 2nd year of the Exodus wanderings, and a second time to the new generation, in the plains of Moab in the 40th year. Several considerations point in this direction: (1) The Names of the Widely Separated Geographical Places Mentioned in the Title ( <050101>Deuteronomy 1:1,2). ”These are the words which Moses spake unto all Israel beyond the Jordan in the wilderness, in the Arabah over against Suph, between Paran, and Tophel, and Laban, and Hazeroth, and Di-zahab”; to which is added, “It is eleven days’ journey from Horeb by the way of Mount Seir unto Kadesh- barnea.” If these statements have any relevancy whatever to the contents of the book which they introduce, they point to a wide area, from Horeb to Moab, as the historico-geographical background of the book. In other words, Deuteronomy, in part at least, seems to have been spoken first on the way between Horeb and Kadesh-barnea, and later again when Israel were encamped on the plains of Moab. And, indeed, what would be more natural than for Moses when marching northward from Horeb expecting to enter Canaan from the south, to exhort the Israel of that day in terms of Deuteronomy 5 through 26? Being baffled, however, by the adverse report of the spies and the faithlessness of the people, and being forced to wait and wander for 38 years, what would be more natural than for Moses in Moab, when about to resign his position as leader, to repeat the exhortations of Deuteronomy 5 through 26, adapting them to the needs of the new desert-trained generation and prefacing the whole by a historical introduction such as that found in Deuteronomy 1 through 4? (2) The Double Allusion to the Cities of Refuge ( Deuteronomy 4:41-43; 19:1-13).

On the supposition that Deuteronomy 5 through 26 were spoken first between Horeb and Kadesh-barnea, in the 2nd year of the Exodus, it could not be expected that in this section the names of the three cities chosen East of the Jordan should be given, and in fact they are not ( Deuteronomy 19:1-13); the territory of Sihon and Og had not yet been conquered and the cities of refuge, accordingly, had not yet been designated (compare Numbers 35:#14 2:14). But in Deuteronomy 4:41-43, on the contrary, which forms a part of the historical introduction, which ex hypothesi was delivered just at the end of the 39 years’ wanderings, after Sihon and Og had been subdued and their territory divided, the three cities of refuge East of the Jordan are actually named, just as might be expected. (3) Section Deuteronomy 4:44-49.

The section Deuteronomy 4:44-49, which, in its original form, very probably introduced chapters 5 through 26 before these chapters were adapted to the new situation in Moab. (4) The Phrase “Began Moses to Declare This Law” (1:5).

The phrase “began Moses to declare this law” (1:5), suggesting that the great lawgiver found it necessary to expound what he had delivered at some previous time. The Hebrew word translated “to declare” is found elsewhere in the Old Testament only in Deuteronomy 27:8 and in Habakkuk 2:2, and signifies “to make plain.” (5) The Author’s Evident Attempt to Identify the New Generation in Moab with the Patriarchs. ”Yahweh made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day,” i.e. with us who have survived the desert discipline ( Deuteronomy 5:3). In view of these facts, we conclude that the book in its present form (barring the exceptions above mentioned) is the product of the whole 39 years of desert experience from Horeb on, adapted, however, to meet the exigencies of the Israelites as they stood between the victories already won on the East of the Jordan and those anticipated on the West. The impression given throughout is that the aged lawgiver’s work is done, and that a new era in the people’s history is about to begin.

8. DEUTERONOMY’S INFLUENCE IN ISRAEL’S HISTORY:

The influence of Deuteronomy began to be felt from the very beginning of Israel’s career in Canaan. Though the references to Deuteronomy in Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings are comparatively few, yet they are sufficient to show that not only the principles of Deuteronomy were known and observed but that they were known in written form as codified statutes. For example, when Jericho was taken, the city and its spoil were “devoted” ( Joshua 6:17,18) in keeping with Deuteronomy 13:15 ff (compare Joshua 10:40; 11:12,15 with Deuteronomy 7:2; 20:16,17).

Achan trespassed and he and his household were stoned, and afterward burned with fire ( Joshua 7:25; compare Deuteronomy 13:10; 17:5).

The fact that his sons and his daughters were put to death with him seems at first sight to contradict Deuteronomy 24:16, but there is no proof that they suffered for their father’s sin (see ACHAN; ACHOR); besides the Hebrews recognized the unity of the household, even that of Rahab the harlot ( Joshua 6:17). Again when Ai was taken, “only the cattle and the spoil” did Israel take for a prey unto themselves ( Joshua 8:27), in keeping with Deuteronomy 20:14; also, the body of the king of Ai was taken down before nightfall from the tree on which he had been hanged ( Joshua 8:29), which was in keeping with Deuteronomy 21:23 (compare Joshua 10:26,27). As in warfare, so in worship. For instance, Joshua built an altar on Mt. Ebal ( Joshua 8:30,31), “as Moses the servant of Yahweh commanded” ( Deuteronomy 27:4-6), and he wrote on them a copy of the law ( Joshua 8:32), as Moses had also enjoined ( Deuteronomy 27:3,8). Moreover, the elders and officers and judges stood on either side of the ark of the covenant between Ebal and Gerizim ( Joshua 8:33), as directed in Deuteronomy 11:29; 27:12,13, and Joshua read to all the congregation of Israel all the words of the law, the blessings and the cursings ( Joshua 8:34,35), in strict accord with Deuteronomy 31:11,12.

But the passage of paramount importance is the story of the two and a half tribes who, on their return to their home on the East side of the Jordan, erected a memorial at the Jordan, and, when accused by their fellowtribesmen of plurality of sanctuary, emphatically disavowed it ( Joshua 22:29; compare Deuteronomy 12:5). Obviously, therefore, Deuteronomy was known in the days of Joshua. A very few instances in the history of the Judges point in the same direction: e.g. the utter destruction of Zephath ( Judges 1:17; compare Deuteronomy 7:2; 20:16 f); Gideon’s elimination of the fearful and faint-hearted from his army ( Judges 7:1-7; compare Deuteronomy 20:1-9); the author’s studied concern to justify Gideon and Manoah for sacrificing at altars other than at Shiloh on the ground that they acted in obedience to Yahweh’s direct commands ( Judges 6:25-27; 13:16); especially the case of Micah, who congratulated himself that Yahweh would do him good seeing he had a Levite for a priest, is clear evidence that Deuteronomy was known in the days of the Judges ( Judges 17:13; compare Deuteronomy 10:8; 18:1-8; 33:8-11). In 1 Samuel 1:1-9,21,24 the pious Elkanah is pictured as going yearly to worship Yahweh at Shiloh, the central sanctuary at that time. After the destruction of Shiloh, when the ark of the covenant had been captured by the Philistines, Samuel indeed sacrificed at Mizpah, Ramah and Bethlehem ( 1 Samuel 7:7-9,17; 16:5), but in doing so he only took advantage of the elasticity of the Deuteronomic law: “When .... he giveth you rest from all your enemies round about, so that ye dwell in safety; then it shall come to pass that to the place which Yahweh your God shall choose, to cause his name to dwell there, thither shall ye bring all that I command you: your burnt-offerings, and your sacrifices” ( Deuteronomy 12:10,11). It was not until Solomon’s time that Israel’s enemies were all subdued, and even then Solomon did not observe strictly the teachings of Deuteronomy; “His wives turned away his heart,” so that he did not faithfully keep Yahweh’s “covenant” and “statutes” ( 1 Kings 11:3,11). Political disruption followed, and religion necessarily suffered.

Yet Jehoiada the priest gave the youthful Joash “the crown” and “the testimony” ( 2 Kings 11:12; compare Deuteronomy 17:18). King Amaziah did not slay the children of the murderers who slew his father, in conscious obedience apparently to the law of Deuteronomy ( 2 Kings 14:6; compare Deuteronomy 24:16). Later on, Hezekiah, the cultured king of Judah, reformed the cult of his day by removing the high places, breaking down the pillars, cutting down the Asherahs, and even breaking in pieces the brazen serpent which Moses had made ( 2 Kings 18:4,22).

Hezekiah’s reforms were unquestionably carried through under the influence of Deuteronomy.

It is equally certain that the prophets of the 8th century were not ignorant of this book. For example, Hosea complains of Israel’s sacrificing upon the tops of the mountains and burning incense upon the hills, and warns Judah not to follow Israel’s example in coming up to worship at Gilgal and Bethaven ( Hosea 4:13,15). He also alludes to striving with priests ( Hosea 4:4; compare Deuteronomy 17:12), removing landmarks ( Hosea 5:10; compare Deuteronomy 19:14), returning to Egypt ( Hosea 8:13; 9:3; compare Deuteronomy 28:68), and of Yahweh’s tender dealing with Ephraim ( Hosea 11:3; compare Deuteronomy 1:31; 32:10). The courage of Amos, the shepherd-prophet of Tekoa, can best be explained, also, on the basis of a written law such as that of Deuteronomy with which he and his hearers were already more or less familiar ( Amos 3:2; compare Deuteronomy 7:6; 4:7,8). He condemns Israel’s inhumanity and adultery in the name of religion, and complains of their retaining overnight pledges wrested from the poor, which was distinctly forbidden in Deuteronomy ( Amos 2:6-8; compare Deuteronomy 24:12-15; 23:17). Likewise, in the prophecies of Isaiah there are conscious reflections of Deuteronomy’s thought and teaching.

Zion is constantly pictured as the center of the nation’s religion and as Yahweh’s secure dwellingplace ( Isaiah 2:2-4; 8:18; 28:16; 29:1,2; compare Micah 4:1-4). In short, no one of the four great prophets of the 8th century BC — Isaiah, Micah, Amos, Hosea — ever recognized “high places” as legitimate centers of worship.

9. THE CRITICAL THEORY:

Over against the Biblical view, certain modern critics since Deuteronomy Wette (1805) advocate a late origin of Deuteronomy, claiming that it was first published in 621 BC, when Hilkiah found “the book of the law” in the temple in the 18th year of King Josiah ( 2 Kings 22:8 ff). The kernel of Deuteronomy and “the book of the law” discovered by Hilkiah are said to be identical. Thus, Dr. G. A. Smith claims that “a code like the Book of Deuteronomy was not brought forth at a stroke, but was the expression of the gradual results of the age-long working of the Spirit of the Living God in the hearts of His people” (Jerusalem, II, 115). According to Dr. Driver, “Deuteronomy may be described as the prophetic reformulation and adaptation to new needs, of an older legislation. It is probable that there was a tradition, if not a written record, of a final legislative address delivered by Moses in the steppes of Moab: the plan followed by the author would rest upon a more obvious motive, if he thus worked upon a traditional basis. But be that as it may, the bulk of the laws contained in Deuteronomy is undoubtedly far more ancient than the author himself. ....

What is essentially new in Deuteronomy is not the matter, but the form. ....

The new element in Deuteronomy is thus not the laws, but their parenetic setting” (Deuteronomy, lxi, lvi). This refined presentation of the matter would not be so very objectionable, were Drs. Smith and Driver’s theory not linked up with certain other claims and allegations to the effect that Moses in the 15th century BC could not possibly have promulgated such a lofty monotheism, that in theological teaching “the author of Deuteronomy is the spiritual heir of Hosea,” that there are discrepancies between it and other parts of the Pentateuch, that in the early history of Israel down to the 8th century plurality of sanctuaries was legally permissible, that there are no traces of the influence of the principal teachings of a written Deuteronomy discoverable in Hebrew literature until the time of Jeremiah, and that the book as we possess it was originally composed as a program of reform, not by Moses but in the name of Moses as a forgery or pseudepigraph. For example, F. H. Woods says, “Although not a necessary result of accepting the later date, the majority of critics believe this book of the law to have been the result of a pious fraud promulgated by Hilkiah and Shaphan with the retention of deceiving Josiah into the belief that the reforms which they desired were the express command of God revealed to Moses” (HDB, II, 368). Some are unwilling to go so far. But in any case, it is claimed that the law book discovered and published by Hilkiah, which brought about the reformation by Josiah in 621 BC, was no other than some portion of the Book of Deuteronomy, and of Deuteronomy alone.

But there are several considerations which are opposed to this theory: (1) Deuteronomy emphasizes centralization of worship at one sanctuary (12:5); Josiah’s reformation was directed rather against idolatry in general ( 2 Kings 23:4 ff). (2) In Deuteronomy 18:6-8, a Levite coming from the country to Jerusalem was allowed to minister and share in the priestly perquisites; but in 2 Kings 23:9, “the priests of the high places came not up to the altar of Yahweh in Jerusalem, but they did eat unleavened bread among their brethren.” And according to the critical theory, “Levites” and “priests” are interchangeable terms. (3) The following passages in Exodus might almost equally with Deuteronomy account for Josiah’s reformation: Exodus 20:3; 22:18,20; 23:13,14,32,33; 34:13,14-17. (4) The law book discovered by Hilkiah was recognized at once as an ancient code which the fathers had disobeyed ( 2 Kings 22:13). Were they all deceived? Even Jeremiah (compare Jeremiah 11:3,4)? “There were many persons in Judah who had powerful motives for exposing this forgery if it was one” (Raven, Old Testament Introduction, 112). (5) One wonders why so many archaic and, in Josiah’s time, apparently obsolete laws should have been incorporated in a code whose express motive was to reform an otherwise hopeless age: e.g. the command to exterminate the Canaanites, who had long since ceased to exist ( Deuteronomy 7:18,22), and to blot out Amalek ( Deuteronomy 25:17-19), the last remnants of whom were completely destroyed in Hezekiah’s time ( 1 Chronicles 4:41-43). Especially is this true of the score and more of laws peculiar to Deuteronomy, concerning building battlements on the roofs of houses ( Deuteronomy 22:8), robbing birds’ nests ( Deuteronomy 22:6,7), the sexes exchanging garments ( Deuteronomy 22:5), going out to war ( Deuteronomy 20:1 ff), etc. (6) Especially remarkable is it that if Deuteronomy were written, as alleged, shortly before the reign of Josiah, there should be no anachronisms in it betraying a post-Mosaic origin. There are no allusions to the schism between Judah and Israel, no hint of Assyrian oppression through the exaction of tribute, nor any threats of Israel’s exile either to Assyria or Babylonia, but rather to Egypt ( Deuteronomy 28:68). “Jerusalem” is never mentioned. From a literary point of view, it is psychologically and historically well-nigh impossible for a writer to conceal all traces of his age and circumstances. On the other hand, no Egyptologist has ever discovered any anachronisms in Deuteronomy touching Egyptian matters. From first to last the author depicts the actual situation of the times of Moses. It is consequently hard to believe, as is alleged, that a later writer is studying to give “an imaginative revivification of the past.” (7) The chief argument in favor of Deuteronomy’s late origin is its alleged teaching concerning the unity of the sanctuary. Wellhausen lays special emphasis upon this point. Prior to Josiah’s reformation, it is claimed, plurality of sanctuaries was allowed. But in opposition to this, it is possible to point victoriously to Hezekiah’s reformation ( 2 Kings 18:4,22), as a movement in the direction of unity; and especially to Exodus 20:24, which is so frequently misinterpreted as allowing a multiplicity of sanctuaries. This classical passage when correctly interpreted allows only that altars shall be erected in every place where Yahweh records His name, “which presumably during the wanderings and the time of the judges would mean wherever the Tabernacle was” (Mackay, Introduction to Old Testament, 110). This interpretation of this passage is confirmed and made practically certain, indeed, by the command in Exodus 23:14-19 that Israel shall repair three times each year to the house of Yahweh and there present their offering. On the other hand, Deuteronomy’s emphasis upon unity of sanctuary is often exaggerated. The Book of Deuteronomy requires unity only after Israel’s enemies are all overcome ( Deuteronomy 12:10,11). “When” Yahweh giveth them rest, “then” they shall repair for worship to the place which “God shall choose.” As Davidson remarks: “It is not a law that is to come into effect on their entry into Canaan; it is to be observed from the time that Yahweh shall have given them rest from all their enemies round about; that is, from the times of David, or more particularly, Solomon; for only when the temple was built did that place become known which Yahweh had chosen to place His name there” (Old Testament Theology, 361). Besides, it should not be forgotten that in Deuteronomy itself the command is given to build an altar in Mt. Ebal (27:5-7). As a matter of fact, the unity of sanctuary follows as a necessary consequence of monotheism; and if Moses taught monotheism, he probably also enjoined unity of worship. If, on the other hand, monotheism was first evolved by the prophets of the 8th century, then, of course, unity of sanctuary was of 8th-century origin also. (8) Another argument advanced in favor of the later origin of Deuteronomy is the contradiction between the laws of Deuteronomy and those of Lev-Numbers concerning the priests and Levites. In Numbers 16:10,35,40, a sharp distinction is drawn, it is alleged, between the priests and common Levites, whereas in Deuteronomy 18:1-8, all priests are Levites and all Levites are priests. But as a matter of fact, the passage in Deuteronomy does not invest a Levite with priestly but with Levitical functions (compare 18:7). “The point insisted upon is that all Levites shall receive full recognition at the sanctuary and be accorded their prerogatives.

It goes without saying that if the Levite be a priest he shall serve and fare like his brethren the priests; if he be not a priest, he shall enjoy the privileges that belong to his brethren who are Levites, but not priests” (J.

D. Davis, article “Deuteronomy,” in Smith, Dictionary of the Bible, 117).

The Book of Deuteronomy teaches not that all the tribe, but only the tribe of Levi may exercise priestly functions, thus restricting the exercise of priestly prerogatives to one and only one tribe. This was in perfect harmony with Lev-Numbers and also in keeping with the style of popular discourse. (9) Recently Professor Ed. Naville, the Egyptologist, has propounded a theory of the origin of “the Book of the Law” discovered by Hilkiah, which is not without some value. On the analogy of the Egyptian custom of burying texts of portions of “the Book of the Dead” at the foot of statues of gods and within foundations of temple walls, as at Hermopolis, he concludes that Solomon, when he constructed the Temple, probably deposited this “Book of the Law” in the foundations, and that when Josiah’s workmen were about their tasks of repairing the edifice, the long-forgotten document came to light and was given to Hilkiah the priest. Hilkiah, however, upon examination of the document found it difficult to read, and so, calling for Shaphan the scribe, who was more expert in deciphering antique letters than himself, he gave the sacred roll to him, and he in turn read it to both Hilkiah and the king.

The manuscript may indeed have been written in cuneiform. Thus, according to Naville, “the Book of the Law,” which he identifies with Deuteronomy, must be pushed back as far as the age of Solomon at the very latest. Geden shares a similar view as to its date: “some time during the prosperous period of David and the United Monarchy” (Intro to the Hebrew Bible, 1909, 330).

But why not ascribe the book to the traditional author? Surely there can be no philosophical objection to doing so, in view of the now-known Code of Hammurabi, which antedates Moses by so many hundreds of years! No other age accounts so well for its origin as that of the great lawgiver who claims to have written the bulk of it. And the history of the disintegration of the book only shows to what extremes a false method may lead; for example, Steuernagel separates the “Thou” and “Ye” sections from each other and assigns them to different authors of late date: Kennett, on the other hand, assigns the earliest strata to the period of the Exile (Jour. of Theol. Studies, 1904), On the whole, no theory is so satisfactory as that which, in keeping with Deuteronomy 31:22,24, ascribes to Moses the great bulk of the book. See also CRITICISM; PENTATEUCH.

LITERATURE.

On the conservative side: James Orr, The Problem of the Old Testament, The Bross Prize, 1906; article “Deuteronomy,” Illustrated Bible Dict., 1908; James Robertson, The Early Religion of Israel, 1892; article “Deuteronomy,” The Temple Bible Dict., 1910; John D. Davis, article “Deuteronomy,” Davis’ Dict. of the Bible, 1911; John H. Raven, Old Testament Intro, 1906; A. S. Geden, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, 1909; W. Moller, Are the Critics Right? 1903; R. B. Girdlestone, The Student’s Deuteronomy, 1899; Hugh Pope, The Date of the Composition of Deuteronomy, 1911; A. S. Zerbe, The Antiquity of Hebrew Writing and Lit., 1911; Ed. Naville, The Discovery of the Book of the Law under King Josiah, 1911; E. C. Bissell, The Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure, 1885; G. L. Robinson, The Expositor, “The Genesis of Deuteronomy,” October and November, 1898, February, March, May, 1899; W. H. Green, Moses and the Prophets, 1891; The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch, 1895; A.

M. Mackay, The Churchman’s Introduction to the Old Testament, 1901; J.

W. Beardslee, Outlines of an Introduction to the Old Testament, 1903; G.

Vos, The Mosaic Origin of the Pentateuchal Codes, 1886.

On the other side: S. R. Driver, A Crit. and Exeg. Commentary on Deuteronomy, 1895; The Hexateuch, by J. Estlin Carpenter and G.

Harford-Battersby, I, II, 1900; G. A. Smith, Jerusalem, II, 1908; W.

Robertson Smith, The Old Testament in the Jewish Church, 1895; A.

Kuenen, The Hexateuch, 1886; H. E. Ryle, article “Deuteronomy,” HDB, 1898; G. F. Moore, article “Deuteronomy,” Encyclopedia Bibl., 1899; J. A.

Paterson, article “Deuteronomy,” Encyclopedia Brit, VIII, 1910.

In German: Deuteronomy Wette, Dissert. crit-exeget., 1805; Kleinert, Das Deuteronomy u. d. Deuteronomiker, 1872; Wellhausen, Die Comp. des Hexateuch. u. d. hist. Bucher des Altes Testament, 1889; Gesch. Israels, 1895; Steuernagel, Der Rahmen des Deuteronomy, 1894; Entsteh. des dt.

Gesetzes, 1896. George L. Robinson DEVICE <de-vis’ > : “A scheme,” “invention,” “plot.” In the Old Testament it stands for six Hebrew words, of which the most common is machashebheth (from chashabh , “to think,” “contrive”). In the New Testament it occurs only twice, once for Greek enthumesis ( Acts 17:29), and once for noema ( 2 Corinthians 2:11). Sometimes the word means simply that which is planned or invented, without any evil implication, as in 2 Chronicles 2:14; Acts 17:29 (of artistic work or invention), and Ecclesiastes 9:10 (in the general sense of reasoning or contriving). But more frequently it is used in an evil sense, of a wicked purpose or plot, “Let us devise devices against Jeremiah” ( Jeremiah 18:18); “For we are not ignorant of his (i.e. Satan’s) devices” ( 2 Corinthians 2:11), etc. D. Miall Edwards DEVIL <dev’-’-l > . See DEMON; SATAN.

DEVOTED, THINGS <de-vot’-ed > , ([ µr,je , cherem ]). See CURSE; DEDICATE.

DEVOTION; DEVOTIONS <de-vo’-shun > , [seba>smata, sebasmata ]): For the King James Version “your devotions” ( Acts 17:23), the Revised Version (British and American) has “the objects of your worship,” which is probably the intended meaning of the King James Version. the Revised Version (British and American) reads “devotion” for the King James Version “prayer” in Job 15:4 (the Revised Version, margin “meditation,” Hebrew siach ).

DEVOUT <de-vout’ > ([eujlabh>v, eulabes ], [eujsebh>v, eusebes ], [se>bomai, sebomai ], “pious,” “dutiful,” “reverential”): The word is peculiar to Luke.

Applied to Simeon ( Luke 2:25), Cornelius ( Acts 10:2,7), Ananias ( Acts 22:12). “Devout proselytes” ( Acts 13:43, the King James Version “religious proselytes”), with possible reference to the proselytes of righteousness as distinguished from the proselytes of the gate (see PROSELYTE ). “Devout women of honorable estate” ( Acts 13:50), proselytes to Judaism and wives of the men in high position among the heathen (see Josephus, BJ, II, xx, 2). “Devout Greeks” ( Acts 17:4), probably, though not necessarily, proselytes of the gate, heathen by birth, who attended the synagogue services and worshipped God. “Devout persons” ( Acts 17:17), proselytes of the gate. M. O. Evans DEW <du > ([ lf” , Tal ]; [dro>sov, drosos ]).

1. FORMATION OF DEW:

Two things are necessary for the formation of dew, moisture and cold. In moist countries there is less dew because the change in temperature between day and night is too small. In the deserts where the change in temperature between day and night is sometimes as much as 40 degrees F., there is seldom dew because of lack of moisture in the atmosphere.

Palestine is fortunate in being near the sea, so that there is always a large percentage of water vapor in the air. The skies are clear, and hence, there is rapid radiation beginning immediately after sunset, which cools the land and the air until the moisture is condensed and settles on cool objects. Air at a low temperature is not capable of holding as much water vapor in suspension as warm air. The ice pitcher furnishes an example of the formation of dew. Just as the drops of water form on the cool pitcher, so dew forms on rocks, grass and trees.

2. VALUE OF DEW IN PALESTINE:

In Palestine it does not rain from April to October, and were it not for the dew in summer all vegetation would perish. Dew and rain are equally important. If there is no rain the winter grass and harvests fail; if no dew, the late crops dry up and there is no fruit. Failure of either of these gifts of Nature would cause great want and hardship, but the failure of both would cause famine and death. Even on the edge of the great Syrian desert in Anti-Lebanon, beyond Jordan and in Sinai, a considerable vegetation of a certain kind flourishes in the summer, although there is not a drop of rain for six months. The dews are so heavy that the plants and trees are literally soaked with water at night, and they absorb sufficient moisture to more than supply the loss due to evaporation in the day. It is more surprising to one who has not seen it before to find a flourishing vineyard practically in the desert itself. Some of the small animals of the desert, such as the jerboa, seem to have no water supply except the dew. The dew forms most heavily on good conductors of heat, such as metals and stones, because they radiate their heat faster and cool the air around them. The wetting of Gideon’s fleece ( Judges 6:38) is an indication of the amount of dew formed, and the same phenomenon might be observed any clear night in summer in Palestine

3. IMPORTANCE TO ISRAEL:

Dew was a present necessity to the people of Israel as it is today to the people of the same lands, so Yahweh says, “I will be as the dew unto Israel” ( Hosea 14:5). Dew and rain are of equal importance and are spoken of together in 1 Kings 17:1. It was especially valued by the children of Israel in the desert, for it supplied the manna for their sustenance ( Exodus 16:13; Numbers 11:9).

4. SYMBOL OF BLESSING:

Isaac in blessing Jacob asked that the “dew of heaven” ( Genesis 27:28) may be granted to him; that these things which make for fertility and prosperity may be his portion. “The remnant of Jacob shall be in the midst of many peoples as dew from Yahweh” ( Micah 5:7), as a means of blessing to the nations. “Blessed of Yahweh for .... dew” ( Deuteronomy 33:13).

5. SYMBOL OF REFRESHMENT:

Dew is the means of refreshing and reinvigorating all vegetation. Many Scripture references carry out this idea. The song of Moses says, “My speech shall distill as the dew” ( Deuteronomy 32:2). “A cloud of dew” ( Isaiah 18:4) refreshes the harvesters. “My head is filled with dew” (Song 5:2). “Like the dew of Hermon” ( <19D303> Psalm 133:3). “Thou hast the dew of thy youth” ( <19B003> Psalm 110:3). “Thy dew is as the dew of herbs” ( Isaiah 26:19). Job said of the time of his prosperity, “The dew lieth all night upon my branch” ( Job 29:19).

Other figures use dew as the symbol of stealth, of that which comes up unawares ( 2 Samuel 17:12), and of inconstancy ( Hosea 6:4; 13:3).

God’s knowledge covers the whole realm of the phenomena of Nature which are mysteries to man ( Job 38:28; Proverbs 3:20). Alfred H. Joy DIADEM <di’-a-dem > : There are seven Bible references to the diadem, four in the Old Testament and three in the New Testament. The Hebrew words do not mark any clear distinctions. (1) [ tynix; , tsaniph ], [ twOnx; , tsanoph ], [ hp;ynix; , tsaniphah ] (all from [ tn”x; , tsanaph ], primarily “to wrap,” “dress,” “roll”) mean a headdress in the nature of a turban or piece of cloth wrapped or twisted about the head.

The word is also rendered “hood,” “mitre.” Job 29:14: “My justice was as a robe and a diadem” (RVm, “turban”); Isaiah 62:3: “a royal diadem in the hand of thy God.” (2) [ hr;ypix] , tsephirah ], means “a crown,” “diadem,” i.e. something round about the head; Isaiah 28:5 “a diadem of beauty, unto the residue of his people.” (3) [ tp,n,x]mi , mitsnepheth ], means an official turban or tiara of priest or king, translated also “mitre.” Ezekiel 21:26: “Remove the mitre, and take off the crown.” (4) [dia>dhma, diadema ], the Greek word in the New Testament for “diadem,” means “something bound about the head.” Found 3 t, all in Revelation 12:3: “a great red dragon .... and upon his heads seven diadems” (the King James Version “crowns”); Revelation 13:1: “a beast .... and on his horns ten diadems”; 19:11,12: “a white horse .... and upon his head are many diadems.” See CROWN.

William Edward Raffety DIAL, OF AHAZ, THE <di’-al > , <a’-haz > :

1. HEZEKIAH’S SICKNESS AND THE SIGN:

One of the most striking instances recorded in Holy Scripture of the interruption, or rather reversal, of the working of a natural law is the going back of the shadow on the dial of Ahaz at the time of Hezekiah’s recovery from his illness. The record of the incident is as follows. Isaiah was sent to Hezekiah in his sickness, to say: ”Thus saith Yahweh, the God of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will heal thee; on the third day thou shalt go up unto the house of Yahweh. .... And Hezekiah said unto Isaiah, What shall be the sign that Yahweh will heal me, and that I shall go up unto the house of Yahweh the third day? And Isaiah said, This shall be the sign unto thee from Yahweh, that Yahweh will do the thing that he hath spoken: shall the shadow go forward ten steps, or go back ten steps? And Hezekiah answered, It is a light thing for the shadow to decline ten steps: nay, but let the shadow return backward ten steps. And Isaiah the prophet cried unto Yahweh; and he brought the shadow ten steps backward, by which it had gone down on the dial of Ahaz” ( 2 Kings 20:5-11). And in Isaiah 38:8, it is said, “Behold, I will cause the shadow on the steps, which is gone down on the dial of Ahaz with the sun, to return backward ten steps.

So the sun returned ten steps on the dial whereon it was gone down.”

2. THE SIGN A REAL MIRACLE:

The first and essential point to be noted is that this was no ordinary astronomical phenomenon, nor was it the result of ordinary astronomical laws then unknown. It was peculiar to that particular place, and to that particular time; otherwise we should not read of “the ambassadors of the princes of Babylon, who sent .... to inquire of the wonder that was done in the land” ( 2 Chronicles 32:31). It is impossible, therefore, to accept the suggestion that the dial of Ahaz may have been improperly constructed, so as to produce a reversal of the motion of the shadow at certain times. For such a maladjustment would have occasioned the repetition of the phenomenon every time the sun returned to the same position with respect to the dial. The narrative, in fact, informs us that the occurrence was not due to any natural law, known or unknown, since Hezekiah was given the choice and exercised it of his own free will, as to whether a shadow should move in a particular direction or in the opposite. But there are no alternative results in the working of a natural law. “If a state of things is repeated in every detail, it must lead to exactly the same consequences.”

The same natural law cannot indifferently produce one result, or its opposite. The movement of the shadow on the dial of Ahaz was, therefore, a miracle in the strict sense of the term. It cannot be explained by the working of any astronomical law, known or unknown. We have no information as to the astronomical conditions at the time; we can only inquire into the setting of the miracle.

3. THE “DIAL” A STAIRCASE:

It is unfortunate that one important word in the narrative has been rendered in both the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) by a term which describes a recognized astronomical instrument. The word “dial” (ma’aloth ) is usually translated “degrees,” “steps,” or “stairs,” and indeed is thus rendered in the same verse. There is no evidence that the structure referred to had been designed to serve as a dial or was anything other than a staircase, “the staircase of Ahaz.” It was probably connected with that “covered way for the sabbath that they had built in the house, and the king’s entry without,” which Ahaz turned “round the house of Yahweh, because of the king of Assyria” ( 2 Kings 16:18 the Revised Version, margin). This staircase, called after Ahaz because the alteration was due to him, may have been substituted for David’s “causeway that goeth up,” which was “westward, by the gate of Shallecheth” ( 1 Chronicles 26:16), or more probably for Solomon’s “ascent by which he went up unto the house of Yahweh” which so impressed the queen of Sheba ( 2 Chronicles 9:4).

4. TIME OF DAY OF THE MIRACLE:

At certain times of the day the shadow of some object fell upon this staircase, and we learn from both 2 Kings and Isaiah that this shadow had already gone down ten steps, while from Isaiah we learn in addition that the sun also was going down. The miracle therefore took place in the afternoon, when the sun moves on its downward course, and when all shadows are thrown in an easterly direction. We are not told what was the object that cast the shadow, but it must have stood to the west of the staircase, and the top of the staircase must have passed into the shadow first, and the foot of the staircase have remained longest in the light. The royal palace is understood to have been placed southeast of the Temple, and it is therefore probable that it was some part of the Temple buildings that had cast its shadow down the stairway in full view of the dying king, as he lay in his chamber. If the afternoon were well advanced the sun would be moving rapidly in altitude, and but little in azimuth; or, in other words, the shadow would be advancing down the steps at its quickest rate, but be moving only slowly toward the left of those who were mounting them. It may well have been the case, therefore, that the time had come when the priests from Ophel, and the officials and courtiers from the palace, were going up the ascent into the house of the Lord to be present at the evening sacrifice; passing from the bright sunshine at the foot of the stairs into the shadow that had already fallen upon the upper steps. The sun would be going straight down behind the buildings and the steps already in shadow would sink into deeper shadow, not to emerge again into the light until a new day’s sun had arisen upon the earth.

5. HEZEKIAH’S CHOICE OF THE SIGN:

We can therefore understand the nature of the choice of the sign that was offered by the prophet to the dying king. Would he choose that ten more steps should be straight-way engulfed in the shadow, or that ten steps already shadowed should be brought back into the light? Either might serve as a sign that he should arise on the third day and go up in renewed life to the house of the Lord; but the one sign would be in accordance with the natural progress of events, and the other would be directly opposed to it. It would be a light thing, as Hezekiah said, for the shadow to go forward ten steps; a bank of cloud rising behind the Temple would effect that change.

But no disposition of cloud could bring the shadow back from that part of the staircase which had already passed into it, and restore it to the sunshine. The first change was, in human estimation, easily possible, “a light thing”; the second change seemed impossible. Hezekiah chose the seemingly impossible, and the Lord gave the sign and answered his prayer.

We need not ask Whether the king showed more or less faith in choosing the “impossible” rather than the “possible” sign. His father Ahaz had shown his want of faith by refusing to put the Lord to the test, by refusing to ask a sign, whether in the heaven above or in the earth beneath. The faith of Hezekiah was shown in asking a sign, which was at once in the heaven above and in the earth beneath, in accepting the choice offered to him, and so putting the Lord to the test. And the sign chosen was most fitting, Hezekiah lay dying, whether of plague or of cancer we do not know, but his disease was mortal and beyond cure; he was already entering into the shadow of death. The word of the Lord was sure to him; on “the third day” he would rise and go up in new life to the house of God.

6. MEANING OF THE SIGN:

But what of the sign? Should the shadow of death swallow him up; should his life be swiftly cut off in darkness, and be hidden until a new day should dawn, and the light of a new life, a life of resurrection, arise? (Compare John 11:24.) Or should the shadow be drawn back swiftly, and new years be added to his life before death could come upon him? Swift death was in the natural progress of events; restoration to health was of the impossible. He chose the restoration to health, and the Lord answered his faith and his prayer.

We are not able to go further into particulars. The first temple, the royal palace, and the staircase of Ahaz were all destroyed in the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, and we have no means of ascertaining the exact position of the staircase with respect to Temple or palace, or the number of the steps that it contained, or the time of the day, or the season of the year when the sign was given. It is possible that if we knew any or all of these, a yet greater significance, both spiritual and astronomical, might attach to the narrative.

7. THE FIFTEEN “SONGS OF DEGREES”:

Fifteen years were added to the life of Hezekiah. In the restoration of the second temple by Herod fifteen steps led from the Court of the Women to the Court of Israel, and on these steps the Levites during the Feast of Tabernacles were accustomed to stand in order to sing the fifteen “songs of degrees” (Pss 120 through 134). At the head of these same steps in the gateway, lepers who had been cleansed from their disease presented themselves to the priests. It has been suggested that Hezekiah himself was the compiler of these fifteen “songs of the steps,” in thankfulness for his fifteen years of added life. Five of them are ascribed to David or as written for Solomon, but the remaining ten bear no author’s name. Their subjects are, however, most appropriate to the great crises and desires of Hezekiah’s life. His great Passover, to which all the tribes were invited, and so many Israelites came; the blasphemy of Rabshakeh and of Sennacherib’s threatening letter; the danger of the Assyrian invasion and the deliverance from it; Hezekiah’s sickness unto death and his miraculous restoration to health; and the fact that at that time he would seem to have had no son to follow him on the throne — all these subjects seem to find fitting expression in the fifteen Psalms of the Steps. E. W. Maunder DIAMOND <di’-a-mund > . See STONES, PRECIOUS.

DIANA; ARTEMIS <di-an’-a > ([ ]Artemiv, Artemis ] “prompt,” “safe”): A deity of Asiatic origin, the mother goddess of the earth, whose seat of worship was the temple in Ephesus, the capital of the Roman province of Asia. Diana is but the Latinized form of the Greek word Artemis, yet the Artemis of Ephesus should not be confused with the Greek goddess of that name.

She may, however, be identified with the Cybele of the Phrygians whose name she also bore, and with several other deities who were worshipped under different names in various parts of the Orient. In Cappadocia she was known as Ma; to the Syrians as Atargatis or Mylitta; among the Phoenicians as Astarte, a name which appears among the Assyrians as Ishtar; the modern name Esther is derived from it. The same goddess seems to have been worshipped by the Hittites, for a female deity is sculptured on the rocks at Yazili Kaya, near the Hittite city of Boghazkeui.

It may be shown ultimately that the various goddesses of Syria and Asia Minor all owe their origin to the earlier Assyrian or Babylonian Ishtar, the goddess of love, whose chief attributes they possessed. The several forms and names under which she appears axe due to the varying developments in different regions.

Tradition says that Diana was born in the woods near Ephesus, where her temple was built, when her image of wood (possibly ebony; Pliny, NH, xvi. 40; Acts 19:35) fell from the sky (see also ASTRONOMY I, 8 (2) ). Also according to tradition the city which was later called Ephesus was founded by the Amazons, and Diana or Cybele was the deity of those half-mythical people. Later when Ephesus fell into the possession of the Greeks, Greek civilization partly supplanted the Asiatic, and in that city the two civilizations were blended together. The Greek name of Artemis was given to the Asiatic goddess, and many of the Greek colonists represented her on their coins as Greek. Her images and forms of worship remained more Asiatic than Greek Her earliest statues were figures crudely carved in wood. Later when she was represented in stone and metals, she bore upon her head a mural headdress, representing a fortitled city wall; from it, drapery hung upon each side of her face to her shoulders. The upper part of her body was completely covered with rows of breasts to signify that she was the mother of all life. The lower arms were extended. The lower part of the body resembled a rough block, as if her legs had been wrapped up in cloth like those of an Egyptian mummy. In later times her Greek followers represented her with stags or lions standing at her sides. The most renowned of her statues stood on the platform before the entrance to her temple in Ephesus. As the statues indicate, she impersonated the reproductive powers of men and of animals and of all other life.

At the head of her cult was a chief priest, originally a eunuch who bore the name and later the title Megabyzos. Under him were priests known as Essenes, appointed. perhaps from the city officials, for but a single year; it was their duty to offer the sacrifices to the goddess in behalf of the city.

Other subordinate classes of priests known as Kouretes, Krobatai and Hilroi performed duties which are now obscure. The priestesses were even more numerous, and, probably from their great numbers, they were called Melissai or bees; the Ephesian symbol therefore which appears commonly upon the coins struck in the city, is a bee. The Melissai, which in the early times were all virgins, were of three classes; it is no longer known just what the special duties of each class were. The ritual of the temple services consisted of sacrifices and of ceremonial prostitution, a practice which was common to many of the religions of the ancient Orient, and which still exists among some of the obscure tribes of Asia Minor.

The temple of Diana was not properly the home of the goddess; it was but a shrine, the chief one, devoted to her service. She lived in Nature; she was everywhere wherever there was life, the mother of all living things; all offerings of every possible nature were therefore acceptable to her; hence, the vast wealth which poured into her temple. Not only was she worshipped in her temple, but in the minute shrines or naoi which were sometimes modeled after the temple. More frequently the shrines were exceedingly crude objects, either of silver or stone or wood or clay. They were made at Ephesus by dependents of the temple, and carried by the pilgrims throughout the world. Before them Diana might also be worshipped anywhere, just as now from the soil of the sacred Mesopotamian city of Kerbela, where the sons of Ali were martyred, little blocks are formed and are carried away by the Shiah Moslems that they may pray upon sacred ground wherever they may be. The makers of the shrines of Diana formed an exceedingly large class among whom, in Paul’s time, was Demetrius ( Acts 19:24). None of the silver shrines have been discovered, but those of marble and of clay have appeared among the ruins of Ephesus. They are exceedingly crude; in a little shell-like bit of clay, a crude clay female figure sits, sometimes with a tambourine in one hand and a cup in the other, or with a lion at her side or beneath her foot. Though the shrines were sold as sacred dwelling-places of the goddess, that the pilgrims who carried them to their distant homes, or buried them in the graves with their dead, might be assured of her constant presence, their real purpose was to increase the temple revenues by their sale at a price which was many times their cost. With the shrines of Diana may be compared the household gods of clay found in abundance among the ruins of the earlier Babylonian cities, especially those cities in which temples to the goddess Ishtar stood. E. J. Banks DIASPORA <di-as’-po-ra > . See DISPERSION.

DIBLAH <dib’-la > ([ hl;b]Di , dibhlah ], “circle”; [ Debla>qa, Deblatha ]): The name occurs only in Ezekiel 6:14 (the King James Version “Diblath”), and the place has not been identified. If the reading is correct it may possibly be represented by Dibl , a village in Upper Galilee, South of Tibnin . But more likely it is a scribal error for Riblah.

DIBLAIM <dib’-la-im > , <dib-la’-im > ([ µyil”b]Di , dibhlayim ], “two cakes”): A native of Northern Israel and father of Gomer, the wife of Hosea ( Hosea 1:3).

DIBLATH <dib’-lath > . See DIBLAH.