To the Students of the Words, Works and Ways of God: P PAARAI <pa’-a-ri > ([ yr”[\P” , pa`aray ], “devotee of Peor”): One of David’s valiant men ( 2 Samuel 23:35). Doubtless the “Naarai” of Chronicles 11:37.

PACATIANA <pa-ka-ti-a’-na > , <pak-a-ti’-a-na > ([ Pakatianh>, Pakatiane ]): About 295 AD, when the province of Asia was broken up, two new provinces were formed, Phrygia Prima (Pacatiana), of which Laodicea was “the chiefest city” (subscription to 1 Timothy the King James Version), and Phrygia Secunda (Salutaris). See PHRYGIA, and HDB, III, 865.

PACE <pas > ([ d[“x” , tsa`adh ]): A step in 2 Samuel 6:13, hence, about one yard.

PACHON <pa’-kon > ([ Pacw>n, Pachon ]): The name of a month mentioned in Macc 6:38.

PADDAN <pad’-an > ( Genesis 48:7; the King James Version Padan, padan). See next article.

PADDAN-ARAM <pad’-an-a’-ram > or <p.-ar’-am > ([ µr;a\ ˆD”P” , paddan ‘aram ]; Septuagint [ Mesopotami>a th~v Suri>av, Mesopotamia tes Surias ]; the King James Version Padan-aram): In Genesis 48:7, Paddan stands alone, but as the Septuagint, Sam, and Peshitta read “Aram” also, it must in this verse have dropped out of the Massoretic Text. In the time of Abraham, padanu occurs on the Babylonian contract-tablets as a land measure, to which we may compare the Arabic feddan or “ox-gang.” In the Assyrian syllabaries it is the equivalent of iklu, “a field,” so that Paddanaram would mean “the field of Aram,” and with this we may compare Hosea 12:12 (Hebrew 12:13) and the use of the Hebrew sadheh in connection with Moab and Edom ( Judges 5:4; Ruth 1:6).

Furthermore, padanu and harranu are given as synonyms with the meaning of “road.”

Paddan-aram occurs only in the Priestly Code (P), but it corresponds to the “Haran” of the older documents. The versions agree in translating both as Mesopotamia, and identify with the home of the patriarchs and the scene of Jacob’s exile the district of Haran to the East of the Upper Euphrates valley. More in harmony with the length of Jacob’s flight, as indicated by the time given ( Genesis 31:22,23), is Harran-el-`Awamid, an ancient site 10 miles to the East of Damascus, which satisfies all the demands of history. See ARAM.

W .M. Christie PADDLE <pad’-’-l > ([ dtey; , yathedh ]): Deuteronomy 23:13 (Hebrew 14), the Revised Version margin “shovel.”

PADON <pa’-don > ([ ˆwOdP; , padhon ], “redemption”): One of the Nethinim ( see NETHINIM) who returned with Zerubbabel ( Ezra 2:44; Nehemiah 7:47); the “Phaleas” of 1 Esdras 5:29 (margin “Padon”).

PAGIEL <pa’-gi-el > , <pa’-ji-el > , <pa-gi’-el > ([ laey[ig]P” , pagh`i’el ], “God’s intervention”): Son of Ocran, of the tribe of Asher, among those enrolled by Moses at the numbering of Israel ( Numbers 1:13; 2:27). When the tabernacle was set up, the heads of the families of Israel “brought their offerings” in rotation, and Pagiel, as prince of his tribe, came on the 11th day ( Numbers 7:72). Numbers 7:72-77 describes his offering. In the journeyings of Israel he was “over the host of the tribe of the children of Asher” ( Numbers 10:26), and possibly standard-bearer (compare Numbers 10:14,22,25). Henry Wallace PAHATH-MOAB <pa’-hath-mo’-ab > ([ ba;wOmAtj”P” , pachath mo’abh ], “sheik of Moab”; in I Esdras 5:11; 8:31, “Phaath Moab”): A Jewish clan probably named after an ancestor of the above title. Part of the clan returned with Zerubbabel ( Ezra 2:6; compare Nehemiah 7:11) under two family names, Jeshua and Joab; and a part came back with Ezra ( Ezra 8:4).

Hashub, a “son of Pahath-moab,” is named among the repairers of both the wall and the “tower of the furnaces” at Jerusalem ( Nehemiah 3:11). It is the name of one of the signatories “sealing” the “sure covenant” of Nehemiah 9:38 ( Nehemiah 10:14). Some of the sons of this name had taken “strange wives” ( Ezra 10:30) Henry Wallace PAI <pa’-i > ([ y[iP; , pa`i ]; [ Fogw>r, Phogor ]): The royal city of Hadad or Hadar, king of Edom ( 1 Chronicles 1:50). The name is given as “Pau” ([ W[P; , pa`u ]) in Genesis 36:39. There is no indication of its position. It is not identified.

PAIN <pan > ([ lWj , chul ], [ lyji , chil ], [ lb,je , chebhel ], [ hl;j; , chalah ], [ hl;j;l]j” , chalchalah ], [ baeK; , ka’-ebh ], [ baeK] , ke’ebh ], [ rx”me , metsar ], [ baok]m” , makh’obh ], [ lm;[; , `amal ], [ ryxi , tsir ]; [basani>zw, basanizo ], [po>nov, ponos ], [wjdi>n, odin ]): These words signifying various forms of bodily or mental suffering are generally translated “pain”; 28 out of the 34 passages in which the word is used are in the poetical or prophetical books and refer to conditions of mental disquiet or dismay due to the punishment of personal or national sin. There is only one instance where the word is used as a historic record of personal physical pain: the case of the wife of Phinehas ( 1 Samuel 4:19), but the same word tsir is used figuratively in Isaiah 13:8; 21:3; Daniel 10:16, and translated “pangs” or “sorrows.” In other passages where we have the same comparison of consternation in the presence of God’s judgments to the pangs of childbirth, the word used is chebhel , as in Isaiah 66:7; Jeremiah 13:21; 22:23; 49:24. In some of these and similar passages several synonyms are used in the one verse to intensify the impression, and are translated “pain,” “pangs,” and “sorrows,” as in Isaiah 13:8.

The word most commonly used by the prophets is some form of chul or chil , sometimes with the addition “as of a woman in travail,” as in Psalm 48:6; Isaiah 26:18; Jeremiah 6:24; 22:23; Micah 4:10.

This pain is referred to the heart ( Psalm 55:4) or to the head ( Jeremiah 30:23; compare 30:5,6). In Ezekiel 30:4, it is the penal affliction of Ethiopia, and in 30:16, the King James Version “Sin (Tanis) shall have great pain” (the Revised Version (British and American) “anguish”); in Isaiah 23:5 Egypt is sorely pained at the news of the fall of Tyre. Before the invading host of locusts the people are much pained ( Joel 2:6 the King James Version). Pain in the sense of toil and trouble in Jeremiah 12:13 is the translation of chalah a word more frequently rendered grieving or sickness, as in 1 Kings 14:1; Proverbs 23:35; Song of Solomon 2:5; Jeremiah 5:3. The reduplicated form chalchalah is especially used of a twisting pain usually referred to the loins ( Isaiah 21:3; Ezekiel 30:4,9; Nahum 2:10).

Pain in the original meaning of the word (as it has come down to us through the Old French from the Latin poena) as a penalty inflicted for personal sin is expressed by the words ka’ebh or ke’abh in Job 14:22; 15:20, and in the questioning complaint of the prophet ( Jeremiah 15:18). As a judgment on personal sin pain is also expressed by makh’obh in Job 33:19; Jeremiah 51:8, but this word is used in the sense of afflictions in Isaiah 53:3 in the expression “man of sorrows.” The Psalmist ( Psalm 25:18) praying for deliverance from the afflictions which weighed heavily on him in turn uses the word `amal, and this word which primarily means “toil” or “labor,” as in Ecclesiastes 1:3, or “travail” as in Isaiah 53:11, is translated “painful” in Psalm 73:16, as expressing Asaph’s disquiet due to his misunderstanding of the ways of Providence. The “pains of hell” ( <19B603> Psalm 116:3 the King James Version), which got hold of the Psalmist in his sickness, is the rendering of the word metsar; the same word is translated “distress” in <19B805> Psalm 118:5. Most of these words have a primary physical meaning of twisting, rubbing or constricting.

In the New Testament, odin is translated “pain” (of death, the Revised Version (British and American) “pang”) in Acts 2:24. This word is used to express any severe pain, such as that of travail, or (as in Aeschylus, Choephori, 211) the pain of intense apprehension. The verb from this, odunomai, is used by the Rich Man in the parable to describe his torment (the Revised Version (British and American) “anguish”) ( Luke 16:24).

The related verb sunodino is used in Romans 8:22 and is translated “travailing in pain together.” In much the same sense, the word is used by Euripides (Helena, 727).

In Revelation 12:2 the woman clothed with the sun (basanizomene ) was in pain to be delivered; the verb (basanizo ) which means “to torture” is used both in Matthew 8:6 in the account of the grievously tormented centurion’s servant, and in the description of the laboring of the apostles’ boat on the stormy Sea of Galilee ( Matthew 14:24). The former of these seems to have been a case of spinal meningitis. This verb occurs in Thucydides vii.86 (viii.92), where it means “being put to torture.” In the two passages in Revelation where pain is mentioned the word is ponos , the pain which affected those on whom the fifth vial was poured (16:10), and in the description of the City of God where there is no more pain (21:4).

The primary meaning of this word seems to be “toil,” as in Iliad xxi.525, but it is used by Hippocrates to express disease (Aphorisma iv.44). Alexander Macalister PAINFULNESS <pan’-fool-nes > ([mo>cqov, mochthos ]): In the summary of his missionary labors in 2 Corinthians 11:27 the King James Version, Paul uses this word. The Revised Version (British and American) renders it “travail,” which probably now expresses its meaning more closely, as in modern usage “painfulness” is usually restricted to the condition of actual soreness or suffering, although we still use “painstaking” in the sense of careful labor. The Greek word is used for toil or excessive anxiety, as in Euripides (Medea , 126), where it refers to that care for her children which she had lost in her madness. Tyndale uses “painfulness” in 1 John 4:18 as the translation of [ko>lasiv, kolasis ], which the King James Version renders “torment” and the Revised Version (British and American) “punishment.” Alexander Macalister PAINT <pant > (from Old French peinctre, frequentative of peindre, Latin pingo, “to paint”): (1) From Hebrew verb [ jv”m; , mashach ], “to smear,” “to anoint,” “to paint,” describing the painting of interiors with vermilion, perhaps resembling lacquer: “ceiled with cedar, and painted with vermilion” ( Jeremiah 22:14). The shields of the Ninevite soldiers were red, presumably painted ( Nahum 2:3). (2) From noun [ ËWP, pukh ], “paint,” “antimon,” “stibium,” “black mineral powder” used as a cosmetic, to lend artificial size and fancied beauty to the eye, always spoken of as a meretricious device, indicating light or unworthy character. Jezebel “painted her eyes, and attired her head” ( Kings 9:30, literally, “put pukh into her eyes”). To the harlot city Jerusalem, Jeremiah (4:30) says, “deckest thee ...., enlargest thine eyes with paint” (pukh ). the King James Version renders “rentest thy face,” as if the stain were a cut, or the enlarging done by violence. (3) From verb [ lj”K; , kachal ], “to smear,” “to paint.” Ezekiel says to Oholah-Oholibah (Judah-Israel), “didst wash thyself, paint (kachal ) thine eyes,” as the adulteress prepares herself for her paramour ( Ezekiel 23:40). The antimony, in an extremely fine powder (Arabic kuchl , from kachal ), is placed in the eye by means of a very fine rod, bodkin, or probe, drawn between the edges of the eyelids. This distends the eye, and also increases its apparent size, the effect being increased by a line of stain drawn from the corner, and by a similar line prolonging the eyebrow. See EYEPAINT; COLOR.

Philip Wendell Crannell PAINTING <pan’-ting > . See CRAFTS, II, 12.

PAIR <par > : The margin of Song of Solomon 4:2 (but not of the parallel 6:6) reads, “which are all of them in pairs,” while the text has, “whereof every one hath twins.” The Hebrew [ twOmyait]m” , math’imoth ], is from the root, ta’am , “to be double,” and is perhaps susceptible of either meaning. But the description is of sheep, and the margin gives no comprehensible figure, while the text points to the exceedingly sleek and healthy appearance. “Pairs” seems to result from confusing the figure with the thing figured — the teeth, where each upper is paired with the corresponding lower.

PALACE <pal’-as > : In Hebrew chiefly [ ˆwOmr]a” , ‘armon ], in the Revised Version (British and American) text translated “castle” in 1 Kings 16:18; Kings 15:25; [ hr;yBi , birah ], [ lK;he , hekhal ], the same word often rendered “temple”; in Greek [aujlh>, aule ], in the Revised Version (British and American) translated “court” ( Matthew 26:3,18,69; Mark 14:54,66; Luke 11:21; John 18:15). On the other hand, “palace” takes the place in the Revised Version (British and American) of the King James Version “common hall” or “judgment hall” (praitorion , Matthew 27:27; John 18:28,33; 19:9; Acts 23:35). See JUDGMENT, HALL OF. A description of Solomon’s palace is given in 1 Kings 7:1-12 ( see TEMPLE). Archaeology has brought to light the remains of great palaces in Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria (Sargon, Sennacherib, Assurbanipal, etc.), Susa, etc. See HOUSE.

James Orr PALAESTRA, PALESTRA <pa-les’-tra > . See GAMES, II, 3, (i).

PALAL <pa’-lal > ([ ll;P; , palal ], “judge”): Son of Uzai, and one of the repairers of the wall ( Nehemiah 3:25).

PALANQUIN <pal-an-ken’ > : In Song of Solomon 3:9 occurs [ ˆwOyr]Pia” , ‘appiryon ], a word that has no Semitic cognates and is of dubious meaning. In form, however, it resembles the Sanskrit paryanka , and still more closely the Greek [forei~on, phoreion ], both of which mean “litter bed.” Hence, the Revised Version (British and American) “palanquin” (ultimately derived from paryanka ). The margin “car of state” and the King James Version “chariot” are mere guesses.

PALESTINA <pal-es-ti’-na > ([ tv,l,P] , pelesheth ]): Exodus 15:14; Isaiah 14:29,31 the King James Version; changed in the Revised Version (British and American) to PHILISTIA (which see).

PALESTINE <pal’-es-tin > ([ tv,l,P] , pelesheth ]; [ Fulistiei>m, Phulistieim ], [ jAllo>fuloi, Allophuloi ]; the King James Version Joel 3:4 (the Revised Version (British and American) “Philistia”), “Palestina”; the King James Version Exodus 15:14; Isaiah 14:29,31; compare Psalm 60:8; 83:7; 87:4; 108:9):

The word properly means “Philistia,” but appears to be first used in the extended sense, as meaning all the “Land of Israel” or “Holy Land” ( Zechariah 2:12), by Philo and by Ovid and later Roman authors (Reland, Palestine Illustr., I, 38-42). 1. PHYSICAL CONDITIONS.

The Bible in general may be said to breathe air of Palestine; and it is here intended to show how important for sound criticism is the consideration of its geography, and of the numerous incidental allusions to the natural features, fauna, flora, cultivation, and climate of the land in which most of the Bible books were written. With the later history and topography of Palestine, after 70 AD, we are not here concerned, but a short account of its present physical and geological conditions is needed for our purpose. 1. General Geographical Features: Palestine West of the Jordan, between Daniel and Beersheba, has an area of about 6,000 square miles, the length from Hermon southward being nearly 150 miles, and the width gradually increasing from 20 miles on the North to 60 miles on the South. It is thus about the size of Wales, and the height of the Palestinian mountains is about the same as that of the Welsh.

East of the Jordan an area of about 4,000 square miles was included in the land of Israel. The general geographical features are familiar to all. (1) The land is divided by the deep chasm of the Jordan valley — an ancient geological fault continuing in the Dead Sea, where its depth (at the bottom of the lake) is 2,600 ft. below the Mediterranean. (2) West of the valley the mountain ridge, which is a continuation of Lebanon, has very steep slopes on the East and long spurs on the West, on which side the foothills (Hebrew [shephelah] or “lowland”) form a distinct district, widening gradually southward, while between this region and the sea the plains of Sharon and Philistia stretch to the sandhills and low cliffs of a harborless coast. (3) In Upper Galilee, on the North, the mountain ridge rises to 4,000 ft. above the Mediterranean. Lower Galilee, to the South, includes rounded hills less than 1,000 ft. above the sea, and the triangular plain of Esdraelon drained by the River Kishon between the Gilboa watershed on the East and the long spur of Carmel on the West. (4) In Samaria the mountains are extremely rugged, but a small plain near Dothan adjoins that of Esdraelon, and another stretches East of Shechem, 2,500 ft. above the level of the Jordan valley. In Judea the main ridge rises toward Hebron and then sinks to the level of the Beersheba plains about 1,000 ft. above the sea. The desert of Judah forms a plateau (500 ft. above sea-level), between this ridge and the Dead Sea, and is throughout barren and waterless; but the mountains — which average about 3,000 ft. above the sea — are full of good springs and suitable for the cultivation of the vine, fig and olive. The richest lands are found in the shephelah region — especially in Judea — and in the corn plains of Esdraelon, Sharon, and Philistia. (5) East of the Jordan the plateau of Bashan (averaging 1,500 ft. above the sea) is also a fine corn country. South of this, Gilead presents a mountain region rising to 3,600 ft. above sea-level at Jebel Osha`, and sloping gently on the East to the desert. The steep western slopes are watered by the Jabbok River, and by many perennial brooks. In North Gilead especially the wooded hills present some of the most picturesque scenery of the Holy Land. South of Gilead, the Moab plateau (about 2,700 ft. above sea-level) is now a desert, but is fitted for raising grain, and, in places, for vines. A lower shelf or plateau (about 500 to 1,000 ft. above sea-level) intervenes between the main plateau and the Dead Sea cliffs, and answers to the Desert of Judah West of the lake. 2. Water-Supply: The water-supply of Palestine is abundant, except in the desert regions above noticed, which include only a small part of its area. The Jordan runs into the Dead Sea, which has no outlet and which maintains its level solely by evaporation, being consequently very salt; the surface is nearly 1,300 ft. below the Mediterranean, whereas the Sea of Galilee (680 ft. below sealevel) is sweet and full of fish. The Jordan is fed, not only by the snows of Hermon, but by many affluent streams from both sides. There are several streams also in Sharon, including the Crocodile River under Carmel. In the mountains, where the hard dolomite limestone is on the surface, perennial springs are numerous. In the lower hills, where this limestone is covered by a softer chalky stone, the supply depends on wells and cisterns. In the Beersheba plains the water, running under the surface, is reached by scooping shallow pits — especially those near Gerar, to be noticed later. 3. Geological Conditions: The fertility and cultivation of any country depends mainly on its geological conditions. These are comparatively simple in Palestine, and have undergone no change since the age when man first appeared, or since the days of the Hebrew patriarchs. The country was first upheaved from the ocean in the Eocene age; and, in the subsequent Miocene age, the great crack in the earth’s surface occurred, which formed a narrow gulf stretching from that of the `Aqabah on the South almost to the foot of Hermon. Further upheaval, accompanied by volcanic outbreaks which covered the plateaus of Golan, Bashan, and Lower Galilee with lava, cut off the Jordan valley from the Red Sea, and formed a long lake, the bottom of which continued to sink on the South to its present level during the Pleiocene and Pluvial periods, after which — its peculiar fauna having developed meanwhile — the lake gradually dried up, till it was represented only, as it now is, by the swampy Chuleh, the pear-shaped Sea of Galilee, and the Dead Sea. These changes all occurred long ages before the appearance of man. The beds upheaved include: (1) the Nubian Sandstone (of the Greensand period), which was sheared along the line of the Jordan fault East of the river, and which only appears on the western slopes of Hermon, Gilead, and Moab; (2) the limestones of the Cretaceous age, including the hard dolomite, and softer beds full of characteristic fossils; (3) the soft Eocene limestone, which appears chiefly on the western spurs and in the foothills, the angle of upheaval being less steep than that of the older main formation. On the shores of the Mediterranean a yet later sandy limestone forms the low cliffs of Sharon. See GEOLOGY OF PALESTINE. 4. Fauna and Flora: As regards fauna, flora and cultivation, it is sufficient here to say that they are still practically the same as described throughout the Bible. The lion and the wild bull (Bos primigenius) were exterminated within historic times, but have left their bones in the Jordan gravels, and in caves. The bear has gradually retreated to Hermon and Lebanon. The buffalo has been introduced since the Moslem conquest. Among trees the apple has fallen out of cultivation since the Middle Ages, and the cactus has been introduced; but Palestine is still a land of grain, wine and oil, and famous for its fruits. Its trees, shrubs and plants are those noticed in the Bible. Its woods have been thinned in Lower Galilee and Northern Sharon, but on the other hand the copse has often grown over the site of former vineyards and villages, and there is no reason to think that any general desiccation has occurred within the last 40 centuries, such as would affect the rainfall. 5. Climate: The climate of Palestine is similar to that of other Mediterranean lands, such as Cyprus, Sicily or Southern Italy; and, in spite of the fevers of mosquito districts in the plains, it is much better than that of the Delta in Egypt, or of Mesopotamia. The summer heat is oppressive only for a few days at a time, when (espescially in May) the dry wind — deficient in ozone — blows from the eastern desert. For most of the season a moisture-laden sea breeze, rising about 10 AM, blows till the evening, and fertilizes all the western slopes of the mountains. In the bare deserts the difference between 90ø F. by day and 40ø F. by night gives a refreshing cold. With the east wind the temperature rises to 105ø F., and the nights are oppressive. In the Jordan valley, in autumn, the shade temperature reaches 120ø F. In this season mists cover the mountains and swell the grapes. In winter the snow sometimes lies for several days on the watershed ridge and on the Edomite mountains, but in summer even Hermon is sometimes quite snowless at 9,000 ft. above the sea. There is perhaps no country in which such a range of climate can be found, from the Alpine to the tropical, and none in which the range of fauna and flora is consequently so large, from the European to the African. 6. Rainfall: The rainfall of Palestine is between 20 and 30 inches annually, and the rainy season is the same as in other Mediterranean countries. The “former rains” begin with the thunderstorms of November, and the “latter rains” cease with April showers. From December to February — except in years of drought — the rains are heavy. In most years the supply is quite sufficient for purposes of cultivation. The plowing begins in autumn, and the corn is rarely spoiled by storms in summer. The fruits ripen in autumn and suffer only from the occasional appearance of locust swarms. There appears to be no reason to suppose that climate or rainfall have undergone any change since the times of the Bible; and a consideration of Bible allusions confirms this view. 7. Drought and Famine: Thus, the occurrence of drought, and of consequent famine, is mentioned in the Old Testament as occasional in all times ( Genesis 12:10; 26:2; 41:50; Leviticus 26:20; 2 Samuel 21:1; 1 Kings 8:35; Isaiah 5:6; Jeremiah 14:1; Joel 1:10-12; Haggai 1:11; Zechariah 14:17), and droughts are also noticed in the Mishna (Ta`anith, i. 4-7) as occurring in autumn, and even lasting throughout the rainy season till spring. Good rains were a blessing from God, and drought was a sign of His displeasure, in Hebrew belief ( Deuteronomy 11:14; Jeremiah 5:24; Joel 2:23). A thunderstorm in harvest time (May) was most unusual ( 1 Samuel 12:17,18), yet such a storm does still occur as a very exceptional phenomenon. By “snow in harvest” ( Proverbs 25:13) we are not to understand a snowstorm, for it is likened to a “faithful messenger,” and the reference is to the use of snow for cooling wine, which is still usual at Damascus. The notice of fever on the shores of the Sea of Galilee ( Matthew 8:14) shows that this region was as unhealthy as it still is in summer. The decay of irrigation in Sharon may have rendered the plain more malarious than of old, but the identity of the Palestinian flora with that of the Bible indicates that the climate, generally speaking, is unchanged. 2. PALESTINE IN THE PENTATEUCH. 1. Places Visited by Abraham: The Book of Genesis is full of allusions to sites sacred to the memory of the Hebrew patriarchs. In the time of Abraham the population consisted of tribes, mainly Semitic, who came originally from Babylonia, including Canaanites (“lowlanders”) between Sidon and Gaza, and in the Jordan valley, and Amorites (“highlanders”) in the mountains ( Genesis 10:15-19; Numbers 13:29). Their language was akin to Hebrew, and it is only in Egypt that we read of an interpreter being needed ( Genesis 42:23), while excavated remains of seal-cylinders, and other objects, show that the civilization of Palestine was similar to that of Babylonia. (1) Shechem.

The first place noticed is the shrine or “station” (maqom ) of Shechem, with the Elon Moreh, the Septuagint “high oak”), where Jacob afterward buried the idols of his wives, and where Joshua set up a stone by the “holy place” ( Genesis 12:6; 35:4; Joshua 24:26). Samaritan tradition showed the site near BalaTa (“the oak”) at the foot of Matthew. Gerizim. The “Canaanite was then in the land” (in Abraham’s time), but was exterminated ( Genesis 34:25) by Jacob’s sons. From Shechem Abraham journeyed southward and raised an altar between Bethel (Beitin) and Hal (Chayan), East of the town of Luz, the name of which still survives hard-by at the spring of Lozeh ( Genesis 12:8; 13:3; 28:11,19; 35:2). (2) The Negeb.

But, on his return from Egypt with large flocks ( Genesis 12:16), he settled in the pastoral region, between Beersheba and the western Kadesh ( Genesis 13:1; 20:1), called in Hebrew the neghebh , “dry” country, on the edge of the cultivated lands. From East of Bethel there is a fine view of the lower Jordan valley, and here Lot “lifted up his eyes” ( Genesis 13:10), and chose the rich grass lands of that valley for his flocks. The “cities of the Plain” (kikkar ) were clearly in this valley, and Sodom must have been near the river, since Lot’s journey to Zoar ( Genesis 19:22) occupied only an hour or two ( Genesis 19:15,23) through the plain to the foot of the Moab mountains. These cities are not said to have been visible from near Hebron; but, from the hilltop East of the city, Abraham could have seen “the smoke of the land” ( Genesis 19:28) rising up. The first land owned by him was the garden of Mamre ( Genesis 13:18; 18:1; 23:19), with the cave-tomb which tradition still points out under the floor of the Hebron mosque. His tent was spread under the “oaks of Mamre” ( Genesis 18:1), where his mysterious guests rested “under the tree” ( Genesis 18:8). One aged oak still survives in the flat ground West of the city, but this tree is very uncommon in the mountains of Judah. In all these incidental touches we have evidence of the exact knowledge of Palestine which distinguishes the story of the patriarchs. (3) Campaign of Amraphel.

Palestine appears to have been an outlying province of the empire of.

Hammurabi, king of Babylon in Abraham’s time; and the campaign of Amraphel resembled those of later Assyrian overlords exacting tribute of petty kings. The route ( Genesis 14:5-8) lay through Bashan, Gilead and Moab to Kadesh (probably at Petra), and the return through the desert of Judah to the plains of Jericho. Thus Hebron was not attacked (see Genesis 14:13), and the pursuit by Abraham and his Amorite allies led up the Jordan valley to Daniel, and thence North of Damascus ( Genesis 14:15). The Salem whose king blessed Abraham on his return was thought by the Samaritans, and by Jerome, to be the city near the Jordan valley afterward visited by Jacob ( Genesis 14:18; 33:18). See JERUSALEM. (4) Gerar.

Abraham returned to the southern plains, and “sojourned in Gerar” ( Genesis 20:1), now Umm Jerrar, 7 miles South of Gaza. The wells which he dug in this valley ( Genesis 26:15) were no doubt shallow excavations like those from which the Arabs still obtain the water flowing under the surface in the same vicinity (SWP, III, 390), though that at Beersheba ( Genesis 21:25-32), to which Isaac added another ( Genesis 26:23-25), may have been more permanent. Three masonry wells now exist at Bir es Seba`, but the masonry is modern. The planting of a “tamarisk” at this place ( Genesis 21:33) is an interesting touch, since the tree is distinctive of the dry lowlands. From Beersheba Abraham journeyed to “the land of Moriah” Septuagint “the high land”) to sacrifice Isaac ( Genesis 22:2); and the mountain, according to Hebrew tradition ( 2 Chronicles 3:1), was at Jerusalem, but according to the Samaritans was Gerizim near the Elon Moreh — a summit which could certainly have been seen “afar off” ( 2 Chronicles 3:4) on “the third day.” 2. Places Visited by Isaac: Isaac, living in the same pastoral wilderness, at the western Kadesh ( Genesis 25:11) and at Gerar ( Genesis 26:2), suffered like his father in a year of drought, and had similar difficulties with the Philistines. At Gerar he sowed grain ( Genesis 26:12), and the vicinity is still capable of such cultivation. Thence he retreated Southeast to Rehoboth (Rucheibeh), North of Kadesh, where ancient wells like those at Beersheba still exist ( Genesis 26:22). To Beersheba he finally returned ( Genesis 26:23). 3. Places Visited by Jacob: When Jacob fled to Haran from Beersheba ( Genesis 28:10) he slept at the “place” (or shrine) consecrated by Abraham’s altar near Bethel, and like any modern Arab visitor to a shrine — erected a memorial stone ( Genesis 28:18), which he renewed twenty years later ( Genesis 35:14) when God appeared to him “again” ( Genesis 35:9). (1) Haran to Succoth.

His return journey from Haran to Gilead raises an interesting question. The distance is about 350 miles from Haran to the Galeed or “witness heap” ( Genesis 31:48) at Mizpah — probably Suf in North Gilead. This distance Laban is said to have covered in 7 days ( Genesis 31:23), which would be possible for a force mounted on riding camels. But the news of Jacob’s flight reached Laban on the 3rd day ( Genesis 31:22), and some time would elapse before he could gather his “brethren.” Jacob with his flocks and herds must have needed 3 weeks for the journey. It is remarkable that the vicinity of Mizpah still presents ancient monuments like the “pillar” ( Genesis 31:45) round which the “memorial cairn” (yegharsahadhutha ) was formed. From this place Jacob journeyed to Mahanaim (probably Machmah), South of the Jabbok river — a place which afterward became the capital of South Gilead ( Genesis 32:1 f; 1 Kings 4:14); but, on hearing of the advance of Esau from Edom, he retreated across the river ( Genesis 32:22) and then reached Succoth ( Genesis 33:17), believed to be Tell Der`ala, North of the stream. (2) From the Jordan to Hebron.

Crossing the Jordan by one of several fords in this vicinity, Jacob approached Shechem by the perennial stream of Wady Far`ah, and camped at Shalem (Salim) on the east side of the fertile plain which stretches thence to Shechem, and here he bought land of the Hivites ( Genesis 33:18-20).

We are not told that he dug a well, but the necessity for digging one in a region full of springs can only be explained by Hivite jealousy of water rights, and the well still exists East of Shechem (compare John 4:5 f), not far from the Elon Moreh where were buried the teraphim ( Genesis 35:4) or “spirits” (Assyrian, tarpu) from Haran ( Genesis 31:30) under the oak of Abraham. These no doubt were small images, such as are so often unearthed in Palestine. The further progress of Jacob led by Bethel and Bethlehem to Hebron ( Genesis 35:6,19,27), but some of his elder sons seem to have remained at Shechem. Thus, Joseph was sent later from Hebron ( Genesis 37:14) to visit his brethren there, but found them at Dothan. (3) Dothan.

Dothan ( Genesis 37:17) lay in a plain on the main trade route from Egypt to Damascus, which crossed the low watershed at this point and led down the valley to Jezreel and over Jordan to Bashan. The “well of the pit” (SWP, II, 169) is still shown at Tell Dothan, and the Ishmaelites, from Midian and Gilead, chose this easy caravan route ( Genesis 37:25,28) for camels laden with the Gilead balm and spices. The plain was fitted for feeding Jacob’s flocks. The products of Palestine then included also honey, pistachio nuts, and almonds ( Genesis 43:11); and a few centuries later we find notice in a text of Thothmes III of honey and balsam, with oil, wine, wheat, spelt, barley and fruits, as rations of the Egyptian troops in Canaan (Brugsch, Hist Egypt, I, 332). 4. Mentioned in Connection with Judah: The episode of Judah and Tamar is connected with a region in the Shephelah, or low hills of Judea. Adullam (`Aid-el-ma), Chezib (`Ain Kezbeh), and Timnath (Tibneh) are not far apart ( Genesis 38:1,5,12), the latter being in a pastoral valley where Judah met his “sheep shearers.”

Tamar sat at “the entrance of Enaim” (compare Genesis 38:14,22 the English Revised Version) or Enam ( Joshua 15:34), perhaps at Kefr `Ana, 6 miles Northwest of Timnath. She was mistaken for a qedheshah , or votary (sacred prostitute) of Ashtoreth ( Genesis 38:15,21), and we know from Hammurabi’s laws that such votaries were already recognized.

The mention of Judah’s signet and staff ( Genesis 38:18) also reminds us of Babylonian customs as described by Herodotus (i.195), and signetcylinders of Babylonian style, and of early date, have been unearthed in Palestine at Gezer and elsewhere (compare the “Babylonian garment,” Joshua 7:21). 5. Review of the Geography of Genesis: Generally speaking, the geography of Genesis presents no difficulties, and shows an intimate knowledge of the country, while the allusions to natural products and to customs are in accord with the results of scientific discovery. Only one difficulty needs notice, where Atad ( Genesis 50:10) on the way from Egypt to Hebron is described as “beyond the Jordan.” In this case the Assyrian language perhaps helps us, for in that tongue Yaurdanu means “the great river,” and the reference may be to the Nile itself, which is called Yaur in Hebrew (ye’or ) and Assyrian alike. 6. Exodus and Leviticus: Exodus is concerned with Egypt and the Sinaitic desert, though it may be observed that its simple agricultural laws (Exodus 21 through 23), which so often recall those of Hammurabi, would have been needed at once on the conquest of Gilead and Bashan, before crossing the Jordan. In Leviticus 11 we have a list of animals most of which belong to the desert — as for instance the “coney” or hyrax ( Leviticus 11:5; <19A418> Psalm 104:18; Proverbs 30:26), but others — such as the swine ( Leviticus 11:7), the stork and the heron ( Leviticus 11:19) — to the `Arabah and the Jordan valley, while the hoopoe (the King James Version “lapwing,” Leviticus 11:19) lives in Gilead and in Western Palestine. In Deuteronomy 14 the fallow deer and the roe (14:5) are now inhabitants of Tabor and Gilead, but the “wild goat” (ibex), “wild ox” (buball), “pygarg” (addax) and “chamois” (wild sheep), are found in the `Arabah and in the deserts. 7. Numbers: In Numbers, the conquest of Eastern Palestine is described, and most of the towns mentioned are known (21:18-33); the notice of vineyards in Moab (21:22) agrees with the discovery of ancient rock-cut wine presses near Heshbon (SEP, I, 221). The view of Israel, in camp at Shittim by Balaam (22:41), standing on the top of Pisgah or Matthew. Nebo, has been shown to be possible by the discovery of Jebel Neba, where also rude dolmens recalling Balak’s altars have been found (SEP, I, 202). The plateau of Moab (32:3) is described as a “land for cattle,” and still supports Arab flocks. The camps in which Israel left their cattle, women and children during the wars, for 6 months, stretched (33:49) from Bethjeshimoth (Suweimeh), near the northeastern corner of the Dead Sea over Abel-shittim (“the acacia meadow” — a name it still bears) in a plain watered by several brooks, and having good herbage in spring. 8. Deuteronomy: (1) Physical Allusions.

The description of the “good land” in Deuteronomy (8:7) applies in some details with special force to Matthew. Gilead, which possesses more perennial streams than Western Palestine throughout — “a land of brooks of water, of fountains and springs, flowing forth in valleys and hills”; a land also “of wheat and barley, and vines and fig-trees and pomegranates, a land of olive-trees and honey” is found in Gilead and Bashan. Palestine itself is not a mining country, but the words (8:9), “a land whose stones are iron, and out of whose hills thou mayest dig copper,” may be explained by the facts that iron mines existed near Beirut in the 10th century AD, and copper mines at Punon North of Petra in the 4th century AD, as described by Jerome (Onomasticon, under the word “Phinon”). In Deuteronomy also (11:29; compare 27:4; Joshua 8:30) Ebal and Gerizim are first noticed, as beside the “oaks of Moreh.” Ebal the mountain of curses (3,077 ft. above sea-level) and Gerizim the mountain of blessings (2,850 ft.) are the two highest tops in Samaria, and Shechem lies in a rich valley between them. The first sacred center of Israel was thus established at the place where Abraham built his first altar and Jacob dug his well, where Joseph was buried and where Joshua recognized a holy place at the foot of Gerizim ( Joshua 24:26). The last chapters of Deuteronomy record the famous Pisgah view from Matthew. Nebo (34:1-3), which answers in all respects to that from Jebel Neba, except as to Daniel, and the utmost (or “western”) sea, neither of which is visible. Here we should probably read “toward” rather than “to,” and there is no other hill above the plains of Shittim whence a better view can be obtained of the Jordan valley, from Zoar to Jericho, of the watershed mountains as far North as Gilboa and Tabor, and of the slopes of Gilead. (2) Archaeology.

But besides these physical allusions, the progress of exploration serves to illustrate the archaeology of Deuteronomy. Israel was commanded (12:3) to overthrow the Canaanite altars, to break the standing stones which were emblems of superstition, to burn the ‘asherah poles (or artificial trees), and to hew down the graven images. That these commands were obeyed is clear. The rude altars and standing stones are now found only in Moab, and in remote parts of Gilead, Bashan, and Galilee, not reached by the power of reforming kings of Judah. The ‘asherah poles have disappeared, the images are found, only deep under the surface. The carved tablets which remain at Damascus, and in Phoenicia and Syria, representing the gods of Canaan or of the Hittites, have no counterpart in the Holy Land. Again when we read of ancient “landmarks” ( Deuteronomy 19:14; Proverbs 22:28; 23:10), we are not to understand a mere boundary stone, but rather one of those monuments common in Babylonia — as early at least as the 12th century BC — on which the boundaries of a field are minutely described, the history of its grant by the king detailed, and a curse (compare Deuteronomy 27:17) pronounced against the man who should dare to remove the stone. See illustration under NEBUCHADNEZZAR. 3. PALESTINE IN THE HISTORIC BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 1. Book of Joshua: Joshua is the great geographical book of the Old Testament; and the large majority of the 600 names of places, rivers and mountains in Palestine mentioned in the Bible are to be found in this book. (1) Topographical Accuracy.

About half of this total of names were known, or were fixed by Dr.

Robinson, between 1838 and 1852, and about 150 new sites were discovered (1872-1878, 1881-1882) in consequence of the 1-in. trigonometrical survey of the country, and were identified by the present writer during this period; a few interesting sites have been added by M.

Clermont-Ganneau (Adullam and Gezer), by A. Henderson (Kiriathjearim), by W.F. Birch (Zoar at Tell esh Shaghur), and by others. Thus more than three-quarters of the sites have been fixed with more or less certainty, most of them preserving their ancient names. It is impossible to study this topography without seeing that the Bible writers had personal knowledge of the country; and it is incredible that a Hebrew priest, writing in Babylonia, could have possessed that intimate acquaintance with all parts of the land which is manifest in the geographical chapters of Joshua. The towns are enumerated in due order by districts; the tribal boundaries follow natural lines — valleys and mountain ridges — and the character of various regions is correctly indicated. Nor can we suppose that this topography refers to conditions subsequent to the return from captivity, for these were quite different. Simeon had ceased to inhabit the south by the time of David ( 1 Chronicles 4:24), and the lot of Daniel was colonized by men of Benjamin after the captivity ( 1 Chronicles 8:12,13; Nehemiah 11:34,35). Tirzah is mentioned ( Joshua 12:24) in Samaria, whereas the future capital of Omri is not. Ai is said to have been made “a heap forever” ( Joshua 8:28), but was inhabited apparently in Isaiah’s time ( Isaiah 10:28 = Aiath) and certainly after the captivity ( Ezra 2:28; Nehemiah 7:32; 11:31 = Aija). At latest, the topography seems to be that of Solomon’s age, though it is remarkable that very few places in Samaria are noticed in the Book of Joshua. (2) The Passage of the Jordan.

Israel crossed Jordan at the lowest ford East of Jericho. The river was in flood, swollen by the melting snows of Hermon ( Joshua 3:15); the stoppage occurred 20 miles farther up at Adam (ed-Damieh), the chalky cliffs at a narrow place being probably undermined and falling in, thus damming the stream. A Moslem writer asserts that a similar stoppage occurred in the 13th century AD, near the same point. (See JORDAN RIVER.) The first camp was established at Gilgal (Jilgulieh), 3 miles East of Jericho, and a “circle” of 12 stones was erected. Jericho was not at the medieval site (er Richa) South of Gilgal, or at the Herodian site farther West, but at the great spring `Ain es SulTan, close to the mountains to which the spies escaped ( Joshua 2:16). The great mounds were found by Sir C. Warren to consist of sun-dried bricks, and further excavations (see Mitteil. der deutschen Orient-Gesell., December, 1909, No. 41) have revealed little but the remains of houses of various dates. (3) Joshua’s First Campaign.

The first city in the mountains attacked by Israel was Ai, near Chayan, miles Southeast of Bethel. It has a deep valley to the North, as described ( Joshua 8:22). The fall of Ai and Bethel ( Joshua 8:17) seems to have resulted in the peaceful occupation of the region between Gibeon and Shechem ( Joshua 8:30 through 9:27); but while the Hivites submitted the Amorites of Jerusalem and of the South attacked Gibeon (el Jib) and were driven down the steep pass of Beth-horon (Beit `Aur) to the plains ( Joshua 10:1-11). Joshua’s great raid, after this victory, proceeded through the plain to Makkedah, now called el Mughar, from the “cave” (compare Joshua 10:17), and by Libnah to Lachish (Tell el Chesy), whence he went up to Hebron, and “turned” South to Debir (edh Dhaheriyeh), thus subduing the shephelah of Judah and the southern mountains, though the capital at Jerusalem was not taken. It is now very generally admitted that the six letters of the Amorite king of Jerusalem included in Tell el-Amarna Letters may refer to this war. The ‘Abiri or Chabiri are therein noticed as a fierce people from Seir, who “destroyed all the rulers,” and who attacked Ajalon, Lachish, Ashkelon, Keilah (on the main road to Hebron) and other places. See EXODUS, THE. (4) The Second Campaign.

The second campaign ( Joshua 11:1-14) was against the nations of Galilee; and the Hebrew victory was gained at “the waters of Merom” ( Joshua 11:5). There is no sound reason for placing these at the Chuleh lake; and the swampy Jordan valley was a very unlikely field of battle for the Canaanite chariots ( Joshua 11:6). The kings noticed are those of Madon (Madin), Shimron (Semmunieh), Dor (possibly Tell Thorah), “on the west,” and of Hazor (Chazzur), all in Lower Galilee. The pursuit was along the coast toward Sidon ( Joshua 11:8); and Merom may be identical with Shimron-meron ( Joshua 12:20), now Semmunieh, in which case the “waters” were those of the perennial stream in Wady el Melek, 3 miles to the North, which flow West to join the lower part of the Kishon. Shimron-meron was one of the 31 royal cities of Palestine West of the Jordan ( Joshua 12:9-24).

The regions left unconquered by Joshua (13:2-6) were those afterward conquered by David and Solomon, including the Philistine plains, and the Sidonian coast from Mearah (el Mogheiriyeh) northward to Aphek (Afqa) in Lebanon, on the border of the Amorite country which lay South of the “land of the Hittites” ( Joshua 1:4). Southern Lebanon, from Gebal (Jubeil) and the “entering into Hamath” (the Eleutherus Valley) on the West, to Baal-gad (probably at `Ain Judeideh on the northwestern slope of Hermon) was also included in the “land” by David ( 2 Samuel 8:6-10).

But the whole of Eastern Palestine ( Joshua 13:7-32), and of Western Palestine, except the shore plains, was allotted to the 12 tribes. Judah and Joseph (Ephraim and Manasseh), being the strongest, appear to have occupied the mountains and the shephelah, as far North as Lower Galilee, before the final allotment.

Thus, the lot of Simeon was within that inherited by Judah ( Joshua 19:1), and that of Daniel seems to have been partly taken from Ephraim, since Joseph’s lot originally reached to Gezer ( Joshua 16:3); but Benjamin appears to have received its portion early (compare Joshua 15:5-11; 16:1,2; 18:11-28). This lot was larger than that of Ephraim, and Benjamin was not then the “smallest of the tribes of Israel” ( 1 Samuel 9:21), since the destruction of the tribe did not occur till after the death of Joshua and Eleazar ( Judges 20:28).

The twelve tribes were distributed in various regions which may here briefly be described. Reuben held the Moab plateau to the Arnon (Wady Mojub) on the South, and to the “river of Gad” (Wady Na`aur) on the North, thus including part of the Jordan valley close to the Dead Sea. Gad held all the West of Gilead, being separated from the Ammonites by the upper course of the Jabbok. All the rest of the Jordan valley East of the river was included in this lot. Manasseh held Bashan, but the conquest was not completed till later. Simeon had the neghebh plateau South of Beersheba. Judah occupied the mountains South of Jerusalem, with the shephelah to their West, and claimed Philistia South of Ekron. Benjamin had the Jericho plains and the mountains between Jerusalem and Bethel.

The border ran South of Jerusalem to Rachel’s tomb ( 1 Samuel 10:2), and thence West to Kiriath-jearim (`Erma) and Ekron. Daniel occupied the lower hills West of Benjamin and Ephraim, and claimed the plain from Ekron to Rakkon (Tell er Raqqeit) North of Joppa. Manasseh had a large region, corresponding to Samaria, and including Carmel, Sharon and half the Jordan valley, with the mountains North of Shechem; but this tribe occupied only the hills, and was unable to drive the Cannanites out of the plains ( Joshua 17:11,16) Ephraim also complained of the smallness of its lot ( Joshua 17:15), which lay in rugged mountains between Bethel and Shechem, including however, the grain plateau East of the latter city.

Issachar held the plains of Esdraelon and Dothan, with the Jordan valley to the East, but soon became subject to the Canaanites. Zebulun had the hills of Lower Galilee, and the coast from Carmel to Accho. Naphtali owned the mountains of Upper Galilee, and the rich plateau between Tabor and the Sea of Galilee. Asher had the low hills West of Naphtali, and the narrow shore plains from Accho to Tyre. Thus each tribe possessed a proportion of mountain land fit for cultivation of figs, olives and vines, and of arable land fit for corn. The areas allotted appear to correspond to the density of population that the various regions were fitted to support.

The Levitical cities were fixed in the various tribes as centers for the teaching of Israel ( Deuteronomy 33:10), but a Levite was not obliged to live in such a city, and was expected to go with his course annually to the sacred center, before they retreated to Jerusalem on the disruption of the kingdom ( 2 Chronicles 11:14). The 48 cities ( Joshua 21:13-42) include 13 in Judah and Benjamin for the priests, among which Beth- shemesh ( 1 Samuel 6:13,15) and Anathoth ( 1 Kings 2:26) are early noticed as Levitical. The other tribes had 3 or 4 such cities each, divided among Kohathites (10), Gershonites (13), and Merarites (12). The six Cities of Refuge were included in the total, and were placed 3 each side of the Jordan in the South, in the center, and in the North, namely Hebron, Shechem and Kedesh on the West, and Bezer (unknown), Ramoth (Reimun) and Golan (probably Sachem el Jaulan) East of the river.

Another less perfect list of these cities, with 4 omissions and 11 minor differences, mostly clerical, is given in 1 Chronicles 6:57-81. Each of these cities had “suburbs,” or open spaces, extending ( Numbers 35:4) about a quarter-mile beyond the wall, while the fields, to about half a mile distant, also belonged to the Levites ( Leviticus 25:34). 2. Book of Judges: (1) Early Wars.

In Judges, the stories of the heroes who successively arose to save Israel from the heathen carry us to every part of the country. “After the death of Joshua” ( Judges 1:1) the Canaanites appear to have recovered power, and to have rebuilt some of the cities which he had ruined. Judah fought the Perizzites (“villagers”) at Berek (Berqah) in the lower hills West of Jerusalem, and even set fire to that city. Caleb attacked Debir (Jsg 1:12- 15), which is described (compare Joshua 15:15-19) as lying in a “dry” (the King James Version “south”) region, yet with springs not far away.

The actual site (edh Dhaheriyeh) is a village with ancient tombs 12 miles Southwest of Hebron; it has no springs, but about 7 miles to the Northeast there is a perennial stream with “upper and lower springs.” As regards the Philistine cities ( Judges 1:18), the Septuagint reading seems preferable; for the Greek says that Judah “did not take Gaza” nor Ashkelon nor Ekron, which agrees with the failure in conquering the “valley” ( Judges 1:19) due to the Canaanites having “chariots of iron.” The Canaanite chariots are often mentioned about this time in the Tell el-Amarna Letters and Egyptian accounts speak of their being plated with metals. Manasseh, Ephraim, Zebulun, Asher and Naphtali, were equally powerless against cities in the plains ( Judges 1:27-33); and Israel began to mingle with the Canaanites, while the tribe of Daniel seems never to have really occupied its allotted region, and remained encamped in the borders of Judah till some, at least, of its warriors found a new home under Hermon ( Judges 1:34; 18:1-30) in the time of Jonathan, the grandson of Moses. (2) Defeat of Sisera.

The oppression of Israel by Jabin II of Hazor, in Lower Galilee, appears to have occurred in the time of Rameses II, who, in his 8th year, conquered Shalem (Salim, North of Taanach), Anem (`Anin), Dapur (Deburieh, at the foot of Tabor), with Bethanath (`Ainitha) in Upper Galilee (Brugsch, History of Egypt, II, 64). Sisera may have been an Egyptian resident at the court of Jabin ( Judges 4:2); his defeat occurred near the foot of Tabor ( Judges 4:14) to which he advanced East from Harosheth (el Charathiyeh) on the edge of the sea plain. His host “perished at Endor” ( Psalm 83:9) and in the swampy Kishon ( Judges 5:21). The site of the Kedesh in “the plain of swamps” ( Judges 4:11) to which he fled is doubtful. Perhaps Kedesh of Issachar ( 1 Chronicles 6:72) is intended at Tell Qadeis, 3 miles North of Taanach, for the plain is here swampy in parts. The Canaanite league of petty kings fought from Taanach to Megiddo ( Judges 5:19), but the old identification of the latter city with the Roman town of Legio (Lejjun) was a mere guess which does not fit with Egyptian accounts placing Megiddo near the Jordan. The large site at Mugedd`a, in the Valley of Jezreel seems to be more suitable for all the Old Testament as well as for the Egyptian accounts (SWP, II, 90-99). (3) Gideon’s Victory.

The subsequent oppression by Midianites and others would seem to have coincided with the troubles which occurred in the 5th, year of Minepthah ( see EXODUS, THE). Gideon’s home ( Judges 6:11) at Ophrah, in Manasseh, is placed by Samaritan tradition at Fer`ata, 6 miles West of Shechem, but his victory was won in the Valley of Jezreel ( Judges 7:1-22); the sites of Beth-shittah (ShaTTa) and Abel-meholah (`Ain Chelweh) show how Midian fled down this valley and South along the Jordan plain, crossing the river near Succoth (Tell Der`ala) and ascending the slopes of Gilead to Jogbehah (Jubeichah) and Nobah ( Judges 8:4-11). But Oreb (“the raven”) and Zeeb (“the wolf”) perished at “the raven’s rock” and “the wolf’s hollow” (compare Judges 7:25), West of the Jordan. It is remarkable (as pointed out by the present author in 1874) that, 3 miles North of Jericho, a sharp peak is now called “the raven’s nest,” and a ravine 4 miles farther North is named “the wolf’s hollows.” These sites are rather farther South than might be expected, unless the two chiefs were separated from the fugitives, who followed Zebah and Zalmunna to Gilead.

In this episode “Matthew. Gilead” ( Judges 7:3) seems to be a clerical error for “Matthew. Gilboa,” unless the name survives in corrupt form at `Ain Jalud (“Goliath’s spring”), which is a large pool, usually supposed to be the spring of Harod ( Judges 7:1), where Gideon camped, East of Jezreel.

The story of Abimelech takes us back to Shechem. He was made king by the “oak of the pillar” ( Judges 9:6), which was no doubt Abraham’s oak already noticed; it seems also to be called `the enchanter’s oak’ ( Judges 9:37), probably from some superstition connected with the burial of the Teraphim under it by Jacob. The place called Beer, to which Jotham fled from Abimelech ( Judges 9:21), may have been Beeroth (Bireh) in the lot of Benjamin. Thebez, the town taken by the latter ( Judges 9:50), and where he met his death, is now the village Tubas, 10 miles Northeast of Shechem.

The Ammonite oppression of Israel in Gilead occurred about 300 years after the Hebrew conquest ( Judges 11:26), and Jephthah the deliverer returned to Mizpah ( Judges 11:29), which was probably the present village Cuf (already noticed), from his exile in the “land of Tob” ( Judges 11:3,6). This may have been near Taiyibeh, 9 miles South of Gadara, in the extreme North of Gilead — a place notable for its ancient dolmens and rude stone monuments, such as occur also at Mizpah.

Jephthah’s dispute with the men of Ephraim ( Judges 12:1) indicates the northern position of Mizpah. Aroer ( Judges 11:33) is unknown, but lay near Rabbath-ammon ( Joshua 13:25; 2 Samuel 24:5); it is to be distinguished from Aroer (‘Ar`air) in the Arnon ravine, mentioned in Judges 11:26.

The scene of Samson’s exploits lies in the shephelah of Judah on the borders of Philistia. His home at Zorah (Sur`ah) was on the hills North of the Valley of Sorek, and looked down on “the camp of Daniel” ( Judges 13:25 margin), which had been pitched in that valley near Beth-shemesh.

Eshtaol (Eshu`a) was less than 2 miles East of Zorah on the same ridge.

Timnath ( Judges 14:1) was only 2 miles West of Beth-shemesh, at the present ruin Tibneh. The region was one of vineyards ( Judges 14:5), and the name Sorek (Surik) still survives at a ruin 2 miles West of Zorah.

Sorek signified a “choice vine,” and a rock-cut wine press exists at the site (SWP, III, 126). These 5 places, all close together, were also close to the Philistine grain lands ( Judges 15:5) in a region of vines and olives.

Samson’s place of refuge in the “cleft of the rock of Etam” (see Judges 15:8) was probably at Beit `ATab, only 5 miles East of Zorah, but rising with a high knoll above the southern precipices of the gorge which opens into the Valley of Sorek. In this knoll, under the village, is a rock passage now called “the well of refuge” (Bur el Chasutah), which may have been the “cleft” into which Samson “went down.” Lehi ( Judges 15:9) was apparently in the valley beneath, and the name (“the jaw”) may refer to the narrow mouth of the gorge whence, after conference with the Philistines, the men of Judah “went down” ( Judges 15:11) to the “cleft of the rock of Etam” (SWP, III, 83, 137), which was a passage 250 ft. long leading down, under the town, to the spring. All of Samson’s story is connected with this one valley (for Delilah also lived in the “Valley of Sorek,” Judges 16:4) except his visit to Gaza, where he carried the gates to the `hill facing Hebron’ ( Judges 16:3), traditionally shown (SWP, III, 255) at the great mound on the East side of this town where he died, and where his tomb is (wrongly) shown. Another tomb, close to Zorah, represents a more correct tradition (16:31), but the legends of Samson at this village are of modern Christian origin.

The appendix to Judges includes two stories concerning Levites who both lived in the time of the 2nd generation after the Hob conquest (18:30; 20:28), and who both “sojourned” in Bethlehem of Judah (17:8; 19:2), though their proper city was one in Matthew. Ephraim, In the first case Jonathan, the grandson of Moses, founded a family of idolatrous priests, setting up Micah’s image at Daniel (Tell el Qadi) beside the sources of the Jordan, where ancient dolmen altars still exist. This image may have been the cause why Jeroboam afterward established a calf-temple at the same place. It is said to have stood there till the “captivity of the ark” (St.

Petersburg MS, Judges 18:30), “all the time that the house of God was in Shiloh” ( Judges 18:31). From this narrative we learn that the tribe of Daniel did not settle in its appointed lot ( Judges 18:1), but pitched in the “camp of Daniel,” west of Kiriath-jearim ( Judges 18:12). This agrees with the former mention of the site ( Judges 13:25) as being near Zorah; and the open valley near Beth-shemesh is visible, through the gorges of Lehi, from the site of Kiriath-jearim at `Erma. (4) Appendix: The Defeat of Benjamin.

In the 2nd episode we trace the journey of the Levite from Bethlehem past Jerusalem to Gibeah (Jeba`), East of Ramah (er-Ram), a distance which could easily be traversed in an afternoon (compare Judges 19:8-14).

Gibeah was no doubt selected as a halting-place by the Levite, because it was a Levitical city. The story of the great crime of the men of Gibeah was well known to Hosea ( Judges 9:9). Israel gathered against them at Mizpah (Tell en Nacbeh) on the watershed, 3 miles to the Northwest, and the ark was brought by Phinehas to Bethel (compare Judges 20:1,31; 18:26,27), 3 miles Northeast of Mizpah. The defeat of Benjamin occurred where the road to Gibeah leaves the main north road to Bethel ( Judges 18:31), West of Ramah. The survivors fled to the rock Rimmon (Rummon), 3 1/2 miles East of Bethel, on the edge of the “wilderness” which stretches from this rugged hill toward the Jordan valley. The position of Shiloh,9 miles North of this rock, is very accurately described ( Judges 21:19) as being North of Bethel (Beitin), and East of the main road, thence to Shechem which passes Lebonah (Lubban), a village 3 miles Northwest of Seilun or Shiloh. The “vineyards,” in which the maidens of Shiloh used to dance ( Judges 21:20) at the Feast of Tabernacles, lay no doubt where vineyards still exist in the little plain South of this site. It is clear that the writer of these two narratives had an acquaintance with Palestinian topography as exact as that shown throughout Jgs. Nor (if the reading “captivity of the ark” be correct) is there any reason to suppose that they were written after 722 BC. 3. Book of Ruth: The Book of Ruth gives us a vivid picture of Hebrew life “when the judges ruled” (1:1 the King James Version), about a century before the birth of David. Laws as old as Hammurabi’s age allowed the widow the choice of remaining with the husband’s family, or of quitting his house (compare 1:8). The beating out of gleanings (2:17) by women is still a custom which accounts for the rock mortars found so often scooped out on the hillside.

The villager still sleeps, as a guard, beside the heap of winnowed grain in the threshing-floor (3:7); the head-veil, still worn, could well have been used to carry six measures of barley (3:15). The courteous salutation of his reapers by Boaz (2:4) recalls the common Arabic greeting (Allah ma`kum), “God be with you.” But the thin wine (2:14) is no longer drunk by Moslem peasants, who only “dip” their bread in oil. 4. Books of Samuel: (1) Samuel.

The two Books of Samuel present an equally valuable picture of life, and an equally real topography throughout. Samuel’s father — a pious Levite ( 1 Chronicles 6:27) — descended from Zuph who had lived at Ephratah (Bethlehem; compare 1 Samuel 9:4,5), had his house at Ramah ( Samuel 1:19) close to Gibeah, and this town (er-Ram) was Samuel’s home also ( 1 Samuel 7:17; 25:1). The family is described as `Ramathites, Zuphites of Matthew. Ephraim’ ( 1 Samuel 1:1), but the term “Matthew.

Ephraim” was not confined to the lot of Ephraim, since it included Bethel and Ramah, in the land of Benjamin ( Judges 4:5). As a Levite, Elkanah obeyed the law of making annual visits to the central shrine, though this does not seem to have been generally observed in an age when “every man did that which was right in his own eyes” ( Judges 21:25). The central shrine had been removed by Joshua from Shechem to the remote site of Shiloh ( Joshua 22:9), perhaps for greater security, and here the tabernacle ( Joshua 22:19) was pitched (compare 1 Samuel 2:22) and remained for 4 centuries till the death of Eli. The great defeat of Israel, when the ark was captured by the Philistines, took place not far from Mizpah ( 1 Samuel 4:1), within an easy day’s journey from Shiloh (compare 1 Samuel 4:12). Ekron, whence it was sent back ( Samuel 6:16), was only 12 miles from Beth-shemesh (`Ainshems), where the ark rested on a “great stone” (Septuagint, 1 Samuel 6:18); and Beth-shemesh was only 4 miles West of Kiriath-jearim ( 1 Samuel 6:21), which was in the mountains, so that its inhabitants “came down” from “the hill” ( 1 Samuel 6:21; 7:1) to fetch the ark, which abode there for years, till the beginning of Saul’s reign ( 1 Samuel 14:18), when, after the war, it may have been restored to the tabernacle at Nob, to which place the latter was probably removed after Eli’s death, when Shiloh was deserted. The exact site of Nob is not known, but probably (compare Isaiah 10:32) it was close to Mizpah, whence the first glimpse of Jerusalem is caught, and thus near Gibeon, where it was laid up after the massacre of the priests ( 1 Samuel 21:1; 22:9,18; 2 Chronicles 1:3), when the ark was again taken to Kiriath-jearim ( 2 Samuel 6:2). Mizpah (Tell en-Nacbeh) was the gathering-place of Israel under Samuel; and the “stone of help” (Eben-ezer) was erected, after his victory over the Philistines, “between Mizpah and Shen” ( 1 Samuel 7:12) — the latter place (see Septuagint) being probably the same as Jeshanah (`Ain Sinai), miles North of Mizpah which Samuel visited yearly as a judge ( Samuel 7:16). (2) Saul’s Search.

The journey of Saul, who, “seeking asses found a kingdom,” presents a topography which has often been misunderstood. He started ( 1 Samuel 9:4) from Gibeah (Jeba’) and went first to the land of Shalisha through Matthew. Ephraim. Baal-shalisha ( 2 Kings 4:42) appears to have been the present Kefr Thilth, 18 miles North of Lydda and 24 miles Northwest from Gibeah. Saul then searched the land of Shalim — probably that of Shual ( 1 Samuel 13:17), Northeast of Gibeah. Finally he went south beyond the border of Benjamin ( 1 Samuel 10:2) to a city in the “land of Zuph,” which seems probably to have been Bethlehem, whence (as above remarked) Samuel’s family — descendants of Zuph — came originally. If so, it is remarkable that Saul and David were anointed in the same city, one which Samuel visited later ( 1 Samuel 16:1,2 ff) to sacrifice, just as he did when meeting Saul ( 1 Samuel 9:12), who was probably known to him, since Gibeah and Ramah were only 2 miles apart. Saul’s journey home thus naturally lay on the road past Rachel’s tomb near Bethlehem, and along the Bethel road ( 1 Samuel 10:2,3) to his home at Gibeah ( Samuel 10:5,10). It is impossible to suppose that Samuel met him at Ramah — a common mistake which creates great confusion in the topography. (3) Saul’s Coronation and First Campaign.

Saul concealed the fact of his anointing ( 1 Samuel 10:16) till the lot fell upon him at Mizpah. This public choice by lot has been thought (Wellhausen, History of Israel, 1885, 252) to indicate a double narrative, but to a Hebrew there would not appear to be any discrepancy, since “The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of Yahweh” ( Proverbs 16:33). Even at Mizpah he was not fully accepted till his triumph over the Ammonites, when the kingdom was “renewed” at Gilgal ( 1 Samuel 11:14). This campaign raises an interesting question of geography. Only 7 days’ respite was allowed to the men of Jabesh in Gilead ( 1 Samuel 11:3), during which news was sent to Saul at Gibeah, and messengers dispatched “throughout the borders of Israel” ( Samuel 11:7), while the hosts gathered at Bezek, and reached Jabesh on the 7th or 8th day ( 1 Samuel 11:8-10) at dawn. Bezek appears to be a different place from that West of Jerusalem ( Judges 1:4) and to have been in the middle of Palestine at Ibzik, 14 miles North of Shechem, and miles West of Jabesh, which probably lay in Wady Yabis in Gilead. The farthest distances for the messengers would not have exceeded 80 miles; and, allowing a day for the news to reach Saul and another for the march from Bezek to Jabesh, there would have been just time for the gathering of Israel at this fairly central meeting-place.

The scene of the victory over the Philistines at Michmash is equally real.

They had a `post’ in Geba (or Gibeah, 1 Samuel 13:3), or a governor (compare the Septuagint), whom Jonathan slew. They came up to Michmash (Mukhmas) to attack Jonathan’s force which held Gibeah, on the southern side of the Michmash valley, hard by. The northern cliff of the great gorge was called Bozez (“shining”) in contrast to the southern one (in shadow) which was named Seneh or “thorn” ( 1 Samuel 14:4).

Josephus (BJ, V, ii, 2) says that Gibeah of Saul was by “the valley of thorns,” and the ravine, flanked by the two precipitous cliffs East of Michmash, is still called Wady es SuweiniT, or “the valley of little thorn trees.” Jonathan climbed the steep slope that leads to a small flat top ( Samuel 14:14 the King James Version), and surprised the Philistine `post.’

The pursuit was by Bethel to the Valley of Aijalon, down the steep Bethboron pass ( 1 Samuel 14:23,31); but it should be noted that there was no “wood” ( 1 Samuel 14:25,26) on this bare hilly ridge, and the word (compare Song of Solomon 5:1) evidently means “honeycomb.” It is also possible that the altar raised by Saul, for fulfillment of the Law ( Genesis 9:4; Exodus 20:25), was at Nob where the central shrine was then established. (4) David’s Early Life.

David fed his flocks in the wilderness below Bethlehem, where many a silent and dreadful “Valley of Shadows” (compare Psalm 23:4) might make the stoutest heart fail. The lion crept up from the Jordan valley, and (on another occasion) the bear came down from the rugged mountains above ( 1 Samuel 17:34). No bears are now known South of Hermon, but the numerous references ( 2 Kings 2:24; Isaiah 59:11; Hosea 13:8; Proverbs 17:12; 28:15) show that they must have been exterminated, like the lion, in comparatively late times. The victory over Goliath, described in the chapter containing this allusion, occurred in the Valley of Elah near Shochoth (Shuweikeh); and this broad valley (Wady es SunT) ran into the Philistine plain at the probable site of Gath (Tell es Cafi) to which the pursuit led ( 1 Samuel 17:1,2,52). The watercourse still presents “smooth stones” ( 1 Samuel 17:40) fit for the sling, which is still used by Arab shepherds; and the valley still has in it fine “terebinths” such as those from which it took its name Elah. The bronze armor of the giant ( 1 Samuel 17:5,6) indicates an early stage of culture, which is not contradicted by the mention of an iron spearhead ( 1 Samuel 17:7), since iron is found to have been in use in Palestine long before David’s time. The curious note ( 1 Samuel 17:54) as to the head of Goliath being taken “to Jerusalem” is also capable of explanation. Jerusalem was not conquered till at least 10 years later, but it was a general practice (as late as the 7th century BC in Assyria) to preserve the heads of dead foes by salting them, as was probably done in another case ( 2 Kings 10:7) when the heads of Ahab’s sons were sent from Samaria to Jezreel to be exposed at the gate.

David’s outlaw life began when he took refuge with Samuel at the “settlements” (Naioth) near Ramah, where the company of prophets lived.

He easily met Jonathan near Gibeah, which was only 2 miles East; and the “stone of departure” (“Ezel,” 1 Samuel 20:19) may have marked the Levitical boundary of that town. Nob also ( 1 Samuel 20:1) was, as we have seen, not far off, but Gath ( 1 Samuel 20:10) was beyond the Hebrew boundary. Thence David retreated up the Valley of Elah to Adullam (`Aid-el-ma), which stood on a hill West of this valley near the great turn (southward) of its upper course. An inhabited cave still exists here (compare 1 Samuel 22:1), and the site meets every requirement (SWP, III, 311, 347, 361-67). Keilah ( 1 Samuel 23:1) is represented by the village Kila, on the east side of the same valley,3 miles farther up; and Hereth ( 1 Samuel 22:5) was also near, but “in Judah” ( 1 Samuel 23:3), at the village Kharas on a wooded spur 7 miles Northwest of Hebron. Thence David went “down” ( 1 Samuel 23:4) to Keilah 2 miles away to the West. As there was no safety for the outlaws, either in Philistia or in Judah, they had to retreat to the wilderness of Ziph (Tell ez Zif), miles Southeast of Hebron. The word “wood” (choresh) may more probably be a proper name, represented by the ruin of Khoreisa, rather more than a mile South of Ziph, while the hill Hachilah ( 1 Samuel 23:19) might be the long spur, over the Jeshimon or desert of Judah, miles East of Ziph, now called el Kola. Maon (M`ain) lay on the edge of the same desert still farther South, about 8 miles from Hebron. En-gedi ( 1 Samuel 23:29; 24:1,2) was on the precipices by the Dead Sea. The “wild goats” (ibex) still exist here in large droves, and the caves of this desert are still used as folds for sheep in spring ( 1 Samuel 24:3). The villagers South of Hebron are indeed remarkable for their large flocks which — by agreement with the nomads — are sent to pasture in the Jeshimon, like those of Nabal, the rich man of Carmel (Kurmul), a mile North of Maon ( 1 Samuel 25:2), who refused the customary present to David’s band which had protected his shepherds “in the fields” ( Samuel 25:15) or pastures of the wilderness. In summer David would naturally return to the higher ridge of Hachilah ( 1 Samuel 26:1) on the south side of which there is a precipitous gorge (impassable save by a long detour), across which he talked to Saul ( 1 Samuel 26:13), likening himself ( 1 Samuel 26:20) to the desert “partridge” still found in this region. (5) The Defeat and Death of Saul.

The site of Ziklag is doubtful, but it evidently lay in the desert South of Beersheba ( Joshua 15:31; 19:5; 1 Chronicles 4:30; 1 Samuel 27:6-12), far from Gath, so that King Achish did not know whether David had raided the South of Judah, or the tribes toward Shur. Saul’s power in the mountains was irresistible; and it was for this reason perhaps that his fatal battle with the Philistines occurred far North in the plain near Jezreel.

They camped ( 1 Samuel 28:4) by the fine spring of Shunem (Sulem), and Saul on Gilboa to the South. The visit to Endor (Andur) was thus a perilous adventure, as Saul must have stolen by night round the Philistine host to visit this place North of Shunem. He returned to the spur of Gilboa on which Jezreel stands ( 1 Samuel 29:1), and the spring noticed is a copious supply North of the village Zer`in. Beth-shan ( 1 Samuel 31:12) was at the mouth of the valley of Jezreel at Besian, and here the bodies of Saul and his sons were burned by the men of Jabesh-gilead; but, as the bones were preserved ( 1 Samuel 31:13; 2 Samuel 21:13), it is possible that the corpses were cremated in pottery jars afterward buried under the tree. Excavations in Palestine and in Babylonia show that this was an early practice, not only in the case of infants (as at Gezcr, and Taanach), but also of grown men. See PALESTINE (RECENT EXPLORATION). The list of cities to which David sent presents at the time of Saul’s death ( 1 Samuel 30:26-31) includes those near Ziklag and as far North as Hebron, thus referring to “all the places where David himself and his men were wont to haunt.” (6) Wellhausen’s Theory of a Double Narrative.

The study of David’s wanderings, it may be noted, and of the climatic conditions in the Jeshimon desert, does not serve to confirm Wellhausen’s theory of a double narrative, based on the secret unction and public choice of Saul, on the double visit to Hachilah, and on the fact that the gloomy king had forgotten the name of David’s father. The history is not a “pious make-up” without “a word of truth” (Wellhausen, Hist Israel, 248-49); and David, as a “youth” of twenty years, may yet have been called a “man of war”; while “transparent artifice” (p. 251) will hardly be recognized by the reader of this genuine chronicle. Nor was there any “Aphek in Sharon” (p. 260), and David did not “amuse himself by going first toward the north” from Gibeah (p. 267); his visit to Ramah does not appear to be a “worthless anachronistic anecdote” (p. 271); and no one who has lived in the terrible Jeshimon could regard the meeting at Hachilah as a “jest” (p. 265). Nor did the hill (“the dusky top”) “take its name from the circumstance,” but Wellhausen probably means the Sela`-ha-machleqoth (“cliff of slippings” or of “slippings away”), now Wady Malaqeh near Maon (compare 1 Samuel 23:19,24,28), which lay farther South than Ziph. (7) Early Years of David’s Reign.

David, till the 8th year of his reign, was king of Judah only. The first battle with Saul’s son occurred at Gibeon ( 2 Samuel 2:13), where the “pool” was no doubt the cave of the great spring at el Jib; the pursuit was by the `desert Gibeon road’ ( 2 Samuel 2:24) toward the Jordan valley. Gibeon itself was not in a desert, but in a fertile region. Abner then deserted to David, but was murdered at the “well of Sirah” (`Ain Sarah) on the road a mile North of David’s capital at Hebron. Nothing more is said about the Philistines till David had captured Jerusalem, when they advanced on the new capital by the valley of Rephaim ( 2 Samuel 5:22), which apparently ran from South of Jerusalem to join the valley of Elah. If David was then at Adullam (“the hold,” 2 Samuel 5:17 the King James Version; compare 1 Samuel 22:5), it is easy to understand how he cut off the Philistine retreat ( 2 Samuel 5:23), and thus conquered all the hill country to Gezer ( 2 Samuel 5:25). After this the ark was finally brought from Baale-judah (Kiriath-jearim) to Jerusalem ( 2 Samuel 6:2), and further wars were beyond the limits of Western Palestine, in Moab ( 2 Samuel 8:2) and in Syria ( 2 Samuel 8:3-12); but for “Syrians” ( 2 Samuel 8:13) the more correct reading appears to be Edomites ( 1 Chronicles 18:12), and the “Valley of Salt” was probably South of the Dead Sea.

Another war with the Syrians, aided by Arameans from East of the Euphrates, occurred East of the Jordan ( 2 Samuel 10:16-18), and was followed by the siege of Rabbath-ammon (`Amman), East of Gilead, where we have notice of the “city of waters” ( 2 Samuel 12:27), or lower town by the stream, contrasted, it seems, with the citadel which was on the northern hill. (8) Hebrew Letter-writing.

In this connection we find the first notice of a “letter” ( 2 Samuel 11:14) as written by David to Joab. Writing is of course noticed as early as the time of Moses when — as we now know — the Canaanites wrote letters on clay tablets in cuneiform script. These, however, were penned by special scribes; and such a scribe is mentioned early ( Judges 8:14). David himself may have employed a professional writer (compare 2 Samuel 8:17), while Uriah, who carried his own fate in the letter, was probably unable to read. Even in Isaiah’s time the art was not general ( Isaiah 29:12), though Hebrew kings could apparently write and read ( Deuteronomy 17:18; 2 Kings 19:14); to the present day the accomplishment is not general in the East, even in the upper class. It should be noted that the first evidence of the use of an alphabet is found in the early alphabetic Psalms, and the oldest dated alphabetic text yet known is later than 900 BC. The script used in the time of Moses may have been cuneiform, which was still employed at Gezer for traders’ tablets in BC. The alphabet may have come into use first among Hebrews, through Phoenician influence in the time of David; and so far no script except this and the cuneiform has been unearthed in Palestine, unless it is to be recognized in signs of the Hittite syllabary at Lachish and Gezer. Another interesting point, as regards Hebrew civilization in David’s time, is the first mention of “mules” ( 2 Samuel 13:29; 18:9; 1 Kings 1:33,38), which are unnoticed in the Pentateuch. They are represented as pack animals on an Assyrian bas-relief; but, had they been known to Moses, they would probably have been condemned as unclean. The sons of David fled on mules from Baal-hazor (Tell `Acur) “beside Ephraim” (now probably Taiyibeh), North of Bethel, where Absalom murdered Amnon. (9) The Later Years of David’s Reign.

On the rebellion of Absalom David retreated to Mahanaim, apparently by the road North of the Mount of Olives, if the Targum of Jonathan ( Samuel 16:5) is correct in placing Bahurim at Almon (`Almit), Northeast of Jerusalem. It is not clear where the “wood of Ephraim,” in which Absalom perished, may have been, but it was beyond Jordan in Gilead ( 2 Samuel 17:22; 18:6); and oak woods are more common there than in Western Palestine. The latest revolt, after Absalom’s death, was in the extreme north at Abel (Abil), in Upper Galilee ( 2 Samuel 20:14), after which Joab’s journey is the last incident to be studied in the Books of Samuel.

For census purposes he went East of the Jordan to Aroer (perhaps the city on the Arnon), to the “river of Gad” (Wady Na`aur) near Jazer, and through Gilead. Tahtim-hodshi ( 2 Samuel 24:6) is believed (on the authority of three Greek manuscripts) to be a corruption of “the Hittites at Kadesh” (Qades), the great city on the Orontes ( see HITTITES), which lay on the northern boundary of David’s dominions, South of the kingdom of Hamath. Thence Joab returned to Zidon and Tyre, and after visiting all Judah to Beersheba reached Jerusalem again within 10 months. The acquisition of the temple-site then closes the book. 5. Books of Kings: (1) Solomon’s Provinces.

The Books of Kings contain also some interesting questions of geography.

Solomon’s twelve provinces appear to answer very closely to the lots of the twelve tribes described in Josh. They included ( 1 Kings 4:7-19) the following: (a) Ephraim, (b) Daniel, (c) Southern Judah (see Joshua 12:17), (d) Manasseh, (e) Issachar, (f) Northern Gilead and Bashan, (g) Southern Gilead, (h) Naphtali, (i) Asher, (j) part of Isaachar and probably Zebulun (the text is doubtful, for the order of 1 Kings 4:17 differs in the Septuagint), (k) Benjamin, (l) Reuben.

The Septuagint renders the last clause (4:19), “and one Naseph (i.e. “officer”’) in the land of Judah” — probably superior to the other twelve.

Solomon’s dominions included Philistia and Southern Syria, and stretched along the trade route by Tadmor (Palmyra) to Tiphsah on the Euphrates (4:21,24; compare 9:18 = Tamar; 2 Chronicles 8:4 = Tadmot). Another Tiphsah (now Tafsach) lay 6 miles Southwest of Shechem ( 2 Kings 15:16). Gezer was presented to Solomon’s wife by the Pharaoh ( Kings 9:16). (2) Geography of the Northern Kingdom.

Jeroboam was an Ephraimite ( 1 Kings 11:26) from Zereda, probably Curdah, 2 miles Northwest of Bethel, but the Septuagint reads “Sarira,” which might be Carra, 1 1/2 miles East of Shiloh. After the revolt of the ten tribes, “Shishak king of Egypt” ( 1 Kings 11:40; 14:25) sacked Jerusalem. His own record, though much damaged, shows that he not only invaded the mountains near Jerusalem, but that he even conquered part of Galilee. The border between Israel and Judah lay South of Bethel, where Jeroboam’s calf-temple was erected ( 1 Kings 12:29), Ramah (er-Ram) being a frontier town with Geba and Mizpah ( 1 Kings 15:17,22); but after the Syrian raid into Galilee ( 1 Kings 15:20), the capital of Israel was fixed at Tirzah ( 1 Kings 15:21), a place celebrated for its beauty ( Song of Solomon 6:4), and perhaps to be placed at Teiacir, about miles Northeast of Shechem, in romantic scenery above the Jordan valley.

Omri reigned here also for six years ( 1 Kings 16:23) before he built Samaria, which remained the capital till 722 BC. Samaria appears to have been a city at least as large as Jerusalem, a strong site 5 miles Northwest of Shechem, commanding the trade route to its west. It resisted the Assyrians for 3 years, and when it fell Sargon took away 27,290 captives.

Excavations at the site will, it may be hoped, yield results of value not as yet published: See next article.

The wanderings of Elijah extended from Zarephath (Curafend), South of Sidon, to Sinai. The position of the Brook Cherith ( 1 Kings 17:3) where — according to one reading — “the Arabs brought him bread and flesh” ( 1 Kings 17:6) is not known. The site of this great contest with the prophets of the Tyrian Baal is supposed to be at el Machraqah (“the place of burning”) at the southeastern end of the Carmel ridge. Some early king of Israel perhaps, or one of the judges (compare Deuteronomy 33:19), had built an altar to Yahweh above the Kishon ( 1 Kings 18:20,40) at Carmel; but, as the water ( 1 Kings 18:33) probably came from the river, it is doubtful whether this altar was on the “top of Carmel,” 1,500 ft. above, from which Elijah’s servant had full view of the sea ( Kings 18:42,43). Elijah must have run before Ahab no less than 15 miles, from the nearest point on Carmel ( 1 Kings 18:46) to Jezreel, and the journey of the Shunammite woman to find Elisha ( 2 Kings 4:25) was equally long. The vineyard of Naboth in Jezreel ( 1 Kings 21:1) was perhaps on the east of the city (now Zer`in), where rock-cut wine presses exist. In the account of the ascension of Elijah, the expression “went down to Bethel” ( 2 Kings 2:2) is difficult, if he went “from Gilgal” ( <120201> Kings 2:1). The town intended might be Jiljilia, on a high hill 7 miles North of Bethel. The Septuagint, however, reads “they came.” (3) Places Connected with Elisha.

The home of Elisha was at Abel-meholah ( 1 Kings 19:16) in the Jordan valley ( Judges 7:22), probably at `Ain Chelweh, 10 miles South of Beth-shan. If we suppose that Ophel ( 2 Kings 5:24 the Revised Version margin), where he lived, was the present `Afuleh, it is not only easy to understand that he would often “pass by” Shunem (which lay between Ophel and Abel-meholah), but also how Naaman might have gone from the palace of Jezreel to Ophel, and thence to the Jordan and back again to Ophel ( 2 Kings 5:6,14,24), in the course of a single day in his chariot.

The road down the valley of Jezreel was easy, and up it Jehu afterward drove furiously, coming from Ramoth in Gilead, and visible afar off from the wall of Jezreel ( 2 Kings 9:20). The `top of the ascents’ ( 2 Kings 9:13), at Ramoth, refers no doubt to the high hill on which this city (now Reimun) stood as a strong fortress on the border between Israel and the Syrians. The flight of Ahaziah of Judah, from Jezreel was apparently North by Gur (Qara), 4 miles West of Ibleam (Yebla), on the road to “the garden house” (Beit Jenn), and thence by Megiddo (Mujedda`) down the Jordan valley to Jerusalem ( 2 Kings 9:27,28). Of the rebellion of Moab ( <120101> Kings 1:1; 3:4) it is enough to point out here that King Mesha’s account on the Moabite Stone agrees with the Old Testament, even in the minute detail that “men of Gad dwelt in Ataroth from of old” (compare Numbers 32:34), though it lay in the lot of Reuben. 6. Post-exilic Historical Books: The topographical notices in the books written after the captivity require but short notice. The Benjamites built up Lod (Ludd), Ono (Kerr `Ana) and Aijalon (Yalo), which were in the lot of Daniel ( 1 Chronicles 8:12; Nehemiah 11:35), and it is worthy of note that Lod (Lydda) is not to be regarded as a new town simply because not mentioned in the earlier books; for Lod is mentioned (number 64) with Ono in the lists of Thothmes III, a century before the Hebrew conquest of Palestine The author of Chronicles had access to information not to be found elsewhere in the Old Testament.

His list of Rehoboam’s fortresses ( 2 Chronicles 11:6-10) includes towns, most of which were on the frontiers of the diminished kingdom of Judah, some being noticed (such as Shoco and Adoraim) in the list of Shishak’s conquests. He speaks of the “valley of Zephathah” ( 2 Chronicles 14:10), now Wady Cafieh, which is otherwise unnoticed, and places it correctly at Mareshah (Mer`ash) on the edge of the Philistine plain. He is equally clear about the topography in describing the attack on Jehoshaphat by the Ammonites, Moabites and Edomites. They camped at En-gedi (`Ain Jidi), and marched West toward Tekoa (Tequ`a); and the thanksgiving assembly, after the Hebrew victory, was in the valley of Beracah ( 2 Chronicles 20:1,20,26), which retains its name as Breikut, miles West of Tekoa. 4. PALESTINE IN THE POETIC BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 1. Book of Job: In Job the scene is distinctively Edomite. Uz ( Job 1:1; compare Genesis 22:21 the English Revised Version; Jeremiah 25:20; Lamentations 4:21) and Buz ( Job 32:2; compare Genesis 22:21) are the Assyrian Chazu and Bazu reached by Esarhaddon in 673 BC South of Edom. Tema and Sheba ( Job 6:19) are noticed yet earlier, by Tiglath-pileser III, and Sargon, who conquered the Thamudites and Nabateans. We have also the conjunction of snowy mountains and ice ( Job 6:16) with notice of the desert and the `Arabah valley (24:5), which could hardly apply to any region except Edom. Again, we have a nomad population dwelling close to a city (29:4-7) — perhaps Petra, or Ma`an in Edom. There were mines, not only in the Sinaitic desert, but at Punon in Northern Edom (compare 28:2-11). The white broom (30:4) is distinctive of the deserts of Moab and Edom. The wild donkey and the ostrich (39:5,13) are now known only in the desert East of Edom; while the stork (39:13 the Revised Version margin) could have been found only in the `Arabah, or in the Jordan valley. The wild ox (39:9 the Revised Version (British and American)), or Boa primi-genius, is now extinct Septuagint “unicorn,” Numbers 23:22; Deuteronomy 33:17), though its bones occur in Lebanon caves. It was hunted about 1130 BC in Syria by Tiglath-pileser I (compare Psalm 29:6), and is mentioned as late as the time of Isaiah (34:7) in connection with Edom; its Hebrew name (re’em ) is the Assyrian rimu, attached to a representation of the beast. As regards the crocodile (“leviathan,” Job 41:1), it was evidently well known to the writer, who refers to its strong, musky smell ( Job 41:31), and it existed not only in Egypt but in Palestine, and is still found in the Crocodile River, North of Caesarea in Sharon. Behemoth ( Job 40:15), though commonly supposed to be the hippopotamus, is more probably the elephant (on account of its long tail, its trunk, and its habit of feeding in mountains, Job 40:17,20,24); and the elephant was known to the Assyrians in the 9th century BC, and was found wild in herds on the Euphrates in the 16th century BC. The physical allusions in Job seem clearly, as a rule, to point to Edom, as do the geographical names; and though Christian tradition in the 4th century AD (St. Silvia, 47) placed Uz in Bashan, the Septuagint ( Job 42:18) defines it as lying “on the boundary of Edom and Arabia.”

None of these allusions serves to fix dates, nor do the peculiarities of the language, though they suggest Aramaic and Arabic influences. The mention of Babylonians ( Job 1:17) (Kasdim) as raiders may, however, point to about 600 BC, since they could not have reached Edom except from the North, and did not appear in Palestine between the time of Amraphel (who only reached Kadesh-barnea), and of Nebuchadnezzar. It is at least clear ( Job 24:1-12) that this great poem was written in a time of general anarchy, and of Arab lawlessness. 2. Book of Psalms: In the Psalms there are many allusions to the natural phenomena of Palestine, but there is very little detailed topography. “The mountain of Bashan” ( Psalm 68:15) rises East of the plateau to 5,700 ft. above sealevel; but Zalmon ( Psalm 68:14) is an unknown mountain (compare Zalmon, Judges 9:48). This psalm might well refer to David’s conquest of Damascus ( 2 Samuel 8:6), as Psalm 72 refers to the time of Solomon, being the last in the original collection of “prayers of David” ( 2 Samuel 8:20). In Psalm 83 (verses 6-8) we find a confederacy of Edom, Ishmael, Moab and the Hagarenes (or “wanderers” East of Palestine; compare 1 Chronicles 5:18-22) with Gebal (in Lebanon), Ammon, Amalek, and Tyre, all in alliance with Assyria — a condition which first existed in 732 BC, when Tiglath-pileser III conquered Damascus. The reference to the “northern” (“hidden”) tribes points to this date ( Psalm 83:3), since this conqueror made captives also in Galilee ( 2 Kings 15:29; 1 Chronicles 5:26; Isaiah 9:1). 3. Book of Proverbs: In Proverbs the allusions are more peaceful, but not geographical. They refer to agriculture (3:10; 11:26; 12:11; 25:13), to trade (7:16; 31:14,24) and to flocks (27:23-27). The most remarkable passage (26:8) reads literally, “As he that packs a stone into the stone-heap, so is he that giveth honor to a fool.” Jerome said that this referred to a superstitious custom; and the erection of stone heaps at graves, or round a pillar ( Genesis 31:45,46), is a widely spread and very ancient custom (still preserved by Arabs), each stone being the memorial of a visitor to the spot, who thus honors either a local ghost or demon, or a dead man — a rite which was foolish in the eyes of a Hebrew of the age in which this verse was written (see Expository Times, VIII, 399, 524). 4. Song of Solomon of Songs: The geography of Canticles is specially important to a right understanding of this bridal ode of the Syrian princess who was Solomon’s first bride. It is not confined, as some critics say it is, to the north, but includes the whole of Palestine and Syria. The writer names Kedar in North Arabia ( Song of Solomon 1:5) and Egypt, whence horses came in Solomon’s time ( Song of Solomon 1:9; 1 Kings 10:28,29). He knows the henna (the King James Version “camphire”) and the vineyards of En-gedi ( Song of Solomon 1:14), where vineyards still existed in the 12th century AD. He speaks of the “rose” of Sharon ( Song of Solomon 2:1), as well as of Lebanon, with Shenir (Assyrian Saniru) and Hermon ( Song of Solomon 4:8) above Damascus ( Song of Solomon 7:4). He notices the pastoral slopes of Gilead. ( Song of Solomon 6:5), and the brown pool, full of small fish, in the brook below Heshbon ( Song of Solomon 7:4), in Moab. The locks of the “peaceful one” ( Song of Solomon 6:13, Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) pacifica) are like the thick copses of Carmel; `the king is caught in the tangles’ ( Song of Solomon 7:5). See GALLERY. She is “beautiful as Tirzah (in Samaria), comely as Jerusalem, terrible to look at” ( Song of Solomon 6:4 the King James Version). She is a garden and a “paradise” (“orchard”) of spices in Lebanon, some of which spices (calamus, cinnamon, frankincense and myrrh) have come from far lands ( Song of Solomon 4:12-15).

Solomon’s vineyard — another emblem of the bride — ( Song of Solomon 1:6; 8:11) was in Baal-hamon, which some suppose to be Baalhermon, still famous for its vineyards. He comes to fetch her from the wilderness ( Song of Solomon 3:6); and the dust raised by his followers is like that of the whirlwind pillars which stalk over the dry plains of Bashan in summer. The single word “paradise” ( Song of Solomon 4:13 margin) is hardly evidence enough to establish late date, since — though used in Persian — its etymology and origin are unknown. The word for “nuts” (Hebrew ‘eghoz ) is also not Persian ( Song of Solomon 6:11), for the Arabic word jauz, is Semitic, and means a “pair,” applying to the walnut which abounds in Shechem. The “rose of Sharon” ( Song of Solomon 2:1), according to the Targum, was the white “narcisus; and the Hebrew word occurs also in Assyrian (chabacillatu), as noted by Delitzsch (quoting WAI, V, 32, number 4), referring to a white bulbous plant.

Sharon in spring is covered still with wild narcissi, Arabic buceil (compare Isaiah 35:1,2). There is perhaps no period when such a poem is more likely to have been written than in the time of Solomon, when Israel “dwelt safely, every man under his vine and under his fig-tree” ( 1 Kings 4:25); when the roe and the fallow deer ( Song of Solomon 2:17; 1 Kings 4:23) abounded; and when merchants ( Song of Solomon 3:6) brought “powders” from afar; when also the dominion included Damascus and Southern Lebanon, as well as Western Palestine with Gilead and Moab. See also SONG OF SONGS. 5. PALESTINE IN THE PROPHETS. 1. Isaiah: Isaiah (1:8) likens Zion, when the Assyrian armies were holding Samaria, Moab and Philistia, to “a booth in a vineyard, a lodge in a garden of cucumbers.” He refers no doubt to a “tower” ( Matthew 21:33), or platform, such as is to be found beside the rock-cut wine press in the deserted vineyards of Palestine; and such as is still built, for the watchman to stand on, in vineyards and vegetable gardens.

The chief topographical question ( Isaiah 10:28-32) refers to the Assyrian advance from the north, when the outposts covered the march through Samaria (whether in 732, 722, or 702 BC) to Philistia. They extended on the left wing to Ai (Chayan), Michmash (Mukhmas), and Geba, South of the Michmash valley (Jeba`), leading to the flight of the villagers, from Ramah (er-Ram) and the region of Gibeah — which included Ramah, with Geba ( 1 Samuel 22:6) and Migron ( 1 Samuel 14:2) or the precipice. They were alarmed also at Gallim (Beit Jala), and Anathoth (`Anata), near Jerusalem; yet the advance ceased at Nob (compare Nehemiah 11:32) where, as before noted, the first glimpse of Zion would be caught if Nob was at or near Mizpah (Tell en Nacbeh), on the main north road leading West of Ramah.

Another passage refers to the towns of Moab ( Isaiah 15:1-6), and to Nimrim (Tell Nimrin) and Zoar (Tell esh Shaghur) in the valley of Shittim.

The ascent of Luhith ( Isaiah 15:5) is the present Tal`at el Cheith, on the southern slope of Nebo (Jebel Neba). The curious term “a heifer of three years old” (compare Jeremiah 48:34 margin) is taken from Septuagint, but might better be rendered “a round place with a group of three” ( see EGLATH-SHELISHIYAH ). It is noticed with the “high places” of Moab ( Isaiah 15:2; Jeremiah 48:35), and probably refers to one of those large and ancient stone circles, surrounding a central group of three rude pillars, which still remain in Moab (SEP, I, 187, 203,233) near Nobo and Zoar. Sibmah — probably Sumieh, 2 miles Southwest of Heshbon (Chesban) — is said to have had vines reaching to Jazer (Sa`aur, 6 miles to the North); and rock-cut wine presses still remain at Sibmah ( Isaiah 16:8; Jeremiah 48:32). The Bozrah mentioned with Edom ( Isaiah 34:6; 63:1; Jeremiah 49:13,22; Micah 2:12) is probably Buceirah, near the southern border of Moab. In the last-cited passage there is a play on the words batsrah (“fortress”) and botscah for “sheepfold.” 2. Jeremiah: In Jeremiah 1:1, Anathoth (`Anata) is mentioned as a priests’ city (compare 1 Kings 2:26). The “place” or shrine of Shiloh was deserted ( Jeremiah 7:12), but the town seems still to have been inhabited ( Jeremiah 41:5). The “pit” at Mizpah ( Jeremiah 41:6-9) may have been the great rock reservoir South of Tell en-Nacbeh. The Moabite towns noticed ( Jeremiah 48:1-5,20-24,31-45; 49:3) with Rabbah (`Amman) have been mentioned as occurring in the parallel passages of Isaiah. The numerous petty kings in Edom, Moab, Philistia, Phoenicia, and Arabia ( Jeremiah 25:20-24) recall those named in Assyrian lists of the same age. Lamentations 4:3 recalls Job 39:14 in attributing to the ostrich want of care for her young, because she endeavors (like other birds) to escape, and thus draws away the hunter from the nest. This verse should not be regarded as showing that the author knew that whales were mammals, since the word “sea-monsters” (the King James Version) is more correctly rendered “jackals” (Revised Version) or “wild beasts.” 3. Ezekiel: In Ezekiel (chapter 27), Tyre appears as a city with a very widespread trade extending from Asia Minor to Arabia and Egypt, and from Assyria to the isles (or “coasts”) of the Mediterranean. The “oaks of Bashan” (27:6; Isaiah 2:13; Zechariah 11:2) are still found in the Southwest of that region near Gilead. Judah and Israel then provided wheat, honey, oil and balm for export as in the time of Jacob. Damascus sent white wool and the wine of Helbon (Chelbon), 13 miles North, where fine vineyards still exist.

The northern border described (47:15-18) is the same that marked that of the dominions of David, running along the Eleutherus River toward Zedad (Cudud). It is described also in Numbers 34:8-11 as passing Riblah (Riblah) and including Ain (el `Ain), a village on the western slopes of the Anti-Lebanon, East of Riblah. In this passage (as in Ezekiel 47:18) the Hauran (or Bashan plain) is excluded from the land of Israel, the border following the Jordan valley, which seems to point to a date earlier than the time when the Havvoth-jair ( Numbers 32:41; Deuteronomy 3:14; Joshua 13:30; Judges 10:4; 1 Kings 4:13; 1 Chronicles 2:23), in Gilead and Bashan were conquered or built — possibly after the death of Joshua. The southern border of the land is described by Ezekiel (47:19) as reaching from Kadesh (-barnea) — probably Petra — to Tamar, which seems to be Tamrah, 6 miles Northeast of Gaza. 4. Minor Prophets: In the Minor Prophets there are fewer topographical notices. Hosea (12:11) speaks of the altars of Gilead and Gilgal as being “as heaps in the furrows of the fields.” He perhaps alludes to the large dolmen fields of this region, which still characterize the country East of the Jordan. He also perhaps speaks of human sacrifice at Bethel (13:2). In Joel (1:12) the apple tree (Hebrew tappuach , Arabic tuffach) is noticed (compare Song of Solomon 2:3,5; 8:5), and there seems to be no reason to doubt that the apple was cultivated, since el Muqaddasi mentions “excellent apples” at Jerusalem in the 10th century AD, though it is not now common in Palestine. The sycamore fig ( Amos 7:14), which was common in the plains and in the shephelah ( 1 Kings 10:27), grew also near Jericho ( Luke 19:4), where it is still to be found. In Micah (1:10-15), a passage which appears to refer to Hezekiah’s reconquest of the shephelah towns and attack on Gaza before 702 BC ( 2 Kings 18:8; 2 Chronicles 28:18) gives a list of places and a play on the name of each. They include Gath (Tell es Cafi), Saphir (es Safir), Lachish (Tell el-Chesy), Achzib (`Ain Kezbeh), and Mareshah (Mer`ash): “the glory of Israel shall come even unto Adullam” (`Aid-el-ma) perhaps refers to Hezekiah himself ( Micah 1:15). After the captivity Philistia ( Zechariah 9:5) was still independent. See PHILISTINES. The meaning of the “mourning of Hadadrimmon in the Valley of Megiddon” ( Zechariah 12:11) is disputed. Jerome (see Reland, Palestine Illustr., II, 891) says that the former of these names referred to a town near Jezreel (Maximianopolis, now Rummaneh, on the western side of the plain of Esdraelon), but the mourning “for an only son” was probably a rite of the Syrian god called Hadad, or otherwise Rimmon, like the mourning for Tammuz ( Ezekiel 8:14). 6. PALESTINE IN THE APOCRYPHA. 1. Book of Judith: The Book of Judith is regarded by Renan (Evangiles, 1877, 29) as a Haggadha’ (legend), written in Hebrew in 74 AD. It is remarkable, however, that its geographical allusions are very correct. Judith was apparently of the tribe of Manasseh (8:2,3); and her husband, who bore this name, was buried between Dothaim (Tell Dothan) and Balamon (in Wady Belameh), East of Dothan. Her home at Bethulia was thus probably at Mithilieh, on a high hill (6:11,12), 5 miles Southeast of Dothan (SWP, II, 156), in the territory of Manasseh. The requirements of the narrative are well met; for this village is supplied only by wells (7:13,10), though there are springs at the foot of the hill to the South (7:7,12), while there is a good view over the valley to the North (10:10), and over the plain of Esdraelon to Nazareth and Tabor. Other mountains surround the village (15:3). The camp of the invaders reached from Dothart to Belmaim (Balamon) from West to East, and their rear was at Cyamon (Tell Qeimun), at the foot of Carmel. The Babylonians were allied with tribes from Carmel, Gilead and Galilee on the North with the Samaritans, and with others from Betane (probably Beth-anoth, now Belt `Ainun, North of Hebron), Chellus (Klalach — the later Elusa — 8 miles Southwest of Beersheba), and Kades (`Ain Qadis) on the way to Egypt. Among Samaritan towns South of Shechem, Ekrebel (`Aqrabeh) and Chusi (Kuzah) are mentioned, with “the brook Mochmur” (Wady el Chumr) rising North of Ekrebel and running East into the Jordan. 2. Book of Wisdom: The philosophical Book of Wisdom has no references to Palestine; and in Ecclesiasticus the only allusions are to the palm of En-gaddi (24:14), where palms still exist, and to the “rose plant in Jericho” (24:14; compare 39:13; 50:8); the description of the rose as “growing by the brook in the field” suggests the rhododendron (Tristram, NHB, 477), which flourishes near the Jordan and grows to great size beside the brooks of Gilead. 3. 1 Maccabees: Judas Maccabeus. — The first Book of Maccabees is a valuable history going down to 135 BC, and its geographical allusions are sometimes important. Modin, the home of Judas-Maccabaeus (1 Macc 2:15), where his brother Simon erected seven monuments visible from the sea (1 Macc 9:19; 13:25-30), was above the plain in which Cedron (Qatrah, 5 miles East of Jamnia) stood (1 Macc 15:40,41; 16:4,9), and is clearly the present village el Midieh on the low hills with a sea view, 17 miles from Jerusalem and 6 miles East of Lydda, near which latter Eusebius (Onom under the word “Modeim”) places Modin. The first victory of Judas (1 Macc 3:24) was won at Beth-horon, and the second at Emmaus (`Amwas) by the Valley of Aijalon — the scenes of Joshua’s victories also.

The Greeks next attempted to reach Jerusalem from the South and were again defeated at Beth-zur (1 Macc 4:29), now Beit-cur, on the watershed, 15 miles South of Jerusalem, where the road runs through a pass. Judas next (after cleansing the temple in 165 BC) marched South of the Dead Sea, attacking the Edomites at Arabattine (perhaps Akrabbim) and penetrating to the Moab plateau as far North as Jazar (1 Macc 5:3-8). On his return to Judea the heathen of Gilead and Bashan rose against the Israelites of Tubias (1 Macc 5:13) or Tobit (Taiyibeh), and the Phoenicians against the Galilean Hebrews who were, for a time, withdrawn to Jerusalem until the Hasmoneans won complete independence (1 Macc 11:7,59). In the regions of Northern Gilead and Southern Bashan (1 Macc 5:26,36,37) Judas conquered Bosor (Bucr), Alema (Kerr el-ma), Caphon (Khisfin), Maged (perhaps el Mejd, North of `Amman), and Carnaim (Ashteroth-karnaim), now Tell Ashterah. The notice of a “brook” at the last-named place (1 Macc 5:42) is an interesting touch, as a fine stream runs South from the west side of the town. In 162 BC Judas was defeated at Bathzacharias (1 Macc 6:32), now Beit Skaria 9 miles South of Jerusalem, but the cause was saved by a revolt in Antioch; and in the next year he defeated Nicanor near Caphar-salama (perhaps Selmeh, near Joppa), and slew him at Adasah (`Adaseh), 8 miles Southeast of Bethhoron (1 Macc 7:31,40,45). The fatal battle in which Judas was killed (1 Macc 9:5,15) was fought also near Beth-horon. He camped at Eleasa (Il`asa), close by, and defeated the Greeks on his right, driving them to Matthew. Azotus (or Beth-zetho, according to Josephus (Ant., XII, xi, 2)), apparently near Bir-ez-Zeit, 4 miles Northwest of Bethel; but the Greeks on his left surrounded him during this rash pursuit.

On the death of Judas, Bacchides occupied Judea and fortified the frontier towns (1 Macc 9:50,51) on all sides. Simon and Jonathan were driven to the marshes near the Jordan, but in 159 BC the Greeks made peace with Jonathan who returned to Michmash (1 Macc 9:73) and 7 years later to Jerns (1 Macc 10:1,7). Three districts on the southern border of Samaria were then added to Judea (1 Macc 10:30; 11:34), namely Lydda, Apherema (or Ephraim) now Taiyibeh, and Ramathem (er-Ram); and Jonathan defeated the Greeks in Philistia (1 Macc 10:69; 11:6). Simon was “captain” from the “Ladder of Tyre” (Ras en Naqurah), or the pass North of Accho, to the borders of Egypt (1 Macc 11:59); and the Greeks in Upper Galilee were again defeated by Jonathan, who advanced from Gennesaret to the plateau of Hazor (Chazzur), and pursued them even to Kedesh Naphtali (Qedes), northward (1 Macc 11:63,73). He was victorious even to the borders of Hamath, and the Eleutherus River (Nahr el Kebir), North of Tripoils, and defeated the Arabs, called Zabadeans (probably at Zebdany in Anti-Lebanon), on his way to Damascus (1 Macc 12:25,30,32). He fortified Adida (Chadditheh) in the shephelah (1 Macc 12:38), West of Jerusalem, where Simon awaited the Greek usurper Tryphon (1 Macc 13:13,20), who attempted to reach Jerusalem by a long detour to the South near Adoraim (Dura), but failed on account of the snow in the mountains. After the treacherous capture of Jonathan at Accho, and his death in Gilead (1 Macc 12:48; 13:23), Simon became the ruler of all Palestine to Gaza (1 Macc 13:43), fortifying Joppa, Gezer and Ashdod (1 Macc 14:34) in 140 BC. Five years later he won a final victory at Cedron (Qatrah), near Jamnia (Yebnah), but was murdered at Dok (1 Macc 16:15), near Jericho, which site was a small fort at `Ain Duk, a spring North of the city. 4. 2 Maccabees: The second Book of Maccabees presents a contrast to the first in which, as we have seen, the geography is easily understood. Thus the site of Caspis with its lake (2 Macc 12:13,16) is doubtful. It seems to be placed in Idumaea, and Charax may be the fortress of Kerak in Moab (2 Macc 12:17). Ephron, West of Ashteroth-karnaim (2 Macc 12:26,27), is unknown; and Beth-shean is called by its later name Scythopolis (2 Macc 12:29), as in the Septuagint ( Judges 1:27) and in Josephus (Ant., XII, viii, 5; vi, 1). A curious passage (1 Macc 13:4-6) seems to refer to the Persian burial towers (still used by Parsees), one of which appears to have existed at Berea (Aleppo), though this was not a Greek custom. See ASMONEANS. 7. PALESTINE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 1. Synoptic Gospels: We are told that our Lord was born in “Bethlehem of Judea”; and theory of Neubauer, adopted by Gratz, that Bethlehem of Zebulun ( Joshua 19:15) — which was the present Beit-Lachm, 7 miles Northwest of Nazareth — is to be understood, is based on a mistake. The Jews expected the Messiah to appear in the home of David ( Micah 5:2); and the Northern Bethlehem was not called “of Nazareth,” as asserted by Rix (Tent and Testament, 258); this was a conjectural reading by Neubauer (Geog. du Talmud, 189), but the Talmud (Talm Jerusalem, Meghillah 1 1) calls the place Bethlechem-ceridh (or “of balm”), no doubt from the storax bush (Styrax officinalis) or stacte ( Exodus 30:34), the Arabic `abhar, which still abounds in the oak wood close by. (1) Galilean Scenery.

The greater part of the life of Jesus was spent at Nazareth in Zebulun, and the ministry at Capernaum in Naphtali (compare Matthew 4:13-15; Isaiah 9:1), with yearly visits to Jerusalem. The Gospel narratives and the symbolism of the parables constantly recall the characteristic features of Galilean scenery and nature, as they remain unchanged today. The “city set on a hill” ( Matthew 5:14) may be seen in any part of Palestine; the lilies of the field grow in all its plains; the “foxes have holes” and the sparrows are still eaten; the vineyard with its tower; the good plowland, amid stony and thorny places, are all still found throughout the Holy Land. But the deep lake surrounded by precipitous cliffs and subject to sudden storms, with its shoals of fish and its naked fishers; the cast nets and drag nets and small heavy boats of the Sea of Galilee, are more distinctive of the Gospels, since the lake is but briefly noticed in the Old Testament. (2) Nazareth.

Nazareth was a little village in a hill plateau North of the plain of Esdraelon, and l,000 ft. above it. The name (Hebrew natsarah ) may mean “verdant,” and it had a fine spring, but it is connected ( Matthew 2:23) in the Gospels with the prophecy of the “branch” (netser , Isaiah 11:1) of the house of David. Its population was Hebrew, for it possessed a synagogue ( Luke 4:16). The “brow of the hill whereon their city was built” ( Luke 4:29) is traditionally the “hill of the leap” (Jebel Qafsi), miles to the South — a cliff overlooking the plain. Nazareth was not on any great highway; and so obscure was this village that it is unnoticed in the Old Testament, or by Josephus, while even a Galilean ( John 1:46) could hardly believe that a prophet could come thence. Jerome (Onomasticon, under the word) calls it a “village”; but today it is a town with 4,000 Christians and 2,000 Moslems, the former taking their Arabic name (Nacarah) from the home of their Master. (3) Capernaum.

Capernaum ( Matthew 4:13; 9:1) lay on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, apparently ( Mark 14:34; John 6:17) in the little plain of Gennesaret, which stretches for 3 miles on the northwest side of the lake, and which has a breadth of 2 miles. It may have stood on a low cliff (though this is rendered doubtful by the Sinaiticus manuscript rendering of Matthew 11:23 — “Shalt thou be exalted unto heaven?”), and it was a military station where taxes were levied ( Matthew 9:9), and possessed a synagogue ( Mark 1:21; Luke 4:33; John 6:59). Christian tradition, since the 4th century AD, has placed the site at Tell Chum, where ruins of a synagogue (probably, however, not older than the 2nd century AD) exist; but this site is not in the plain of Gennesaret, and is more probably Kephar ‘Achim (Babylonian Talmud, Menachoth 85a). Jewish tradition (Midrash, Qoheleth, vii.20) connects Capernaum with minim or “heretics” — that is to say Christians — whose name may yet linger at `Ain Minyeh at the north end of the plain of Gennesaret. Josephus states (BJ, III, x, 8) that the spring of Capernaum watered this plain, and contained the catfish (coracinus) which is still found in `Ain el Mudawwerah (“the round spring”), which is the principal source of water in the Gennesaret oasis. (4) Chorazin.

The site of Chorazin (Kerazeh) has never been lost. The ruined village lies about 2 1/4 miles North of Tell Chum and possesses a synagogue of similar character. Bethsaida (“the house of fishing”) is once said to have been in Galilee ( John 12:21), and Reland (Palestine Illustr., II, 553-55) thought that there were two towns of the name. It is certain that the other notices refer to Bethsaida, called Julias by Herod Philip, which Josephus (Ant., XVIII, ii, 1; iv, 6; BJ, III, x, 7) and Pliny (NH, v.15) place East of the Jordan, near the place where it enters the Sea of Galilee. The site may be at the ruin edition Dikkeh (“the platform”), now 2 miles North of the lake, but probably nearer of old, as the river deposit has increased southward.

There are remains of a synagogue here also. The two miracles of feeding the 5,000 and the 4,000 are both described as occurring’ East of the Jordan, the former ( Luke 9:10) in the desert (of Golan) “belonging to the city called Bethsaida” (the King James Version). The words ( Mark 6:45 the King James Version), “to go to the other side before unto Bethsaida,” may be rendered without any straining of grammar, “to go to the side opposite to Bethsaida.” For the disciples are not said to have reached that city; but, after a voyage of at least 3 or 4 miles ( John 6:17,19), they arrived near Capernaum, and landed in Gennesaret ( Mark 6:53), about 5 miles Southwest of the Jordan. (5) Country of the Gerasenes.

The place where the swine rushed down a steep place into the lake ( Matthew 8:32; Mark 5:1; Luke 8:26) was in the country of the Gerasenes (see Codex Vaticanus MS), probably at Qersa on the eastern shore opposite Tiberias, where there is a steep slope to the water. It should be noted that this was in Decapolis ( Mark 5:20), a region of “ten cities” which lay (except Scythopolis) in Southwest Bashan, where a large number of early Greek inscriptions have been found, some of which (e.g. Vogue- Waddington, numbers 2412, 2413) are as old as the 1st century AD. There was evidently a Greek population in this region in the time of our Lord; and this accounts for the feeding of swine, otherwise distinctive of “a far country” ( Luke 15:13,15); for, while no Hebrew would have tended the unclean beast in Palestine, the Greeks were swine-herds from the time at least of Homer. (6) Magadan-Magdala.

The site of Magadan-Magdala (Mejdel) was on the west shore at the Southwest end of the Gennesaret plain ( Matthew 15:39). In Mark 8:10 we find Dalmanutha instead. Magdala was the Hebrew mighdol (“tower”), and Dalmanutha may be regarded as the Aramaic equivalent (De’almanutha) meaning “the place of high buildings”; so that there is no necessary discrepancy between the two accounts. From this place Jesus again departed by ship to “the other side,” and reached Bethsaida ( Matthew 16:5; Mark 8:13,22), traveling thence up the Jordan valley to Caesarea Philippi ( Matthew 16:13; Mark 8:27), or Banias, at the Jordan springs. There can be little doubt that the “high mountain apart” ( Matthew 17:1) was Hermon. The very name signifies “separate,” applying to its solitary dome; and the sudden formation of cloud on the summit seems to explain the allusion in Luke 9:34. (7) Other Allusions in the Synoptic Gospels.

Other allusions in the Synoptic Gospels, referring to natural history and customs, include the notice of domestic fowls ( Matthew 23:37; 26:34), which are never mentioned in the Old Testament. They came from Persia, and were introduced probably after 400 BC. The use of manure ( Luke 13:8) is also unnoticed in the Old Testament, but is mentioned in the Mishna (Shebi`ith, ii.2), as is the custom of annually whitening sepulchers ( Matthew 23:27; Sheqalim, i.1). The removal of a roof ( Mark 2:4; compare Luke 5:19) at Capernaum was not difficult, if it resembled those of modern Galilean mud houses, though the Third Gospel speaks of “tiles” which are not now used. Finally, the presence of shepherds with their flocks ( Luke 2:8) is not an indication of the season of the nativity, since they remain with them “in the field” at all times of the year; and the “manger” ( Luke 2:7) may have been (as tradition affirmed even in the 2nd century AD) in a cave like those which have been found in ruins North and South of Hebron (SWP, III, 349, 369) and elsewhere in Palestine 2. Fourth Gospel: (1) The topography of the Fourth Gospel is important as indicating the writer’s personal knowledge of Palestine; for he mentions several places not otherwise noticed in the New Testament. Beth-abarah ( John 1:28, the Revised Version (British and American) “Bethany”; 10:40), or “the house of the crossing,” was “beyond the Jordan.” Origen rejected the reading “Bethania,” instead of Beth-abarah, common in his time, and still found in the three oldest uncial manuscripts in the 4th and 5th centuries AD. The place was a day’s journey from Cana (compare John 1:29,35,43; 2:1), which may have been at `Ain Qana, a mile North of Nazareth. It was two or three days’ distance from Bethany near Jerusalem ( John 10:40; 11:3,6,17), and would thus lie in the upper part of the Jordan valley where, in 1874, the surveyors found a ford well known by the name `Abarah, North of Beisan, in the required situation. John, we are told, baptized in “all the region round about the Jordan” ( Matthew 3:5), including the waters of “AEnon near to Salim” ( John 3:23). There is only one stream which answers to this description, namely that of Wady Far`ah, Northeast of Shechem, on the boundary of Judea and Samaria, where there is “much water.” AEnon would be `Ainun, 4 miles North, and Salim is Salim, 4 miles South of this perennial affluent of the Jordan. (2) The site of Sychar (Samaritan: Iskar, Arabic: `Askar) near Jacob’s well ( John 4:5,6) lay West of Salim, and just within the Samaritan border.

The present village is only half a mile North of the well. Like the preceding sites, it is noticed only in the Fourth Gospel, as is Bethesda, while this Gospel also gives additional indications as to the position of Calvary. The town of Ephraim, “near to the wilderness” ( John 11:54), is noticed earlier ( 2 Samuel 13:23; compare Ephraim, 2 Chronicles 13:19 margin), and appears to be the same as Apherema (1 Macc 11:34), and as Ophrah of Benjamin ( Joshua 18:23; 1 Samuel 13:17). Eusebius (Onom under the word) places it 20 Roman miles North of Jerusalem, where the village Taiyibeh looks down on the desert of Judah. 3. Book of Acts: In the Book of Acts the only new site, unnoticed before, is that of Antipatris (23:31). This stood at the head of the stream (Me-jarkon) which runs thence to the sea North of Joppa, and it was thus the half-way station between Jerusalem and the seaside capital at Caesarea. The site is now called Ras el `Ain (“head of the spring”), and a castle, built in the 12th century, stands above the waters. The old Romans road runs close by (SWP, II, 258). Caesarea was a new town, founded by Herod the Great about 20 BC (SWP, II, 13-29). It was even larger than Jerusalem, and had an artificial harbor. Thence we may leave Palestine with Paul in 60 AD.

The reader must judge whether this study of the country does not serve to vindicate the sincerity and authenticity of Bible narratives in the Old Testament and the New Testament alike.

LITERATURE Though the literature connected with Palestine is enormous, and constantly increasing, the number of really original and scientific sources of knowledge is (as in other cases) not large. Besides the Bible, and Josephus, the Mishna contains a great deal of valuable information as to the cultivation and civilization of Palestine about the 1st and 2nd centuries AD.

The following 20 works are of primary importance. The Onomasticon of Eusebius and Jerome shows intimate acquaintance with Palestine in the 4th century AD, though the identification of Bible sites is as often wrong as right. The rabbinical geography is discussed by A. Neubauer (Lamentations geographie du Talmud, 1868), and the scattered notices by Greek and Roman writers were collected by H. Reland (Palaestina Exodus monumentis veteribus illustrata, 2 volumes, 1714). The first really scientific account of the country is that of Dr. E. Robinson (Biblical Researches, 1838, and Later Biblical Researches, 1852; in 3 volumes, 1856). The Survey of Western Palestine (7 volumes, 1883) includes the present writer’s account of the natural features, topography and surface remains of all ages, written while in command (1872-1878) of the 1-inch trigonometric survey. The Survey of Eastern Palestine (1 vol, 1889) gives his account of Moab and Southern Gilead, as surveyed in 1881-1882. The natural history is to be studied in the same series, and in Canon Tristram’s Natural History of the Bible, 1868. The geology is best given by L. Lartet (Essai sur la geologie de la Palestine) and in Professor Hull’s Memoir on the Geol. and Geog. of Arabia Petrea, etc., 1886. The Archaeological Researches of M. Clermont-Ganneau (2 volumes, 1896) include his discoveries of Gezer and Adullam. Much information is scattered through the PEFQ,(1864-1910) and in ZDPV. G. Schumacher’s Across the Jordan, 1885, Pella, 1888, and Northern ‘Ajlun, 1890, give detailed information for Northeast Palestine; and Lachish, by Professor Flinders Petrie, is the memoir of the excavations which he began at Tell el-Chesy (identified in 1874 by the present writer), the full account being in A Mound of Many Cities by F.J. Bliss, 1894. Other excavations, at Gath, etc., are described in Excavations in Palestine (1898-1900), by F.J. Bliss, R.A.S. Macalister, and Professor Wunsch; while the memoir of his excavations at Gezer (2 volumes) has recently been published by Professor Macalister. For those who have not access to these original sources, The Historical Geography of the Holy Land by Professor G.A. Smith, 1894, and the essay (300 pp.) by Professor D.F. Buhl (Geographie des alten Palastina, 1896) will be found useful. The best guide book to Palestine is still that of Baedeker, written by Dr. A. Socin and published in 18765, 1912. This author had personal acquaintance with the principal routes of the country. Only standard works of reference have been herein mentioned, to which French, German, American, and British explorers and scholars have alike contributed. See JERUSALEM.

C. R. Conder PALESTINE (RECENT EXPLORATION, I.E. AS OF 1915) PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATION:

Previous to the last century, almost the entire stock of knowledge concerning ancient Palestine, including its races, laws, languages, history and manners, was obtained from Josephus and the Bible, with a few brief additional references given by Greek and Roman authors; knowledge concerning modern Palestine was limited to the reports of chance travelers.

The change has been due largely to the compelling interest taken in sacred history and the “Holy Oracles.” This smallest country in the world has aroused the spirit of exploration as no other country has or could. It has largely stimulated many of the investigations carried on in other lands. 1. ERA OF PREPARATION. 1. Outside of Palestine: Much direct information concerning ancient Palestine, absolutely essential to the success of modern exploration in that land, has come through discoveries in other countries; but due in many cases to Biblical influence.

All the most important Hebrew and Greek manuscripts and versions of the Bible and most of the Jewish Talmud and apocryphal and Wisdom books were found outside of Palestine. The pictures of its population, cities, fortresses and armies give a color and perspective to its ancient history far more vivid than can be found on any of its own contemporary monuments.

The records of Thothmes III (15th century BC) describing the capture of Megiddo in the plain of Esdraelon with its vast stores of “chariots wrought with gold,” bronze armor, silver and ebony statues, ivory and ebony furniture, etc., and of his further capture of 118 other Canaanite towns, many of which are well known from the Bible, and from which he takes an enormous tribute of war materials, golden ornaments and golden dishes, “too many to be weighed,” find no parallel in any indigenous record — such records even if written having been doomed to perish because of the soil, climate and character of the rocks West of the Jordan. So circa BC, the Tell el-Amarna Letters (discovered in 1887) mention by name many Biblical cities, and give much direct information concerning the political and social conditions at that period, with at least 6 letters from the governor of Jerusalem, who writes to the Pharaoh news that the Egyptian fleet has left the coast, that all the neighboring cities have been lost to Egypt, and that Jerusalem will be lost unless help can be had quickly against the invasion of the Khabiri. The literature of the XIXth Dynasty contains many Hebrew names with much information concerning Goshen, Pithom, Canaan, etc., while in one huge stele of Menephtah the Israelites are mentioned by name. Later Egyptian Pharaohs give almost equally important knowledge concerning Palestine, while the Assyrian texts are even more direct. The black obelisk of Shalmancser II (9th century) catalogues and pictures the tribute received from Jehu; almost every king of the 8th century tells something of his relations with the rulers of Jerusalem or Damascus, throwing immense light on local politics, and the later Bah records give vividly the conditions previous to and during the exile, while the edict of Cyrus gives the very decree by virtue of which the Jews could return to their native land. Later discoveries, like the Code of Hammurabi at Susa (1901), the Sendjirli and other Aramaic texts from Northern Syria (1890, 1908), and the Elephantine papyri, some of which are addressed to the “sons of Sanballat” and describe a temple in Egypt erected to Yahu (Yahweh) in the 5th century BC, may not give direct information concerning Palestine, but are important to present explorers because of the light thrown upon the laws of Palestine in patriarchal times; upon the thought and language of a neighboring Semitic community at the time of the Monarchy; upon the religious ritual and festivals of Nehemiah’s day, and upon the general wealth and culture of the Jews of the 5th century; opening up also for the first time the intimate relations which existed between Jerusalem and Samaria and the Jews of the Dispersion. So the vast amounts of Greek papyri found recently in the Fayyum not only have preserved the “Logia ” and “Lost Gospels” and fragments of Scripture texts, early Christian Egyptian ritual, etc., but have given to scholars for the first time contemporaneous examples of the colloquial language which the Jews of Palestine were using in the 1st century AD, and in which they wrote the “memoirs” of the apostles and the Gospels of Jesus. 2. In Palestine: (1) Early Christian Period.

At this time, during the first three or four centuries the ancient sites and holy places were identified, giving some valuable information as to the topographical memories of the earlier church. By far the most valuable of these carefully prepared summaries of ancient Bible places, with their modern sites, and the distances between them, was the Onomasticon of Eusebius, as it was enlarged by Jerome, which attempted seriously the identification of some 300 holy places, most of these being vitally important for the modern student of the Bible. While some of these identifications were “curiously incorrect” (Bliss) and the distances even at the best only approximate, yet few satisfactory additions were made to the list for 1,500 years; and it was certainly a splendid contribution to Palestinian topography, for the list as a whole has been confirmed by the scientific conclusions of recent investigators. (2) Period of Cursory Observation.

The earliest traveler who has left a record of his journey into Palestine was Sinuhit, who, perhaps a century after Abraham, mentions a number of places known to us from the Bible and describes Canaan as a “land of figs and vines, .... where wine was more plentiful than Water, .... honey and oil in abundance .... all kinds of fruit upon its trees, barley and spelt in the fields, and cattle beyond number”; each day his table is laden with “bread, wine, cooked flesh and roasted fowl .... wild game from the hills and milk in every sort of cooked dish” (Breasted, Ancient Records, I, 496). A few other Egyptian visitors (1300-1000 BC) add little to our knowledge. The report of the Hebrew spies (Numbers 13) records important observations, although they can only humorously be called “genuine explorers” (Bliss), and Joshua’s list of cities and tribes, although their boundaries are carefully described (Joshua 13 through 21), are naturally excluded from this review.

The record of early Christian travel begins with the Bordeaux Pilgrim (332 AD), and during the next two centuries scores of others write out their observations in the Holy Land, but for 1,000 years there is scarcely a single visitor who looks at the country except through the eyes of the monks. A woman traveler of the 4th century reports some interesting facts about the early ritual of the Jerusalem church and the catechumen teaching, and surprises us by locating Pithom correctly (although the site was totally forgotten and only recovered in 1883), and the Epitome of Eucherius (5th century) gives a clear description of the holy places in Jerusalem; but almost the only other significant sign that anyone at this era ever made serious observations of value comes from the very large, fine mosaic of the 5th century recently discovered at Madeba, which gives a good impression of ancient Jerusalem with its buildings, and a careful bird’s-eye view of the surrounding country (see below II, 3). By the middle of the 6th century the old “Holy Places” were covered by churches, while new ones were manufactured or discovered in dreams, and relics of martyrs’ bones began to engross so much attention that no time was left in which to make any ordinary geographical or natural-history observations. A little local color and a few facts in regard to the plan of early churches and the persecution of Christians by Moslems constitute almost the sum total of valus to be gathered from the multitude of pilgrims between the 6th and 12th centuries. In the 12th century John of Wurzburg gives a few geographical notes of value; Theoderich notices certain inscriptions and tombs, describes accurately the churches and hospitals he visits, with their pictures and decorations, and outlines intelligently the boundaries of Judea and the salient features of the mountains encompassing Jerusalem; the Abbot Daniel notices the wild beasts in the Jordan forests and the customs at church feasts, and his account is important because of the light it throws on conditions in Palestine just after its conquest by the Crusaders, while in the 13th century Burchard of Matthew. Zion makes the earliest known medieval map of Palestine, mentions over 100 Scripture sites, and shows unexpected interest in the plant and animal life of the country — but this practically exhausts the valuable information from Christian sources in these centuries. The Moslem pilgrims and writers from the 9th to the 15th centuries show far more regard to geographical realities than the Christians. It is a Moslem, Istakhri, who in the 10th century makes the first effort at a systematic geography of Palestine, and in the 10th and 13th centuries, respectively, Muqaddasi, after 20 years of preparation, and Yaqut, in a “vast work,” publish observations concerning climate, native customs, geographical divisions, etc., which are yet valuable, while Nacir-i- Qhusran, in the 11th century, also gave important information concerning Palestinian botany, gave dimensions of buildings and gates, and even noticed to some extent the ancient arches and ruins — though in all these there are pitiful inaccuracies of observation and induction. One of the best Moslem writers thinks the water of Lake Tiberias is not fit to drink because the city sewerage has ceased to flow into it, and Christian writers from the 7th century down to modern times continually mention the Jor and Daniel as two fountains from which the Jordan rises, and continually report the most absurd stories about the Dead Sea and about its supernatural saltness never noticing the salt mountain near by and the other simple causes explaining this phenomenon. See DEAD SEA.

In the 14th century Marino Sanuto gave a “most complete monograph” (Ritter) of Palestinian geography, his maps being really valuable, though, according to modern standards, quite inaccurate. The Jew, Estoai ben Moses ha-Phorhi, in this same century advanced beyond all Christian writers in a work of “real scientific knowledge” (Bliss), in which he correctly identified Megiddo and other ancient sites, though the value of his work was not recognized for 400 years. The great name of the 15th century is that of the Dominican, Father Felix Fabri, who in his large book, Wanderings in the Holy Land, was the first to notice monuments and ruins to which no Biblical traditions were attached (Bliss), and who, within a decade of the discovery of America, described most vividly the dangers and miseries of the sea voyages of that era, and in most modern fashion narrated his adventures among the Saracens; yet notwithstanding the literary value of the book and his better method of arranging his materials, Fabri actually explained the saltness of the Dead Sea as due to the sweat which flowed from the skin of the earth! In the 16th century travelers showed more interest in native customs, but the false traditional identification of sites was scarcely questioned; the route of travel was always the same, as it was absolutely impossible to get East of the Jordan, and even a short trip away from the caravan was dangerous. (3) Beginning of Scientific Observation.

In the 17th century Michal Nau, for 30 years a missionary in Palestine, Deuteronomy la Roque and Hallifix showed a truly scientific veracity of observation and an increasing accuracy in the recording and verification of their notes, and Maundrell advanced beyond all his predecessors in noticing the antiquities on the seacoast, North of Beirut; but all of these, though possessing fine qualities as explorers, were forced to travel hastily and limit their study to a very narrow field. 2. ERA OF SCIENTIFIC EXPLORATION. 1. Period of Individual Enterprise: (1) First Trained Explorers.

True scientific exploration opened with the 18th century, as men began to think of this as itself an important life-work and not merely as a short episode in a life devoted to more serious pursuits. Th. Shaw (1722) carefully fitted himself as a specialist in natural history and physical geography, and scientifically reported a number of new facts, e.g. conditions and results of evaporation, etc., in the Dead Sea. Bishop Pococke (1738) had been well trained, was free from the bondage of tradition, and did for the antiquities of Palestine what Maundrell had done for those of Syria, making a large number of successful identifications of sites and contributing much to the general knowledge of Palestine. Volney (1783) was a brilliant literary man, in full sympathy with the scientific spirit, who popularized results and made a considerable number of original researches, especially in the Lebanon. Seetzen (1800-1807) and Burckhardt (1810-1812) are called by Bliss “veritable pioneers in the exploration of the ruins of Eastern and Southern Palestine.” The former opened Caesarea Philippi to light, visited a large unexplored district and made important observations in almost every field of knowledge, zoology, meteorology, archaeology; the latter, having become an Arab in looks and language, was able to go into many places where no European had ventured, one of his chief triumphs being the discovery of Petra and the scientific location of Matthew. Sinai. (2) The Climax of Individual Exploration.

The climax of the era of scientific observation, unassisted by learned societies, was reached by the American clergyman and teacher, Edward Robinson. He spent parts of two years in Palestine (1838 and 1852) and in 1856 published 3 volumes of Biblical Researches. He strictly employed the scientific method, and showed such rare insight that scarcely one of his conclusions has been found incorrect. His knowledge was as extensive as minute, and although he gave, in all, only five months of steady labor to the specific task of exploration, yet in that time he “reconstructed the map of Palestine” (Bliss), and his conclusions henceforth “formed the ground work of modern research” (Conder). He studied Jerusalem, being the first to show that the ancient fragment of an arch (now “Robinson’s”) had been part of the bridge connecting the temple with Matthew. Zion, and was the first to trace with accuracy the windings of the tunnel leading from the Virgin’s Fount to the Pool of Siloam. All Judea, Galilee and Samaria were very well covered by him. He was the first to notice that the ruined building at Tell Chum was a synagogue; from the top of one hill he recognized seven Biblical sites which had been lost for at least 1,500 years; he identified correctly at least 160 new sites, almost all being Biblical places. Robinson’s results were phenomenal in number and variety, yet necessarily these have been constantly improved upon or added to in each generation since, for no man can cover the entire field or be a specialist in every department. W.M. Thomson in his Thomson, The Land and the Book (new edition, 1910) and G.E. Post, Flora of Syria, Palestine, and Sinai (1896), gave a needed popular resume of the manners, customs and folklore of the people, as these illustrated the Bible, and many books and articles since have added to this material.

In 1848 the United States sent an expedition under Lieutenant Lynch to the Dead Sea, which ascertained the exact width, depth, currents, temperature, etc., and many parties since have added to this knowledge (see e.g. DEAD SEA; and also PEFS, 1911, XII, 7). From 1854 to 1862 Deuteronomy Vogue thoroughly examined the monuments of Central Syria and remained the sole authority on this section down to the American Archaeological Expedition of 1899. Tabler (1845-63) scientifically described Jerusalem and its environs, and the districts lying between Jaffa and the Jordan, and between Jerusalem and Bethel. Guerin who studied Palestine during periods covering 23 years (1852-75), though limited by lack of funds, covered topographically, with a minuteness never before attempted, almost the whole of Judea, Samaria and Galilee, gathering also many new records of monuments and inscriptions, the record of which was invaluable because many of these had been completely destroyed before the arrival of the next scientific party. A most sensational discovery was that of F. Klein in 1868, when he found at Dibon the huge basalt tablet set up by Mesha, king of Moab (9th century BC), on which in a language closely resembling the Hebrew, he gave honor to his god Chemosh by describing his successful revolt against a successor of Omri, the latter being mentioned by name with many well-known Biblical places. In style, thought and language this inscription greatly resembles the early Old Testament records. 2. Scientific Cooperative Surface Exploration: With the foundation of the Palestine Exploration Fund (1865) the work of exploration took on an entirely new phase, since in this case, not a single individual, but a large company of specialists entered the work, having behind them sufficient funds for adequate investigation in each necessary line of research, and with the British War Office furnishing its expert Royal Engineers to assist the enterprise. Under the auspices of this society during the next 15 years Jerusalem was explored as never before, and all Western Palestine was topographically surveyed (see below); a geological survey (1883-1884) of Sinai, Wady `Arabah and the Dead Sea, and later of Matthew. Seir (1885) was accomplished under Professor Edward Hull; the natural history of the country was treated with great thoroughness by several specialists; Palmer and Drake in the dress of Syrian natives, without servants, risked the dangerous journey through the Desert of the Tih in order to locate so far as possible the route of the Exodus; Clermont- Ganneau, who had previously made the discovery of the Jewish placard from the Temple, forbidding strangers to enter the sacred enclosure, added greatly to archaeological knowledge by gathering and deciphering many ancient inscriptions, uncovering buried cemeteries, rock-cut tombs and other monuments. He also laid down important criteria for the age of stone masonry (yet see PEFS, 1897, LXI); identified various sites including Adullam, found the “stone of Bethphage,” “Zoheleth,” etc., and made innumerable plans of churches, mosques, tombs, etc., and did an incredible amount of other important work. Capt., afterward Colossians., C.R.

Conder did an equally important work, and as the head of the archaeological party could finally report 10,000 place-names as having been gathered, and 172 new Bible sites successfully identified, while the boundaries of the tribes had been practially settled and many vitally important Bible locations for the first time fixed. The excavations in Jerusalem under the same auspices had meanwhile been carried out as planned. After an introductory examination by Sir Charles Wilson, including some little excavating, Sir Charles Warren (1867-1870) and, later, Colossians. Conder (1872-1875) made thorough excavations over a large area, sinking shafts and following ancient walls to a depth of 80-150 ft. They uncovered the Temple-area from its countless tons of debris and traced its approximate outline; examined underground rock chambers; opened ancient streets; discovered many thousand specimens of pottery, glass, tools, etc., from Jewish to Byzantine periods; found the pier in the Tyropoeon Valley, where Robinson’s arch had rested, and also parts of the ancient bridge; traced the line of several important ancient walls, locating gates and towers, and fixed the date of one wall certainly as of the 8th century BC, and probably of the age of Solomon (G.A. Smith), thus accomplishing an epoch-making work upon which all more recent explorers have safely rested — as Maudslay (1875), in his masterly discovery and examination of the Great Scarp, and Guthe (1881), who made fine additional discoveries at Ophel, as well as Warren and Conder in their work afterward (1884), when they published plans of the whole city with its streets churches, mosques, etc., 25 inches to the mile, which in that direction remains a basis for all later work. See JERUSALEM.

Perhaps, however, the greatest work of all done by this society was the Topographical Survey (1881-1886), accomplished for Judea and Samaria by Colossians. Conder, and for Galilee by Lord Kitchener, resulting in a great map of Western Palestine in 26 sheets, on a scale of an inch to the mile (with several abridged additions), showing all previous identifications of ancient places. These maps, with the seven magnificent volumes of memoirs, etc., giving the other scientific work done by the various parties, marked such an epoch-making advance in knowledge that it has been called “the most important contribution to illustrate the Bible since its translation into the vulgar tongue.”

In addition to the above the Palestine Exploration Fund established a Quarterly Statement and Society of Biblical Archaeology from which subscribers could keep in touch with the latest Biblical results, and published large quantities of translations of ancient texts and travels and of books reporting discoveries as these were made. Altogether more advance was made during these 15 years from 1865-1880 than in the 15 centuries before. 3. Most Recent Results in Surface Exploration: The next ten years (1880-90) did not furnish as much new material from Palestine exploration, but in 1880 the Siloam Inscription (compare Kings 20:20; 2 Chronicles 32:30) was accidentally found in Jerusalem, showing the accuracy with which the engineers of Hezekiah’s day could, at least occasionally, cut long tunnels through the rock (see also Clermont- Ganneau, Archaeological Researches, 313); and in 1881-1885 Conder and Schumacher attempted their difficult task of making a scientific topographical map of Eastern Palestine. In 1881 H. Clay Trumbull rediscovered and properly described Kadesh-barnea, settling authoritatively its location and thus making it possible to fix previously obscure places mentioned in the account of the Exodus wanderings. Since 1890 continued investigations in small districts not adequately described previously have taken place, new additions to the zoological, botanical, geological and meteorological knowledge of Palestine have been frequent; studies of irrigation and the water-supply have been made, as well as investigations into the customs, proverbs, folklore, etc., of the Arabs; many districts East of the Jordan and through Petra down into Sinai have yielded important results, and many discoveries of surface tombs, ossuaries, mosaics, seals and manuscripts have been made in many parts of Palestine. This has been done perhaps chiefly by the Palestine Exploration Fund, but much by individuals and some by the newly organized excavation societies (see below). The most surprising discoveries made by this method of surface exploration (a method which can never become completely obsolete) have been the finding at different times of the four Boundary Stones of Gezer (1874, 1881, 1889) by Clermont-Ganneau, and, in 1896, of the very large mosaic at Madeba by Father Cleopas, librarian of the Greek Patriarch.

The latter proved to be part of the pavement of a 6th-century basilica and is a “veritable map of Palestine,” showing its chief cities, the boundaries of the tribes, and especially the city of Jerusalem with its walls, gates, chief buildings, including the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and chief streets, notably one long straight street intersecting the city and lined with colonnades. As Madeba lies near the foot of Matthew. Nebo, it is thought the artist may have intended to represent ideally a modern (6th-cent.) vision of Moses. George Adam Smith (HGHL, 7th edition, 1901); Jerusalem (2 volumes, 1910), and E. Huntington, Palestine and Its Transformation (1911), have given fine studies illustrating the supreme importance of accurate topographical knowledge in order to understand correctly the Bible narratives and the social life and politics of the Hebrews. 3. ERA OF SCIENTIFIC EXCAVATION. 1. Southern Palestine: (1) Tell el-Chesy. (Palestine Exploration Fund). — Exploration must always continue, but excavation is a vast advance. The modern era in Palestinian study begins with Petrie at LACHISH (which see) in 1890. Though Renan was actually the first man to put a spade into the soil (1860), yet his results were practically confined to Phoenicia. From Renan’s time to 1890 there had been no digging whatever, except some narrow but thorough work in Jerusalem, and a slight tickling of the ground at Jericho and at the so-called Tombs of the Kings. Nothing was more providential than this delay in beginning extensive excavations in Palestine, such as had been previously so profitably conducted in Egypt and elsewhere. The results could not have been interpreted even two years earlier, and even when these excavations were commenced, the only man living who could have understood what he found was the man who had been selected to do the work. Nearly two centuries before, a traveler in Palestine (Th. Shaw) had suggested the possibility of certain mounds (“tells”) being artificial (compare Joshua 8:28; Jeremiah 30:18); but not even Robinson or Guerin had suspected that these were the cenotaphs of buried cities, but had believed them to be mere natural hills. The greatest hour in the history of exploration in Palestine, and perhaps in any land, was that in which on a day in April, 1890, W.M. Flinders Petrie climbed up the side of Tell el-Chesy, situated on the edge of the Philistine plain, circa 30 miles Southwest of Jerusalem, and 17 miles Northeast from Gaza, and by examining its strata, which had been exposed by the stream cutting down its side, determined before sunset the fact, from pieces of pottery he had seen, that the site marked a city covering 1,000 years of history, the limits of occupation being probably 1500 BC to 500 BC. This ability to date the several occupations of a site without any inscription to assist him was due to the chronological scale of styles of pottery which he had originated earlier and worked out positively for the Greek epochs at Naukratis a year or two before, and for the epochs preceding 1100 BC at Illahun in the Fayyum only a month or two before.

The potsherds were fortunately very numerous at Tell el-Chesy, and by the end of his six weeks’ work he could date approximately some eight successive occupations of the city, each of these being mutually exclusive in certain important forms of pottery in common use. Given the surface date, depth of accumulation and rate of deposit as shown at Lachish, and a pretty sure estimate of the history of other sites was available. Not only was this pottery scale so brilliantly confirmed and elaborated at Tell el- Chesy that all excavators since have been able accurately to date the last settlement on a mound almost by walking over it; but by observations of the methods of stone dressing he was able to rectify many former guesses as to the age of buildings and to establish some valuable architectural signs of age. He proved that some of the walls at this site were built by “the same school of masons which built the Temple of Solomon,” and also that the Ionic volute, which the Greeks borrowed from the Asiatics, went back in Palestine at least to the 10th century BC, while on one pilaster he found the architectural motif of the “ram’s horn” (compare <19B827> Psalm 118:27). He also concluded, contrary to former belief, that this mound marked the site of Lachish ( Joshua 10:31; 2 Kings 18:14), as by a careful examination he found that no other ruins near could fill the known historic conditions of that city, and the inscription found by the next excavator and all more recent research make this conclusion practically sure. Lachish was a great fortress of the ancient world. The Egyptian Pharaohs often mention it, and it is represented in a picture on an Assyrian monument under which is written, “Sennacherib .... receives the spoil of Lachish” (see 2 Kings 18:14). It was strategically a strong position, the natural hill rising some ft. above the valley and the fortification which Sennacherib probably attacked being over 10 ft. thick. The debris lay from 50-70 ft. deep on top of the hill. Petrie fixed the directions of the various walls, and settled the approximate dates of each city and of the imported pottery found in several of these. One of the most unexpected things was an iron knife dug up from a stratum indicating a period not far from the time when Israel must have entered Canaan, this being the earliest remnant of iron weapons ever found up to-this date (compare Joshua 17:16).

The next two years of scientific digging (1891-1892), admirably conducted by Dr. F.G. Bliss on this site, wholly confirmed Petrie’s general inductions, though the limits of each occupation were more exactly fixed and the beginning of the oldest city was pushed back to 1700 BC. The work was conducted under the usual dangers, not only from the Bedouin, but from excessive heat (104 degrees in the shade), from malaria which at one time prostrated 8 of the 9 members of the staff, scarcity of water, which had to be carried 6 miles, and from the sirocco (see my report, PEFS, XXI, 160- 70 and Petrie’s and Bliss’s journal, XXI, 219-46; XXIII, 192, etc.). He excavated thoroughly one-third of the entire hill, moving nearly a million cubic feet of debris. He found that the wall of the oldest city was nearly ft. thick, that of the next city 17 ft. thick, while the latest wall was thin and weak. The oldest city covered a space 1,300 ft. square, the latest one only about 200 ft. square. The oldest pottery had a richer color and higher polish than the later, and this art was indigenous, for at this level no Phoenician or Mycenaean styles were found. The late pre-Israelitish period (1550-800 BC) shows such importations and also local Cypriote imitations.

In the “Jewish” period (800-300 BC) this influence is lost and the new styles are coarse and ungraceful, such degeneration not being connected with the entrance of Israel into Canaan, as many have supposed, but with a later period, most probably with the desolation which followed the exile of the ten tribes (Bliss and Petrie). In the pre-Israelite cities were found mighty towers, fine bronze implements, such as battle-axes, spearheads, bracelets, pins, needles, etc., a wine and treacle press, one very large building “beautifully symmetrical,” a smelting furnace, and finally an inscribed tablet from Zimrida, known previously from the Tell el-Amarna Letters to have been governor of Lachish, circa 1400 BC. Many Jewish pit ovens were found in the later ruins and large quantities of pottery, some containing potters’ marks and others with inscriptions. Clay figures of Astarte, the goddess of fertility, were found in the various layers, one of these being of the unique Cypriote type, with large earrings, and many Egyptian figures, symbols and animal forms. See also LACHISH. (2) Excavations in Jerusalem.

During 1894:1894-1897, notwithstanding the previously good work done in Jerusalem (see above) and the peculiar embarrassments connected with the attempt to dig in a richly populated town, Dr. Bliss, assisted by an expert architect, succeeded in adding considerably to the sum of knowledge. He excavated over a large area, not only positively confirming former inductions, but discovering the remains of the wall of the empress Eudocia (450 AD), and under this the line of wall which Titus had destroyed, and at a deeper level the wall which surrounded the city in the Herodian age, and deeper yet that which must probably be dated to Hezekiah, and below this a construction “exquisitely dressed, with pointed masonry,” which must be either the remains of a wall of Solomon or some other preexilic fortification not later than the 8th century. He found gates and in ancient times paved streets and manholes leading to ancient sewer systems, and many articles of interest, but especially settled disputed questions concerning important walls and the levels of the ancient hills, thus fixing the exact topography of the ancient city. H. G. Mitchell and others have also carefully examined certain lines of wall, identifying Nehemiah’s Dung Gate, etc., and making a new surveyor certain parts of underground Jerusalem, the results of the entire work being a modification of tradition in a few particulars, but corroborative in most. The important springs and reservoirs, valleys and hills of the ancient Jerusalem have been certainly identified. It is now settled that modern Jerusalem “still sits virtually upon her ancient seat and at much the same slope,” though not so large as the Jerusalem of the kings of Judah which certainly extended over the Southwestern Hill. Matthew. Zion, contrary to tradition which located it on the Southwestern Hill where the citadel stands, probably lay on the Eastern Hill above the Virgin’s Spring (Gihon). On this Eastern Hill at Ophel lay the Temple, and South of the Temple on the same hill “above Gihon” lay the old Jebusite stronghold (David’s City). The ancient altar of burnt offering was almost surely at es-Sakhra. The evidence has not been conclusive as to the line of the second wall, so that the site of Golgotha and the Holy Sepulchre cannot certainly be determined (see George Adam Smith’s exhaustive work, Jerusalem,2 volumes, 1907; Sir Charles Wilson, Golgotha and the Holy Sepulchre, 1906; and compare Selah Merrill, Ancient Jerusalem, 1908; C.R. Conder, City of Jerusalem, 1909; P.H.

Vincent, Underground Jerusalem, 1911). (3) Excavations in the Shephelah. (Palestine Exploration Fund). — During 1898-1900 important work was done by Bliss and Macalister at 4 sites on the border land between Philistia and Judea, while five other small mounds were tunneled, but without important results. The four chief sites were Tell Zakariya, lying about midway between Jerusalem and Tell el-Chesy; Tell ec Cafi, 5 miles W. of Tell Zakariya, and Tell Sandachannah, about 10 miles South; while Tell ej- Judeideh lay between Tell Zakariya and Tell Sandachannah. As Tell ej- Judeideh was only half-excavated and merely confirmed other results, not being remarkable except for the large quantity of jar inscriptions found (37) , we omit further mention of it. (a) Tell Zakariya:

From this height, 1,214 ft. above the sea, almost all Philistia could be seen.

A pre-Israelitish town was found under some 20 ft. of debris, containing pre-Israelitish, Jewish and Seleucidan pottery. Many vaulted cisterns, partly hewn from the rock, were found in the lowest level. In later levels Jewish pit ovens were found and inscribed jar-handles with winged Egyptian symbols, implements of bronze, iron, bone and stone, and Egyptian images of Bes and the Horus eye, etc., besides a strange bronze figure of a woman with a fish’s tail which seems to represent Atargatis of Ashkelon. The ancient rampart was strengthened, perhaps in Rehoboam’s time, and towers were added in the Seleucidan era. Only half of this site was excavated. (b) Tell es-Safi:

The camp was pitched near here in the Vale of Elah. From a depth of 21 ft. to the rock, was found the characteristic pre-Israelitish pottery and much imported pottery of the Mycenaean type. A high place was also found here, containing bones of camels, sheep, cows, etc., and several monoliths of soft limestone in situ, and near by a jar-burial. In an ancient rubbish heap many fragments of the goddess of fertility were found. Many old Egyptian and later Greek relics were also found, and four Babylonian seals and the usual pottery from Jewish and later periods. With strong probability this site was identified as Gath. (c) Tell Sandachannah:

This was situated circa 1,100 ft. above sea-level. The town covered about 6 acres and was protected by an inner and outer wall and occasional towers. The strongest wall averaged 30 ft. thick. The work done here “was unique in the history of Palestinian excavation” (Bliss). At Tell el-Chesy only one-third of each stratum was excavated; at Tell Zakariya only onehalf; at Jerusalem the work was confined to the enclosures of the temple, a few city walls and a few churches, pools, streets, etc., but at Tell Sandachannah “we recovered almost an entire town, probably the ancient Mareshah ( Joshua 15:44), with its inner and outer walls, its gates, streets, lanes, open places, houses, reservoirs, etc.” (Bliss). Nearly vessels absolutely intact and unbroken were found. It was a Seleucidan town of the 3rd and 2nd century BC, with no pre-Israelitish remains. The town was built with thin brick, like blocks of soft limestone, set with wide joints and laid in mud with occasionally larger, harder stones chisel-picked.

The town was roughly divided into blocks of streets, some of the streets being paved. The houses were lighted from the street and an open court.

Very few rooms were perfectly rectangular, while many were of awkward shape. Many closets were found and pit ovens and vaulted cisterns, reached by staircases, as also portions of the old drainage system. The cisterns had plastered floors, and sometimes two heavy coats of plaster on the walls; the houses occasionally had vaulted roofs but usually the ordinary roof of today, made of boards and rushes covered with clay. No religious building was found and no trace of a colonnade, except perhaps a few fragments of ornament. An enormous columbarium was uncovered (1906 niches). No less than 328 Greek inscriptions were found on the handles of imported wine jars. Under the Seleucidan town was a Jewish town built of rubble, the pottery of the usual kind including stamped jarhandles.

An Astarte was found in the Jewish or Greek stratum, as also various animal forms. The Astarte was very curious, about 11 inches high, hollow, wearing a long cloak, but with breasts, body and part of right leg bare, having for headdress a closely fitting sunbonnet with a circular serrated top ornament in front and with seven stars in relief. A most striking find dating from about the 2nd century AD was that of 16 little human figures bound in fetters of lead, iron, etc., undoubtedly representing “revenge dolls” through which the owners hoped to work magic on enemies, and 49 fragments of magical tablets inscribed in Greek on white limestone, with exorcisms, incantations and imprecations. It ought to be added that the four towns as a whole supplement each other, and positively confirm former results. No royal stamps were found at Tell el-Chesy, but 77 were found in these 4 sites, in connection with 2- or 4-winged symbols (Egyptian scarabaeus or winged sundisk). Writing-materials (styli) were found in all strata, their use being “continuous from the earliest times into the Seleucidan period” (Bliss). From the four towns the evolution of the lamp could be traced from the pre-Israelite, through the Jewish to the Greek period. Some 150 of the labyrinthine rock-cut caves of the district were also examined, some of which must be pre-Christian, as in one of these a million cubic feet of material had been excavated, yet so long ago that all signs of the rubbish had been washed away. (4) Painted “Tombs of Marissa.”

In 1902 John P. Peters and Hermann Thiersch discovered at Belt Jibrin (adjoining Tell Sandachannah) an example of sepulchral art totally different from any other ever found in Palestine. It was a tomb containing several chambers built by a Sidonian, the walls being brilliantly painted, showing a bull, panther, serpent, ibex, crocodile with ibis (?) on its back, hunter on horseback, etc., with dated inscriptions, the earliest being 196 BC (see John P. Peters, Painted Tombs in Necropolis of Marissa, 1905). The writer (April 18, 1913) found another tomb here of similar character, decorated with grapes, birds, two cocks (life size), etc. Perhaps most conspicuous was a wreath of beautiful flowers with a cross in its center. Nothing shows the interrelations of that age more than this Phoenician colony, living in Palestine, using the Greek language but employing Egyptian and Libyan characteristics freely in their funeral article 2. Northern Palestine: (1) Tell Ta`annek. (Austrian Government and Vienna Academy). — During short seasons of three years (1902-4) Professor Ernst Sellin of Vienna made a rapid examination of this town (the Biblical Taanach), situated in the plain of Esdraelon in Northern Palestine, on the ancient road between Egypt and Babylon. Over 100 laborers were employed and digging was carried on simultaneously at several different points on the mound, the record being kept in an unusually systematic way and the official reports being minute and exhaustive. Only a general statement of results can be given, with an indication of the directions in which the “findings” were peculiar. The absence of Phoenician and Mycenaean influence upon the pottery in the earliest levels (100-1600 BC) is just as marked as at other sites, the kind of pottery and the presence of Semitic matstsebhoth ( see IMAGES) in the Jewish periods are just as in previous sites, and the development in mason work and in pottery is identically the same in this first city to be excavated in Northern Palestine as in Southern Palestine. “The buildings and antiques might be interchanged bodily without any serious confusion of the archaeological history of Palestine. . . . Civilization over all Western Palestine is thus shown to have had the same course of development, whether we study it North or South” (Macalister). This is by far the most important result of this excavation, showing that, notwithstanding divergences in many directions, an equivalent civilization, proving a unity in the dominating race, can be seen over all parts of Palestine so far examined. Iron is introduced at the same time (circa 1000 BC), and even the toys and pottery decorations are similar, and this continues through all the periods, including the Jewish. Yet foreign intercourse is common, and the idols, even from the earliest period, “show religious syncretism” (Sellin). From almost the oldest layer comes a curious seal cylinder containing both Egyptian and Babylonian features. On one pre-Israelite tablet are pictures of Hadad and Baal. The Astarte cult is not quite as prominent here as in Southern Palestine. No figures of the goddess come from the earliest strata, but from 1600 BC to circa 900-800 BC they are common; after this they cease. The ordinary type of Astarte found in Babylonia and Cyprus as well as in Palestine — with crown, necklace, girdle, anklets, and hands clasped on breasts — is found most frequently; but from the 12th to the 9th century other forms appear representing her as naked, with hips abnormally enlarged, to show her power of fecundity. One figure is of a peculiarly foreign type, wearing excessively large earrings, and this is in close connection with one of the most unique discoveries ever made in Palestine — a hollow terra cotta Canaanite or Israelite ( 2 Kings 16:10) altar (800-600 BC), having no bottom but with holes in its walls which admitted air and insured draft when fire was kindled below; in its ornamentation showing a mixture of Babylonian and Egyptian motives, having on its right side winged animals with human heads by the side of which is a man (or boy) struggling with a serpent the jaws of which are widely distended in anger; at its top two ram’s (?) horns, and between them a sacrificial bowl in which to receive the “drink offering”; on its front a tree (of life), and on each side of it a rampant ibex. A bronze serpent was found near this altar, as also. near the high place at Gezer. Continuous evidence of the gruesome practice of foundation sacrifices, mostly of little children, but in one case of an adult, was found between the 13th and 9th centuries BC, after which they seem to cease. In one house the skeletons of a lady and five children were found, the former with her rings and necklace of gold, five pearls, two scarabs, etc. Many jar-burials of new-born infants, in one place, were found, and, close to this deposit, a rock-hewn altar with a jar of yellow incense (?). Egyptian and Babylonian images were found of different eras and curious little human-looking amulets (as were also found at Lachish) in which the parental parts are prominent, which Sellin and Bliss believe to be “teraphim” ( Genesis 31:19,34; but see Driver, Modern Research, 57, etc.), such as Rachel, being pregnant, took with her to protect her on the hard journey from Haran to Palestine (Macalister).

The high place, with one or more steps leading up to it, suggesting “elevation, isolation and mystery” (Vincent), is represented here as in so many other Palestinian ruins, and the evidence shows that it continued long after the entrance of Israel into Canaan. When Israel entered Palestine, no break occurred in the civilization, the art development continuing at about the same level; so probably the two races were at about the same culturelevel, or else the Hebrew occupation of the land was very gradual. In the 8th century there seems to be an indication of the entrance of a different race, which doubtless is due to the Assyrian exile. A most interesting discovery was that of the dozen cuneiform tablets found in a terra cotta chest or jar (compare Jeremiah 32:14) from the pre-Israelite city.

These few letters cannot accurately be called “the first library found in Palestine”; but they do prove that libraries were there, since the personal and comparatively unimportant character of some of these notes and their easy and flowing style prove that legal, business and literary documents must have existed. These show that letter-writing was used not only in great questions of state between foreign countries, but in local matters between little contiguous towns, and that while Palestine at this period (circa 1400 BC) was politically dependent on Egypt, yet Babylonia had maintained its old literary supremacy. One of these letters mentions “the finger of Ashirat,” this deity recalling the ‘asherah or sacred post of the Old Testament ( see IMAGES ); another note is written by Ahi-Yawi, a name which corresponds to Hebrew [Ahijah] (“Yah is Brother”), thus indicating that the form of the Divine name was then known in Canaan, though its meaning (i.e. the essential name; compare Exodus 6:3; 34:6; Nehemiah 1:9; Jeremiah 44:26), may not have been known. Ahi- Yawi invokes upon Ishtar-washur the blessing of the “Lord of the Gods.”

On the same level with these letters were found two subterranean cells with a rock-hewn chamber in front and a rock-hewn altar above, and even the ancient drain which is supposed to have conveyed the blood from the altar into the “chamber of the dead” below. It may be added that Dr. Sellin thinks the condition of the various walls of the city is entirely harmonious with the Bible accounts of its history ( Joshua 12:21; 17:11; Judges 1:27; 5:19-21; 1 Kings 4:12; 9:15; 1 Chronicles 7:29). So far as the ruins testify, there was no settled city life between circa 600 BC and AD, i.e. it became a desolation about the time of the Babylonian captivity.

An Arab castle dates from about the 10th century AD. (2) Tell el-Mutesellim. (Megiddo, Joshua 12:21; Judges 5:19; 2 Kings 9:27). — This great commercial and military center of Northern Palestine was opened to the world in 1903-1905 by Dr. Schumacher and his efficient staff, the diggings being conducted under the auspices of His Majesty the Kaiser and the German Palestine Society. The mound, about 5 miles Northwest from Ta`anach, stood prominently 120 ft. above the plain, the ruins being on a plateau 1,020 X 750 ft. in area. An average of 70 diggers were employed for the entire time. The debris was over 33 ft. deep, covering some eight mutually excluding populations. The surrounding wall, 30 X 35 ft. thick, conformed itself to the contour of the town. The excavations reached the virgin rock only at one point; but the oldest stratum uncovered showed a people living in houses, having fire, cooking food and making sacrifices; the next city marked an advance, but the third city, proved by its Egyptian remains to go back as far as the 20th century BC, showed a splendid and in some directions a surprising civilization, building magnificent city gates (57 X 36 ft.), large houses and tombs with vaulted roofs, and adorning their persons with fine scarabs of white and green steatite and other jewelry of stone and bronze. It was very rich in colored pottery and little objects such as tools, seals, terra cotta figures and animals, including a bridled horse, and some worked iron is also said to have been found. In one pile of bodies were two children wearing beautiful bronze anklets. The city lying above this begins as early as the 15th century BC, as is proved by a scarab of Thothmes III and by other signs, although the scarabs, while Egyptian in form, are often foreign in design and execution. Anubis, Bes, Horus and other Egyptian figures appear, also 32 scarabs in one pot, much jewelry, including gold ornaments, and some very long, sharp bronze knives. One tomb contained 42 vessels, and one skeleton held 4 gold-mounted scarabs in its hand. One remarkable fragment of pottery contained a colored picture of pre-Israelite warriors with great black beards, carrying shields (?). A most interesting discovery was that of the little copper (bronze?) tripods supporting lamps, on one of which is the figure of a flute-player, being strikingly similar to pictures of Delphic oracles and to representations lately found in Crete (MNDPV, 1906, 46). This city was destroyed by a fearful conflagration, and is separated from the next by a heavy stratum of cinders and ashes. The fifth city is remarkable for a splendid palace with walls of stone from 3-5 ft. thick. This city, which probably begins as early as Solomon’s time, shows the best masonry. An oval, highly polished seal of jasper on which is engraved a Hebrew name in script closely resembling the Moabite Stone, suggests a date for the city, and casts an unexpected light upon the Hebrew culture of Palestine in the days of the monarchy.

The seal is equal to the best Egyptian or Assyrian work, clearly and beautifully engraved, and showing a climax of article In the center is the Lion (of Judah), mouth wide open, tail erect, body tense. Upon the seal is carved: “To Shema, servant of Jeroboam.” This name may possibly not refer to either of the Biblical kings (10th or 8th century BC), but the stratum favors this dating. The seal was evidently owned by some Hebrew noble at a prosperous period when some Jeroboam was in power, and so everything is in favor of this being a relic from the court of one of these kings, probably the latter (Kautzsch, M u. N, 1904, 81). We have here, in any case, one of the oldest Hebrew inscriptions known, and one of the most elegant ever engraved (see MNDPV, 1906, 33). After seeing it the Sultan took it from the museum into his own private collection. A second seal of lapis lazuli, which Schumacher and Kautzsch date from about the 7th century BC, also contains in Old Hebrew the name “Asaph” (compare M u. N, 1906, 334; MNDPV, 1904, 147). There are several other remarkable works of art, as e.g. a woman playing the tambourine, wearing an Egyptian headdress; several other figures of women besides several Astartes, and especially a series of six terra cotta heads, one with a prominent Semitic nose, another with Egyptian characteristics, another quite un-Egyp, with regular features, vivacious eyes, curls falling to her shoulders and garlanded with flowers.

The sixth stratum might well be called the temple-city, for here were found the ruins of a sanctuary built of massive blocks in which remained much of the ceremonial furniture — sacrificial dishes, a beautiful basalt pot with three feet, a plate having a handle in the form of a flower, etc. Seemingly connected with the former town, three religious stones were found covered by a fourth, and one with a pyramidal top; so here several monoliths were found which would naturally be thought of as religious monuments — though, since they have been touched with tools, this is perhaps doubtful ( Exodus 20:25). One incense altar, carved out of gray stone, is so beautiful as to be worthy of a modern Greek cathedral. The upper dish rests on a support of carved ornamental leaves painted red, yellow and cobalt blue, in exquisite taste, the colors still as fresh as when first applied.

A blacksmith’s shop was found in this stratum, containing many tools, including iron plowshares, larger than the bronze ones in the 3rd and 4th layers. Allegorical figures were found, which may possibly belong to the former town, representing a man before an altar with his hands raised in adoration, seemingly to a scorpion, above which are a 6-pointed star, crescent moon, etc. Another most wonderful seal of white hard stone is engraved with three lines of symbols, in the first a vulture chasing a rabbit; in the second a conventional palm tree, with winged creatures on each side; in the third a lion springing on an ibex (?) under the crescent moon. Near by was found a cylinder of black jasper, containing hieroglyphs, and much crushed pottery. The 7th city, which was previous to the Greek or Roman eras, shows only a complex of destroyed buildings. After this the place remains unoccupied till the 11th century AD, when a poor Arab tower was erected, evidently to protect the passing caravans.

These excavations were specially important in proving the archaeological richness of Palestine and the elegance of the native works of article They were reported with an unexampled minuteness — various drawings of an original design showing the exact place and altitude where every little fragment was found. (3) Tell Chum. (Capernaum), etc. — In April and May, 1905, the German Oriental Society excavated a Hebrew synagogue of the Roman era at Tell Chum. It was ft. long by 59 ft. wide, was built of beautiful white limestone, almost equal to marble, and was in every way more magnificent than any other yet found in Palestine, that in Chorazin being the next finest. Its roof was gableshaped and it was surprisingly ornamented with fine carvings representing animals, birds, fruits, flowers, etc., though in some cases these ornamentations had been intentionally mutilated. In January, 1907, Macalister and Masterman proved that Khan Minyeh was not the ancient Capernaum, as it contained no pottery older than Arab time, thus showing Tell Chum to be the ancient site, so that the synagogue just excavated may be the one referred to in Luke 7:5. At Samieh, 6 hours North of Jerusalem, two important Canaanite cemeteries were discovered by the fellahin in 1906, consisting of circular or oval tomb chambers, with roofs roughly dome-shaped, as at Gezer (see below). A large quantity of pottery and bronze objects, much of excellent quality, was found (Harvard Theological Review, I, 70-96; Masterman, Studies in Galilee; Henson, Researches in Palestine). 3. Eastern Palestine: Jericho (German Oriental Society). — During 1908-9, Dr. E. Sellin, assisted by a specialist in pottery, (Watzinger) and a professional architect (Langenegger), with the help of over 200 workmen, opened to view this famous Biblical city ( Joshua 6:1-24). Jericho was most strategically situated at the eastern gateway of Palestine, with an unlimited water-supply in the `Ain es-Sultan, having complete control of the great commercial highway across the Jordan and possessing natural provisions in its palm forest (Smith, HGHL). It was also set prominently on a hill rising some ft. above the plain. The excavations proved that from the earliest historic time these natural advantages had been increased by every possible artifice known to ancient engineers, until it had become a veritable Gibraltar. The oldest city, which was in the form of an irregular ellipse, somewhat eggshaped, with the point at the Southwest, was first surrounded with a rampart following the contour of the hill, a rampart so powerful that it commands the admiration of all military experts who have examined it.

The walls even in their ruins are some 28 ft. high. They were built in three sections: (a) a substratum of clay, gravel and small stones, making a deposit upon the rock about 3 or 4 ft. deep, somewhat analogous to modern concrete; (b) a rubble wall, 6 to 8 ft. thick, of large stones laid up to a height of 16 ft. upon this conglomerate, the lowest layers of the stone being enormously large; (c) upon all this a brick wall over 6 ft. thick, still remaining, in places, 8 ft. high.

Not even Megiddo, famous as a military center throughout all the ancient world, shows such workmanship (compare Joshua 2:1; Numbers 13:28). “These were masters in stone work and masonry” (The Builder); “Taken as a whole it may justly be regarded as a triumph of engineering skill which a modern builder, under the same conditions, could scarcely excel” (Langenegger); “It is as well done as a brilliant military engineer with the same materials and tools could do today” (Vincent). All the centuries were not able to produce a natural crevice in this fortification. At the North, which was the chief point of danger, and perhaps along other sections also, a second wall was built about 100 ft. inside the first, and almost as strong, while still another defense (“the citadel”), with 265 ft. of frontage, was protected not only by another mighty wall but by a wellconstructed glacis. The old pre-Israelite culture in Jericho was exactly similar to that seen in the southern and northern cities, and the idolatry also. In its natural elements Canaanite civilization was probably superior to that of the Hebrews, but the repugnant and ever-present polytheism and fear of magic led naturally to brutal and impure manifestations. It cannot be doubted that, at least in some cases, the infants buried in jars under the floors represent foundation sacrifices. Some of the pottery is of great excellence, comparing favorably with almost the best examples from Egypt; a number of decorative figures of animals in relief are specially fine; the bronze utensils are also good; especially notable are the 22 writingtablets, all ready to be used but not inscribed. Somewhere near the 15th century the old fortifications were seriously damaged, but equally powerful ones replaced them. The German experts all believed that a break in the city’s history was clearly shown about the time when, according to the pottery, Israel ought to have captured the city, and it was confidently said that the distinctively Canaanite pottery ceased completely and permanently at this point; but further research has shown that at least a portion of the old town had a practically continuous existence (so Joshua 16:7; Judges 1:16; 3:13; 2 Samuel 10:5). No complete Israelite house was preserved, but the Israelite quarter was located close to the spring and no little furniture of the usual kind was found, including dishes, pots, grainmills, lamps, etc., many iron instruments and terra cotta heads of men and animals. The pottery is quite unlike the old Canaanite, being closely allied to the Greek-Phoenician ware of Cyprus. It is noticeable that, as in other Palestinian towns, in the Jewish era, little Babylonian influence is discernible; the Aegean and Egyptian influence is not as marked as in the cities dug up near the Mediterranean coast. One large edifice (60 by 80 ft.) is so like the dwellings of the 7th century BC at Sendjirli that “they seem to have been copied from Syrian plans” (Vincent). Absolutely unique was the series of 12 Rhodian jar-handles stamped in Aramaic, “To Yahweh” (Yah, Yahu). Vincent has suggested that as during the monarchy (7th to 6th century) “To the King” meant probably “For His Majesty’s Service,” so in post-exilic time the Divine name meant “For the Temple” (Rev. biblique).

After the exile the city had about 3 centuries of prosperity; but disappears permanently in the Maccabean era (MNDPV, 1907; MDOG, 1908-9; PEFS, 1910; Rev. biblique, 1907-9). 4. Central Palestine: (1) Jerusalem. See above, III, 1, (2). (2) Samaria. (Harvard Expedition). — Although the ancient capital of the Northern Kingdom, yet Samaria was Centrally located, being 20 miles from the Mediterranean coast and only about 30 miles North of Jerusalem. Ancient Samaria was very famous in Israel for its frivolity and wealth, special mention being made of its ointments, instruments of music, luxurious couches, and its “ivory palace” ( Amos 6:4-6; 1 Kings 16:24). Its history is known so fully that the chronological sequences of the ruins can be determined easily. The citadel and town originated with Omri, circa BC ( 1 Kings 16:24); the Temple of Baal and palace were constructions of Ahab ( 1 Kings 16:32; 22:39); it continued prosperous down to the Assyrian exile, 722 BC (1 Kings 22 to 2 Kings 17); Sargon and Esarhaddon established a Babylonian colony and presumably forrifled the town (720-670 BC); Alexander the Great captured it in 331 BC, and established there a Syrio-Maccabean colony; it was destroyed by John Hyrcanus in 109 BC, but rebuilt by Pompey in 60 BC, and again by Herod (30-1 BC). All of these periods are identified in the excavations, Herod’s work being easily recognized, and Josephus’ description of the town being found correct; the Greek work is equally well defined, so that the lower layers of masonry which contained the characteristic Jewish pottery, and which in every part of the ruin lay immediately under the Babylonian and Greek buildings, must necessarily be Hebrew, the relative order of underlying structures thus being “beyond dispute” (Reisner). During 1908- 9 George A. Reisner with a staff of specialists, including David G. Lyon of the Harvard Semitic Museum, G. Schumacher, and an expert architect, undertook systematically and thoroughly to excavate this large detached “tell” lying 350 ft. above the valley and 1,450 ft. above sea-level, its location as the only possible strategic stronghold proving it to be the ancient Samaria. This was a “gigantic enterprise” because of the large village of 800 population (Sebastiyeh), and the valuable crops which covered the hill. Some $65,000 were spent during the two seasons, and the work finally ceased before the site was fully excavated. The following statement is an abridgment, in so far as possible in their words, of the official reports of Drs. Reisner and Lyon to the Harvard Theological Review: An average of 285 diggers were employed the first season and from 230-260 the second. Hundreds of Arabian lamps, etc., were found close to the surface, and then nothing more until the Roman ruins. Many fine Roman columns still remained upright, upon the surface of the hill.

The road of columns leading to the Forum and ornamental gate (oriented unlike the older gates), the great outer wall “20 stadii in circuit” (Jos), the hippodrome, etc., were all found with inscriptions or coins and pottery of the early Roman Empire. Even the old Roman chariot road leading into the Forum was identified. Adjoining the Forum and connected with it by a wide doorway was a basilica, consisting of a large open stone-paved court surrounded by a colonnade with mosaic floor. An inscription in Greek on an architrave in the courtyard dates this to 12-15 AD. The plan of the Herodian temple consisted of a stairway, a portico, a vestibule and a cella with a corridor on each side. The staircase was about 80 ft. wide, composed of 17 steps beautifully constructed, the steps being quite modern in style, each tread overlapping the next lower by several inches. The roof was arched and the walls very massive and covered with a heavy coat of plaster still retaining traces of color. A few Greek graffiti were found near here, and 150 “Rhodian” stamped amphora handles and many fragments of Latin inscriptions. A complete inscription on a large stele proved to be a dedication from some Pannonian soldiers (probably 2nd or 3rd century AD) to “Jupiter Optimus Maximus.” Near this was found a torso of heroic size carved in white marble, which is much finer than any ever before discovered in Palestine, the work “bringing to mind the Vatican Augustus” (Vincent), though not equal to it. Close to the statue was a Roman altar (presumably Herodian) circa 13 by 7 ft., rising in six courses of stone to a height of 6 ft. Beneath the Roman city was a Seleucid town (circa 300-108 BC), with its fortifications, gateway, temples, streets, and great public buildings and a complex of private houses, in connection with which was a large bath house, with mosaic floor, hot and cold baths, water closet, etc., which was heated by a furnace. Underneseath the Greek walls, which were connected with the well-known red-figured Greek ware of circa 400 BC, were brick structures and very thick fortress walls built in receding courses of small stones in the Babylonian style. In the filling of the construction trench of this Babylonian wall were found Israelite potsherds and a Hebrew seal with seemingly Babylonian peculiarities, and one fragment of a cuneiform tablet. Below these Babylonian constructions “there is a series of massive walls beautifully built of large limestone blocks founded on rock and forming a part of one great building, which can be no other than the Jewish palace.” It consisted of “great open courts surrounded by small rooms, comparable in plan and even in size with the Babylonian palaces and is certainly royal in size and architecture.” Its massive outlines which for the first time reveal to the modern world the masonry of an Israelite palace show that unexpected material resources and technical skill were at the command of the kings of Israel. An even greater discovery was made when on the palace hill was found an alabaster vase inscribed with the cartouche of Osorkon II of Egypt (874-853 BC), Ahab’s contemporary; and at the same level, about 75 fragments of pottery, not jar-handles but ostraca, inscribed with records or memorials in ancient Hebrew. The script is Phoenician, and according to such experts as Lyon and Driver, practically identical with that of the Siloam Inscription (circa 700 BC) and Moabite Stone (circa 850 BC). “The inscriptions are written in ink with a reed pen in an easy flowing hand and show a pleasing contrast to the stiff forms of Phoenician inscriptions cut in stone. The graceful curves give evidence of a skill which comes only with long practice” (Lyon). The ink is well preserved, the writing is distinct, the words are divided by dots or strokes, and with two exceptions all the ostraca are dated, the reigning king probably being Ahab. The following samples represent the ordinary memoranda: “In the 11th year. From ‘Abi`ezer. For ‘Asa, ‘Akhemelek (and) Ba`ala. From ‘Elnathan (?). .... In 9th yr. From Yasat. For `Abino`am. A jar of old wine. .... In 11th yr. For Badyo. The vineyard of the Tell.” Baal and El form a part of several of the proper names, as also the Hebrew Divine name, the latter occurring naturally not in its full form, YHWH, but as ordinarily in compounds YW (Lyon, Harvard Theol. Rev., 1911, 136-43; compare Driver, PEFS, 1911, 79-83). In a list of 30 proper names all but three have Biblical equivalents. “They are the earliest specimens of Hebrew writing which have been found, and in amount they exceed by far all known ancient Hebrew inscriptions; moreover, they are the first Palestinian records of this nature to be found” (see especially Lyon, op. cit., I, 70-96; II, 102-13; III, 136-38; IV, 136-43; Reisner, ib, III, 248-63; also Theol. Literaturblatt, 1911, III, 4; Driver, as above; MNOP, 1911, 23-27; Rev. Bibique, VI, 435-45). (3) `Ain Shems (Beth-shemesh, 1 Samuel 6:1-21; 2 Kings 14:11). — In a short but important campaign, during 1911-12, in which from 36 to 167 workmen were employed, Dr. D. Mackenzie uncovered a massive double gate and primitive walls 12-15 ft. high, with mighty bastions, and found in later deposits Egyptian images, Syrian Astartes, imported Aegean vases and a remarkable series of inscribed royal jar-handles “dating from the Israelite monarchy” (Vincent), as also what seemed to be an ancient Semitic tomb with fatsade entrance. The proved Cretan relations here are especially important. The town was suddenly destroyed, probably in the era of Sennacherib (PEFS, 1911, LXIX, 172; 1912, XII, 145). (4) Gezer (Palestine Exploration Fund). — Tell ej-Jezer occupies a conspicuous position, over 250 ft. above the plain, and 750 ft. above the sea, on a ridge of hills some 20 miles Northwest of Jerusalem, overlooking the plain toward Jaffa, which is 17 miles distant. It is in plain sight of the two chief trade caravan roads of Southern Palestine which it controlled. The ancient Gezer was well known from many references to it on the Egyptian records, the names of several governors of Gezer being given in letters dating from circa 1400 BC and Menephtah (circa 1200 BC) calling himself “Binder of Gezer,” etc. The discovery of the boundary stones of Gezer (see above) positively identified it. It was thoroughly excavated by R.A. Stewart Macalister in 1902-5, 1907-9, during which time 10,000 photographs were made of objects found. No explorations have been so long continued on one spot or have brought more unique discoveries or thrown more light upon the development of Palestinian culture and religion, and none have been reported as fully (Excavations of Gezer, 1912, 3 volumes; History of Civilization in Palestine, 1912). Ten periods-are recognized as being distinctly marked in the history of the mound — which broadly speaking represents the development in all parts of Pal: (a) pre-Semitic period (circa 3000-2500 BC), to the entrance of the first Semites; (b) first Semitic city (circa 2500-1800 BC), to the end of the XIIth Egyptian Dynasty; (c) second Semitic city (circa 1800-1400 BC), to the end of the XVIIIth Egyptian Dynasty; (d) third Semitic city (circa 1400-1000 BC), to the beginning of the Hebrew monarchy; (e) fourth Semitic city (circa 1000-550 BC), to the destruction of the monarchy and the Babylonian exile; (f) Persian and Hellenistic period (550-100 BC), to the beginning of the Roman dominion; (g) Roman (100 BC-350 AD); (h) Byzantine (350-600 AD); (i) and (j) early and modern Arabian (350 AD to the present). The last four periods have left few important memorials and may be omitted from review. (a) The aboriginal non-Semitic inhabitants of Gezer were troglodytes (compare Genesis 14:6) living in the caves which honeycomb this district (compare ZDPV, 1909, VI, 12), modifying these only slightly for home purposes. They were a small race 5 ft. 4 inches to 5 ft. 7 in. in height, slender in form, with rather broad heads and thick skulls, who hunted, kept domestic animals (cows, sheep, goats); had fire and cooked food; possessed no metals; made by hand a porous and gritty soft-baked pottery which they decorated with red lines; and were capable of a rude art — the oldest in Palestine — in which drawings of various animals are given. They prized certain bars of stone (possibly phallic); they probably offered sacrifices; they certainly cremated their dead, depositing with the ashes a few food vessels. The crematory found was 31 ft. long by 24 wide, and in it the bodies were burned whole, without regard to orientation. Many cup marks in the rocks suggest possible religious rites; in close connection with these markings were certain remains, including bones of swine (compare Leviticus 11:7). (b) The Semites who displaced this population were more advanced in civilization, having bronze tools and potter’s wheels, with finer and more varied pottery; they were a heavier race, being 5 ft. 7 inches to 5 ft. inches tall, larger-boned, thicker-skulled, and with longer faces. They did not burn but buried their dead carelessly upon the floor of the natural caves. The grave deposits are the same as before; occasionally some beads are found with the body. The former race had surrounded their settlement with a wall 6 ft. high and 8 ft. thick, mostly earth, though faced with selected stones; but this race built a wall of hammered stones, though irregularly cut and laid, the wall being 10 ft. thick, and one gateway being 42 ft. wide, flanked by two towers. While huts were always the common residences (as in later eras), yet some buildings of stone were erected toward the close of this period and one large palace was found, built of stone and having a row of columns down the center, and containing a complex of rooms, including one rectangular hall, 40 ft. long by 25 ft. wide. Most remarkable of all were their works of engineering. They hewed enormous constructions, square, rectangular and circular, out of the soft chalk and limestone rocks, one of which contained 60 chambers, one chamber being 400 by 80 ft. The supreme work, however, was a tunnel which was made circa 2000 BC, passing out of use circa 1450-1250 BC, and which shows the power of these early Palestinians. It was 200-250 ft. long and consisted of a roadway cut through the hill of rock some 47 1/2 ft. to an imposing archway 23 ft. high and 12 ft. 10 inches broad, which led to a long sloping passage of equal dimensions, with the arch having a vaulted roof and the sides well plumb. This led into a bed of much harder rock, where dimensions were reduced and the workmanship was poorer, but ultimately reached, about 130 ft. below the present surface of the ground, an enormous living spring of such depth that the excavators could not empty it of the soft mud with which it was filled. A well-cut but wellworn and battered stone staircase, over 12 ft. broad, connected the spring with the upper section of the tunnel 94 ft. above. Beyond the spring was a natural cave 80 by 25 ft. Dr. Macalister asks, “Did a Canaanite governor plan and Canaanite workmen execute this vast work? How did the ancient engineers discover the spring?” No one can answer; but certainly the tunnel was designed to bring the entrance of the water passage within the courtyard protected by the palace walls.

Another great reservoir, 57 by 46 ft., at another part of the city was quarried in the rock to a depth of 29 1/2 ft., and below this another one of equal depth but not so large, and narrowing toward the bottom. These were covered with two coats of cement and surrounded by a wall; they would hold 60,000 gals. (c) The second Semitic city, built on the ruins of the first, was smaller, but more luxurious. There were fewer buildings but larger rooms. The potter’s wheel was worked by the foot. Pottery becomes much finer, the styles and decoration reaching a climax of grace and refinement. Foreign trade begins in this period and almost or quite reaches its culmination. The Hyksos scarabs found here prove that under their rule (XVIth and XVIIth Dynastles) there was close intercourse with Palestine, and the multitudes of Egyptian articles show that this was also true before and after the Hyksos.

The Cretan and the Aegean trade, especially through Cyprus, introduced new art ideas which soon brought local attempts at imitation. Scribes’ implements for writing in wax and clay begin here and are found in all strata hereafter.

While the pottery is elaborately painted, it is but little molded. The older “combed” ornament practically disappears, while burnished ornament reaches high-water mark. Animal figures are common, the eyes often being elaborately modeled and stuck on; but it is infantile article Burials still occur in natural caves, but also in those hewn artificially; the bodies are carelessly deposited on the floor without coffins, generally in a crouching position, and stones are laid around and over them without system. Drink offerings always and food offerings generally are placed with the dead.

Scarabs are found with the skeletons, and ornaments of bronze and silver, occasionally gold and beads, and sometimes weapons. Lamps also begin to be deposited, but in small numbers. (d) During this period Menephtah “spoiled Gezer,” and Israel established itself in Canaan. The excavations have given no hint of Menephtah’s raid, unless it be found in an ivory pectoral bearing his cartouche. About BC a great wall, 4 ft. thick, was built of large and well-shaped stones and protected later by particularly fine towers, perhaps, as Macalister suggests, by the Pharaoh who captured Gezer and gave it as a dowry to his daughter, wife of King Solomon. A curious fact, which seemingly illustrates Joshua 16:10, is the large increase of the town shortly after the Hebrew invasion. “The houses are smaller and more crowded and the sacred area of the high place is built over.” “There is no indication of an exclusively Israelite population around the city outside” (Macalister, v. Driver, Modern Research, 69). That land was taken for building purposes from the old sacred enclosure, and that new ideas in building plans and more heavily fortified buildings were now introduced have been thought to suggest the entrance among the ancient population of another element with different ideas. The finest palace of this period with very thick walls (3-9 ft.) carefully laid out at right angles, and certainly built near “the time of the Hebrew invasion,” was perhaps the residence of Horam ( Joshua 10:33).

At this period seals begin (10 being found here, as against 28 in the next period, and 31 in the Hellenistic) and also iron tools; the use of the carpenter’s compass is proved, the bow drill was probably in use, bronze and iron nails appear (wrought iron being fairly common from circa BC); a cooking-pot of bronze was found, and spoons of shell and bronze; modern methods of making buttons and button holes are finest from this period, pottery buttons being introduced in the next city. One incidental Bible reference to the alliance between Gezer and Lachish ( Joshua 10:33) finds unexpected illustration from the fact that a kind of pottery peculiar to Lachish, not having been found in any other of the Southern Palestinian towns, was found at Gezer. The pottery here in general shows the same method of construction as in the 3rd stratum, but the decoration and shapes deteriorate, while there is practically no molding. It shows much the same foreign influence as before, the styles being affected from Egypt, Crete, the Aegean, and especially Cyprus. From this period come 218 scarabs, 68 from the period previous and 93 from the period following.

Ornamental colored specimens of imported Egyptian glass also occur, clear glass not being found till the next period. Little intercourse is proved with Babylon at this era: as against 16 Babylonian cylinders found in the previous period, only 4 were found in this and 15 in the next period. There is no marked change in the method of disposing of the dead, but the food vessels are of smaller size and are placed in the graves in great numbers, most of these being broken either through the use of poor vessels because of economy or with the idea of liberating the spirit of the object that it might serve the deceased in the spirit world. Lamps are common now in every tomb but there is a marked decrease in the quantity and value of ornamental objects. Religious emblems occur but rarely. The worship of Astarte ( see ASHTORETH), the female consort of Baal, is most popular at this era, terra cotta figures and plaques of this goddess being found in many types and in large numbers. It is suggestive that these grow notably less in the next stratum. It is also notable that primitive idols are certainly often intentionally ugly (Vincent). So to this day Arabs ward off the evil eye. (e) This period, during which almost the entire prophetic literature was produced, is of peculiar interest. Gezer at this time as at every other period was in general appearance like a modern Arab village, a huge mass of crooked, narrow, airless streets, shut inside a thick wall, with no trace of sanitary conveniences, with huge cisterns in which dead men could lie undetected for centuries, and with no sewers. Even in the Maccabean time the only sewer found ran, not into a cesspool, but into the ground, close to the governor’s palace. The mortality was excessively high, few old men being found in the cemeteries, while curvature of the spine, syphilis, brain disease, and especially broken, unset bones were common. Tweezers, pins and needles, kohl bottles, mirrors, combs, perfume boxes, scrapers (for baths) were common in this stratum and in all that follow it, while we have also here silver earrings, bracelets and other beautiful ornaments with the first sign of clear glass objects; tools also of many kinds of stone, bronze and iron, an iron hoe just like the modern one, and the first known pulley of bronze. The multitude of Hebrew weights found here have thrown much new light on the weight-standards of Palestine (see especially Macalister, Gezer, II, 287-92; E. J. Pilcher, PEFS, 1912; A. R. S. Kennedy, Expository Times, XXIV).

The pottery was poor in quality, clumsy and coarse in shape and ornament, except as it was imported, the local Aegean imitations being unworthy.

Combed ornament was not common, and the burnished as a rule was limited to random scratches. Multiple lamps became common, and a large variety of styles in small jugs was introduced. The motives of the last period survive, but in a degenerate form. The bird friezes so characteristic of the 3rd Semitic period disappear. The scarab stamp goes out of use, but the impressions of other seals “now become fairly common as potter’s marks.” These consist either of simple devices (stars, pentacles, etc.) or of names in Old Hebrew script. These Hebrew-inscribed stamps were found at many sites and consist of two classes, (i) those containing personal names, such as Azariah, Haggai, Menahem, Shebaniah, etc., (ii) those which are confined to four names, often repeated — Hebron, Socoh, Ziph, Mamshith — in connection with a reference to the king, e.g. “For (or Of) the king of Hebron.”

These latter date, according to Dr. Macalister’s final judgment, from the Persian period. He still thinks they represent the names of various potters or potters’ guilds in Palestine (compare 1 Chronicles 2; 4; 5, and see especially Bible Side-Lights from Gezer, 150, etc.), but others suppose these names to represent the local measures of capacity, which differed in these various districts; others that these represented different tax-districts where wine jars would be used and bought. At any rate, we certainly have here the work of the king’s potters referred to in 1 Chronicles 4:23.

Another very curious Hebrew tablet inscription is the so-called Zodiacal Tablet, on which the signs of the Zodiac are figured with certain other symbols which were at first supposed to express some esoteric magical or religious meaning, but which seem only to represent the ancient agricultural year with the proper months indicated for sowing and reaping — being the same as the modern seasons and crops except that flax was cultivated in ancient times. An even more important literary memorial from this period consists of two cuneiform tablets written about three-quarters of a century after the Ten Tribes had been carried to Assyria and foreign colonies had been thrown into Israelite territory. This collapse of the Northern Kingdom was not marked by any local catastrophe, so far as the ruins indicate, any more than the collapse of the Canaanite kingdom when Israel entered Palestine; but soon afterward we find an Assyrian colony settled in Gezer “using the Assyrian language and letters .... and carrying on business with Assyrian methods.” In one tablet (649 BC), which is a bill of sale for certain property, containing description of the same, appeared the name of the buyer, seals of seller and signature of 12 witnesses, one of whom is the Egyptian governor of the new town, another an Assyrian noble whose name precedes that of the governor, and still another a Western Asiatic, the others being Assyrian. It is a Hebrew “Nethaniah,” who the next year, as the other tablet shows, sells his field, his seal bearing upon it a lunar stellar emblem. Notwithstanding the acknowledged literary work of high quality produced in Palestine during this period, no other hint of this is found clear down to the Greek period except in one neo- Babylonian tablet.

The burials in this period were much as previously, except that the caves were smaller and toward the end of the period shelves around the walls received the bodies. In one Semitic tomb as many as 150 vessels were found. Quite the most astonishing discovery at this level was that of several tombs which scholars generally agree to be “Philistine.” They were not native Canaanite, but certainly Aegean intruders with relations with Crete and Cyprus, such as we would expect the Philistines to have ( see PHILISTINES). The tombs were oblong or rectangular, covered with large horizontal slabs, each tomb containing but a single body, stretched out with the head to the East or West One tomb was that of a girl of 18 with articles of alabaster and silver about her, and wearing a Cretan silver mouth plate; another was a man of 40 with agate seal of Assyrian design, a two-handled glass vessel, etc.; another was a woman surrounded by handsome ornaments of bronze, lead, silver and gold, with a basalt scarab between her knees. The richest tomb was that of a girl whose head had been severed from the body; with her was a hemispherical bowl, ornamented with rosette and lotus pattern, and a horde of beautiful things. The iron in these tombs was noticeable (compare 1 Samuel 17:7), and in one tomb were found two ingots of gold, one of these being of the same weight almost to a fraction as that of Achan ( Joshua 7:21). The most impressive discovery was the high place. This began as early as 2500-2000 BC, and grew by the addition of monoliths and surrounding buildings up to this era. The eight huge uncut pillars which were found standing in a row, with two others fallen (yet compare Benzinger, Hebrew Archaeology, 320), show us the actual appearance of this ancient worshipping-place so famous in the Bible ( Deuteronomy 16:22; 2 Kings 17:9,11; 23:8). The top of one of these monoliths had been worn smooth by kisses; another was an importation, being possibly, as has been suggested, a captured “Aril”; another stone, near by, had a large cavity in its top, nearly 3 ft. long and ft. broad and 1 ft. 2 inches deep, which is differently interpreted as being the block upon which the ‘asherah, so often mentioned in connection with the matstsebhoth, may have been erected, or as an altar, or perhaps a layer for ritual ablutions. Inside the sacred enclosure was found a small bronze cobra ( 2 Kings 18:4), and also the entrance to an ancient cave, where probably oracles were given, the excavators finding that this cave was connected with another by a small, secret passage — through which presumably the message was delivered. In the stratum underlying the high place was a cemetery of infants buried in large jars. “That the sacrificed infants were the firstborn, devoted in the temple, is indicated by the fact that none were over a week old” (Macalister). In all the Semitic strata bones of children were also found in corners of the houses, the deposits being identical with infant burials in the high place; and examination showed that these were not stillborn children. At least some of the burials under the house thresholds and under the foundation of walls carry with them the mute proofs of this most gruesome practice. In one place the skeleton of an old woman was found in a corner where a hole had been left just large enough for this purpose. A youth of about 18 had been cut in two at the waist and only the upper part of his body deposited. Before the coming into Palestine of the Israelites, a lamp began to be placed under the walls and foundations, probably symbolically to take the place of human sacrifice. A lamp and bowl deposit under the threshold, etc., begins in the 3rd Semitic period, but is rare till the middle of that period. In the 4th Semitic period it is common, though not universal; in the Hellenic it almost disappears. Macalister suspects that these bowls held blood or grape juice.

In one striking case a bronze figure was found in place of a body. Baskets full of phalli were carried away from the high place. Various types of the Astarte were found at Gezer. When we see the strength and popularity of this religion against which the prophets contended in Canaan, “we are amazed at the survival of this world-religion,” and we now see “why Ezra and Nehemiah were forced to raise the `fence of the law’ against this heathenism, which did in fact overthrow all other Semitic religions” (George Adam Smith. PEFS, 1906, 288). (f) During the Maccabean epoch the people of Gezer built reservoirs (one having a capacity of 4,000,000 gallons) used well-paved rooms, favored complex house plans with pillars, the courtyard becoming less important as compared with the rooms, though domestic fowls were now for the first time introduced. The architectural decorations have all been annihilated (as elsewhere in Pal) except a few molded stones and an Ionic volute from a palace, supposed to be that of Simon Maccabeus because of the references in Josephus and because of a scribbled imprecation found in the courtyard: “May fire overtake (?) Simon’s palace.” This is the only inscription from all these post-exilic centuries, to which so much of the beautiful Bible literature is ascribed, except one grotesque animal figure on which is scrawled a name which looks a little like “Antiochus.” Only a few scraps of Greek bowls, some Rhodian jar-handles, a few bronze and iron arrow heads, a few animal figures and a fragment of an Astarte, of doubtful chronology, remain from these four centuries. The potsherds prove that foreign imports continued and that the local potters followed classic models and did excellent work. The ware was always burnt hard; combed ornament and burnishing were out of style; molded ornament was usually confined to the rope design; painted decorations were rare; potter’s marks were generally in Greek, though some were in Hebrew, the letters being of late form, and no names appearing similar to those found in Scripture. The tombs were well cut square chambers, with shafts hewn in the rock for the bodies, usually nine to each tomb, which were run into them head foremost. The doorways were well cut, the covers almost always being movable flat slabs, though in one case a swinging stone door was found — circular rolling stones or the “false doors” so often found in the Jerusalem tombs being unknown here. Little shrines were erected above the forecourt or vestibule. When the body decayed, the bones in tombs having these kukhin, shafts, were collected into ossuaries, the inscriptions on these ossuaries showing clearly the transition from Old Hebrew to the square character. After the Maccabean time the town was deserted, though a small Christian community lived here in the 4th century AD. See also GEZER.

LITERATURE. Most Important Recent Monographs: Publications of Palestine Exploration Fund, especially Survey of Western Palestine (9 volumes, 1884); survey of Eastern Palestine (2 Volumes, 1889); “Palestinian Pilgrim’s Text Society’s Library” (13 vols) and the books of W.M. Flinders Petrie, F.J. Bliss and R.A.S. Macalister; also Bliss, Development of Palestine Exploration (1906), and Macalister, Bible Side- Lights from the Mound of Gezer (1906); Ernst Sellin, Tell Ta`annek (1904); Eine Nachlese auf dem Tell Ta`annek (1905); C. Steuernagel, Tell el-Mutesellim (1908); Mommert, Topog. des alten Jerusalem (1902-7); H.

Guthe, Bibelatlas (1911). Most Important Periodicals: PEFS; ZDPV; Mitteilungen Und Nachrichten des deutschen Palastina- Vereins; Palastina-Jahrbuch (MNDPV); Revue Biblique. Most Important General Works: L.B. Paton, Early History of Syria and Palestine (1902); Cuinet, Syrie, Liban et Palestine (1896-1900); H.V. Hilprecht, Explorations in Bible Lands during the 19th Century. (1903); P.H. Vincent, Canaan, d’apres l’exploration recente (1907); G.A. Smith, Jerusalem (1908); S. R. Driver, Modern Research as Illustrating the Bible (1909). Camden M. Cobern PALLU, PALLUITES <pal’-u > , <pal’-u-its > ([ aWLP” , pallu’ ], “distinguished”): A son of Reuben ( Genesis 46:9 (“Phallu”); Exodus 6:14; Numbers 26:5,8; 1 Chronicles 5:3). Perhaps Peleth of Numbers 16:1 is the same.

Palluites, the patronymic, occurs in Numbers 26:5.

PALM (OF THE HAND) <pam > ([ tK” , kaph ]): The Hebrew word which is used in a variety of senses ( see HAND; PAW ) is usually translated “hand” in English Versions of the Bible, but the translation “palm” is found in 5 passages of the Old Testament, in 3 of which the Hebrew text adds the word [ dy; , yadh] (“hand,” 1 Samuel 5:4; 2 Kings 9:35; Daniel 10:10). It would properly mean the “hollow hand” (root kaphaph, “to bend,” “to curve”), which receives or grasps things. It is therefore used in reference to filling the priest’s hands with sacrificial portions ( Leviticus 14:15,26). The palms of the hands of Dagon are mentioned as cut off, when the idol was found mutilated in the presence of the ark of Yahweh ( 1 Samuel 5:4), from which may be inferred that this idol probably was represented with hands spread out in blessing, as we find in numerous Babylonian representations of divinities.

In a beautiful metaphor God answers the repentant people of Jerusalem, who thought Yahweh had forgotten and forsaken them: “Behold, I have graven thee upon the palms of my hands” ( Isaiah 49:16; see also Ecclesiasticus 18:3). Daniel is touched upon the palms of his hands to wake him from sleep ( Daniel 10:10).

In the New Testament we find the phrase, “to smite with the palms of the hands,” as a translation of the Greek verb [rJapi>zw, rhapizo ] ( Matthew 26:67; see also 5:39 and Septuagint Hosea 11:4; 1 Esdras 4:30), and, derived from the same verb, [rJa>pisma, rhapisma ], a blow of the palm on the cheek, etc. ( Mark 14:65; John 18:22; 19:3, where, however, in English Versions of the Bible the word “palm” has not been given). The marginal translation “to smite or strike with rods” ( Matthew 26:67; John 18:22; 19:3) and “strokes of rods” ( Mark 14:65 margin) does not seem to be applicable to the Greek text of the Old Testament and New Testament, while it is a frequent meaning of the words in classical language. It would therefore be better to eliminate these marginal additions. H. L. E. Luering PALM TREE <pam’-tre > ([ rm;T; , tamar ], same as the Aramaic and Ethiopic, but in Arabic = “date”; [foi>nix, phoinix ] ( Exodus 15:27; Leviticus 23:40; Numbers 33:9; Deuteronomy 34:3; Judges 1:16; 3:13; Chronicles 28:15; Nehemiah 8:15; Psalm 92:12; Song of Solomon 7:7 f; Joel 1:12); [ rm,To , tomer ], Deborah “dwelt under the palm-tree” ( Judges 4:5); “They are like a palm-tree (margin “pillar”), of turned work” ( Jeremiah 10:5); [ hr;moTi , timorah ] (only in the plural), the palm tree as an architectural feature ( 1 Kings 6:29,32,35; 7:36; Chronicles 3:5; Ezekiel 40:16); Greek only Ecclesiasticus 50:12; John 12:13; Revelation 7:9): 1. PALM TREES:

The palm, Phoenix dactylifera (Natural Order Palmeae ), Arabic nakhl, is a tree which from the earliest times has been associated with the Semitic peoples. In Arabia the very existence of man depends largely upon its presence, and many authorities consider this to have been its original habitat. It is only natural that such a tree should have been sacred both there and in Assyria in the earliest ages. In Palestine the palm leaf appears as an ornament upon pottery as far back as 1800 BC (compare PEF, Gezer Mere., II, 172). In Egypt the tall palm stem forms a constant feature in early architecture, and among the Hebrews it was extensively used as a decoration of the temple ( 1 Kings 6:29,32,35; 7:36; 2 Chronicles 3:5). It is a symbol of beauty ( Song of Solomon 7:7) and of the righteous man: “The righteous shall flourish like the palm-tree:

He shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon.

They are planted in the house of Yahweh; They shall flourish in the courts of our God.

They shall still bring forth fruit in old age; They shall be full of sap and green” ( Psalm 92:12-14).

The palm tree or branch is used extensively on Jewish coinage and most noticeably appears as a symbol of the land upon the celebrated Judea Capta coins of Vespasian. A couple of centuries or so later it forms a prominent architectural feature in the ornamentation of the Galilean synagogues, e.g. at Tell Chum (Capernaum). The method of artificial fertilization of the pistillate (female) flowers by means of the staminate (male) flowers appears to have been known in the earliest historic times. Winged figures are depicted on some of the early Assyrian sculptures shaking a bunch of the male flowers over the female for the same purpose as the people of modern Gaza ascend the tall trunks of the fruit-bearing palms and tie among the female flowers a bunch of the pollen-bearing male flowers. 2. THEIR ANCIENT ABUNDANCE IN PALESTINE:

In Palestine today the palm is much neglected; there are few groves except along the coast, e.g. at the bay of Akka, Jaffa and Gaza; solitary palms occur all over the land in the courtyards of mosques (compare Psalm 92:13) and houses even in the mountains. Once palms flourished upon the Mount of Olives ( Nehemiah 8:15), and Jericho was long known as the “city of palm-trees” ( Deuteronomy 34:3; Judges 1:16; 3:13; Chronicles 28:15; Josephus BJ, IV, viii, 2-3), but today the only palms are scarce and small; under its name Hazazon-tamar ( 2 Chronicles 20:2), En-gedi would appear to have been as much a place of palms in ancient days as we know it was in later history. A city, too, called Tamar (“date palm”) appears to have been somewhere near the southwestern corner of the Dead Sea ( Ezekiel 47:19; 48:28). Today the numerous saltencrusted stumps of wild palm trees washed up all along the shores of the Dead Sea witness to the existence of these trees within recent times in some of the deep valleys around. 3. PALM BRANCHES:

Branches of palms have been symbolically associated with several different ideas. A palm branch is used in Isaiah 9:14; 19:15 to signify he “head,” the highest of the people, as contrasted with the rush, the “tail,” or humblest of the people. Palm branches appear from early times to have been associated with rejoicing. On the first day of the Feast of Tabernacles the Hebrews were commanded to take branches of palms, with other trees, and rejoice before God ( Leviticus 23:40; compare Nehemiah 8:15; Macc 10:7). The palm branch still forms the chief feature of the lulabh carried daily by every pious Jew to the synagogue, during the feast. Later it was connected with the idea of triumph and victory. Simon Maccabeus entered the Akra at Jerusalem after its capture, “with thanksgiving, and branches of palm trees, and with harps, and cymbals, and with viols, and hymns, and songs: because there was destroyed a great enemy out of Israel” (1 Macc 13:51 the King James Version; compare 2 Macc 10:7).

The same idea comes out in the use of palm branches by the multitudes who escorted Jesus to Jerusalem ( John 12:13) and also in the vision of the “great multitude, which no man could number .... standing before the .... Lamb, arrayed in white robes, and palms in their hands” ( Revelation 7:9). Today palms are carried in every Moslem funeral procession and are laid on the new-made grave. See also TAMAR as a proper name.

E. W. G. Masterman PALMER-WORM <pam’-er-wurm > ([ µz;G; , gazam ]; Septuagint [ka>mph, kampe ] ( Amos 4:9; Joel 1:4; 2:25)): “Palmer-worm” means “caterpillar,” but the insect meant is probably a kind of locust. See INSECT; LOCUST.

PALSY; PARALYSIS <pol’-zi > , <pa-ral’-i-sis > ([para>lusiv, paralusis ]): The English word “palsy” is derived from the Old French paralesie, which in Middle English was shortened into palesie, the form in which it appears in Wycliff’s version. In the 16th century it appears as “palsy,” the form used in the King James Version. This, however, is seldom used at the present day, the Latinized Greek form “paralysis” being more frequently employed, both in modern literature and in colloquial English “Sick of the palsy” is the translation either of the adjectiveparalutikos or of the participle of the verb paraluomai . The disease is one characterized by extreme loss of the power of motion dependent on some affection either of the motor centers of the brain or of the spinal cord. It is always serious, usually intractable, and generally sudden in onset (1 Macc 9:55 f). Miraculous cures by our Lord are related in general terms, as in Matthew 4:24; Acts 8:7. Aeneas ( Acts 9:33) was probably a paralytic eight years bedridden. Though the Lord addressed the paralytic let down through the roof ( Matthew 9:6; Mark 2:3; Luke 5:18) as “son,” it was not necessarily a proof that he was young, and though He prefaces the cure by declaring the forgiveness of sin, we need not infer that the disease was the result of an evil life, although it may have been. Bennett conjectures that the centurion’s palsied servant grievously tormented was suffering from progressive paralysis with respiratory spasms ( see PAIN). The substantive paralusis is only once used in the Septuagint in Ezekiel 21:10, but here it refers to the loosing of the sword, not to the disease. Alexander Macalister PALTI <pal’-ti > ([ yfl]P” , palTi ], “Yah delivers”): (1) One of the “searchers” of Canaan sent by Moses ( Numbers 13:9), representing Benjamin in the expedition (13:9). (2) The man to whom Saul gave Michal, David’s wife, after the estrangement ( 1 Samuel 25:44). He is “the captain of the people” of Esdras 5:16 (“Phaltiel,” margin “Psaltiel”). In 2 Samuel 3:15, he is named “Phaltiel” (the King James Version), “Paltiel” (the Revised Version), and is there mentioned in connection with David’s recovery of Michal.

PALTIEL <pal’-ti-el > ([ laeyfil]P” , palTi’el ], “God’s deliverance”): (1) A prince of Isaachar ( Numbers 34:26). (2) Same as PALTI, (2) (which see).

PALTITE <pal’-tit > ([ yfil]P” , palTi ] (as Palti); The Septuagint has: Codex Vaticanus [ Kelwqei>, Kelothei ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ Fellwnei>, Phellonei ]): The description occurs but once in this form and is then applied to Helez, one of David’s 30 valiant men ( 2 Samuel 23:26).

Helez’ name, however, occurs in 1 Chronicles 11:27 and 27:10 as the “Pelonite.” Doubtless there is some confusion of words. The word may be given as a patronymic of Palti, or it may designate a native of the village of Beth-pelet mentioned in Joshua 15:27 and Nehemiah 11:26 as being in Lower Judah. Helez, however, is described as “of the children of Ephraim” in 1 Chronicles 27:10.

PAMPHYLIA <pam-fil’-i-a > ([ Pamfuli>a, Pamphulia ]): A country lying along the southern coast of Asia Minor, bounded on the North by Pisidia, on the East by Isauria, on the South by the Mediterranean Sea, and on the West by Lycia ( Acts 2:10; 27:5). 1. PHYSICAL FEATURES:

In the earliest time, Pamphylia was but a narrow strip of low-lying land between the base of the mountains and the sea, scarcely more than 20 miles long and half as wide. A high and imposing range of the Taurus Mountains practically surrounds it upon three sides, and, jutting out into the sea, isolates it from the rest of Asia Minor. Its two rivers, the Cestrus and the Cataractes, are said by ancient writers to have been navigable for several miles inland, but now the greater part of their water is diverted to the fields for irrigating purposes, and the general surface of the country has been constantly changed by the many rapid mountain streams. The level fertile coast land is therefore well watered, and the moist air, which is excessively hot and enervating, has always been laden with fever. Several roads leading from the coast up the steep mountain to the interior existed in ancient times; one of them, called the Kimax or the Ladder, with its broad stair-like steps 2,000 ft. high, may still be seen. Beyond the steps is the high land which was once called “Pisidia,” but which the Romans, in 70 AD, made a part of Pamphylia. 2. IMPORTANCE:

Pamphylia, unless in pre-historic times, was never an independent kingdom; it was subject successively to Lydia, Persia, Macedonia, Pergamos and Rome. Because of its comparatively isolated position, civilization there was less developed than in the neighboring countries, and the Asiatic influence was at most times stronger than the Greek As early as the 5th century BC a Greek colony settled there, but the Greek language which was spoken in some of its cities soon became corrupt; the Greek inscriptions, appearing upon the coins of that age, were written in a peculiar character, and before the time of Alexander the Great, Greek ceased to be spoken. Perga then became an important city and the center of the Asiatic religion, of which the Artemis of Perga, locally known as Leto, was the goddess. Coins were struck also in that city. Somewhat later the Greek city of Attalia, which was rounded by Attalus III Philadelphus (159-138 BC), rose to importance, and until recent years has been the chief port of entry on the southern coast of Asia Minor. About the beginning of our era, Side became the chief city, and issued a long and beautiful series of coins, possibly to facilitate trade with the pirates who found there a favorable market for their booty. Pamphylia is mentioned as one of the recipients of the “letters” of 1 Macc 15:23. 3. INTRODUCTION OF CHRISTIANITY:

Christianity was first introduced to Pamphylia by Paul and Barnabas ( Acts 13:13; 14:24), but because their stay in the country was brief, or because of the difficulty of communication with the neighboring countries, or because of the Asiatic character of the population, it was slow in being established. See also ATTALIA; PERGA; SIDE, the chief cities of Pamphylia.

E. J. Banks PAN Name of a utensil used in the preparation or the serving of food, and representing several words in the original. Passing over the use of the word in connections like 1 Chronicles 9:31, “things baked in pans,” where the Hebrew word chabhittim refers, not to the pan itself, but to the cakes baked in the flat pan or griddle which was called machabhath (see below), and the “firepans” (machtah ) ( Exodus 27:3; 1 Kings 7:50, etc.) which seem to have been used to carry burning coals, we note the following words: (1) [ tb”j\m” , machabhath ], “pan” the King James Version, “bakingpan” the Revised Version (British and American), a dish of uncertain shape and size which was used in the preparation of the minchah or vegetable offering. See Leviticus 2:5; 6:21; 7:9; 1 Chronicles 23:29. On the basis of Ezekiel 4:3 it might be assumed that the pan was rectangular in shape and of good size. (2) [ rwOYKo , kiyyor ], rendered “pan” in 1 Samuel 2:14. The same word is used in the phrase, “pan of fire” the Revised Version (British and American), “hearth of fire” the King James Version ( Zechariah 12:6); and it is also translated “laver” in the descriptions of the furnishing of tabernacle and temple ( Exodus 30:18; 1 Kings 7:30, etc.). As it held water and was used for boiling meat and the like, it must have been a kind of pot or kettle. (3) [ trec]m” , masreth ], ( 2 Samuel 15:9). The connection gives no clue as to shape or size except that it must have been small enough to serve food in, and of the proper shape to hold a substance which could be poured out. Some authorities suggest a connection with the root [ raoc] , se’or ], “leaven,” and think that this pan was like the kneading-trough in shape. (4) [ rysi , sir ], rendered “pan” in Exodus 27:3 the King James Version, “pot” the Revised Version (British and American). See POT. (5) [ rWrP; , parur ], “pan” in Numbers 11:8 the King James Version, “pot” the Revised Version (British and American). See POT. (6) [ hj;l;xe , celachah ] ( 2 Chronicles 35:13). Some kind of dish or pot.

Slightly different forms of the same root are rendered “cruse” ( 2 Kings 2:20 (tselochith ), “dish” ( 2 Kings 21:13 (tsallachath ); and also in the Revised Version (British and American) in Proverbs 19:24; 26:15, instead of the probably incorrect “bosom” of the King James Version. (7) [le>bhv, lebes ] translated “pan” in 1 Esdras 1:12 the King James Version (the Revised Version (British and American) “cauldron”). (8) [th>ganon, teganon ], 2 Macc 7:3,5, with the verb [thgani>zw, teganizo ], 7:5, is the usual Greek word for “frying-pan,” but here a large sheet of metal must be meant (compare 4 Macc 8:13; 12:10,20).

LITERATURE.

Whitehouse, Primer of Hebrew Antiquities,76, 77; Benzinger, Hebraische Archaologie, 70, 71; Nowack, Hebraische Archdologie, I, 144. Walter R. Betteridge PANNAG <pan’-ag > ([ gN”P” , pannagh ]; [kasi>a, kasia ]; Ezekiel 27:17 margin, “Perhaps a kind of confection”): One of the articles of commerce of Judah and Israel. The kasia of the Septuagint is said to be a shrub similar to the laurel. Nothing is known of the nature of pannag. Cheyne (EB, 3555) thinks the Hebrews letters have got misplaced and should be [ ˆp,G, , gephen ], “vine,” and he would join to it the [ vb”D] , debhash ], “honey,” which follows in the verse, giving a translation “grape honey,” the ordinary dibbs of Palestine — an extremely likely article of commerce. See HONEY.

PANOPLY <pan’-o-pli > : 1 Macc 13:29 the Revised Version margin. See ARMOR.

PAP ([ dv” , shadh ], [ dvo , shodh ], “breast” ( Ezekiel 23:21); [masto>v, mastos ], “the breast” ( Luke 11:27; 23:29; Revelation 1:13)): The English word, which goes back to Middle English “pappe” (see Skeat, Concise Etymological Dictionary of the English Language, 327) and is now obsolete, has been replaced in the Revised Version (British and American) by “breast.” The Hebrew word signifies the “female breast”; the Greek word has a wider signification, including the male chest.

PAPER <pa’-per > . See CRAFTS, 11, 13; PAPYRUS; REED; WRITING.

PAPER REEDS <redz > : In Isaiah 19:7 the King James Version (the Revised Version (British and American) “meadows”).

PAPHOS <pa’-fos > : 1. SITE:

The name of two towns, Old ([ Palaia< Pa>fov, Palaia Paphos ], or [ Palai>pafov, Palaipaphos ]) and New Paphos [ Ne>a Pa>fov, Nea Paphos ]), situated at the southwestern extremity of Cyprus. Considerable confusion is caused by the use of the single name Paphos in ancient writers to denote now one, now the other, of these cities. That referred to in Acts 13:6,13 is strictly called New Paphos (modern Baffa), and lay on the coast about a mile South of the modern Ktima and some 10 miles Northwest of the old city. The latter (modern Kouklia ) is situated on an eminence more than a mile from the sea, on the left bank of the Diarrizo , probably the ancient Bocarus. 2. HISTORY OF OLD PAPHOS:

It was founded by Cinyras, the father of Adonis, or, according to another legend, by Aerias, and formed the capital of the most important kingdom in Cyprus except that of Salamis. Its territory embraced a considerable portion of Western Cyprus, extending northward to that of Soli, southward to that of Curium and eastward to the range of Troodus. Among its last kings was Nicocles, who ruled shortly after the death of Alexander the Great. In 310 BC Nicocreon of Salamis, who had been set over the whole of Cyprus by Ptolemy I of Egypt, was forced to put an end to his life at Paphos for plotting with Antigonus (Diodorus xx. 21, who wrongly gives the name as Nicocles; see Athenische Mitteilungen, XXII, 203 ff), and from that time Paphos remained under Egyptian rule until the Roman annexation of Cyprus in 58 BC. The growth of New Paphos brought with it the decline of the old city, which was also ruined by successive earthquakes. Yet its temple still retained much of its old fame, and in AD Titus, the future emperor of Rome, turned aside on his journey to Jerusalem, which he was to capture in the following year, to visit the sacred shrine and to inquire of the priests into the fortune which awaited him (Tacitus History ii.2-4; Suetonius Titus 5). 3. HISTORY OF NEW PAPHOS:

New Paphos, originally the seaport of the old town, was founded, according to tradition, by Agapenor of Arcadia (Iliad ii.609; Pausan. viii.5, 2). Its possession of a good harbor secured its prosperity, and it had several rich temples. According to Dio Cassius (liv.23) it was restored by Augustus in 15 BC after a destructive earthquake and received the name Augusta (Greek Sebaste). Under the Roman Empire it was the administrative capital of the island and the seat of the governor. The extant remains all date from this period and include those of public buildings, private houses, city walls and the moles of the harbor. 4. THE TEMPLE AND CULT:

But the chief glory of Paphos and the source of its fame was the local cult, of which the kings and their descendants remained hereditary priests down to the Roman seizure of Cyprus. The goddess, identified with the Greek Aphrodite, who was said to have risen from the sea at Paphos, was in reality a Nature-goddess, closely resembling the Babylonian Ishtar and the Phoenician Astarte, a native deity of Asia Minor and the Aegean Islands.

Her cult can be traced back at Paphos to Homeric times (Odyssey viii.362) and was repeatedly celebrated by Greek and Latin poets (Aeschylus Suppl. 555; Aristoph. Lys. 833; Virgil Aen. i.415; Horace Odes i.19 and 30; iii.26; Statius Silvae i.2, 101, etc.). The goddess was represented, not by a statue in human form, but by a white conical stone (Max. Tyr. viii.8; Tacitus History ii.3; Servius Ad Aen. i.724), of which models were on sale for the benefit of pilgrims (Athenaeus xv.18); her worship was sensuous in character and she is referred to by Athanasius as the deification of lust (Contra Genres 9). Excavation has brought to light at Old Paphos a complex of buildings belonging to Roman times and consisting of an open court with chambers or colonnades on three sides and an entrance on the East only, the whole forming a quadrilateral enclosure with sides about 210 ft. long. In this court may have stood the altar, or altars, of incense (Homer speaks of a single altar, Virgil of “a hundred altars warm with Sabean frankincense”); no blood might be shed thereon, and although it stood in the open it was “wet by no rain” (Tacitus, loc. cit.; Pliny, NH, ii.210). On the south side are the ruins of another building, possibly an earlier temple, now almost destroyed save for the western wall (Journal of Hellenic Studies, IX, 193-224). But the fact that no remains or inscriptions have been found here earlier than the Roman occupation of Cyprus militates against the view that the sanctuary stood at this spot from prehistoric times. Its site may be sought at Xylino, a short distance to the North of Kouklia (D.G. Hogarth, Times, August 5, 1910), or possibly on the plateau of Rhantidi, some 3 miles Southeast of the village, where numerous inscriptions in the old Cyprian syllabic script were found in the summer of 1910 (M. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Times, July 29, 1910). 5. THE APOSTLES’ VISIT:

After visiting Salamis and passing through the whole island, about miles in length, Barnabas, Paul and Mark reached Paphos, the residence of the Roman proconsul, Sergius Paulus (for the title see CYPRUS). Here too they would doubtless begin by preaching in the synagogue, but the governor — who is probably the same Paulus whose name appears as proconsul in an inscription of Soli (D.G. Hogarth, Devia Cypria, 114) — hearing of their mission, sent for them and questioned them on the subject of their preaching. A Jew named Bar-Jesus or Elymas, who, as a Magian or soothsayer, “was with the proconsul,” presumably as a member of his suite, used all his powers of persuasion to prevent his patron from giving his adherence to the new faith, and was met by Paul (it is at this point that the name is first introduced) with a scathing denunciation and a sentence of temporary loss of sight. The blindness which at once fell on him produced a deep impression on the mind of the proconsul, who professed his faith in the apostolic teaching. From Paphos, Paul and his companions sailed in a northwesterly direction to Perga in Pamphylia ( Acts 13:6-13).

Paul did not revisit Paphos, but we may feel confident that Barnabas and Mark would return there on their 2nd missionary journey ( Acts 15:39).

Of the later history of the Paphian church we know little. Tychicus, Paul’s companion, is said to have been marryred there, and Jerome tells us that Hilarion sought in the neighborhood of the decayed and almost deserted town the quiet and retirement which he craved (Vita Hilar. 42). The Acta Barnabae speak of a certain Rhodon, who was attached to the temple service at Old Paphos, as having accepted the Christian faith.

LITERATURE.

Besides the works already referred to, see Journal of Hellenic Studies, IX, 175-92 (citation of passages from ancient authors relating to Old Paphos, together with a list of medieval and modern authorities), 225-271 (inscriptions and tombs), and the bibliography appended to article CYPRUS. Marcus N. Tod PAPYRUS <pa-pi’-rus > (Cyperus papyrus; [bu>blov, bublos ], [bi>blov, biblos ], whence [bibli>on, biblion ], a roll, [ta< bibli>a, ta biblia ], “the Books” = the Bible):

A marsh or water plant, abundant in Egypt in ancient times, serving many purposes in antiquity. The papyrus tuft was the emblem of the Northern Kingdom in Egypt. Like the lotus, it suggested one of the favorite capitals of Egyptian architecture. Ropes, sandals, and mats were made from its fibers (see Odyssey xxi.391; Herod. ii.37, 69), and bundles of the long, light stalks were bound together into light boats ( Isaiah 18:2; Breasted, History of the Egyptians, 91). 1. PAPYRUS PAPER:

Most importantly, from it was made the tough and inexpensive paper which was used from very ancient times in Egypt and which became the common writing-material of the ancient world. The white cellular pith of the long triangular papyrus stalk was stripped of its bark or rind and sliced into thin strips. Two layers of these strips were laid at right angles to each other, pasted together (Pliny says with the aid of Nile water), dried and smoothed. The sheets thus formed were pasted one to another to form a roll of any length desired. The process and the product are described by Pliny the EIder (NH,.xiii.11-13). 2. EGYPTIAN PAPYRI:

Egyptian papyrus rolls are in existence dating from the 27th century BC, and no doubt the manufacture of papyrus had been practiced for centuries before. The Egyptian rolls were sometimes of great length and were often beautifully decorated with colored vignettes (Book of the Dead). Egyptian documents of great historical value have been preserved on these fragile rolls. The Papyrus Ebers of the 16th century BC sums up the medical lore of the Egyptians of the time of Amenhotep I. The Papyrus Harris, 133 ft. long, in 117 columns, dates from the middle of the 12th century BC and records the benefactions and achievements of Ramses III. For the XIXth, XXth and XXIst dynasties, indeed, papyri are relatively numerous, and their contribution important for Egyptian history, life and religion. By the year 1000 BC, papyrus had doubtless come to be used for writing far beyond the limits of Egypt. The Wenamon Papyrus (11th century) relates that 500 rolls of papyrus were among the gifts sent from the Delta to the Prince of Biblus, but except in the rarest instances papyri have escaped destruction only in Upper Egypt, where climatic conditions especially favored their preservation. 3. ARAMAIC PAPYRI:

In very recent years (1898, 1904, 1907) several Aramaic papyri have been found on the Island of Elephantine, just below the First Cataract, dating from 494 to 400 BC. They show that between 470 and 408 BC a flourishing colony of Jews existed there, doing business under Persian sway, and worshipping their god Yahu, not in a synagogue, but in a temple, in which they offered meal offerings, incense and burnt offerings.

In 408, the Egyptians had destroyed their temple at Yeb, and the Jews appealed for redress to the Persian governor. It is well known that some Jews had taken refuge in Egypt in 586 BC, taking the prophet Jeremiah with them, and with some such band of refugees the Yeb colony may have originated, although it may have been much older (compare Jeremiah 44:1,15; Biblical World, XXIX, 1907, 305 ff; XXXI, 448 ff; chief publications by Euting, Sayce and Cowley, and especially Sachau, Drei aramdische Papyrusurkunden aus Elephantine, 2nd edition, 1908; Aramaische Papyrus und Ostraka, 1911). 4. GREEK PAPYRI:

With Alexander’s conquest of Egypt (332 BC), and the subsequent Ptolemaic dynasty, Greeks came more than ever before into Egypt, and from Greek centers like Alexandria and Arsinoe in the Faytum the Greek language began to spread. Through the Ptolemaic (323-30 BC), Roman (30 BC-292/93 AD), and Byzantine periods (292/93-640 AD), that is, from the death of Alexander to the Arab conquest, Greek was much used in Upper and Lower Egypt, and Greek papyri from these times are now abundant. The 300 Aphrodito Greek and Coptic papyri published by Bell and Crum (1910) date from 698-722 AD, and show how Greek persisted in the Arab period. 5. THEIR DISCOVERY:

The first important discovery of Greek papyri made in modern times was among the ruins of Herculaneum, near Naples, where in 1752 in the ruins of the house of a philosopher which had been destroyed and buried by volcanic ashes from Vesuvius (79 AD) a whole library of papyrus rolls was found, quite charred by the heat. With the utmost pains many of these have been unrolled and deciphered, and the first part of them was published in 1793. They consist almost wholly of works of Epicurean philosophy. In 1778 the first discovery of Greek papyri in Egypt was made. In that year some Arabs found 40 or 50 papyrus rolls in an earthen pot, probably in the Faytum, where Philadelphus settled his Greek veterans. One was purchased by a dealer and found its way into the hands of Cardinal Stefano Borgia; the others were destroyed as of no worth. The Borgia Papyrus was published 10 years later. It was a document of little value, recording the forced labor of certain peasants upon the Nile embankment of a given year.

In 1820 another body of papyri was found by natives, buried, it was said, in an earthen pot, on the site of the Serapeum at Memphis, just above Cairo.

These came for the most part from the 2nd century BC. They fell into various hands, and are now in the museums of London, Paris, Leyden, Rome and Dresden. With them the stream of papyri began to flow steadily into the British and Continental museums. In 1821 an Englishman, Mr.

W.J. Bankes, bought an Elephantine roll of the xxivth book of the Iliad, the first Greek literary papyrus to be derived from Egypt. The efforts of Mr.

Harris and others in 1847-1850 brought to England considerable parts of lost orations of Hyperides, new papyri of the 17th book of the Iliad, and parts of Iliad ii, iii, ix. In 1855 Mariette purchased a fragment of Alcman for the Louvre, and in 1856 Mr. Stobart obtained the funeral oration of Hyperides.

The present period of papyrus recovery dates from 1877, when an immense mass of Greek and other papyri, for the most part documentary, not literary, was found in the Fayum, on the site of the ancient Arsinoe. The bulk of this collection passed into the hands of Archduke Rainer at Vienna, minor portions of it being secured by the museums of Paris, London, Oxford and Berlin. These belong largely to the Byzantine period. Another great find was made in 1892 in the Faytum; most of these went to Berlin some few to the British Museum, Vienna and Geneva. These were mostly of the Roman period.

It will be seen that most of these discoveries were the work of natives, digging about indiscriminately in the hope of finding antiquities to sell to tourists or dealers. By this time, however, the Egypt Exploration Fund had begun its operations in Egypt, and Professor Flinders Petrie was at work there. Digging among Ptolemaic tombs at Gurob in 1889-90, Professor Petrie found many mummies, or mummy-casings, adorned with breastpieces and sandals made of papyri pasted together. The separation of these was naturally a tedious and delicate task, and the papyri when extricated were often badly damaged or mutilated; but the Petrie papyri, as they were called, were hailed by scholars as the most important found up to that time, for they came for the most part from the 3rd century BC. Startling acquisitions were made about this time by representatives of the British Museum and the Louvre. The British Museum secured papyri of the lost work of Aristotle on the Constitution of Athens, the lost Mimes of Herodas, a fragment of an oration of Hyperides, and extensive literary papyri of works already extant; while the Louvre secured the larger part of the Oration against Athenogenes, the masterpiece of Hyperides. In Bernard P. Grenfell, of Oxford, appeared in Egypt, working with Professor Petrie in his excavations, and securing papyri with Mr. Hogarth for England. In that year Pettie and Grenfell obtained from native dealers papyrus rolls, one more than 40 ft. in length, preserving revenue laws of Ptolemy Philadelphus, dated in 259-258 BC. These were published in by Mr. Grenfell, the first of many important works in this field from his pen.

With Arthur S. Hunt, of Oxford, Mr. Grenfell excavated in 1896-1897, at Behnesa, the Roman Oxyrhynchus, and unearthed the greatest mass of Greek papyri of the Roman period thus far found. In 9 large quarto volumes, aggregating 3,000 pages, only a beginning has been made of publishing these Oxyrhynchus texts, which number thousands and are in many cases of great importance. The story of papyrus digging in Egypt since the great find of 1896-1897 is largely the record of the work of Grenfell and Hunt. At Tebtunis, in the Faytum; in 1900, they found a great mass of Ptolemaic papyri, comparable in importance with their great discovery at Oxyrhynchus. One of the most productive sources of papyri at Tebtunis was the crocodile cemetery, in which many mummies of the sacred crocodiles were found rolled in papyrus. Important Ptolemaic texts were found in 1902 at Hibeh, and a later visit to Oxyrhynchus in produced results almost as astonishing and quite as valuable as those of the first excavations there. The work of Rubensohn at Abusir in 1908 has exceptional interest, as it developed the first considerable body of Alexandrian papyri that has been found. The soil and climate of Alexandria are destructive to papyri, and only to the fact that these had in ancient times been carried off into the interior as rubbish is their preservation due.

Hogarth, Jouguet, Wilcken and other Continental scholars have excavated in Egypt for papyri with varying degrees of success. The papyri are found in graves a few feet below the surface, in house ruins over which sand has drifted, or occasionally in earthen pots buried in the ground. Despite government efforts to stop indiscriminate native digging, papyri in considerable quantities have continued to find their way into the hands of native dealers, and thence into English, Continental, and even American collections. 6. CLASSICAL PAPYRI:

Thus far upward of 650 literary papyri, great and small, of works other than Biblical have been published. The fact that about one-third of these are Homeric attests the great popularity enjoyed by the Homeric poems in Greek-Roman times. These are now so abundant and extensive as to make an important contribution to the Homeric text. Rather less than one-third preserve works of other ancient writers which were already known to us through later copies, medieval or modern. Among these are works of Plato, Demosthenes, Isocrates, Thucydides, Euripides, Sophocles, Aeschines, Herodotus and others. Rather more than one-third preserve works, or fragments of works, which have been either quite unknown or, oftener, regarded as lost. Such are portions of Alcman and Sappho, fragments of the comedies of Menander and the iambi of Callimachus, Mimes of Herodas, poems of Bacchylides, parts of the lost Antiope and Hypsipyle of Euripides, Aristotle On the Constitution of Athens, the Persac of Timotheus (in a papyrus of the 4th century BC, probably the oldest Greek book in the world), and six orations, one of them complete, of Hyperides. In 1906 Grenfell and Hunt discovered at Oxyrhynchus the unique papyrus of the lost Paeans of Pindar, in 380 fragments, besides the Hellenica of Theopompus (or Cratippus?), whose works were believed to have perished. 7. SEPTUAGINT PAPYRI:

Of the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint) more than 20 papyri have been discovered. Perhaps the most important of these is the Berlin Genesis (3rd or 4th century) (1) in a cursive hand, purchased at Akhmim in 1906. Other papyri preserving parts of Genesis among the Amherst (2), British Museum (3), and Oxyrhynehus (4), papyri date from the 3rd or 4th century. A Bodleian papyrus leaf (5) (7th or 8th century) preserves Song of Solomon 1:6-9. An Amherst papyrus (6) (7th century) contains Job 1:21 f; 2,3. There are several papyri of parts of the Psalms. An Amherst papyrus (7) (5th or 6th century) has Psalm 5:6-12. Brit. Mus. 37 (Fragmenta Londinensia, 6th or 7th century) (8), of thirty leaves, contains Psalm 10:2 through 18:6 and 20:14 through 34:6. This was purchased in 1836 and is one of the longest of Biblical papyri. Brit. Mus. (9) (3rd century) preserves Psalm 12:7 through 15:4. A Berlin papyrus (10) contains Psalm 40:26 through 41:4. Oxyrhynchus papyrus (11) (4th or 5th century) contains parts of Psalms 68; 70. Another Amherst papyrus (12) (7th century) shows parts of Psalms 108; 118; 135; 138 through 140. There is also a papyrus at Leipzig (13) which contains part of the Psalms. Of the Prophets the chief papyrus is the Heidelberg codex (14) (7th century), which contains Zechariah 4:6 through Malachi 4:5. Oxyrhynchus (15) (6th century) contains Amos 2. A gainer papyrus (16) (3rd century) preserves Isaiah 38:3-5,13-16, and a Bodleian (17) (3rd century) shows Ezekiel 5:12 through 6:3. The Rylands papyri include Deuteronomy 2; (18) (4th century); Job 1; 5; 6 (19) (6th or 7th century); Psalm (20) (5th or 6th century). Recent Oxyrhynchus volumes supply parts of Exodus 21; 22; (21; 22) (3rd century, O.P. 1074, 1075); and of Genesis (23) (3rd century, O.P. 1166), and Genesis (24) (4th century, O.P. 1167). The great antiquity of some of these documents gives especial interest to their readings. 8. NEW TESTAMENT PAPYRI:

Twenty-three papyri containing parts of the Greek New Testament have thus far been published, nearly half of them coming from Oxyrhynchus (O.P. 2, 208, 209, 402, 657, 1008, 1009, 1078, 1079, 1170, 1171). The pieces range in date from the 3rd to the 6th century. Their locations, dates and contents are: 1. Philadelphia, Pa. 3rd or 4th century Matthew 11-9,12,13,14-20 (O.P. 2). 2. Florence. 5th or 6th century John 12:12-15. 3. Vienna. 6th century Luke 7:36-45; 10:38-42. 4. Paris. 4th century Luke 1:74-80; 5:3-8; 5:30 through 6:4. 5. London. 3rd or 4th century John 1:23-31,33-41; 20:11-17,19-25 (O.P. 208). 6. Strassburg. ? century John 11:45. 7. Kiew. ? century Luke 4:1,2. 8. Berlin. 4th century Acts 4:31-37; 5:2-9; 6:1-6,8-15. 9. Cambridge, Mass. 4th or 5th century 1 John 4:11-13,15,17 (O.P 402). 10. Cambridge, Mass. 4th century Romans 1:1-7 (O.P. 209). 11. Petersburg. 5th century 1 Corinthians 1:17-20; 6:13,18; 7:3,4,10- 14. 12. Didlington Hall. 3rd or 4th century Hebrews 1:1. 13. London. 4th century Hebrews 2:14 through 5:5; 10:8 through 11:13; 11:28 through 12:17 (O.P. 657). This is the most considerable papyrus of the New Testament, and doubly important because Codex Vaticanus breaks off with Hebrews 9:14. 14. Sinai. 5th century 1 Corinthians 1:25-27; 2:6-8; 3:8-10,20. 15 . Oxford. 4th century 1 Corinthians 7:18 through 8:4 (O.P. 1008). Philippians 3:9-17; 4:2-8 (O.P. 1009). 16. Manchester (Rylands). 6th or 7th century Romans 12:3-8. 17. Manchester (Rylands). 3rd century Titus 1:11-15; 2:3-8. 18. Oxford. 4th century Hebrews 9:12-19 (O.P. 1078). 19. Oxford. 3rd or 4th century Revelation 1:4-7 (O.P. 1079). 20. Oxford. 5th century Matthew 10:32 through 11:5 (O.P. 1170). 21. Oxford. 3rd century James 2:19 through 3:2,4-9 (O.P. 1171). 22. Florence. 7th century Matthew 25:12-15,20-23. 23. Florence. ? century John 3:14-18,31,32.

Berlin Pap. 13,269 (7th century) is a liturgical paraphrase of Luke 2:8-14.

Further details as to numbers 1-14 may be found in Gregory, Textkritik, 1084-92, and for numbers 1-23 in Kenyon, Handbook to Text. Crit. 2, or Milligan, New Testament Documents, 249-54. 9. THEOLOGICAL PAPYRI:

Among other theological papyri, the Oxyrhynchus Sayings of Jesus (O.P. 1,654), dating from the 2nd and 3rd centuries, are probably the most widely known ( see LOGIA). Other Oxyrhynchus pieces preserve parts of the Apocalypse of Baruch (chapters 12 through 14; 4th or 5th century; O.P. 403); the Gospel according to the Hebrews (? in its later form, if at all; 3rd century; O.P. 655); the Acts of John (4th century; O.P. 850, compare 851); the Shepherd of Hermas (3rd or 4th century; O.P. 404); Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., iii.9 (3rd century; O.P. 405). Other small fragments of the Shepherd and Ignatius are among the Amherst and Berlin papyri.

Early Christian hymns, prayers and letters of interest have also been found. 10. DOCUMENTARY PAPYRI:

We have spoken thus far only of literary papyri, classical and theological.

The overwhelming jority of the papyri found have of course been documentary — private letters, accounts, wills, receipts, contracts, leases, deeds, complaints, petitions, notices, invitations, etc. The value of these contemporary and original documents for the illumination of ancient life can hardly be overestimated. The life of Upper Egypt in Ptolemaic and Roman times is now probably better known to us than that of any other period of history down to recent times. Many papyrus collections have no literary papyri at all, but are rich in documents. Each year brings more of these to light and new volumes of them into print. All this vast and growing body of material contributes to our knowledge of Ptolemaic and imperial times, often in the most intimate ways. Among the most important of these documentary papyri from Ptolemaic times are the revenue laws of Ptolemy Philadelphus (259 BC) and the decrees of Ptolemy Euergetes II, 47 in number (118 BC, 140-139 BC). Very recently (1910) a Hamburg papyrus has supplied the Constitutio Antoniniana, by which Roman citizenship was conferred upon the peregrini of the empire. The private documents in ways even more important illustrate the life of the common people under Ptolemaic and Roman rule. 11. CONTRIBUTION TO NEW TESTAMENT STUDY:

It is not necessary to point out the value of all this for Biblical and especially New Testament study. The papyri have already made a valuable contribution to textual materials of both Old Testament and New Testament. For other early Christian literature their testimony has been of surprising interest (the Oxyrhynchus Logia and Gospel fragments). The discovery of a series of uncial manuscripts running through six centuries back of the Codex Vaticanus bridges the gap between what were our earliest uncials and the hand of the inscriptions, and puts us in a better position than ever before to fix the dates of uncial manuscripts. Minuscule or cursire hands, too, so common in New Testament manuscripts of the 10th and later centuries, appear in a new light when it is seen that such writing was not a late invention arising out of the uncial, but had existed side by side with it from at least the 4th century BC, as the ordinary, as distinguished from the literary, or book, hand. See WRITING. The lexical contribution of these documentary papyri, too, is already considerable, and is likely to be very great. Like the New Testament writings, they reflect the common as distinguished from the literary language of the times, and words which had appeared exceptional or unknown in Greek literature are now shown to have been in common use. The problems of New Testament syntax are similarly illuminated. Specific historical notices sometimes light up dark points in the New Testament, as in a British Museum decree of Gaius Vibius Maximus, prefect of Egypt (104 AD), ordering all who are out of their districts to return to their own homes in view of the approaching census (compare Luke 2:1-5). Most important of all is the contribution of the papyri to a sympathetic knowledge of ancient life. They constitute a veritable gallery of New Testament characters. A strong light is sometimes thrown upon the social evils of the time, of which Paul and Juvenal wrote so sternly. The child, the prodigal, the thief, the host with his invitations, the steward with his accounts, the thrifty householder, the soldier on service receiving his viaticum, or retired as a veteran upon his farm, the Jewish money-lender, the husbandman, and the publican, besides people in every domestic relation, we meet at first hand in the papyri which they themselves in many cases have written. The worth of this for the historical interpretation of the New Testament is very great. 12. CHIEF COLLECTIONS:

The principal collections of Greek papyri with their editors are Schow, Herculaneurn Papyri; Peyron, Turin Papyri; Leemans, Leyden Papyri; Wessely, Rainer and Paris Papyri; Kenyon and Bell, British Museum Papyri; Mahaffy and Smyly, Pettie Papyri; Grenfell and Hunt, Oxyrhynchus, Amherst and Hibeh Papyri (with Hogarth), Faytum Papyri, and (with Smyly and Goodspeed) Tebtunis Papyri; Hunt, Rylands Papyri; Nicole, Geneva Papyri; Krebs, Wilcken, Viereck, Schubart and others, Berlin Papyri; Meyer, Hamburg and Giessen Papyri; Deissmann, Heidelberg Papyri; Vitelli and Comparetti, Florence Papyri; Mitteis, Leipzig Papyri; Preisigke, Strassburg Papyri; Reinach, Paris Papyri; Jouguet and Lesquier, Lille Papyri; Rubensohn, Elephantine Papyri; Maspero, Cairo Papyri; Goodspeed, Cairo and Chicago Papyri. The Munich papyri have been described by Wilcken. Milligan’s Greek Papyri, Kenyon’s Paleography of Greek Papyri, and Deissmann’s Light from the Ancient East are useful introductions to the general subject. Mayser has prepared a Grammatik der Ptolemaischen Papyri. 13. COPTIC, ARABIC, AND OTHER PAPYRI:

Coptic, Arabic, Hebrew, and Demotic papyri are numerous; even Latin papyri are found. The Coptic have already made important contributions to early Christian literature. A considerable Coptic fragment of the Acts of Paul, and a Coptic (Akhmimic) codex of 1 Clement, almost complete, have recently been published by Carl Schmidt. Another much mutilated papyrus of 1 Clement, with James, complete, is at Strassburg. A Coptic text of Proverbs has been brought to Berlin from the same source which supplied the Clement codex (the White Convent, near Akhmim); indeed, Biblical papyri in Coptic are fairly numerous, and patristic literature is being rapidly enriched by such discoveries of Coptic papyri, e.g. the Deuteronomy, Jonah; Acts papyrus, 1912 (compare the Sahidic New Testament, Oxford, 1911).

Arabic papyri first began to appear from Egypt in 1825, when three Arabic pieces were brought to Paris and published by Silvestre de Sacy. Two others, from the 7th century, were published by him in 1827. It was not until the great papyrus finds of 1877-1878, however, that any considerable number of Arabic papyri found their way into Europe. The chief collections thus far formed are at Vienna (Rainer Collection), Berlin and Cairo. Becker has published the Schott-Reinhardt Arabic papyri at Heidelberg, and Karabacek has worked upon those at Vienna. They belong of course to the period after the Arabic conquest, 640 AD. Edgar J. Goodspeed PAPYRUS, VESSELS OF See SHIPS AND BOATS, II, 2, (1).

PARABLE <par’-a-b’-l > : 1. NAME:

Etymologically the word “parable” ([paraba>llw, paraballo ]) signifies a placing of two or more objects together, usually for the purpose of a comparison. In this widest sense of the term there is practically no difference between parable and simile (see Thayer, Dictionary of New Testament Greek, under the word). This is also what substantially some of Christ’s parables amount to, which consist of only one comparison and in a single verse (compare Matthew 13:33,44-46). In the more usual and technical sense of the word, “parable” ordinarily signifies an imaginary story, yet one that in its details could have actually transpired, the purpose of the story being to illustrate and inculcate some higher spiritual truth.

These features differentiate it from other and similar figurative narratives as also from actual history. The similarity between the last-mentioned and a parable is sometimes so small that exegetes have differed in the interpretation of certain pericopes. A characteristic example of this uncertainty is the story of Dives and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31. The problem is of a serious nature, as those who regard this as actual history are compelled to interpret each and every statement, including too the close proximity of heaven and hell and the possibility of speaking from one place to the other, while those who regard it as a parable can restrict their interpretation to the features that constitute the substance of the story. It differs again from the fable, in so far as the latter is a story that could not actually have occurred (e.g. Judges 9:8 ff; 2 Kings 14:9; Ezekiel 17:2 f). The parable is often described as an extended metaphor. The etymological features of the word, as well as the relation of parables to other and kindred devices of style, are discussed more fully by Ed. Koenig, in HDB, III, 660 ff. 2. HISTOTICAL DATA:

Although Christ employed the parable as a means of inculcating His message more extensively and more effectively than any other teacher, He did not invent the parable. It was His custom in general to take over from the religious and linguistic world of thought in His own day the materials that He employed to convey the higher and deeper truths of His gospels, giving them a world of meaning they had never before possessed. Thus, e.g. every petition of the Lord’s Prayer can be duplicated in the Jewish liturgies of the times, yet on Christ’s lips these petitions have a significance they never had or could have for the Jews. The term “Word” for the second person in the Godhead is an adaptation from the Logos-idea in contemporaneous religious thought, though not specifically of Philo’s.

Baptism, regeneration, and kindred expressions of fundamental thoughts in the Christian system, are terms not absolutely new (compare Deutsch, article “Talmud” Literary Remains) The parable was employed both in the Old Testament and in contemporaneous Jewish literature (compare e.g. 2 Samuel 12:1-4; Isaiah 5:1-6; 28:24-28, and for details see Koenig’s article, loc. cit.). Jewish and other non-Biblical parables are discussed and illustrated by examples in Trench’s Notes on the Parables of our Lord, introductory essay, chapter iv: “On Other Parables besides Those in the Scriptures.” 3. CHRIST’S USE OF PARABLES:

The one and only teacher of parables in the New Testament is Christ Himself. The Epistles, although they often employ rhetorical allegories and similes, make absolutely no use of the parable, so common in Christ’s pedagogical methods. The distribution of these in the Canonical Gospels is unequal, and they are strictly confined to the three Synoptic Gospels. Mark again has only one peculiar to this book, namely, the Seed Growing in Secret ( Mark 4:26), and he gives only three others that are found also in Matthew and Luke, namely the Sower, the Mustard Seed, and the Wicked Husbandman, so that the bulk of the parables are found in the First and the Third Gospels. Two are common to Matthew and Luke, namely the Leaven ( Matthew 13:33; Luke 13:21) and the Lost Sheep ( Matthew 18:12; Luke 15:3 ff). Of the remaining parables,18 are found only in Luke and 10 only in Matthew. Luke’s 18 include some of the finest, namely, the Two Debtors, the Good Samaritan, the Friend at Midnight, the Rich Fool, the Watchful Servants, the Barren Fig Tree, the Chief Seats, the Great Supper, the Rash Builder, the Rash King, the Lost Coin, the Lost Son, the Unrighteous Steward, the Rich Man and Lazarus, the Unprofitable Servants, the Unrighteous Judge, the Pharisee and Publican, and the Pounds. The 10 peculiar to Matthew are the Tares, the Hidden Treasure, the Pearl of Great Price, the Draw Net, the Unmerciful Servant, the Laborers in the Vineyard, the Two Sons, the Marriage of the King’s Son, the Ten Virgins, and the Talents. There is some uncertainty as to the exact number of parables we have from Christ, as the Marriage of the King’s Son is sometimes regarded as a different recension of the Great Supper, and the Talents of the Pounds. Other numberings are suggested by Trench, Julicher and others. 4. PURPOSE OF CHRIST IN USING PARABLES:

It is evident from such passages as Matthew 13:10 ff (compare Mark 4:10; Luke 8:9) that Christ did not in the beginning of His career employ the parable as a method of teaching, but introduced it later.

This took place evidently during the 2nd year of His public ministry, and is closely connected with the changes which about that time He made in His attitude toward the people in general. It evidently was Christ’s purpose at the outset to win over, if possible, the nation as a whole to His cause and to the gospel; when it appeared that the leaders and the great bulk of the people would not accept Him for what He wanted to be and clung tenaciously to their carnal Messianic ideas and ideals, Christ ceased largely to appeal to the masses, and, by confining His instructions chiefly to His disciples and special friends, saw the necessity of organizing an ecclesiola in ecclesia, which was eventually to develop into the world-conquering church. One part of this general withdrawal of Christ from a proclamation of His gospel to the whole nation was this change in His method of teaching and the adoption of the parable. On that subject He leaves no doubt, according to Matthew 13:11 ff; Mark 4:12; Luke 8:10.

The purpose of the parable is both to reveal and to conceal the truth. It was to serve the first purpose in the case of the disciples, the second in the case of the uncleserving Jews. Psychologically this difference, notwithstanding the acknowledged inferiority in the training and education of the disciples, especially as compared with the scribes and lawyers, is not hard to understand. A simple-minded Christian, who has some understanding of the truth, can readily understand figurative illustrations of this truth, which would be absolute enigmas even to an educated Hindu or Chinaman. The theological problem involved is more difficult. Yet it is evident that we are not dealing with those who have committed the sin against the Holy Ghost, for whom there is no possibility of a return to grace, according to Hebrews 6:4-10; 10:26 (compare Matthew 12:31,32; Mark 3:28-30), and who accordingly could no longer be influenced by an appeal of the gospel, and we have rather before us those from whom Christ has determined to withdraw the offer of redemption — whether temporarily or definitely and finally, remaining an open question — according to His policy of not casting pearls before the swine. The proper sense of these passages can be ascertained only when we remember that in Mark 4:12 and Luke 8:10, the [ I[na, hina ], need not express purpose, but that this particle is used here to express mere result only, as is clear too from the passage in Matthew 13:13, where the [o[ti, hoti ], is found. The word is to be withheld from these people, so that this preaching would not bring about the ordinary results of conversion and forgiveness of sins. Hence, Christ now adopts a method of teaching that will hide the truth from all those who have not yet been imbued by it, and this new method is that of the parable. 5. INTERPRETATION OF THE PARABLES:

The principles for the interpretation of the parables, which are all intended primarily and in the first place for the disciples, are furnished by the nature of the parable itself and by Christ’s own method of interpreting some of them. The first and foremost thing to be discovered is the scope or the particular spiritual truth which the parable is intended to convey. Just what this scope is may be stated in so many words, as is done, e.g., by the introductory words to that of the Pharisee and the Publican. Again the scope may be learned from the occasion of the parable, as the question of Peter in Matthew 18:21 gives the scope of the following parable, and the real purpose of the Prodigal Son parable in Luke 15:11 ff is not the story of this young man himself, but is set over against the murmuring of the Pharisees because Christ received publicans and sinners, in 15:1 and 2, to exemplify the all-forgiving love of the Father. Not the Son but the Father is in the foreground in this parable, which fact is also the connecting link between the two parts. Sometimes the scope can be learned only from an examination of the details of the parable itself and then may be all the more uncertain.

A second principle of the interpretation of the parables is that a sharp distinction must be made between what the older interpreters called the body (corpus) and the soul (anima) of the story; or, to use other expressions, between the shell or bark (cortex) and the marrow (medulla).

Whatever serves only the purpose of the story is the “ornamentation” of the parable, and does not belong to the substance. The former does not call for interpretation or higher spiritual lesson; the latter does. This distinction between those parts of the parable that are intended to convey spiritual meanings and those which are to be ignored in the interpretation is based on Christ’s own interpretation of the so-called parabolae perfectae. Christ Himself, in Matthew 13:18 ff, interprets the parable of the Sower, yet a number of data, such as the fact that there are four, and not more or fewer kinds of land, and others, are discarded in this explanation as without meaning. Again in His interpretation of the Tares among the Wheat in Matthew 13:36 ff, a number of details of the original parable are discarded as meaningless.

Just which details are significant and which are meaningless in a parable is often hard, sometimes impossible to determine, as the history of their exegesis amply shows. In general it can be laid down as a rule, that those features which illustrate the scope of the parable belong to its substance, and those which do not, belong to the ornamentation. But even with this rule there remain many exegetical cruces or difficulties. Certain, too, it is that not all of the details are capable of interpretation. Some are added of a nature that indeed illustrate the story as a story, but, from the standpoint of Christian morals, are more than objectionable. The Unjust Steward in using his authority to make the bills of the debtors of his master smaller may be a model, in the shrewd use of this world’s goods for his purpose, that the Christian may follow in making use of his goods for his purposes, but the action of the steward itself is incapable of defense. Again, the man who finds in somebody else’s property a pearl of great price but conceals this fact from the owner of the land and quietly buys this ground may serve as an example to show how much the kingdom of God is worth, but from an ethical standpoint his action cannot be sanctioned. In general, the parable, like all other forms of figurative expression, has a meaning only as far as the tertium comparationis goes, that is, the third thing which is common to the two things compared. But all this still leaves a large debatable ground in many parables. In the Laborers in the Vineyard does the “penny” mean anything, or is it an ornament? The history of the debate on this subject is long. In the Prodigal Son do all the details of his sufferings, such as eating the husks intended for swine, have a spiritual meaning? 6. DOCTRINAL VALUE OF THE PARABLES:

The interpreters of former generations laid down the rule, theologia parabolica non eat argumentativa, i.e. the parables, very rich in mission thoughts, do not furnish a basis for doctrinal argument. Like all figurative expressions and forms of thought, the parables too contain elements of doubt as far as their interpretation is concerned. They illustrate truth but they do not prove or demonstrate truth. Omnia aimilia claudicunt, “all comparisons limp,” is applicable here also. No point of doctrine can be established on figurative passages of Scripture, as then all elements of doubt would not be eliminated, this doubt being based on the nature of language itself. The argumentative or doctrinal value of parables is found in this, that they may, in accordance with the analogy of Scripture, illustrate truth already clearly expressed elsewhere. Compare especially Trench, introductory essay, in Notes on the Parables of our Lord, chapter iii., 30- 43; and Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics, Part II, chapter vi: “Interpretation of Parables,” 188-213, in which work a full bibliography is given. Compare also the article “Parabel” in Hauck-Herzog, Realencyklopadie fur protestantische Theologie und Kirche. G.H. Schodde PARACLETE <par’-a-klet > : 1. WHERE USED:

This word occurs 5 times in the New Testament, all in the writings of John.

Four instances are in the Gospel and one in the First Epistle. In the Gospel the in the Epistle,1 John 2:1. “Paraclete” is simply the Greek word transferred into English. The translation of the word in English Versions of the Bible is “Comforter” in the Gospel, and “Advocate” in the Epistle. The Greek word is [para>klhtov, parakletos ], froth the verb [parakale>w, parakaleo ]. The word for “Paraclete” is passive in form, and etymologically signifies “called to one’s side.” The active form of the word is [paraklh>twr, parakletor ], not found in the New Testament but found in Septuagint in Job 16:2 in the plural, and means “comforters,” in the saying of Job regarding the “miserable comforters” who came to him in his distress. 2. GENERAL MEANING:

In general the word signifies: (1) a legal advocate, or counsel for defense, (2) an intercessor, (3) a helper, generally.

The first, or technical, judicial meaning is that which predominates in classical usage, corresponding to our word “advocate,” “counsel,” or “attorney.” The corresponding Latin word is advocatus, “advocate,” the word applied to Christ in English Versions of the Bible in the translation of the Greek word parakletos , in 1 John 2:1. There is some question whether the translation “Comforter” in the passages of John’s Gospel in the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) is warranted by the meaning of the word. It is certain that the meaning “comforter” is not the primary signification, as we have seen. It is very probably, however, a secondary meaning of the word, and some of its cognates clearly convey the idea of comfort in certain connections, both in Septuagint and in the New Testament ( Genesis 37:35; Zechariah 1:13; Matthew 5:4; 2 Corinthians 1:3,4). In the passage in Corinthians the word in one form or another is used 5 times and in each means “comfort.” In none of these instances, however, do we find the noun “Paraclete,” which we are now considering. 3. IN THE TALMUD AND TARGUMS:

Among Jewish writers the word “Paraclete” came to have a number of meanings. A good deed was called a paraclete or advocate, and a transgression was an accuser. Repentance and good works were called paracletes: “The works of benevolence and mercy done by the people of Israel in this world become agents of peace and intercessors (paracletes ) between them and their Father in heaven.” The sin offering is a paraclete; the paraclete created by each good deed is called an angel (Jewish Encyclopedia, IX, 514-15, article “Paraclete”). 4. AS EMPLOYED BY PHILO:

Philo employs the word in several instances. Usually he does not use it in the legal, technical sense. Joseph is represented as bestowing forgiveness on his brethren who had wronged him and declaring that they needed “no one else as paraclete,” or intercessor (Deuteronomy Joseph c. 40). In his Life of Moses, iii.14, is a remarkable passage which indicates Philo’s spiritualizing methods of interpreting Scripture as well as reflects his philosophic tendency. At the close of a somewhat elaborate account of the emblematic significance of the vestments of the high priest and their jeweled decorations, his words are: “The twelve stones arranged on the breast in four rows of three stones each, namely, the logeum, being also an emblem of that reason which holds together and regulates the universe. For it was indispensable (anagkaion ) that the man who was consecrated to the Father of the world should have, as a paraclete, his son, the being most perfect in all virtue, to procure the forgiveness of sins, and a supply of unlimited blessings.” This is rather a striking verbal or formal parallel to the statement in 1 John 2:1 where Christ is our Advocate with the Father, although of course Philo’s conceptions of the Divine “reason” and “son” are by no means the Christian conceptions. 5. THE BEST TRANSLATION:

If now we raise the question what is the best translation of the term “Paraclete” in the New Testament, we have a choice of several words. Let us glance at them in order. The translation “Comforter” contains an element of the meaning of the word as employed in the Gospels, and harmonizes with the usage in connection with its cognates, but it is too narrow in meaning to be an adequate translation. Dr. J. Hastings in an otherwise excellent article on the Paraclete in HDB says the Paraclete was not sent to comfort the disciples, since prior to His actual coming and after Christ’s promise the disciples’ sorrow was turned into joy. Dr. Hastings thinks the Paraclete was sent to cure the unbelief or half-belief of the disciples. But this conceives the idea of comfort in too limited a way. No doubt in the mind of Jesus the comforting aspect, of the Spirit’s work applied to all their future sorrows and trials, and not merely to comfort for their personal loss in the going of Christ to the Father. Nevertheless there was more in the work of the Paraclete than comfort in sorrow. “Intercessor” comes nearer the root idea of the term and contains an essential part of the meaning. “Advocate” is a closely related word, and is also suggestive of the work of the Spirit. Perhaps there is no English word broad enough to cover all the significance of the word “Paraclete” except the word “Helper.” The Spirit helps the disciples in all the above-indicated ways. Of course the objection to this translation is that it is too indefinite.

The specific Christian conception is lost in the comprehensiveness of the term. Our conclusion, therefore, is that the term “Paraclete” itself would perhaps be the best designation of the Spirit in the passage in John’s Gospel. It would thus become a proper name for the Spirit and the various elements of meaning would come to be associated with the words which are found in the context of the Gospel.

Christianity introduced many new ideas into the world for which current terms were inadequate media of expression. In some cases it is best to adopt the Christian term itself, in our translations, and let the word slowly acquire its own proper significance in our thought and life. If, however, instead of translating we simply transfer the word “Paraclete” as a designation of the Holy Spirit in the Gospel passages, we would need then to translate it in the passage in the Epistle where it refers to Christ. But this would offer no serious difficulty. For fortunately in the Epistle the word may very clearly be translated “Advocate” or “Intercessor.” 6. CHRIST’S USE OF THE WORD:

We look next at the contents of the word as employed by Jesus in reference to the Holy Spirit. In John 14:16 the Paraclete is promised as one who is to take the place of Jesus. It is declared elsewhere by Jesus that it is expedient that He go away, for unless He go away the Paraclete will not come ( John 16:7). Is the Paraclete, then, the successor or the substitute for Christ as He is sometimes called? The answer is that He is both and neither. He is the successor of Christ historically, but not in the sense that Christ ceases to act in the church. He is the substitute for Christ’s physical presence, but only in order that He may make vital and actual Christ’s spiritual presence. As we have seen, the Paraclete moves only in the range of truths conveyed in and through Christ as the historical manifestation of God. A “Kingdom of the Spirit,” therefore, is impossible in the Christian sense, save as the historical Jesus is made the basis of the Spirit’s action in history. The promise of Jesus in 14:18, “I come unto,” is parallel and equivalent in meaning with the preceding promise of the Paraclete. The following are given as the specific forms of activity of the Holy Spirit: (1) to show them the things of Christ, (2) to teach them things to come, (3) to teach them all things, (4) to quicken their memories for past teaching, (5) to bear witness to Christ, (6) to dwell in believers, (7) other things shown in the context such as “greater works” than those of Christ (see John 14:16,17), (8) to convict of sin, of righteousness and judgment. It is possible to range the shades of meaning outlined above under these various forms of the Spirit’s activity.

As Comforter His work would come under (1) , (2) , (3) and (6) ; as Advocate and Intercessor under (6) , (7) , (8) ; as Helper and Teacher under (1) , (2) , (3) , (4) , (5) , (6) , (7) , (8) .

The manner of the sending of the Paraclete is of interest. In John 14:16 the Paraclete comes in answer to Christ’s prayer. The Father will give the Spirit whom the world cannot receive. In John 14:26 the Father will send the Spirit in Christ’s name. Yet in 15:26 Christ says, “I will send (him) unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth,” and in 16:7, “If I go, I will send him unto you.” See HOLY SPIRIT. 7. AS APPLIED TO CHRIST:

It remains to notice the passage in 1 John 2:1 where the term “Paraclete” is applied to Christ: “If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous”; 2:2 reads: “and he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world.” Here the meaning is quite clear and specific. Jesus Christ the righteous is represented as our Advocate or Intercessor with the Father.

His righteousness is set over against our sin. Here the Paraclete, Christ, is He who, on the basis of His propitiatory offering for the sins of men, intercedes for them with God and thus averts from them the penal consequences of their transgressions. The sense in which Paraclete is here applied to Christ is found nowhere in the passages we have cited from the Gospel. The Holy Spirit as Paraclete is Intercessor or Advocate, but not in the sense here indicated. The Spirit as Paraclete convicts the world of sin, of righteousness and judgment. Jesus Christ as Paraclete vindicates believers before God.

LITERATURE.

Grimm-Thayer, Gr-Eng. Lexicon of the New Testament; Cremer, Biblico- Theol. Lexicon; HDB, article “Paraclete”; DCG, article “Paraclete”; EB, article “Paraclete”; Jew Encyclopedia, article “Paraclete”; Hare, Mission of the Comforter; Pearson, On the Creed; Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers; various comms., Westcott, Godet and others. See list of books appended to article on HOLY SPIRIT.

E. Y. Mulhns PARADISE <par’-a-dis > ([ sDeriP” , pardec ]; [para>deisov, paradeisos ]): 1. ORIGIN AND MEANING:

A word probably of Persian origin meaning a royal park. See GARDEN.

The word occurs in the Hebrew Scriptures but 3 times: Song of Solomon 4:13, where it is translated “an orchard”; Nehemiah 2:8, where it is translated “a forest” (the Revised Version margin “park”); Ecclesiastes 2:5, where it is in the plural number (the King James Version “orchards,” the Revised Version (British and American) “parks”).

But it was early introduced into the Greek language, being made specially familiar by Xenophon upon his return from the expedition of Cyrus the Younger to Babylonia (see Anab. i.2, section 7; 4, section 9; Cyrop. i.3, section 14). In Septuagint the word is of frequent use in translating other terms of kindred significance. The Garden of Eden became “the paradise of pleasure or luxury” ( Genesis 2:15; 3:23; Joel 2:3). The valley of the Jordan became `the paradise of God’ ( Genesis 13:10). In Ezekiel 31:8,9, according to Septuagint, there is no tree in the `paradise of God’ equal to that which in the prophet’s vision symbolizes the glory of Assyria.

The figures in the first 9 verses of this chapter may well have been suggested by what the prophet had himself seen of parks in the Persian empire. 2. USE IN JEWISH LITERATARE:

In the apocryphal and pseudepigraphical literature the word is extensively used in a spiritual and symbolia sense, signalizing the place of happiness to be inherited by the righteous in contrast to Gehenna, the place of punishment to which the wicked were to be assigned. In the later Jewish literature “Sheol” is represented as a place where preliminary rewards and punishments are bestowed previous to the final judgment ( see APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE; ESCHATOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT; and compare 2 Esdras 2:19; 8:52). But the representations in this literature are often vague and conflicting, some holding that there were 4 divisions in Sheol, one for those who were marryred for righteousness’ sake, one for sinners who on earth had paid the penalty for their sins, one for the just who had not suffered martyrdom, and one for sinners who had not been punished on earth (En 102:15). But among the Alexandrian Jews the view prevailed that the separation of the righteous from the wicked took place immediately after death (see The Wisdom of Solomon 3:14; 4:10; 5:5,17; Josephus, Ant, XVIII, i, 3; B J, II, viii, 14).

This would seem to be the idea underlying the use of the word in the New Testament where it occurs only 3 times, and then in a sense remarkably free from sensuous suggestions. 3. USED BY CHRIST:

Christ uses the word but once ( Luke 23:43), when He said to the penitent thief, “Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise” ( see ABRAHAM’S BOSOM (compare HADES)). This was no time to choose words with dialectical precision. The consolation needed by the penitent thief suffering from thirst and agony and shame was such as was symbolized by the popular conception of paradise, which, as held by the Essenes, consisted of “habitations beyond the ocean, in a region that is neither oppressed with storms of rain, or snow, or with intense heat, but that this place is such as is refreshed by the gentle breathin of a west wind, that is perpetually blowing from the ocean” (Josephus, BJ, II, viii, 11). See ESCHATOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 4. OTHER FORMS AND USES:

Nowhere in His public teaching did Christ use the word “Paradise.” He does indeed, when speaking in parables, employ the figure of the marriage supper, and of new wine, and elsewhere of Abraham’s bosom, and of houses not made by hands, eternal in the heavens; but all these references are in striking contrast to the prevailing sensuous representations of the times (see 2 Esdras 2:19; 8:52), and such as have been introduced into Mohammedan literature. Likewise Paul ( 2 Corinthians 12:4) speaks of having been “caught up into Paradise” where he “heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.” See ESCHATOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. But in 2 Corinthians 12:2 this is referred to more vaguely as “the third heaven.” In Revelation 2:7 it is said to the members of the church at Ephesus who should overcome, “I (will) give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the Paradise of God,” where the Eden of Genesis 2:8 is made the symbol of the abode of the righteous, more fully described without the words in the last chapter of the book. The reticence of the sacred writers respecting this subject is in striking contrast to the profuseness and crudity both of rabbinical writers before Christ and of apocryphal writers and Christian commentators at a later time. “Where the true Gospels are most reticent, the mythical are most exuberant” (Perowne). This is especially noticeable in the Gospel of Nicodemus, the Acta Philippi, the writings of Tertullian (Deuteronomy Idol. c. 13; Deuteronomy Anim. c. 55; Tertullian’s treatise Deuteronomy Paradiso is lost), Clement of Alexandria (Frag. 51), and John of Damascus (Deuteronomy Orthod. Fid., ii, 11). In modern literature the conception of Paradise is effectually sublimated and spiritualized in Faber’s familiar hymn: “O Paradise, O Paradise, I greatly long to see The special place my dearest Lord Is destining for me; Where loyal hearts and true Stand ever in the light, All rapture thro’ and thro’, In God’s most holy sight.” LITERATURE.

The articles in the great Dicts., especially Herzog, RE; HDB; Alger, Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life; Schodde, Book of Enoch; Lightfoot, Hor. Hebrews. on Luke 23:43; Salmond, The Christian Doctrine of Immortality, 346 ff. For a good account of Jewish and patristic speculation on Paradise, see Professor Plumptre’s article in Smith’s D.B, II, 704 ff. G. F. Wright PARAH <pa’-ra > , <par’-a > ([ hr;P;h” , ha-parah ]; Codex Vaticanus [ Fara>, Phara ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ jAfa>r, Aphar ]): A city named as in the territory of Benjamin between Avvim and Ophrah ( Joshua 18:23). It may with some confidence be identified with Farah on Wady Farah , which runs into Wady Suweinit , about 3 miles Northeast of `Anata .

PARALYSIS, PARALYTIC <pa-ral’-i-sis > , <par-alit’-ik > . See PALSY.

PARAMOUR <par’-a-moor > ([ vg,L,P, pilleghesh ], “a concubine,” masculine or feminine): A term applied in Ezekiel 23:20 to the male lover, but elsewhere translated “concubine.”

PARAN, EL-PARAN <pa’-ran > , ([ ˆr;aP; , pa’ran ], [ ˆr;aP; , ‘el-pa’ran ]; [ Fara>n, Pharan ]): (1) El-paran ( Genesis 14:6) was the point farthest South reached by the kings. Septuagint renders [ lyae , ‘el ] by [tere>binqov, terebinthos ], and reads, “unto the terebinth of Paran.” The evidence is slender, but it is not unreasonable to suppose that this is the place elsewhere ( Deuteronomy 2:8; 1 Kings 9:26, etc.) called Elath or Eloth ([ lya , ‘el ] with feminine termination), a seaport town which gave its name to the Aelanitic Gulf (modern Gulf of `Aqaba ), not far from the wilderness of Paran (2) . (2) Many places named in the narrative of the wanderings lay within the Wilderness of Paran ( Numbers 10:12; 13:21; 27:14; compare 13:3,16, etc.). It is identified with the high limestone plateau of Ettih, stretching from the Southwest of the Dead Sea to Sinai along the west side of the Arabah. This wilderness offered hospitality to Ishmael when driven from his father’s tent ( Genesis 21:21). Hither also came David when bereaved of Samuel’s protection ( 1 Samuel 25:1). (3) Mount Paran ( Deuteronomy 33:2; Habakkuk 3:3) may be either Jebel Maqrah, 29 miles South of `Ain Kadis (Kadesh-barnea), and 130 miles North of Sinai (Palmer, Desert of the Exodus, 510); or the higher and more imposing range of mountains West of the Gulf of `Aqaba. This is the more probable if El-paran is rightly identified with Elath. (4) Some place named Paran would seem to be referred to in Deuteronomy 1:1; but no trace of such a city has yet been found. Paran in 1 Kings 11:18 doubtless refers to the district West of the Arabah. W. Ewing PARBAR <par’-bar > ([ rB;r]P” , parbar ] ( 1 Chronicles 26:18), and [ µyrw;r]P” , parwarim ], translated “precincts” (the King James Version “suburbs” in 2 Kings 23:11); Septuagint [farourei>m, pharoureim ]): In Chronicles 26:18 reference is made to the position of the gatekeepers, “for Parbar westward, four at the causeway, and two at Parbar.” The word is supposed to be of Persian origin, connected with Parwar, meaning “possessing light,” and hence, the meaning has been suggested of “colonnade” or “portico,” some place open to the light. In the plural form ( 2 Kings 23:11) the situation of the house of “Nathan-melech” is described, and the translation, “in the colonnades,” should, if the above origin is accepted, be more correct than English Versions of the Bible. It is difficult to understand the occurrence of a Persian word at this time, and it has been suggested (EB, col 3585) that the word is a description of the office of Nathan-melech, ba-parwarim being a misreading for ba-peradhim, meaning “who was over the mules.” E. W. G. Masterman PARCEL <par’-sel > : Properly “a little part,” in Elizabethan English being used in almost any sense. In the King James Version of Genesis 33:19; Joshua 24:32; Ruth 4:3; 1 Chronicles 11:13,14 it is the translation of [ hq;l]j, , chelqah ]; John 4:5 of [cwri>on, chorion ] — both the Greek and Hebrew words meaning a “piece of land.” the Revised Version (British and American) writes “plot” in 1 Chronicles 11:13,14, but if the change was needed at all, it should have been made throughout.

PARCHED <parcht > : Four different root words have been translated “parched” in English Versions of the Bible: (1) [ hl;q; , qalah ], “roasted.” This word is applied to corn or pulse. It is a common practice in Palestine and Syria to roast the nearly ripe wheat for eating as a delicacy. A handful of heads of fully developed grain, with the stalks still attached, are gathered and bound together and then, holding the bunch by the lower ends of the stalks, the heads are toasted over a fire of straw or thorn bush. By the time most of the sheaths are blackened the grain is toasted, and, after rubbing off the husks between the hands, is ready to eat ( Leviticus 2:14). A form of pulse is toasted in the same way and is more sought after than the grain. In the larger towns and cities, venders go about the streets selling bunches of toasted chick-peas. The Bible references, however, are probably to another form of roasted grain.

The threshed wheat or pulse is roasted over a fire on an iron pan or on a fiat stone, being kept in constant motion with a stirrer until the operation is finished. The grain thus prepared is a marketable article. Parched grain is not now so commonly met with as the pulse, which either roasted or unroasted is called chommoc (from Arabic “to roast” or “parch”). Parched pulse is eaten not only plain, but is often made into confection by coating the seeds with sugar. In Bible times parched wheat or pulse was a common food, even taking the place of bread ( Leviticus 23:14; Joshua 5:11; Ruth 2:14). It was a useful food supply for armies, as it required no further cooking ( 1 Samuel 17:17). It was frequently included in gifts or hostages ( 1 Samuel 25:18; 2 Samuel 17:28). (2) [ rrej; , charer ], “burned” or “parched” (compare Arabic chariq, “burned”), is used in the sense of dried up or arid in Jeremiah 17:6. (3) [ hj,xi , tsicheh ], is used in Isaiah 5:13, the King James Version “dried up” the Revised Version (British and American) “parched” [ hj;yjix] , tsechichah ] in Psalm 68:6, the King James Version “dry,” the Revised Version (British and American) “parched.” (4) [ br;v; , sharabh ], rendered “parched” in the King James Version, is “glowing” in the Revised Version (British and American). The word implies the peculiar wavy effect of the air above parched ground, usually accompanied by mirages (compare Arabic serdb, “mirage”) ( Isaiah 35:7; 49:10). In predicting a happy future for Zion the prophet could have chosen no greater contrast than that the hot glowing sands which produce illusive water effects should be changed into real pools. See MIRAGE.

James A. Patch PARCHED CORN (GRAIN) <parcht > . See FOOD.

PARCHMENT <parch’-ment > ([membra>na, membrana ] ( 2 Timothy 4:13)): The word “parchment “which occurs only once ( 2 Timothy 4:13), is derived from Latin pergamena (Greek [ Pergamenh>, Pergamene ]), i.e. pertaining to Pergamum, the name of an ancient city in Asia Minor where, it is believed, parchment was first used. Parchment is made from the skins of sheep, goats or young calves. The hair and fleshy portions of the skin are removed as in tanning by first soaking in lime and then dehairing, scraping and washing. The skin is then stretched on a frame and treated with powdered chalk, or other absorptive agent, to remove the fatty substances, and is then dried. It is finally given a smooth surface by rubbing with powdered pumice. Parchment was extensively used at the time of the early Christians for scrolls, legal documents, etc., having replaced papyrus for that purpose.

It was no doubt used at even a much earlier time. The roll mentioned in Jeremiah 36 may have been of parchment. Scrolls were later replaced by codices of the same material. After the arabs introduced paper, parchment was still used for centuries for the book bindings. Diplomas printed on “sheepskins,” still issued by many universities, represent the survival of an ancient use of parchment. See following article. James A. Patch PARCHMENTS <parch’-ments > ([membra>nai, membranai ], “membranes,” “parchments,” “vellum”): The skins, chiefly of sheep, lambs, goats and calves, prepared so as to be used for writing on ( 2 Timothy 4:13).

In Greek and Roman times parchment was much employed as a writing material. “At Rome, in the 1st century BC, and the 1st and 2d centuries AD, there is evidence of the use of vellum, but only for notebooks and for rough drafts or inferior copies of literary works. .... A fragment of a vellum MS, which may belong to this period, is preserved in British Museum Add. manuscript 34,473, consisting of two leaves of Demosthenes, Deuteronomy Fals. Leg., in a small hand, which pears to be of the 2nd cent.” (F. G. Kenyon in HDB, IV, 947).

Paul directs Timothy that, when he comes from Ephesus to Rome, he is to bring “the books, especially the parchments.” These, as well as the “cloak,” which is also mentioned, had evidently been “left at Troas with Carpus.”

What were these parchments? They are distinguished from “the books,” which were probably a few choice volumes or rolls, some portions of the Scriptures of the Old Testament, some volumes of the Law of Moses or of the Prophets or of the Psalms. Among “the books” there might also be Jewish exegetical works, or heathen writings, with which, as is made evident by references in his Epistles, Paul was well acquainted.

The parchments were different from these, and were perhaps notebooks, in which the apostle had, from time to time, written what he had observed and wished to preserve as specially worthy of remembrance, facts which he had gathered in his study of the Old Testament or of other books. These notes may have been the result of many years’ reading and study, and he wished Timothy to bring them to him.

Various conjectures have been made in regard to the contents of “the parchments.” It has been suggested by Kenyon (HDB, III, 673) that they contained the Old Testament in Greek; by Farrar, that the parchments were a diploma of Paul’s Roman citizenship; by Bull, that they were his commonplace books; by Latham, that the parchments were a copy of the Grundschrift of the Gospels, a volume containing the all-important narrative of the Saviour’s life and cross and resurrection. Workman (Persecution in the Early Church , 39) writes: “By tas membranas I understand the proofs of his citizenship.”

Whatever their contents may have been, they were of such value that Paul wished to have them with him in his prison at Rome, so that, if life were spared for even a few weeks or months, the books and parchments might be at hand for reference. Perhaps in the fact that the books and the parchments and the cloak had been left at Troas with Carpus, there may be a hint that his final arrest by the Roman authorities took place at that city, and that was the suddenness of his arrest that caused him to be unable to carry his books and parchments and the cloak with him. “The police had not even allowed him time to find his overcoat or necessary documents” (Workman, op. cit., 39; see p. 1886, 14).

Be this as it may, he desired to have them now. His well-disciplined mind, even in the near prospect of death by public execution, could find the most joyous labor in the work of the gospel, wherever his influence reached, and could also find relaxation among “the books, especially the parchments.” John Rutherfurd PARDON <par’-d’n > , <par’-dun > . See FORGIVENESS.

PARE, (THE NAILS) <par > ([ hc;[; , `asah ], “to fix,” “manipulate”): The word, which in Hebrew has a very wide range of application, and which is of very frequent occurrence in the Hebrew Bible, is found in the above meaning in but one passage of English Versions of the Bible ( Deuteronomy 21:12; see NAIL). In a similar sense it is found in 2 Samuel 19:24, where it is used to express the dressing of the feet anti the trimming of the beard.

PARENT <par’-ent > . See CHILDREN; CRIMES; EDUCATION; FAMILY; PUNISHMENTS.

PARK <park > ([ sDer]P” , pardec ]; Septuagint [para>deisov, paradeisos ]; compare Arabic firdaus ): “I made me gardens and parks,” the King James Version “orchards” ( Ecclesiastes 2:5); “Asaph the keeper of the king’s forest,” the Revised Version margin “park” ( Nehemiah 2:8). The same word occurs in Song of Solomon 4:13, “Thy shoots are an orchard (the Revised Version margin “paradise”) of pomegranates.” according to Liddell and Scott, paradeisos occurs first in Xenophon, who always uses it of the parks of Persian kings and noblemen. Like many other quadriliterals the word is undoubtedly of eastern origin. It seems to connote an enclosure. It is used in Septuagint of the Garden of Eden. Compare Luke 23:43; 2 Corinthians 12:4; Revelation 2:7. See PARADISE.

Alfred Ely Day PARLOR <par’-ler > : This word in the King James Version, occurring in Judges 3:20-25; 1 Samuel 9:22; 1 Chronicles 28:11, is in every instance changed in the Revised Version: in Judges into “upper room,” in 1 Samuel into “guest-chamber,” in 1 Chronicles into “chambers,” representing as many Hebrew words. See HOUSE.

PARMASHTA <par-mash’-ta > ([ aT;v]m”r]P” , parmashta’ ]; Septuagint [ Marmasima>, Marmasima ], or [ Marmasimna>, Marmasimna ]): One of the sons of Haman (Est 9:9).

PARMENAS <par’-me-nas > ([ Parmena~v, Parmenas ]): A Greek name, an abbreviated form of Parmenides. Parmenas was one of “the seven” chosen by the people and appointed by the apostles to superintend the daily distribution to the Christian poor of Jerusalem ( Acts 6:5). Tradition states that he was martyred at Philippi, in the reign of Trajan, but his name does not appear again in Scripture.

PARNACH <par’-nak > ([ Ën;r]P” , parnakh ], “gifted”): Father of Elizaphan, the prince of Zebulun ( Numbers 34:25).

PAROSH <pa’-rosh, par’-osh > ([ v[r]P” , par`osh ], “flea” (leap)): a family that in part returned under Zerubbabel ( Ezra 2:3; Nehemiah 7:8), and in part under Ezra ( Ezra 8:3; there spelt “Pharosh,” the King James Version). Some of the family had foreign wives ( Ezra 10:25). One descendant, Pedaiah ( see PEDAIAH, (3)), helped to rebuild the city walls ( Nehemiah 3:25), and others were among those who “sealed” the covenant of Nehemiah ( Nehemiah 10:1,14). In 1 Esdras 5:9; 8:30; 9:26, “Phoros.”

PAROUSIA <pa-roo’-zhi-a > : 1. THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINE. 1. Terms: The Second Coming of Christ (a phrase not found in the Bible) is expressed by the apostles in the following special terms: (1) “Parousia” ([parousi>a, parousia ]) a word fairly common in Greek, with the meaning “presence” ( 2 Corinthians 10:10; Philippians 2:12).

More especially it may mean “presence after absence,” “arrival” (but not “return,” unless this is given by the context), as in 1 Corinthians 16:17; 2 Corinthians 7:6,7; Philippians 1:26. And still more particularly it is applied to the Coming of Christ in 1 Corinthians 15:23; Thessalonians 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23; 2 Thessalonians 2:1,8; James 5:7,8; 2 Peter 1:16; 3:4,12; 1 John 2:28 — in all 13 times, besides 2 Thessalonians 2:9, where it denotes the coming of Anti-christ. This word for Christ’s Second Coming passed into the early Patristic literature (Diognetus, vii.6, e.g.), but its use in this sense is not invariable. For instance the word in Ignatius, Philadelphians, ix.2, means the Incarnation.

Or the Incarnation is called the first Parousia, as in Justin, Trypho, xiv. But in modern theology it means invariably the Second Coming. Recent archaeological discoveries have explained why the word received such general Christian use in the special sense. In Hellenistic Greek it was used for the arrival of a ruler at a place, as is evidenced by inscriptions in Egypt, Asia Minor, etc. Indeed, in an Epidaurus inscription of the 3rd century BC (Dittenberger, Sylloge (2) , Number 803, 34), “Parousia” is applied to a manifestation of Aesculapius. Consequently, the adoption by the Greekspeaking Christians of a word that already contained full regal and even Divine concepts was perfectly natural. (The evidence is well summarized in Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East3, 372-78, German edition, 281- 87.) (2) “Epiphany” [ejpifa>neia, epiphaneia ]), “manifestation,” used of the Incarnation in 2 Timothy 1:10, but of the Second Coming in Thessalonians 2:8; 1 Timothy 6:14; 2 Timothy 4:1,8; Titus 2:13.

The word was used like Parousia in Hellenistic Greek to denote the ceremonial arrival of rulers; compare Deissmann, as above. (3) “Apocalypse” [ajpoka>luyiv, apokalupsis ]), “revelation,” denotes the Second Coming in 1 Corinthians 1:7; 2 Thessalonians 1:7; Peter 1:7,13; 4:13. (4) “Day of the Lord, more or less modified, but referring to Christ in Corinthians 1:8; 5:5; 2 Corinthians 1:14; Philippians 1:6,10; 2:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:2. The phrase is used of the Father in the strict Old Testament sense in Acts 2:20; 2 Peter 3:12; Revelation 1:6-14, and probably in 2 Peter 3:10. Besides, as in the Old Testament and the intermediate literature, “day of wrath,” “last day,” or simply “day” are used very frequently. See DAY OF THE LORD.

Of the first three of the above terms, only Parousia is found in the Gospels, 4 times, all in Matthew 24:3,17,37,39, and in the last three of these all in the set phrase “so shall be the Parousia of the Son of Man.” As Christ spoke in Aramaic, the use of “Parousia” here is of course due to Matthew’s adoption of the current Greek word. 2. Data and Sources: The last of the 4 terms above brings the apostolic doctrine of the Parousia into connection with the eschatology (Messianic or otherwise) of the Old Testament and of the intermediate writings. But the connection is far closer than that supplied by this single term only, for newly every feature in the apostolic doctrine can be paralleled directly from the Jewish sources. The following summary does not begin to give complete references to even such Jewish material as is extant, but enough is presented to show how closely allied are the eschatologies of Judaism and of early Christianity.

The end is not to be expected instantly. There are still signs to come to pass ( 2 Thessalonians 2:3), and in especial the determined number of martyrs must be filled up ( Revelation 6:11; compare 2 Esdras 4:35,36).

There is need of patience ( James 5:7, etc.; compare 2 Esdras 4:34; Baruch 83:4). But it is at hand ( 1 Peter 4:7; Revelation 1:3; 22:10; compare 2 Esdras 14:17). “Yet a little while” ( Hebrews 10:37), “The night is far spent” ( Romans 13:12), “The Lord is at hand” ( Philippians 4:5). “We that are alive” expect to see it ( Thessalonians 4:15; 1 Corinthians 15:51; compare Baruch 76:5); the time is shortened henceforth ( 1 Corinthians 7:29; compare Baruch 20:1; 2 Esdras 4:26, and the commentaries on 1 Corinthians). Indeed, there is hardly time for repentance even ( Revelation 22:11, ironical), certainly there is no time left for self-indulgence ( 1 Thessalonians 5:3; 1 Peter 4:2; 2 Peter 3:11; Revelation 3:3; compare Baruch 83:5), and watchfulness is urgently demanded ( 1 Thessalonians 5:6; Revelation 3:3).

An outpouring of the Spirit is a sign of the end ( Acts 2:17,18; compare Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Test. Levi 18:11; Sib Or 4:46, always after the consummation in the Jewish sources). But the world is growing steadily worse, for the godly and intense trials are coming (passim), although those especially favored may be spared suffering ( Revelation 3:10; compare Baruch 29:2). This is the beginning of Judgment ( 1 Peter 4:17; compare Enoch 99:10). Iniquity increases and false teachers are multiplied ( Jude 1:18; 2 Peter 3:3; 2 Timothy 3, especially 3:13; compare Enoch 80:7; Baruch 70:5; 2 Esdras 5:9,10). Above all there is to be an outburst of diabolic malevolence in the antichrist ( 1 John 2:18,22; 4:3; 2 John 1:7; 2 Thessalonians 2:8-10; Revelation 19:19; compare Baruch 36:8-10; Sib Or 3:63-70, and see ANTICHRIST), who will gather all nations to his ensign ( Revelation 19:19; Thessalonians 2:10 compare 2 Esdras 13:5; Enoch 56). Plagues fall upon men (Rev, passim; compare especially Philo, Execr.), and natural portents occur ( Acts 2:19,20; Rev, passim; compare 2 Esdras 5:4,5; Enoch 80:5- 8). But the conversion of the Jews ( Romans 11:26) is brought about by these plagues ( Revelation 11:13; in the Jewish sources, naturally, conversion of Gentiles, as in Sib Or 3:616-623; Enoch 10:21). Then Christ is manifested and Antichrist is slain or captured ( 2 Thessalonians 2:8; Revelation 19:20; compare 2 Esdras 13:10,11). In Revelation 20:3 the Millennium follows (compare 2 Esdras 7:28; 12; 34; Baruch 40:3, and often in rabbinical literature; the millennium in Slavic Enoch, chapter 33, is of very dubious existence), but other traces of millennial doctrine in the New Testament are of the vaguest (compare the commentaries to Corinthians 15:24, for instance, especially Schmiedel, J. Weiss, and Lietzmann, and see MILLENNIUM). The general resurrection follows ( see RESURRECTION for details).

The Father holds the Judgment in Hebrews 10:30; 12:23; 13:4; James 4:11,12; 1 Peter 1:17; Revelation 14:7; 20:11, and probably in Jude 1:14,15. Christ is Judge in Acts 10:42; Corinthians 5:10; 2 Timothy 4:1. The two concepts are interwoven in Romans 14:9,10. God mediates judgment through Christ in Acts 17:31; Romans 2:16, and probably in Romans 2:2-6; 3:6. In Thessalonians Christ appears as the executor of punishment. For similar uncertainties in the Jewish schemes, compare, for instance, 2 Esdras 7:33 and Enoch 45:3. For the fate of the wicked see ESCHATOLOGY; HELL; Paul, rather curiously, has very little to say about this ( Romans 2:3; 1 Corinthians 3:17; 2 Thessalonians 1:8,9). Then all Nature is renewed ( Romans 8:21; Enoch 45:4,5) or completely destroyed ( Corinthians 7:31; Hebrews 12:27; Revelation 21:1; compare Enoch 1:6; 2 Esdras 7:30); by fire in 2 Peter 3:10 (compare Sib Or 4:172-177), so as to leave only the eternal verities ( Hebrews 12:27; compare Esdras 7:30(?)), or to be replaced with a new heaven and a new earth ( Revelation 21:1; compare Slavic Enoch 33:1-2). And the righteous receive the New Jerusalem ( Galatians 4:26; Hebrews 12:22; Revelation 3:12; 21:2,10; compare Baruch 4:2-6; 2 Esdras 7:26). 3. Consistency: It is of course possible, as in the older works on dogmatics, to reconcile the slight divergences of the above details and to fit them all into a single scheme. But the propriety of such an undertaking is more than dubious, for the traditional nature of these details is abundantly clear — a tradition that is not due solely to the fact that the Christian and the Jewish schemes have a common Old Testament basis. That the Jewish writers realized that the eschatological details were merely symbolic is made obvious by the contradictions that every apocalypse contains — the contradictions that are the despair of the beginner in apocalyptics. No writer seems to have thought it worth while to reconcile his details, for they were purely figures of dimly comprehended forces. And the Christian symbolism must be interpreted on the same principle. No greater injustice, for instance, could be done Paul’s thought than to suppose he would have been in the least disturbed by John’s interpretation of the Antichrist as many persons and all of them ordinary human beings ( 1 John 2:18,19). 4. Meaning of the Symbolism: The symbolism, then, in which the Parousia is described was simply that held by the apostles in their pre-Christian days. This symbolism, to be sure, has been thoroughly purified from such puerilities as the feast on Leviathan and Behemoth of Baruch 29, or the “thousand children” of Enoch 10:17, a fact all the more remarkable as 2nd-century Christianity has enough of this and to spare (e.g. Irenaeus, v.33). What is more important is that the symbolism of the Parousia is simply in the Jewish sources the symbolism of the coming of the Messiah (or of God in such schemes as have no Messiah). Now it is to be observed that among the apostles the Kingdom of God is almost uniformly regarded as a future quantity ( 1 Corinthians 6:9,10; 15:50; Galatians 5:21; Ephesians 5:5; 2 Timothy 4:1,18; 2 Peter 1:11; Revelation 11:15; 12:10), with a definitely present idea only in Colossians 1:13. Remembering again that the term “Messiah” means simply “the Bringer of the Kingdom,” the case becomes entirely clear. No apostle, of course, ever thought of Christ as anything but the Messiah. But neither did they think of His Messianic work as completed, or, if the most exact terminology be pressed, of the strict Messianic work as done at all. Even the Atonement belonged to the preliminary acts, viewed perhaps somewhat as Enoch 39:6 views the preexistent Messiah’s residence among the “church expectant.” This could come to pass more readily as the traditions generally were silent as to what the Messiah was to do before He brought the Kingdom, while they all agreed that He was not to be created only at that moment. Into this blank, especially with the aid of Isaiah 53, etc., our Lord’s earthly life and Passion fitted naturally, leaving the fact of His Second Coming to be identified with the coming of the Messiah as originally conceived. 2. THE TEACHING OF JESUS. 1. Critical Problems: It will be found helpful, in studying the bitter controversies that have raged around Christ’s teaching about the future, to remember that the apostolic idea of the word “Messiah” is the only definition that the word has; that, for instance, “Messiah” and “Saviour of the world” are not quite convertible terms, or that a redefinition of the Messiah as a moral teacher or an expounder of the will of God does not rest on “spiritualizing” of the term, but on a destruction of it in favor of “prophet.” Now the three expressions, “Messianic work,” “coming of the Kingdom,” and “Parousia” are only three titles for one and the same thing, while the addition of “Son of Man” to them merely involves their being taken in the most transcendental form possible. In fact, this is the state of affairs found in the Synoptists. Christ predicts the coming of the Kingdom. He claims the title of its king (or Regent under the Father). The realization of this expectation He placed on the other side of the grave, i.e. in a glorified state. And in connection with this evidence we find His use of the title Son of Man.

From all this the doctrine of the Parousia follows immediately, even apart from the passages in which the regular apocalyptic symbolism is used. The contention may be made that this symbolism in the Gospels has been drawn out of other sources by the evangelists (the so-called “Little Apocalypse” of Mark 13:7-9,14-20,24-27,30-31 is the usual point of attack), but, even if the contention could be made out (and agreement in this regard is anything but attained), no really vital part of the case would be touched. Of course, it is possible to begin with the a priori assumption that “no sane man could conceive of himself as an apocalyptic being walking the earth incognito,” and to refer to later tradition everything in the Gospels that contradicts this assumption. But then there are difficulties. The various concepts involved are mentioned directly so often that the number of passages to be removed grows alarmingly large. Then the concepts interlock in such a way as to present a remarkably firm resistance to the critical knife; the picture is much too consistent for an artificial product.

Thus, there are a number of indirect references (the title on the Cross, the “Palm-Sunday” procession, etc.) that contradict all we know of later growths. And, finally, the most undeterred critic finds himself confronted with a last stubborn difficulty, the unwavering conviction of the earliest church that Christ made the eschatological claims. It is conceivable that the apostles may have misunderstood Christ in other matters, but an error in this central point of all (as the apostles appraised things) is hardly in the realms of critical possibility. On the whole, such an attempt to force a way through the evidence of the documents would seem something surprisingly like the violence done to history by the most perverse of the older dogmatists. 2. Summary: The number of relevant passages involved is so large and the critical problems so intricate that any detailed discussion is prohibited here.

Moreover, the symbolism presents nothing novel to the student familiar with the usual schemes. Forces of evil increase in the world, the state of the righteous grows harder, distress and natural portents follow, at the climax Christ appears suddenly with His angels, bringing the Kingdom of God, gathers the elect into the Kingdom, and dismisses the wicked into outer darkness (or fire). The Father is the Judge in Matthew 10:32,33, but the Son in the parallel Luke 12:8,9, and in Matthew 13:41; 16:27; 25:32; probably in Matthew 24:50 parallel Luke 12:46; Mark 8:38 and its parallel Luke 9:26 are uncertain. At all events, the eternal destiny of each man depends on Christ’s attitude, possibly with the Father’s (invariable) ratification considered. 3. Fall of Jerusalem: How far Christ connected the Parousia and the fall of Jerusalem, it is not easy to say. Various sayings of Christ about the future were certainly grouped by the evangelists; compare Matthew 24 with Mark 13 and Luke 17:20-37; or Luke 17:31 with Mark 13:15,16 (noting the inappropriateness of Luke 17:31 in its present context). The critical discussions of Mark 13 are familiar and those of Luke 21 (a still more complex problem) only less so. Remembering what the fall of Jerusalem or its immediate prospect would have meant to the apostles, the tendency to group the statements of Christ will be realized. Consequently, not too much stress should be laid on the connection of this with the Parousia, and in no case can the fall of Jerusalem be considered to exhaust the meaning of the Parousia. 4. Time: The most debated question is that of the time of the Parousia. Here Mark 13:30 parallel Luke 21:32 parallel Matthew 24:34 place it within Christ’s generation, Mark 9:1 parallel Luke 9:27 parallel Matthew 16:28 within the lifetime of some of His hearers, Matthew 10:23 before all the cities of Judea are closed to Christ’s apostles. (Only the first of these contains any reference to the fall of Jerusalem.) Then there is “ye shall see” of Mark 14:62; Luke 13:35 parallel Matthew 23:39. Agreeing with this are the exhortations to watchfulness ( Mark 13:33-37; Luke 12:40 parallel Matthew 24:44, etc., with many parables, such as the Ten Virgins). Now Mark 13:32 parallel Matthew 24:36 do not quite contradict this, for knowledge of the generation is quite consistent with ignorance of the day and hour; “It will be within your generation, but nothing more can be told you, so watch!”

The real difficulty lies in Mark 13:10 parallel Matthew 24:14, the necessity of all Gentiles hearing the gospel ( Luke 21:24 is hardly relevant). To leave the question here, as most conservative scholars do, is unsatisfactory, for Mark 13:10 is of no deep value for apologetic service and this value is far outweighed by the real contradiction with the other passages. The key, probably, lies in Matthew 10:18, from which Mark 13:10 differs only in insisting on all Gentiles, perhaps with the apostles’ thought that “world” and “Roman Empire” were practically coextensive. With this assumption the data yield a uniform result. 3. JOHN’S EVALUATLON. 1. Solution of Problem: It appears, then, that Christ predicted that shortly after His death an event would occur of so transcendental a nature that it could be expressed only in the terms of the fullest eschatological symbolism. John has a clear interpretation of this. In place of the long Parousia discourses in the Synoptists, we have, in the corresponding part of the Fourth Gospel, John 13 through 17, dealing not only with the future in general but concretely with Christ’s coming and the Judgment. Christ indeed came to His own ( John 14:18), and not He only but the Spirit also (14:16), and even the Father (14:23). When the disciples are so equipped, their presence in the world subjects the world to a continual sifting process of judgment (16:11). The fate of men by this process is to be eternally fixed (3:18), while the disciples newly made are assured that they have already entered into their eternal condition of blessedness (11:25,26; 5:24; 10:28; 17:2,3).

Equally directly the presence of Christ is conceived in Revelation 3:20.

So in Paul, the glorified Christ has returned to His own to dwell in them ( Romans 8:9,10, etc.), uniting them into a body vitally connected with Him ( Colossians 1:18), so supernatural that it is the teacher of `angels’ ( Ephesians 3:10), a body whose members are already in the Kingdom ( Colossians 1:13), who even sit already in heavenly places ( Ephesians 2:6). The same thought is found in such synoptic passages ( Luke 7:28 parallel Matthew 11:11; Luke 17:21(?); see KINGDOM OF GOD) as represent the Kingdom as present. Already the eschatological promises were realized in a small group of men, even though they still lacked the transforming influence of the Spirit. Compare the continuous coming of Matthew 26:64 ( Luke 22:69).

It is on these lines of the church as a supernatural quantity (of course not to be confused with any particular denomination) that the immediate realization of the Parousia promises is to be sought. Into human history has been “injected” a supernatural quantity, through which a Divine Head works, whose reaction on men settles their eternal destiny, and within which the life of heaven is begun definitely. 2. The Church a Divine Quantity: The force in this body is felt at the crises of human history, perhaps especially after the catastrophe that destroyed Jerusalem and set Christianity free from the swaddling clothes of the primitive community.

This conception of the church as a divine quantity, as, so to speak, a part of heaven extended into earth, is faithful to the essentials of the predictions.

Nor is it a rationalization of them, if the idea of the church itself be not rationalized. With this conception all realms of Christian activity take on a transcendental significance, both in life and (especially) death, giving to the individual the confidence that he is building better than he knows, for even the apostles could not realize the full significance of what they were doing.

Generally speaking, the details in the symbolism must not be pressed. The purpose of revelation is to minister to life, not to curiosity, and, in teaching of the future, Christ simply taught with the formal language of the schools of the day, with the one change that in the supernatural process He Himself was to be the central figure. Still, the end is not yet. “The hour cometh, in which all that are in the tombs shall hear his voice” ( John 5:28; compare 6:40; 21:23; 1 John 2:28). In Christ human destiny is drawing to a climax that can be expressed only in spiritual terms that transcend our conceptions. See, further, ESCHATOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

LITERATURE.

This is overwhelming. For the presuppositions, GJV4 (HJP is antiquated); Volz, Judische Eschatologie; Bousset, Religion des Judentums (2) . General discussions: Mathews, The Messianic Hope in the New Testament (the best in English); Sanday, The Life of Christ in Recent Research; Holtzmann, Das messianische Bewusstein Jesu (a classic); von Dobschiitz, The Eschatology of the Gospels (popular, but very sound). Eschatological extreme: Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus (Von Reimarus zu Wrede), is quite indispensable; Tyrrell, Christianity at the Cross Roads (perverse, but valuable in parts); Loisy, Gospel and the Church (compare his Evangiles synoptiques). Anti-eschatological: Sharman, The Teaching of Jesus about the Future (minute criticism, inadequate premises, some astounding exegesis); Bacon, The Beginnings of Gospel Story (based on Wellhausen). For the older literature see Schweitzer, Sanday, Holtzmann, as above, and compare Fairweather, The Background of the Gospels, and Brown, “Parousia,” in HDB, III. Burton Scott Easton PARSHANDATHA <par-shan-da’-tha > , <par-shan’-da-tha > ([ at;D;n]V”riP” , parshandatha ]; Septuagint [ Farsa>n, Pharsan ], or [ Farsanesta>n, Pharsanestan ]; perhaps from the Persian fratsna-data, “given by prayer”):

One of the sons of Haman (Est 9:7).

PART <part > : “to part” as a verb is no longer in good use (except in a few special phrases, compare Ruth 1:17), but is obscure only in Proverbs 18:18, where the meaning is “break up their quarrel” (compare 2 Samuel 14:6). the Revised Version (British and American) has not changed the King James Version’s usage, except (strangely) in 1 Samuel 30:24, where “share” is written. For the noun see PORTION.

PARTHIANS <par’-thi-anz > ([ Pa>rqoi, Parthoi ]): 1. COUNTRY AND EARLY HISTORY:

A people mentioned in Acts 2:9 only, in connection with other strangers present at Jerusalem at Pentecost, from which we infer that they were Jews or proselytes from the regions included in the Parthian empire. This empire stretched from the Euphrates to the confines of India and the Oxus, and for centuries was the rival of Rome, and more than once proved her match on the battlefield. The Parthians are not mentioned in the Old Testament, but are frequently in Josephus, and they had an important connection with the history of the Jews, on account of the large colonies of the latter in Mesopotamia, and the interference of the Parthians in the affairs of Judea, once making it a vassal state.

Parthia proper was a small territory to the Southeast of the Caspian Sea, about 300 miles long by 120 wide, a fertile though mountainous region, bordering on the desert tract of Eastern Persia. The origin of the Parthians is rather uncertain, though the prevailing opinion is that they were of Scythic stock or of the great Tartar race. We have no reference to them earlier than the time of Darius the Great, but they were doubtless among the tribes subdued by Cyrus, as they are mentioned by Darius as being in revolt. They seem to have remained faithful to the Persians after that, and submitted to Alexander without resistance. 2. THE SELEUCID KINGS:

Next they came under the rule of the Seleucid kings of Syria, but revolted about 250 BC, in the reign of Antiochus II (Theos), and gained their independence under the lead of Arsaces I who established the dynasty of the Arsacidae, which continued for nearly 5 centuries. His capital was Hecatompylos, but his reign continued only about 3 years, and his brother Tridates succeeded him as Arsaces II and he consolidated the kingdom.

The war between the Seleucids and the Ptolemies freed him from interference from that quarter until 237 BC, when Seleucus II (Callinicus) marched against him, but was completely defeated, and Parthian independence was secured. Artabanus I, who followed him, extended his dominions westward to the Zagros Mountains, but Antiochus III would not permit such an encroachment with impunity, and led an expedition against him, driving him back and even invading his ancestral dominion.

But after a struggle of some years the Parthians remained still unsubdued, and the difficulties of the contest led Antiochus to conclude peace with him in which he acknowledged the independence of Parthia. For about a quarter of a century the king of Parthia remained quiet, but Phraates I (181-174 BC) recommenced aggressions on the Seleucid empire which Were continued by Mithridates I (174-137), who added to his dominions a part of Bactria, on the East, and Media, Persia and Babylonia on the West.

This was a challenge to Demetrius II, of Syria, to whose empire the provinces belonged, and he marched against him with a large force, but was defeated and taken prisoner. He remained in Parthia some years, well treated by Phraates II, whose sister he married, and, when Phraates wished to create a diversion against Antiochus Sidetes, he set Demetrius at liberty and sent him back to Syria. Antiochus was at first successful, as his force of 300,000 men far outnumbered the Parthians, but he was at last defeated and slain in 129 BC and his army destroyed. This was the last attempt of the Seleucid kings to subdue Parthia, and it was acknowledged as the dominant power in Western Asia. But Phraates fell in conflict with the Scyths, whom he called in to aid him in his war with Sidetes, and his successor likewise, and it was only on the accession of Mithridates in BC that these barbarians were checked. The king then turned his attention toward Armenia, which he probably brought under his control, but its king Tigranes recovered its independence and even attacked the Parthians, and took from them two provinces in Mesopotamia. 3. IN CONTACT WITH ROME:

Not long after, the power of Rome came into contact with armenia and Parthia. In 66 BC when, after subduing Mithridates of Pontus, Pompey came into Syria, Phraates III made an alliance with him against Armenia, but was offended by the way in which he was treated and thought of turning against his ally, but refrained for the time being. It was only a question of time when the two powers would come to blows, for Parthia had become an empire and could ill brook the intrusion of Rome into Western Asia. It was the ambition and greed of Crassus that brought about the clash of Rome and Parthia. When he took the East as his share of the Roman world as apportioned among the triumvirs, he determined to rival Caesar in fame and wealth by subduing Parthia, and advanced across the Euphrates on his ill-fated expedition in 53 BC. The story of his defeat and death and the destruction of the army and loss of the Roman eagles is familiar to all readers of Roman history. It revealed Parthia to the world as the formidable rival of Rome, which she continued to be for nearly centuries. After the death of Crassus, the Parthians crossed the Euphrates and ravaged Northern Syria, but retired the following year without securing any portion of the country, and thus ended the first war with Rome. In 40 BC, after the battle of Philippi, Pacorus, who was then king, invaded Syria a second time and took possession of it together with all Palestine, Tyre alone escaping subjection. He set Antigonus on the throne of Judea, deposing Hyrcanus for the purpose. Syria and Palestine remained in the hands of Parthia for 3 years, but the coming of Ventidius gave a new turn to affairs. He drove the Parthians out of Syria, and when they returned the following year, he defeated them again and Pacorus was slain. Parthia had to retire within her own borders and remain on the defensive. Antony’s attempt to subdue them proved abortive, and his struggle with Octavian compelled him to relinquish the project. The Parthians were unable to take advantage of the strife in the Roman empire on account of troubles at home. an insurrection led by Tiridates drove the king Phraates IV from the throne, but he recovered it by the aid of the Scyths, and Tiridates took refuge in Syria with the youngest son of the king. Augustus afterward restored him without ransom, and obtained the lost standards of Crassus, and thus peace was established between the rival empires. Each had learned to respect the power of the other, and, although contention arose regarding the suzerainty of armenia, peace was not seriously disturbed between them for about 130 years, or until the reign of Trajan. Parthia was not at peace with herself, however. Dynastic troubles were frequent, and the reigns of the kings short. Artabanus III, who reigned 16-42 AD, was twice expelled from his kingdom and twice recovered his throne. In his days occurred a terrible massacre of Jewish colonists in Mesopotamia, as narrated by Josephus (Ant., XVIII, ix). The contest with Rome over Armenia was settled in the days of Nero in a manner satisfactory to both parties, so that peace was not broken for 50 years. The ambition of Trajan led him to disregard the policy inaugurated by Augustus, adhered to, for the most part, by succeeding emperors, not to extend the limits of the empire. After the conquest of Dacia he turned his attention to the East and resolved on the invasion of Parthia. The Parthian king, Chosroes, endeavored to placate Trajan by an embassy bearing presents and proposals of peace, but Trajan rejected them and carried out his purpose. He subdued armenia, took Upper Mesopotamia, Adiabebe (Assyria), Ctesiphon, the capital, and reached the Pets Gulf, but was obliged to turn back by revolts in his rear and failed to reduce the fortress of Hatra. The conquered provinces were restored, however, by Hadrian, and the Parthians did not retaliate until the reign of Aurelius, when they overran Syria, and in 162 AD Lucius Verus was sent to punish them. In the following year he drove them back and advanced into the heart of the Parthian empire, inflicting the severest blow it had yet received. It was evident that the empire was on the decline, and the Romans did not meet with the resistance they had experienced in former times. Severus and Caracalla both made expeditions into the country, and the latter took the capital and massacred the inhabitants, but after his assassination his successor, Macrinus, fought a three days’ battle with the Parthians at Nisibis in which he was worsted and was glad to conclude a peace by paying an indemnity of some 1,500,000 British pounds (217 AD). 4. FALL OF THE EMPIRE:

But this was the last achievement of the Parthians. It is evident that Artabanus had suffered severely in his conflict with the Romans, and was unable to put down the revolt of the Persians under the lead of Artaxerxes, who overthrew the Parthian empire and established the dynasty of the Sassanidae in its place (226 AD). 5. CULTURE:

The Parthians were not a cultured people, but displayed a rude magnificence, making use, to some extent, of remains of Greek culture which they found within the regions they seized from the empire of Alexander. They had no native literature, as far as known, but made use of Greek in writing and on their coins. They were familiar with Hebrew or Syro-Chaldaic, and the later kings had Semitic legends on their coins.

Josephus is said to have written his history of the Jewish War in his native tongue for Parthian readers. In their method of government they seem to have left the different provinces pretty much to themselves, so long as they paid tribute and furnished the necessary contingents. H. Porter PARTICULAR, PARTICULARLY <pir-tik’-u-lar > , <par-tik’-u-lar-li > : The adverbial phrase “in particular” occurs twice in the King James Version ( 1 Corinthians 12:27, [ejk me>rouv, ek merous ], the Revised Version (British and American) “severally,” the Revised Version margin “each in his part”; and Ephesians 5:33, [oiJ kaqj e[na, hoi kath’ hena ], the Revised Version (British and American) “severally”); in both cases it has the obsolete meaning of “severally,” “individually.” The adverb “particularly” occurs in the same sense in Acts 21:19 the King James Version, [kaqj e\n e[kaston, kath’ hen hekaston ], the Revised Version (British and American) “one by one,” and Hebrews 9:5 the King James Version, [kata< me>rov, kata meros ], the Revised Version (British and American) “severally.” We have the plural noun in the sense of “details” in 2 Macc 2:30: “to be curious in particulars”; 11:20, (the King James Version “Of the particulars I have given order,” the Revised Version (British and American) I have given order in detail); and the adjective “particular” in the sense of “special” in the first Prologue to Sirach (King James Version, Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) peculiares ; the whole section was omitted in the Revised Version (British and American)). D. Miall Edwards PARTITION, THE MIDDLE WALL OF <par-tish’-un > , <par-tish’-un > ([to< meso>toicon tou~ fragmou~, to mesotoichon tou phragmou ] ( Ephesians 2:14)): 1. THE BARRIER IN THE TEMPLE What Paul here asserts is that Christ is our peace, the peace of both Jewish and Gentile believers. He has made them both to be one in Himself, and has broken down the middle wall of partition which divided them from one another. Then the apostle regards Jew and Gentile as two, who by a fresh act of creation in Christ are made into one new man. In the former of these similes he refers to an actual wall in the temple at Jerusalem, beyond which no one was allowed to pass unless he were a Jew, the balustrade or barrier which marked the limit up to which a Gentile might advance but no farther.

Curiously, this middle wall of partition had a great deal to do with Paul’s arrest and imprisonment, for the multitude of the Jews became infuriated, not merely because of their general hostility to him as an apostle of Christ and a preacher of the gospel for the world, but specially because it was erroneously supposed that he had brought Trophimus the Ephesian past this barrier into the temple ( Acts 21:29), and that he had in this manner profaned the temple ( Acts 24:6), or, as it is put in Acts 21:28, he had `brought Greeks into the temple and polluted this holy place.’ In the assault which they thereupon made on Paul they violently seized and dragged him out of the temple-dragged him outside the balustrade. The Levites at once shut the gates, to prevent the possibility of any further profanation, and Paul would have been torn in pieces, had not the Roman commander and his soldiers forcibly prevented. 2. HEROD’S TEMPLE; ITS DIVISIONS; THE COURTS:

In building the temple Herod the Great had enclosed a large area to form the various courts. The temple itself consisted of the two divisions, the Holy Place, entered by the priests every day, and the Holy of Holies into which the high priest entered alone once every year. Immediately outside the temple there was the Court of the Priests, and in it was placed the great altar of burnt offering. Outside of this again was the Court of the Sons of Israel, and beyond this the Court of the Women. The site of the temple itself and the space occupied by the various courts already mentioned formed a raised plateau or platform. “From it you descended at various points down 5 steps and through gates in a lofty wall, to find yourself overlooking another large court — the outer court to which Gentiles, who desired to see something of the glories of the temple and to offer gifts and sacrifices to the God of the Jews, were freely admitted. Farther in than this court they were forbidden, on pain of death, to go. The actual boundary line was not the high wall with its gates, but a low stone barrier about 5 ft. in height, which ran round at the bottom of 14 more steps” (J. Armitage Robinson, D.D., Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, 59; see also Edersheim, The Temple, Its Ministry and Services as They Were at the Time of Jesus Christ,46).

The middle wall of partition was called Coregh , and was built of marble beautifully ornamented. 3. THE COURT OF THE GENTILES:

The Court of the Gentiles formed the lowest and the outermost enclosure of all the courts of the sanctuary. It was paved with the finest variegated marble. Its name signified that it was open to all, Jews or Gentiles alike. It was very large, and is said by Jewish tradition to have formed a square of 750 ft. It was in this court that the oxen and sheep and the doves for the sacrifices were sold as in a market. It was in this court too that there were the tables of the money-changers, which Christ Himself overthrew when He drove out the sheep and oxen and them that bought and sold in His Father’s house. The multitudes assembling in this court must have been very great, especially on occasions such as the Passover and Pentecost and at the other great feasts, and the din of voices must oftentimes have been most disturbing. As already seen, beyond this court no Gentile might go. See TEMPLE.

In the year 1871, while excavations were being made on the site of the temple by the Palestine Exploration Fund, M. Clermont-Ganneau discovered one of the pillars which Josephus describes as having been erected upon the very barrier or middle wall of partition, to which Paul refers. This pillar is now preserved in the Museum at Constantinople and is inscribed with a Greek inscription in capital or uncial letters, which is translated as follows: NO MAN OF ANOTHER NATION TO ENTER WITHIN THE FENCE AND ENCLOSURE ROUND THE TEMPLE, AND WHOEVER IS CAUGHT WILL HAVE HIMSELF TO BLAME THAT HIS DEATH ENSUES While Paul was writing the Epistle to the Ephesians at Rome, this barrier in the temple at Jerusalem was still standing, yet the chained prisoner of Jesus Christ was not afraid to write that Christ had broken down the middle wall of partition, and had thus admitted Gentiles who were far off, strangers and foreigners, to all the privileges of access to God in ancient times possessed by Israel alone; that separation between Jew and Gentile was done away with forever in Christ. 4. THE THROWING DOWN OF THE BARRIER:

If Paul wrote the Epistle to the Ephesians in 60 or 61 AD, then the actual barrier of stone remained in its position in the Court of the Gentiles not more than some 10 years, for it was thrown down in the burning of the temple by the Roman army. And out of those ruins a fragment has been excavated in our own day, containing the very inscription threatening death to the Gentileintruder, and reminding us that it is only in Christ Jesus that we now draw nigh unto God, and that we are thus one body in Christ, one new man. Christ has broken down the middle wall of partition, for He, in His own person, is our peace. John Rutherfurd PARTRIDGE <par’-trij > ([ areqo , qore ]; Latin perdix; Septuagint, 1 Samuel 26:20, [nuktiko>rax, nuktikorax ], “owl,” Jeremiah 17:11, [pe>rdix, perdix ]): a bird of the family Tetraonidae. The Hebrew word for this bird, qore’ , means “a caller,” and the Latin perdix is supposed to be an imitation of its cry, and as all other nations base their name for the bird on the Latin, it becomes quite evident that it was originally named in imitation of its call.

The commonest partridge of Palestine, very numerous in the wilderness and hill country, was a bird almost as large as a pheasant. It had a clear, exquisite cry that attracted attention, especially in the mating season. The partridge of the wilderness was smaller and of beautifully marked plumage.

It made its home around the Dead Sea, in the Wilderness of Judea and in rocky caverns. Its eggs were creamy white; its cry very similar to its relatives’. The partridge and its eggs were used for food from time immemorial.

The first reference to it is found in 1 Samuel 26:20: “Now therefore, let not my blood fall to the earth away from the presence of Yahweh: for the king of Israel is come out to seek a flea, as when one doth hunt a partridge in the mountains.” David in this dialogue with Saul clearly indicates that if he did not hunt the partridge himself, he knew how it was done. The birds were commonly chased up the mountains and stunned or killed with “throw sticks.” David knew how deft these birds were at hiding beside logs and under dry leaves colored so like them as to afford splendid protection; how swiftly they could run; what expert dodgers they were; so he compared taking them with catching a flea. The other reference is found in Jeremiah 17:11: “As the partridge that sitteth on eggs which she hath not laid, so is he that getteth riches, and not by right; in the midst of his days they shall leave him, and at his end he shall be a fool.” If this reference is supposed to indicate that partridges are in the habit of brooding on the nest of their kind or of different birds, it fails wholly to take into consideration the history of the bird. Partridges select a location, carefully deposit an egg a day for from 10 to 15 days, sometimes 20, and then brood, so that all the young emerge at one time. But each bird knows and returns to its nest with unfailing regularity. It would require the proverbial “Philadelphia lawyer” to explain this reference to a “partridge sitting on eggs she had not laid.” No ornithologist ever could reconcile it to the habits or characteristics of the birds. the King James Version translated these lines, “As the partridge sitteth on eggs, and hatcheth them not.” This was easy to explain clearly. The eggs of the partridge were delicious food, and any brooding bird whose nest was discovered after only a few days of incubation did not hatch, because she lost her eggs. Also the eggs frequently fall prey to other birds or small animals. Again, they are at the mercy of the elements, sometimes being spoiled by extremely wet cold weather. Poultry fanciers assert that a heavy thunder storm will spoil chicken eggs when hatchingtime is close; the same might be true with eggs of the wild. And almost any wild bird will desert its nest and make its former brooding useless, if the location is visited too frequently by man or beast.

There is also a partridge reference in the Book of Ecclesiasticus 11:29 ff the Revised Version (British and American)): “Bring not every man into thine house; for many are the plots of the deceitful man. As a decoy partridge in a cage, so is the heart of a proud man; and as one that is a spy, he looketh upon thy falling. For he lieth in wait to turn things that are good into evil; and in things that are praiseworthy he will lay blame.” The reference is to confining a tame partridge in a hidden cage so that its calls would lure many of its family within range of arrows or “throw sticks” used by concealed hunters. Gene Stratton-Porter PARUAH <pa-roo’-a > ([ j”WrP; , paruach ] “blooming”): Father of Jehoshaphat, who was one of Solomon’s twelve victualers or providers, and had charge in Isaachar of this function ( 1 Kings 4:17).

PARVAIM <par-va’-im > ([ µyiw;r]P” , parwayim ]; Septuagint [ Farouai>m, Pharouaim ]): The word occurs only in 2 Chronicles 3:6, as the place from which Solomon obtained gold for the decoration of his Temple. A derivation is given from the Sanskrit purva, “eastern,” so that the name might be a vague term for the East (Gesenius, Thesaurus, 1125). Whether there was such a place in arabia is doubtful. Farwa in Yemen has been suggested, and also Saq el Farwain in Yemamah. Some have considered the name a shortened form of Cepharvayim which occurs in the Syriac and Targum Jonathan for the “Sephar” of Genesis 10:30. A. S. Fulton PASACH <pa’-sak > ([ Ës”P; , pacakh ], “divider”): Son of Japhlet, descendant of Asher ( 1 Chronicles 7:33).

PAS-DAMMIM <pas-dam’-im > . See EPHESDAMMIM.

PASEAH <pa-se’-a > , <pas’-e-a > ([ j”sep; , paceach ] “limping”): (1) A son of Eshton, descendant of Judah ( 1 Chronicles 4:12). (2) The eponym of a family of Nethinim ( Ezra 2:49; Nehemiah 7:51, the King James Version “Phaseah” =“Phinoe” (1 Esdras 5:31). (3) Father of Joiada, who helped to repair the old gate ( Nehemiah 3:6).

PASHHUR, PASHUR <pash’-hur > , <pash’-ur > ([ rWjv]P” , pashchur ], “splitter,” “cleaver”):

The name of several persons difficult to individuate: (1) A priest, son of Immer, and “chief governor in the house of the Lord” ( Jeremiah 20:1), who persecuted Jeremiah, putting him in “the stocks” hard by the “house of Yahweh” in the “gate of Benjamin” ( Jeremiah 20:2). When released, Jeremiah pronounced Divine judgment on him and the people. Future captivity and an exile’s death are promised to Pashur whose name he changed from its masterful significance to a cowering one. “Terror on every side” (maghor miccabhibh ) is to take the place of “stable strength” ( Jeremiah 20:3 ff). (2) Son of Melchiah, a prince of Judah, and one of the delegation sent by Zedekiah, the king, to consult Jeremiah ( Jeremiah 21:1). It looks like a larger and later deputation, similarly sent, to which this Pashur belongs, whose record is given in Jeremiah 38:1-13. Accompanying them was one, Gedaliah, who was a son of (3) . (3) Another Pashur ( Jeremiah 38:1), who may be the person mentioned in 1 Chronicles 9:12; Nehemiah 11:12. (4) A priest, of those who “sealed” Nehemiah’s covenant ( Nehemiah 10:1,3), who may, however, be the same as (5) . (5) The chief of a priestly family called “sons of Pashur” ( Ezra 2:38; 10:22; Nehemiah 7:41; 1 Esdras 5:25 (“Phassurus,” margin “Pashhur”); 1 Esdras 9:22 (“Phaisur,” margin “Pashhur”)). Doubtless it is this Pashur, some of whose sons had “strange wives” ( Ezra 10:22). Henry Wallace PASS, PASSAGE, PASSENGER <pas > , <pas’-aj > , <pas’-en-Jeremiah > : “To pass” bears different meanings and corresponds to various words in Hebrew and Greek. It occurs frequently in the phrase “and it came to pass” (literally, “and it was”). This is simply a Hebrew idiom linking together the different paragraphs of a continuous narrative. As a rule “pass” renders the Hebrew word [ rb”[; , `abhar ]. This verb has various meanings, e.g. “to pass over” a stream ( Genesis 31:21); “to cross” a boundary ( Numbers 20:17); “to pass through,” or “traverse,” a country ( Numbers 21:22); “to pass on” ( Genesis 18:5); “to pass away,” “cease to exist” ( Job 30:15). The word is used metaphorically, “to pass over,” “overstep,” “transgress” ( Numbers 14:41). In the causative form the verb is used in the phrase “to cause to pass through fire” ( Deuteronomy 18:10; Kings 16:3). In the King James Version “pass” sometimes has the force of “surpass,” “exceed,” e.g. 2 Chronicles 9:22, “King Solomon passed all the kings of the earth in riches and wisdom”; compare also Ephesians 3:19, “the love of Christ which passeth knowledge,” and Philippians 4:7, “the peace of God, which passeth all understanding.”

Passage in the King James Version renders [ rb;[\m” , ma`abhar ], or [ hr;b;[\m” , ma`abharah ]. The former word denotes (1) the ford of a river ( Genesis 32:23 King James Version margin); (2) the pass of a mountain range ( 1 Samuel 13:23).

In the only other instance of the use of the shorter form ( Isaiah 30:32 margin), the King James Version renders “where the grounded staff shall pass.” A more correct translation would be, “and every sweep (or stroke) of the appointed staff.” The longer form bears both meanings, namely, “ford” (e.g. Joshua 2:7; Judges 3:28, etc.) and “pass” ( 1 Samuel 14:4; Isaiah 10:29). In Joshua 22:11, the rendering `towards the region opposite the children of Israel’ would be more correct than the King James Version, “at the passage of the children of Israel.” In English Versions of the Bible of Numbers 20:21 “passage” seems to mean “right of way,” and renders the infinitive of the Hebrew verb. In Jeremiah 22:20 the King James Version the word rendered “passage” should be translated “from Abarim” (as in the Revised Version (British and American)), a mountain range in Moab, Northeast of the Dead Sea.

Passenger in the King James Version means a “passer-by.” In Ezekiel 39:11,14,15 where the word occurs 4 times in the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) translates “them that pass through.” T. Lewis PASSING OF MARY, THE See APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS.

PASSION, PASSIONS <pash’-un > , <pash’-unz > : “Passion” is derived from Latin passio, which in turn is derived from the verb patior, with the root, pat-. The Latin words are connected with the Greek root, [paq, path ], which appears in a large number of derivatives. And in Greek, Latin, and English (with other languages in addition) words connected with this root, pat , path , are often susceptible of a great variety of meanings, for which the dictionaries must be consulted. For “passion,” however, as it appears in English Versions of the Bible, only three of these meanings need be considered. (1) Close to what seems to be the primary force of the root is the meaning “suffer,” and in this sense “passion” is used in Acts 1:3, “to whom he also showed himself alive after his passion.” This translation is a paraphrase (Greek: “after he had suffered”), due to the Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) (post passionem suam), and in English is as old as Wycliff, whom the subsequent English Versions of the Bible has followed. This is the only case in the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) where “passion” has this meaning, and it can be so used in modern English only when referring (as here) to the sufferings of Christ (compare “Passion play”). (2) “Suffering,” when applied to the mind, came to denote the state that is controlled by some emotion, and so “passion” was applied to the emotion itself. This is the meaning of the word in Acts 14:15, “men of like passions,” and James 5:17, “a man of like passions,” Greek [oJmoiopaqh>v, homoiopathes ]; the Revised Version margin “of like nature” gives the meaning exactly: “men with the same emotions as we.” (3) From “emotion” a transition took place to “strong emotion,” and this is the normal force of “passion” in modern English the King James Version does not use this meaning, but in the Revised Version (British and American) “passion” in this sense is the translation of [pa>qov, pathos ], in its three occurrences: Romans 1:26 (the King James Version “affection”); Colossians 3:5 (the King James Version “inordinate affection”); 1 Thessalonians 4:5 (the King James Version “lust”). It is used also for two occurrences of [pa>qhma, pathema ] (closely allied to pathos) in Romans 7:5 (the King James Version “motions,” the King James Version margin “passions”) and in Galatians 5:24 (the King James Version “affection”). The fixing of the exact force in any of these cases is a delicate problem fully discussed in the commentaries. In Colossians 3:5 only does “passion” stand as an isolated term. The context here perhaps gives the word a slight sexual reference, but this must not be overstressed; the warning probably includes any violent overemotion that robs a man of his self-control. See AFFECTION; MOTION.

Burton Scott Easton PASSION, GOSPEL OF THE. See APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS.

PASSOVER <pas’-o-ver > ([ js”P, , pecach ], from pacach , “to pass” or “spring over” or “to spare” ( Exodus 12:13,23,17; compare Isaiah 31:5]. Other conjectures connect the word with the “passing over” into a new year, with assyr pasahu, meaning “to placate,” with Hebrew pacah , meaning “to dance,” and even with the skipping motions of a young lamb; Aramaic [ aj;s]P” , paccha’ ], whence Greek [ Pa>sca, Pascha ]; whence English “paschal.” In early Christian centuries folk-etymology connected pascha with Greek pascho , “to suffer” (see PASSION), and the word was taken to refer to Good Friday rather than the Passover): 1. PECACH AND MATSTSOTH:

The Passover was the annual Hebrew festival on the evening of the 14th day of the month of ‘Abhibh (Abib) or Nisan, as it was called in later times.

It was followed by, and closely connected with, a 7 days’ festival of matstsoth, or unleavened bread, to which the name Passover was also applied by extension ( Leviticus 23:5). Both were distinctly connected with the Exodus, which, according to tradition, they commemorate; the Passover being in imitation of the last meal in Egypt, eaten in preparation for the journey, while Yahweh, passing over the houses of the Hebrews, was slaying the firstborn of Egypt ( Exodus 12:12 f; 13:2,12 ff); the matstsoth festival being in memory of the first days of the journey during which this bread of haste was eaten ( Exodus 12:14-20). 2. PECACH MITSRAYIM:

The ordinance of pecach mitsrayim , the last meal in Egypt, included the following provisions: (1) the taking of a lamb, or kid without blemish, for each household on the 10th of the month; (2) the killing of the lamb on the 14th at even; (3) the sprinkling of the blood on doorposts and lintels of the houses in which it was to be eaten; (4) the roasting of the lamb with fire, its head with its legs and inwards — the lamb was not to be eaten raw nor sodden (bashal ) with water; (5) the eating of unleavened bread and bitter herbs; (6) eating in haste, with loins girded, shoes on the feet, and staff in hand; (7) and remaining in the house until the morning; (8) the burning of all that remained; the Passover could be eaten only during the night ( Exodus 12:1-23). 3. PECACH DOROTH:

This service was to be observed as an ordinance forever ( Exodus 12:14,24), and the night was to be lel shimmurim, “a night of vigils,” or, at least, “to be much observed” of all the children of Israel throughout their generations ( Exodus 12:42). The details, however, of the pecach doroth , or later observances of the Passover, seem to have differed slightly from those of the Egyptian Passover (Mishna, Pesachim, ix.5). Thus, it is probable that the victim could be taken from the flock or from the herd ( Deuteronomy 16:2; compare Ezekiel 45:22). (3) , (6) and (7) disappeared entirely, and judging from Deuteronomy 16:7, the prohibition against seething (Hebrew bashal ) was not understood to apply (unless, indeed, the omission of the expression with water” gives a more general sense to the Hebrew word bashal , making it include roasting).

New details were also added: for example, that the Passover could be sacrificed only at the central sanctuary ( Deuteronomy 16:5); that no alien or uncircumcised person, or unclean person could partake thereof, and that one prevented by uncleanness or other cause from celebrating the Passover in season could do so a month later ( Numbers 9:9 ff). The singing of the Hallel (Psalms 113 through 118), both while the Passover was being slaughtered and at the meal, and other details were no doubt added from time to time. 4. MATSTSOTH:

Unleavened bread was eaten with the Passover meal, just as with all sacrificial meals of later times ( Exodus 23:18; 34:25; Leviticus 7:12), independently perhaps of the fact that the Passover came in such close proximity with the Feast of Unleavened Bread ( Exodus 12:8).

Jewish tradition distinguishes, at any rate, between the first night and the rest of the festival in that the eating of matstsoth is an obligation on the first night and optional during the rest of the week (Pesachim 120a), although the eating of unleavened bread is commanded in general terms ( Exodus 12:15,18; 13:6,7; 23:15; 34:18; Leviticus 23:6; Numbers 28:17). The eating of leavened bread is strictly prohibited, however, during the entire week under the penalty of kareth, “excision” ( Exodus 12:15,19 f; 13:3; Deuteronomy 16:3), and this prohibition has been observed traditionally with great care. The 1st and 7th days are holy convocations, days on which no labor could be done except such as was necessary in the preparation of food. The festival of matstsoth is reckoned as one of the three pilgrimage festivals, though strictly the pilgrimage was connected with the Passover portion and the first day of the festival.

During the entire week additional sacrifices were offered in the temple: an offering made by fire and a burnt offering, 2 young bullocks, 1 ram, lambs of the first year without blemish, together with meal offerings and drink offerings and a goat for a sin offering. 5. THE `OMER:

During the week of the matstsoth festival comes the beginning of the barley harvest in Palestine (Menachoth 65b) which lasts from the end of March in the low Jordan valley to the beginning of May in the elevated portions. The time of the putting-in of the sickle to the standing grain ( Deuteronomy 16:9) and of bringing the sheaf of the peace offering is spoken of as the morrow after the Sabbath ( Leviticus 23:15), that is, according to the Jewish tradition, the day after the first day, or rest-day, of the Passover (Mend. 65b; Meg Ta`an. 1; Josephus, Ant, III, x, 5), and according to Samaritan and Boethusian traditions and the modern Karites the Sunday after the Passover. At this time a wave offering is made of a sheaf, followed by an offering of a lamb with a meal and drink offering, and only thereafter might the new grain be eaten. From this day 7 weeks are counted to fix the date of Pentecost, the celebration connected with the wheat harvest. It is of course perfectly natural for an agricultural people to celebrate the turning-points of the agricultural year in connection with their traditional festivals. Indeed, the Jewish liturgy of today retains in the Passover service the Prayer of Dew (Tal ) which grew up in Palestine on the basis of the needs of an agricultural people. 6. NON-TRADITIONAL THEORIES:

Many writers, however, eager to explain the entire festival as originally an agricultural feast (presumably a Canaanitic one, though there is not a shred of evidence that the Canaanites had such a festival), have seized upon the `omer , or sheaf offering, as the basis of the hagh (festival), and have attempted to explain the matstsoth as bread hastily baked in the busy harvest times, or as bread quickly baked from the freshly exempted firstfruits.

Wherein these theories are superior to the traditional explanation so consistently adhered to throughout the Pentateuch it is difficult to see. In a similar vein, it has been attempted to connect the Passover with the sacrifice or redemption of the firstborn of man and beast (both institutions being traditionally traced to the judgment on the firstborn of Egypt, as in Exodus 13:11-13; 22:29,30; 23:19; 34:19,20), so as to characterize the Passover as a festival of pastoral origin. Excepting for the multiplication of highly ingenious guesses, very little that is positive has been added to our knowledge of the Passover by this theory. 7. THE HIGHER CRITICISM:

The Pentateuch speaks of the Passover in many contexts and naturally with constantly varying emphasis. Thus the story of the Exodus it is natural to expect fewer ritual details than in a manual of temple services; again, according to the view here taken, we must distinguish between the pecach mitsrayim and the pecach doroth . Nevertheless, great stress is laid on the variations in the several accounts, by certain groups of critics, on the basis of which they seek to support their several theories of the composition of the Pentateuch or Hexateuch. Without entering into this controversy, it will be sufficient here to enumerate and classify all the discrepancies said to exist in the several Passover passages, together with such explanations as have been suggested. These discrepancies, so called, are of three kinds: (1) mere omissions, (2) differences of emphasis, and (3) conflicting statements.

The letters, J, E, D, P and H will here be used to designate passages assigned to the various sources by the higher criticism of today merely for the sake of comparison. (1) There is nothing remarkable about the omission of the daily sacrifices from all passages except Leviticus 23:8 (H) and Numbers 28:19 (P), nor in the omission of a specific reference to the holy convocation on the first day in the contexts of Deuteronomy 16:8 and Exodus 13:6, nor even in the omission of reference to a central sanctuary in passages other than Deuteronomy 16. Neither can any significance be attached to the fact that the precise day is not specified in Exodus 23 (E) where the appointed day is spoken of, and in Leviticus 23:15 (H) where the date can be figured out from the date of Pentecost there given. (2) As to emphasis, it is said that the socalled Elohist Covenant (E) (Exodus 23) has no reference to the Passover, as it speaks only of matstsh in Exodus 23:15, in which this festival is spoken of together with the other reghalim or pilgrimage festivals. The so-called Jehovistic source (Jahwist) ( Exodus 34:18-21,25) is said to subordinate the Passover to matstsoth, the great feast of the Jehovistic history (JE) ( Exodus 12:21- 27,29-36,38,39; 13:3-16); in Deuteronomy (D) the Passover is said to predominate over matstsoth, while in Leviticus (P and H) it is said to be of first importance. JE and P emphasize the historical importance of the day.

Whether these differences in emphasis mean much more than that the relative amount of attention paid to the paschal sacrifice, as compared with matstsoth , depends on the context, is of course the fundamental question of the higher criticism; it is not answered by pointing out that the differences of emphasis exist. (3) Of the actual conflicts, we have already seen that the use of the words “flock” and “herd” in Deuteronomy and Hebrew bashal are open to explanation, and also that the use of the matstsoth at the original Passover is not inconsistent with the historical reason for the feast of matstsoth — it is not necessary to suppose that matstsoth were invented through the necessity of the Hebrews on their journey. There is, however, one apparent discrepancy in the Biblical narrative that seems to weaken rather than help the position of those critics who would ascribe very late dates to the passages which we have cited: Why does Ezekiel’s ideal scheme provide sacrifices for the Passover different from those prescribed in the so-called P ascribed to the same period ( Ezekiel 45:21)? 8. HISTORICAL CELEBRATIONS: OLD TESTAMENT TIMES:

The children of Israel began the keeping of the Passover in its due season according to all its ordinances in the wilderness of Sinai ( Numbers 9:5).

In the very beginning of their national life in Palestine we find them celebrating the Passover under the leadership of Joshua in the plains of Jericho ( Joshua 5:10). History records but few later celebrations in Palestine, but there are enough intimations to indicate that it was frequently if not regularly observed. Thus Solomon offered sacrifices three times a year upon the altar which he had built to Yahweh, at the appointed seasons, including the Feast of Unleavened Bread ( 1 Kings 9:25 = Chronicles 8:13). The later prophets speak of appointed seasons for pilgrimages and sacrifices (compare Isaiah 1:12-14), and occasionally perhaps refer to a Passover celebration (compare Isaiah 30:29, bearing in mind that the Passover is the only night-feast of which we have any record). In Hezekiah’s time the Passover had fallen into such a state of desuetude that neither the priests nor the people were prepared for the king’s urgent appeal to observe it. Nevertheless, he was able to bring together a large concourse in Jerusalem during the 2nd month and institute a more joyful observance than any other recorded since the days of Solomon. In the 18th year of King Josiah, however, there was celebrated the most memorable Passover, presumably in the matter of conformity to rule, since the days of the Judges ( 2 Kings 23:21; 2 Chronicles 35:1 ff). The continued observance of the feast to the days of the exile is attested by Ezekiel’s interest in it ( Ezekiel 45:18). In post-exilic times it was probably observed more scrupulously than ever before ( Ezra 6:19 ff). 9. HISTORICAL CELEBRATIONS: NEW TESTAMENT TIMES:

Further evidence, if any were needed, of the importance of the Passover in the life of the Jews of the second temple is found in the Talmud, which devotes to this subject an entire tractate, Pecachim on which we have both Babylonian and Palestine gemara’ . These are devoted to the sacrificial side and to the minutiae of searching out and destroying leaven, what constitutes leaven, and similar questions, instruction in which the children of Israel sought for 30 days before the Passover. Josephus speaks of the festival often (Ant., II, xiv, 6; III, x, 5; IX, iv, 8; XIV, ii, 2; XVII, ix, 3; BJ, II, i, 3; V, iii, 1; VI, ix, 3). Besides repeating the details already explained in the Bible, he tells of the innumerable multitudes that came for the Passover to Jerusalem out of the country and even from beyond its limits.

He estimates that in one year in the days of Cestius, 256,500 lambs were slaughtered and that at least 10 men were counted to each. (This estimate of course includes the regular population of Jerusalem. But even then it is doubtless exaggerated.) The New Testament bears testimony, likewise, to the coming of great multitudes to Jerusalem ( John 11:55; compare also 2:13; 6:4). At this great festival even the Roman officers released prisoners in recognition of the people’s celebration. Travel and other ordinary pursuits were no doubt suspended (Compare Acts 12:3; 20:6).

Naturally the details were impressed on the minds of the people and lent themselves to symbolic and homiletic purposes (compare 1 Corinthians 5:7; John 19:34-36, where the paschal lamb is made to typify Jesus; and Hebrews 11:28). The best-known instance of such symbolic use is the institution of the Eucharist on the basis of the paschal meal. Some doubt exists as to Whether the Last Supper was the paschal meal or not.

According to the Synoptic Gospels, it was ( Luke 22:7; Matthew 26:17; Mark 14:12); while according to John, the Passover was to be eaten some time following the Last Supper ( John 18:28). Various harmonizations of these passages have been suggested, the most in genious, probably, being on theory that when the Passover fell on Friday night, the Pharisees ate the meal on Thursday and the Sadducees on Friday, and that Jesus followed the custom of the Pharisees (Chwolson, Das letzte Passahmal Jesu, 2nd edition, Petersburg, 1904). Up to the Nicene Council in the year 325, the church observed Easter on the Jewish Passover.

Thereafter it took precautions to separate the two, condemning their confusion as Arianism. 10. THE JEWISH PASSOVER:

After the destruction of the temple the Passover became a home service.

The paschal lamb was no longer included. Only the Samaritans have continued this rite to this day. In the Jewish home a roasted bone is placed on the table in memory of the rite, and other articles symbolic of the Passover are placed beside it: such as a roasted egg, said to be in memory of the free-will offering; a sauce called charoceth , said to resemble the mortar of Egypt; salt water, for the symbolic dipping (compare Matthew 26:23); the bitter herbs and the matstsoth . The cedher (program) is as follows: sanctification; washing of the hands; dipping and dividing the parsley; breaking and setting aside a piece of matstsah to be distributed and eaten at the end of the supper; reading of the haggadhah shel pecach , a poetic narrative of the Exodus, in answer to four questions asked by the youngest child in compliance with the Biblical command found 3 times in Exodus and once in Deuteronomy, “Thou shalt tell thy son on that day”; washing the hands for eating; grace before eating; tasting the matstsah ; tasting the bitter herbs; eating of them together; the meal; partaking of the matstsah that had been set aside as ‘aphiqomen or dessert; grace after meat; Hallel ; request that the service be accepted. Thereafter folk-songs are sung to traditional melodies, and poems recited, many of which have allegorical meanings. A cup of wine is used at the sanctification and another at grace, in addition to which two other cups have been added, the 4 according to the Mishna (Pecachim x.1) symbolizing the 4 words employed in Exodus 6:6,7 for the delivery of Israel from Egypt. Instead of eating in haste, as in the Egyptian Passover, it is customary to recline or lean at this meal in token of Israel’s freedom.

The prohibition against leaven is strictly observed. The searching for hidden leaven on the evening before the Passover and its destruction in the morning have become formal ceremonies for which appropriate blessings and declarations have been included in the liturgy since the days when Aramaic was the vernacular of the Jews. As in the case of other festivals, the Jews have doubled the days of holy convocation, and have added a semi-holiday after the last day, the so-called ‘iccur chagh , in token of their love for the ordained celebration and their loathness to depart from it. Nathan Isaacs PASTOR <pas’-ter > ([ h[,ro , ro`eh ]; [poimh>n, poimen ]; literally, a helper, or feeder of the sheep (the King James Version Jeremiah 2:8; 3:15; 10:21; 12:10; 17:16; 22:22; 23:1,2, and in Ephesians 4:11, the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American))): Besides the literal sense the word has now a figurative meaning and refers to the minister appointed over a congregation. This latter meaning is recognized in the translation of the King James Version. See MINISTRY.

PASTORAL, EPISTLES, THE <pas’-tor-al > , The First and Second Epistles to Timothy, and the Epistle to Titus form a distinct group among the letters written by Paul, and are now known as the Pastoral Epistles because they were addressed to two Christian ministers.

When Timothy and Titus received these epistles they were not acting, as they had previously done, as missionaries or itinerant evangelists, but had been left by Paul in charge of churches; the former having the oversight of the church in Ephesus, and the latter having the care of the churches in the island of Crete. The Pastoral Epistles were written to guide them in the discharge of the duties devolving upon them as Christian pastors. Such is a general description of these epistles. In each of them, however, there is a great deal more than is covered or implied by the designation, “Pastoral” — much that is personal, and much also that is concerned with Christian faith and doctrine and practice generally. 1. GENUINENESS. 1. External Evidence: In regard to the genuineness of the epistles there is abundant external attestation. Allusions to them are found in the writings of Clement and Polycarp. In the middle of the 2nd century the epistles were recognized as Pauline in authorship, and were freely quoted. “Marcion indeed rejected them, and Tatian is supposed to have rejected those to Timothy. But, as Jerome states in the preface to his Commentary on Titus, these heretics rejected the epistles, not on critical grounds, but merely because they disliked their teaching. He says they used no argument, but merely asserted, This is Paul’s, This is not Paul’s. It is obvious that men holding such opinions as Marcion and Tatian held, would not willingly ascribe authority to epistles which condemned asceticism. So far, then, as the early church can guarantee to us the authenticity of writings ascribed to Paul, the Pastoral Epistles are guaranteed” (Marcus Dods, Introduction to the New Testament, 167).

The external evidence is all in favor of the reception of these epistles., which were known not only to Clement and Polycarp, but also to Irenaeus, Tertullian, the author of the Epistle to the churches of Vienne and Lyons, and Theophilus of Antioch. The evidence of Polycarp, who died in AD, is remarkably strong. He says, “The love of money is the beginning of all trouble, knowing .... that we brought nothing into the world, neither can carry anything out” (compare 1 Timothy 6:7,10). It would be difficult to overthrow testimony of this nature. 2. Genuineness Questioned: The decision of certain critics to reject the Pastoral Epistles as documents not from the hand of Paul, “is not reached on the external evidence, which is perhaps as early an attestation as can be reasonably expected. They are included in the Muratorian Canon, and quoted by Irenaeus and later writers as Paul’s” (A.S. Peake, A Critical Introduction to the New Testament, 60).

This admission is satisfactory. In recent times, however, the authenticity of these epistles has been called in question by Schmidt, Schleiermacher, Baur, Renan, and many others. Baur asserted that they were written for the purpose of combating the Gnosticism of the 2nd century, and of defending the church from it by means of ecclesiastical organization, and that the date of their composition was about the year 150 AD. 2. ALLEGED DIFFICULTIES AGAINST PAULINE AUTHORSHIP.

Various difficulties have been alleged against the reception of the Pastoral Epistles as Pauline. The chief of these are: (1) the difficulty of finding any place for these letters in the life of Paul, as that is recorded in the Acts and in the Pauline Epistles written before the Pastorals; (2) the fact that there are said to be in them indications of an ecclesiastical organization, and of a development of doctrine, both orthodox and heretical, considerably in advance of the Pauline age; (3) that the language of the epistles is, to a large extent, different from that in the accepted epistles; (4) the “most decisive” of all the arguments against the Pauline authorship — so writes Dr. A.C. McGiffert (A History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age, 402) — is that “the Christianity of the Pastoral Epistles is not the Christianity of Paul.”

Where can a place be found for these epistles, in the life of Paul? The indications of the date of their composition given in the epistles themselves are these. 1. Relative to Paul’s Experiences: (1) Data in 1 Timothy In 1 Timothy 1:3 Paul had gone from Ephesus to Macedonia, and had left Timothy in Ephesus in charge of the church there. In the Acts and in the previously written Pauline epistles, it is impossible to find such events or such a state of matters as will satisfy these requirements. Paul had previously been in Ephesus, on several occasions. His 1st visit to that city is recorded in Acts 18:19-21. On that occasion he went from Ephesus, not into Macedonia, but into Syria. His 2nd visit was his 3 years’ residence in Ephesus, as narrated in Acts 19; and when he left the city, he had, previous to his own departure from it, already sent Timothy into Macedonia (19:22) — a state of matters exactly the reverse of that described in 1 Timothy 1:3. Timothy soon rejoined Paul, and so far was he from being left in Ephesus then, that he was in Paul’s company on the remainder of his journey toward Jerusalem ( Acts 20:4; 2 Corinthians 1:1).

No place therefore in Paul’s life, previous to his arrest in Jerusalem, and his first Roman imprisonment, can be found, which satisfies the requirements of the situation described in 1 Timothy 1:3. “It is impossible, unless we assume a second Roman imprisonment, to reconcile the various historical notices which the epistle (2 Timothy) contains” (McGiffert, op. cit., 407).

In addition to this, the language used by the apostle at Miletus, when he addressed the elders of the Ephesian church ( Acts 20:30) about the men speaking perverse things, who should arise among them, showed that these false teachers had not made their appearance at that time. There is, for this reason alone, no place for the Pastoral Epistles in Paul’s life, previous to his arrest in Jerusalem. But Paul’s life did not end at the termination of his first Roman imprisonment; and this one fact gives ample room to satisfy all the conditions, as these are found in the three Pastorals.

Those who deny the Pauline authorship of these epistles also deny that he was released from what, in this article, is termed his 1st Roman imprisonment. But a denial of this latter statement is an assumption quite unwarranted and unproved. It assumes that Paul was not set free, simply because there is no record of this in the Acts. But the Acts is, on the very face of it, an incomplete or unfinished record; that is, it brings the narrative to a certain point, and then breaks off, evidently for the reason which Sir W.M. Ramsay demonstrates, that Luke meant to write a sequel to that book — a purpose, however, which he was unable, owing to some cause now unknown, to carry into execution. The purpose of the Acts, as Ramsay shows (St. Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen,23, 308), is to lead up to the release of Paul, and to show that the Christian faith was not a forbidden or illegal religion, but that the formal impeachment of the apostle before the supreme court of the empire ended in his being set at liberty, and thus there was established the fact that the faith of Jesus Christ was not, at that time, contrary to Roman law. “The Pauline authorship .... can be maintained only on the basis of a hypothetical reconstruction, either of an entire period subsequent to the Roman imprisonment, or of the events within some period known to us” (McGiffert, op. cit., 410). The one fact that Paul was set free after his 1st Roman imprisonment gives the environment which fits exactly all the requirements of the Pastoral Epistles.

Attention should be directed to the facts and to the conclusion stated in the article PRAETORIUM (which see), Mommsen having shown that the words, “My bonds became manifest in Christ throughout the whole praetorian guard” ( Philippians 1:13), mean that at the time when Paul wrote the Epistle to the Philippians, the case against him had already come before the supreme court of appeal in Rome, that it had been partly heard, and that the impression made by the prisoner upon his judges was so favorable, that he expected soon to be set free.

The indications to be drawn from other expressions in three of the epistles of the Roman captivity — Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon — are to the same effect. Thus, writing to the Philippians, he says that he hopes to send Timothy to them, so soon as he sees how matters go with him, and that he trusts in the Lord that he himself will visit them shortly. And again, writing to his friend Philemon in the city of Colosse, he asks him to prepare him a lodging, for he trusts that through the prayers of the Colossians, he will be granted to them.

These anticipations of acquittal and of departure from Rome are remarkable, and do not in any degree coincide with the idea that Paul was not set free but was condemned and put to death at that time. “It is obvious that the importance of the trial is intelligible only if Paul was acquitted.

That he was acquitted follows from the Pastoral Epistles with certainty for all who admit their genuineness; while even they who deny their Pauline origin must allow that they imply an early belief in historical details which are not consistent with Paul’s journeys before his trial, and must either be pure inventions or events that occurred on later journeys. .... If he was acquitted, the issue of the trial was a formal decision by the supreme court of the empire that it was permissible to preach Christianity; the trial, therefore, was really a charter of religious liberty, and therein lies its immense importance. It was indeed overturned by later decisions of the supreme court; but its existence was a highly important fact for the Christians” (Ramsay, op. cit., 308). “That he was acquitted is demanded both by the plan evident in Acts and by other reasons well stated by others” (ibid., 360).

It should also be observed that there is the direct and corroborative evidence of Paul’s release, afforded by such writers as Cyril of Jerusalem, Ephrem Syriac., Chrysostom and Theodoret, all of whom speak of Paul’s going to Spain. Jerome (Vir. Ill., 5) gives it as a matter of personal knowledge that Paul traveled as far as Spain. But there is more important evidence still. In the Muratorian Canon, 1,37, there are the words, “profectionem Pauli ab urbe ad Spaniam proficiscentis” (“the journey of Paul as he journeyed from Rome to Spain”). Clement also in the epistle from the church in Rome to the church in Corinth, which was written not later than the year 96 AD, says in reference to Paul, “Having taught righteousness to the whole world, and having gone to the extremity of the west (epi to terma tes duseos elthon) and having borne witness before the rulers, so was he released from the world and went to the holy place, being the greatest example of endurance.” The words, “having gone to the extremity of the west,” should be specially noticed. Clement was in Rome when he wrote this, and, accordingly, the natural import of the words is that Paul went to the limit of the western half of then known world, or in other words, to the western boundary of the lands bordering the Mediterranean, that is, to Spain.

Now Paul never had been in Spain previous to his arrest in Jerusalem, but in Romans 15:24,28 he had twice expressed his intention to go there.

These independent testimonies, of Clement and of the Muratorian Canon, of the fact that after Paul’s arrest in Jerusalem he did carry into execution his purpose to visit Spain, are entitled to great weight. They involve, of course, the fact that he was acquitted after his 1st Roman imprisonment.

Having been set free, Paul could not do otherwise than send Timothy to Philippi, and himself also go there, as he had already promised when he wrote to the Philippian church ( Philippians 2:19,24). As a matter of course he would also resume his apostolic journeys for the purpose of proclaiming the gospel. There is now ample room in his life for the Pastoral Epistles, and they give most interesting details of his further labors. The historical and geographical requirements in 1 Timothy are, in this way, easily satisfied. It was no great distance to Ephesus from Philippi and Colosse, where he had promised that he would “come shortly.” (2) Data in 2 Timothy The requirements in 2 Timothy are (a) that Paul had recently been at Troas, at Corinth, and at Miletus, each of which he mentions ( 2 Timothy 4:13,20); (b) that when he wrote the epistles he was in Rome (1:17); (c) that he was a prisoner for the cause of the gospel (1:8; 2:9), and had once already appeared before the emperor’s supreme court (4:16,17); (d) that he had then escaped condemnation, but that he had reason to believe that on the next hearing of his case the verdict would be given against him, and that he expected it could not be long till execution took place (4:6); (e) that he hoped that Timothy would be able to come from Ephesus to see him at Rome before the end (4:9,21). These requirements cannot be made to agree or coincide with the first Roman captivity, but they do agree perfectly with the facts of the apostle’s release and his subsequent second imprisonment in that city. (3) Data in Titus The data given in the Epistle to Titus are (a) that Paul had been in Crete, and that Titus had been with him there, and had been left behind in that island, when Paul sailed from its shores, Titus being charged with the oversight of the churches there ( Titus 1:5); and (b) that Paul meant to spend the next winter at Nicopolis (3:12). It is simply impossible to locate these events in the recorded life of Paul, as that is found in the other epistles, and in the Acts. But they agree perfectly with his liberation after his first Roman imprisonment. “As there is then no historical evidence that Paul did not survive the year 64, and as these Pastoral Epistles were recognized as Pauline in the immediately succeeding age, we may legitimately accept them as evidence that Paul did survive the year 64 — that he was acquitted, resumed his missionary labors, was again arrested and brought to Rome, and from this second imprisonment wrote the Second Epistle to Timothy — his last extant writing” (Dods, Introduction to the New Testament, 172). 2. Subject-Matter, Post-Pauline: The second difficulty alleged against the acceptance of these epistles as Pauline is that there are said to exist in them indications of an ecclesiastical organization and of a doctrinal development, both orthodox and heretical, considerably later than those of the Pauline age. (1) Difficulty Regarding Church Organization The first statement, that the epistles imply an ecclesiastical organization in advance of the time when Paul lived, is one which cannot be maintained in view of the facts disclosed in the epistles themselves. For directions are given to Timothy and to Titus in regard to the moral and other characteristics necessary in those who are to be ordained as bishops, elders, and deacons. In the 2nd century the outstanding feature of ecclesiastical organization was the development of monarchical episcopacy, but the Pastoral Epistles show a presbyterial administration. The office held by Timothy in Ephesus and by Titus in Crete was, as the epistles themselves show, of a temporary character. The directions which Paul gives to Timothy and Titus in regard to the ordaining of presbyters in every church are in agreement with similar notices found elsewhere in the New Testament, and do not coincide with the state of church organization as that existed in the 2nd century, the period when, objectors to the genuineness of the epistles assert, they were composed. “Everyone acquainted with ancient literature, particularly the literature of the ancient church, knows that a forger or fabricator of those times could not possibly have avoided anachronisms” (Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament, II, 93). But the ecclesiastical arrangements in the Pastoral Epistles coincide in all points with the state of matters as it is found in the church in the time of the apostles, as that is described in the Acts and elsewhere in the New Testament.

It seems an error to suppose, as has often been done, that these epistles contain the germ of monarchical episcopacy; for the Christian church had already, from the day of Pentecost, existed as a society with special officers for the functions of extension, discipline and administration. The church in the Pastoral Epistles is a visible society, as it always was. Its organization therefore had come to be of the greatest importance, and especially so in the matter of maintaining and handing down the true faith; the church accordingly is described as “the pillar and stay of the truth” ( 1 Timothy 3:15 margin), that is, the immovable depository of the Divine revelation. (2) The Doctrinal Difficulty The other statement, that the epistles show a doctrinal development out of harmony with the Pauline age is best viewed by an examination of what the epistles actually say.

In 1 Timothy 6:20, Paul speaks of profane and vain babblings and oppositions of gnosis (the Revised Version (British and American) “knowledge,” the King James Version “science”) falsely so called. In Titus 3:9, he tells Titus to avoid foolish questions and genealogies and contentions and strivings about the law. These phrases have been held to be allusions to the tenets of Marcion, and to those of some of the Gnostic sects. There are also other expressions, such as fables and endless genealogies ( 1 Timothy 1:3,4; 6:3), words to no profit but the subverting of the hearer ( 2 Timothy 2:14), foolish and unlearned questions which do gender strifes ( 2 Timothy 2:23), questions and strifes of words ( 1 Timothy 6:4,5), discussions which lead to nothing but word-battles and profane babbling. Such are the expressions which Paul uses. These, taken with what is even more clearly stated in the Epistle to the Colossians, certainly point to an incipient Gnosticism. But had the writer of the Pastoral Epistles been combating the Gnosticism of the 2nd century, it would not have been phrases like these that he would have employed, but others much more definite. Godet, quoted by Dods (Intro, 175), writes, “The danger here is of substituting intellectualism in religion for piety of heart and life. Had the writer been a Christian of the 2nd century, trying, under the name of Paul, to stigmatize the Gnostic systems, he would certainly have used much stronger expressions to describe their character and influence.”

It should be observed that the false teachers described in 2 Timothy 3:6-9,13, as well as in other places in these epistles, were persons who taught that the Mosaic Law was binding upon all Christians. They laid stress upon rabbinic myths, upon investigations and disputations about genealogies and specific legal requirements of the Old Testament. What they taught was a form of piously sounding doctrine assuming to be Christian, but which was really rabbinism. “For a pseudo-Paul in the post-apostolic age — when Christians of Jewish birth had become more and more exceptions in the Gentile Christian church — to have invented a description of and vigorously to have opposed the heterodidaskaloi , who did not exist in his own age, and who were without parallel in the earlier epistles of Paul, would have been to expose himself to ridicule without apparent purpose or meaning” (Zahn, Introduction, II, 117). “A comparison of the statements in these epistles about various kinds of false doctrine, and of those portions of the same that deal with the organization and officers of the church, with conditions actually existing in the church, especially the church of Asia Minor, at the beginning and during the course of the 2nd century, proves, just as clearly as does the external evidence, that they must have been written at latest before the year 100. But they could not have been written during the first two decades after Paul’s death, because of the character of the references to persons, facts and conditions in Paul’s lifetime and his own personal history, and because of the impossibility on this assumption of discovering a plausible motive for their forgery. Consequently the claim that they are post-Pauline, and contain matter which is un-Pauline, is to be treated with the greatest suspicion” (Zahn, op. cit., II, 118). 3. Difficulty Relative to Language: The third difficulty alleged against the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles is connected with the language employed, which is said to be, to a large extent, different from that in the accepted epistles. The facts in regard to this matter are that in 1 Timothy there are 82 words not found elsewhere in the New Testament; in 2 Timothy there are 53 such words, and in Titus there are 33. But, while the total of such words in the three epistles is 168, this number, large though it appears, may be compared with the words used only once in the other Epistles of Paul. In Romans, 1 Corinthians, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians and Philemon, the words of this description are 627 in number. So nothing can be built upon the fact of the 168 peculiar words in the Pastoral Epistles, that can safely be alleged as proof against their Pauline authorship. The special subjects treated in these epistles required adequate language, a requirement and a claim which would not be refused in the case of any ordinary author.

The objections to the Pauline authorship of the Pastorals, based upon the dissimilarity of diction in them and in Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians, cease to exist when theory is no longer persisted in, that the nucleus of the Pastoral Epistles was composed during the Roman imprisonment, which, according to this theory ended, not in the apostle’s release, but in his execution. The fact that he was writing to intimate and beloved friends, both on personal matters and on the subject of church organization, and on that of incipient Gnosticism, which was troubling the churches of Asia Minor, made it essential that he should, to a large extent, use a different vocabulary. 4. Is There “Another Gospel” in the Pastorals?: The “most decisive” of all the arguments against the Pauline authorship is that “the Christianity of the Pastoral Epistles is not the Christianity of Paul” (McGiffert, A History of Christianity, 402). “For the most part,” Dr.

McGiffert writes, “there is no trace whatever of the great fundamental truth of Paul’s gospel — death unto the flesh and life in the Spirit.” Now this is not so, for the passages which Dr. McGiffert himself gives in a footnote ( 2 Timothy 1:9-11; 2:11 ff; Titus 3:4-7), as well as other references, do most certainly refer to this very aspect of the gospel. For example, the passage in 2 Timothy 2 contains these words, “If we died with him (Christ), we shall also live with him.” What is this but the great truth of the union of the Christian believer with Christ? The believer is one with Christ in His death, one with Him now as He lives and reigns. The objection, therefore, which is “most decisive of all,” is one which is not true in point of fact. Dr. McGiffert also charges the author of the Pastoral Epistles as being “one who understood by resurrection nothing else than the resurrection of the fleshly body” (p. 430). The body of our Lord was raised from the dead, but how very unjust this accusation is, is evident from such a passage as 1 Timothy 3:16, “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; He who was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen of angels, Preached among the nations, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.” Charges of this nature are unsupported by evidence, and are of the kind on which Dr. A.S. Peake (A Critical Introduction to the New Testament, 71) bases his rejection of the Pauline authorship — except for a Pauline nucleus — that he “feels clear.” More than an ipse dixit of this sort is needed.

The theory that the Pastoral Epistles are based upon genuine letters or notes of Paul to Timothy and Titus is thus advocated by Peake, McGiffert, Moffatt and many others. It bears very hard upon 1 Timothy. “In Timothy not a single verse can be indicated, which clearly bears the stamp of Pauline origin” (Peake, op. cit., 70). “We may fairly conclude then in agreement with many modern scholars that we have here, in the Pastoral Epistles, authentic letters of Paul to Timothy and Titus, worked over and enlarged by another hand” (McGiffert, op. cit., 405). In regard to Timothy he writes, “It is very likely that there are scattered fragments of the original epistle in 1 Timothy, as for instance in 1:23. But it is difficult to find anything which we can be confident was written by Paul” (p. 407).

Dr. McGiffert also alleges that in the Pastoral Epistles, the word “faith” “is not employed in its profound Pauline sense, but is used to signify one of the cardinal virtues, along with love, peace, purity, righteousness, sanctification, patience and meekness.” One of the Pauline epistles, with which he contrasts the Pastorals, is the Epistle to the Galatians; and the groundlessness of this charge is evident from Galatians 5:22, where “faith” is included in the list there given of the fruit of the Spirit, along with love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, meekness and selfcontrol.

If the Pastoral Epistles are the work of Paul, then, Dr. McGiffert concludes, Paul had given up that form of the gospel which he had held and taught throughout his life, and descended from the lofty religious plane upon which he had always moved, to the level of mere piety and morality (op. cit., 404). But this charge is not just or reasonable, in view of the fact that the apostle is instructing Timothy and Titus how to combat the views and practices of immoral teachers. Or again, in such a passage as Timothy 1:12-17 the King James Version, the author of the epistle has not descended from the lofty plane of faith to that of mere piety and morality, when he writes, “The grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.”

If such be the “most decisive” objection against the Pauline authorship, the other difficulties, as already seen, need not cause alarm, for they resolve themselves into the equally groundless charges that the historical requirements of the epistles cannot be fitted into any part of Paul’s life, and that the doctrine and ecclesiastical organization do not suit the Apostolic age. These objections have been already referred to.

The real difficulty, writes Dr. Peake (A Critical Introduction, 68), is that “the old energy of thought and expression is gone, and the greater smoothness and continuity in the grammar is a poor compensation for the lack of grip and of continuity in the thought.” Dr. Peake well and truly says that this statement does not admit of detailed proof. Lack of grip and lack of continuity of thought are not the characteristics of such passages as Timothy 1:9-17, a passage which will bear comparison with anything in the acknowledged Pauline Epistles; and there are many other similar passages, e.g. Titus 2:11 through 3:7.

What must be said of the dullness of the intelligence of Christian men and of the Christian church as a whole, if they could thus let themselves be imposed upon by epistles which purported to be Paul’s, but which were not written by him at all, but were the enlargement of a Pauline nucleus? Can it be believed that the church of the 2nd century, the church of the martyrs, was in such a state of mental decrepitude as to receive epistles which were spurious, so far as the greater portion of their contents is concerned? And can it be believed that this idea, so recently originated and so destitute of proof, is andequate explanation of epistles which have been received as Pauline from the earliest times?

When placed side by side with sub-apostolic writings like the Didache, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, and Ignatius, “it is difficult to resist the idea which returns upon one with almost every sentence that .... the Pastorals are astonishingly superior” (Moffatt, The Historical New Testament, 556).

Godet, quoted by R.D. Shaw (The Pauline Epistles, 441), writes, “When one has had enough of the pious amplifications of Clement of Rome, of the ridiculous inanities of Barnabas, of the general oddities of Ignatius, of the well-meant commonplaces of Polycarp, of the intolerable verbiage of Hermas, and of the nameless platitudes of the Didache, and, after this promenade in the first decade of the 2nd century, reverts to our Pastoral Epistles, one will measure the distance that separates the least striking products of the apostolic literature from what has been preserved to us as most eminent in the ancient patristic literature.”

In the case of some modern critics, the interpolation hypothesis “is their first and last appeal, the easy solution of any difficulty that presents itself to their imaginations. Each writer feels free to give the kaleidoscope a fresh turn, and then records with blissful confidence what are called the latest results. .... The whole method postulates that a writer must always preserve the same dull monotone or always confine himself to the same transcendental heights. .... He must see and say everything at once; having had his vision and his dream, he must henceforth be like a star and dwell apart. .... To be stereotyped is his only salvation. .... On such principles there is not a writer of note, and there never has been a man in public life, or a student in the stream of a progressive science, large parts of whose sayings and doings could not be proved to be by some one else” (Shaw, The Pauline Epistles, 483). 3. DATE AND ORDER. 1. Date of the Epistles: In regard to the date of these epistles, external and internal evidence alike go to show that they belong to practically the same period. The dates of their composition are separated from each other by not more than three or four years; and the dates of each and all of them must be close to the Neronic persecution (64 AD). If Paul was executed 67 AD (see Ramsay, Paul, 396), there is only a short interval of time between his release in or 62, and his death in 67, that is a period of some 5 or 6 years, during which his later travels took place, and when the Pastoral Epistles were written. “Between the three letters there is an affinity of language, a similarity of thought, and a likeness of errors combated, which prevents our referring any of them to a period much earlier than the others” (Zahn, Introduction, II, 37). 2. Their Order: The order in which they were written must have been 1 Timothy, Titus, Timothy. It is universally acknowledged that 2 Timothy is the very last of Paul’s extant epistles, and the internal evidence of the other two seems to point out 1 Timothy as earlier than Titus.

To sum up, the evidence of the early reception of the Pastoral Epistles as Pauline is very strong. “The confident denial of the genuineness of these letters — which has been made now for several generations more positively than in the case of any other Pauline epistles — has no support from tradition. .... Traces of their circulation in the church before Marcion’s time are clearer than those which can be found for Romans and 2 Corinthians” (Zahn, op. cit., II, 85). The internal evidence shows that all three are from the hand of one and the same writer, a writer who makes many personal allusions of a nature which it would be impossible for a forger to invent. It is generally allowed that the personal passages in Timothy 1:15-18; 4:9-22 are genuine. But if this is so, then it is not possible to cut and carve the epistles into fragments of this kind.

Objections dating only a century back are all too feeble to overturn the consistent marks of Pauline authorship found in all three epistles, corroborated as this is by their reception in the church, dating from the very earliest period. The Pastoral Epistles may be used with the utmost confidence, as having genuinely come from the hand of Paul.

LITERATURE.

R. D. Shaw, The Pauline Epistles; A. S. Peake, A Critical Introduction to the New Testament; A. C. McGiffert, A History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age; Theodor Zahn, An Introduction to the New Testament; Marcus Dods,.Introduction to the New Testament; Weiss, Einleitung in das New Testament (English translation); C. J. Ellicott, A Critical and Grammatical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles; Patrick Fairbairn, The Pastoral Epistles; John Ed. Huther, Critical and Exegetical Handbook of the Epistles of Paul to Timothy and Titus; George Salmon, A Historical Introduction to the Study of the Books of the New Testament; James Moffatt, The Historical New Testament; Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament; Adolf Julicher, An Introduction to the New Testament; Caspar Rene Gregory, Canon and Text of the New Testament.

The “lives” of Paul may also be consulted, as they contain much that refers to these epistles, i.e. those by Conybeare and Howson, Lewin, Farrar and others. See also Ramsay’s Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen. John Rutherfurd PASTURAGE; PASTURE <pas’-tur-aj > , <pas’-tur > . See SHEEP-TENDING.

PATARA <pat’-a-ra > ([ta< Pa>tara, ta Patara ): A coast city of ancient Lycia, from which, according to Acts 21:1, Paul took a ship for Phoenicia. Because of its excellent harbor, many of the coast trading ships stopped at Patara, which therefore became an important and wealthy port of entry to the towns of the interior. As early as 440 BC autonomous coins were struck there; during the 4th and the 3rd centuries the coinage was interrupted, but was again resumed in 168 BC when Patara joined the Lycian league.

Ptolemy Philadelphus enlarged the city, and changed its name to Arsinoe in honor of his wife. The city was celebrated not only as a trading center, but especially for its celebrated oracle of Apollo which is said to have spoken only during the six winter months of the year. Among the ruins there is still to be seen a deep pit with circular steps leading to a seat at the bottom; it is supposed that the pit is the place of the oracle. In the history of early Christianity, Patara took but little part, but it was the home of a bishop, and the birthplace of Nicholas, the patron saint of the sailors of the East.

Though born at Patara, Nicholas was a bishop and saint of Myra, a neighboring Lycian city, and there he is said to have been buried. Gelemish is the modern name of the ruin. The walls of the ancient city may still be traced, and the foundations of the temple and castle and other public buildings are visible. The most imposing of the ruins is a triumphal arch bearing the inscription: “Patara the Metropolis of the Lycian Nation.”

Outside the city walls many sarcophagi may be seen, but the harbor, long ago choked by sand, has been converted into a useless swamp. See also MAYA.

E. J. Banks PATE <pat > ([ dqod]q; , qodhqodh ]): The word usually translated “crown,” “crown of the head” ( Genesis 49:26; Deuteronomy 28:35; 33:16,20; Samuel 14:25; Job 2:7; Isaiah 3:17; Jeremiah 2:16; 48:45) and “scalp” ( Psalm 68:21) is rendered “pate” in Psalm 7:16 in agreement with earlier English translators since Coverdale: “His mischief shall return upon his own head, and his violence shall come down upon his own pate.”

The reason for the choice of the word lies evidently in the desire to make the Hebrew parallelism with “head” (ro’sh ) apparent. The same object has, however, been achieved differently in another poetical passage ( Genesis 49:26 parallel Deuteronomy 33:16), namely, by the juxtaposition of “head” and “crown of the head.” H. L. E. Luering PATH; PATHWAY <path > , <path’-wa > ([ jr”ao , orach ], [ hb;ytin] , nethibhah ], etc.; [tri>bov, tribos ], [trocia>, trochia ]): (1) In the Old Testament. — In addition to its obvious literal sense (e.g. Genesis 49:17), it has very frequently a figurative meaning. (a) As applied to man, a course or manner of life: (i) man’s outward lot in life, his career or destiny, whether of the just man ( Isaiah 26:7) or of the ungodly ( Job 8:13); (ii) frequently in an ethical sense, of men’s conduct or inward life-purpose, whether it be good or evil (e.g. Proverbs 2:15), generally accompanied by a term defining the moral quality of the conduct, either an abstract noun (e.g. “the paths of uprightness,” Proverbs 2:13; 4:11; “the paths of justice,” Proverbs 2:8; Isaiah 40:14; “the paths of life,” Psalm 16:11; Proverbs 2:19), or a concrete adjective or noun (e.g. “crooked paths,” Isaiah 59:8; “the paths of the righteous,” Proverbs 2:20; 4:18). (b) The term is also applied to God either (i) of the methods of the Divine Providence, God’s dealings with men ( Psalm 25:10; 65:11), or (ii) of the principles and maxims of religion and morality divinely revealed to man (“Show me thy ways, O Yahweh, teach me thy paths,” Psalm 25:4; compare Isaiah 2:3). (2) In the Apocrypha we have the “paths” of Wisdom (tribos , Baruch 3:21,31); the “path” shown to men by the Law (semita , 2 Esdras 14:22); and a man’s “paths” (tribos , Tobit 4:10). (3) In the New Testament the word occurs only in Matthew 3:3 and parallel passages Mark 1:3; Luke 3:4 (of the forerunner’s work), and in Hebrews 12:13 (in the Old Testament ethical sense).

Pathway occurs in Proverbs 12:28 (derekh nethibhah ) and The Wisdom of Solomon 5:10 (atrapos ). See WAY.

D. Miall Edwards PATHEUS <pa-the’-us > ([ Paqai~ov, Pathaios ], [ Faqai~ov, Phathaios ]): One of the Levites who had married a foreign wife (1 Esdras 9:23) = “Pethahiah” of Ezra 10:23.

PATHROS <path’-ros > ([ swOrt]P” , pathros ]; Egyptian Pata resii, the “South land”; Septuagint [gh~ Paqourh~v, ge Pathoures ]): The Hebrew form of the Egyptian name for Upper Egypt ( Isaiah 11:11; Jeremiah 44:1,15; Ezekiel 29:14; 30:14).

PATHRUSIM <path-roo’-sim > , <path-ru’-sim > ([ ysirut]P” , pathruci ], “an inhabitant of Pathros”; Septuagint [oiJ Patrosw>nieim, hoi Patrosonieim ]): The branch of the Egyptians who came from PATHROS (which see). They are represented as begotten of Mizraim, “Mizraim begat Zudim. .... and Pathrusim” ( Genesis 10:13 f; 1 Chronicles 1:11 f).

PATIENCE <pa’-shens > ([uJpomonh>, hupomone ], [makroqumi>a, makrothumia ]): “Patience” implies suffering, enduring or waiting, as a determination of the will and not simply under necessity. As such it is an essential Christian virtue to the exercise of which there are many exhortations. We need to “wait patiently” for God, to endure uncomplainingly the various forms of sufferings, wrongs and evils that we meet with, and to bear patiently injustices which we cannot remedy and provocations we cannot remove.

The word “patience” does not occur in the Old Testament, but we have “patiently” in Psalm 40:1 as the translation of qawah , “to wait,” “to expect,” which word frequently expresses the idea, especially that of waiting on God; in Psalm 37:7, “patiently” (“wait patiently”) is the translation of qul , one of the meanings of which is “to wait” or “to hope for” or “to expect” (of Job 35:14); “patient” occurs ( Ecclesiastes 7:8) as the translation of ‘erekh ruach , “long of spirit,” and ( Job 6:11) “that I should be patient” (ha’arikh nephesh ). Compare “impatient” ( Job 21:4). “Patience” occurs frequently in the Apocrypha, especially in Ecclesiasticus, e.g. 2:14; 16:13; 17:24; 41:2 (hupomone ); 5:11 (makrothumia ); 29:8 (makrothumeo , the Revised Version (British and American) “long suffering”); in The Wisdom of Solomon 2:19, the Greek word is anexikakia .

In the New Testament hupomone carries in it the ideas of endurance, continuance ( Luke 8:15; 21:19; Romans 5:3,4, the American Standard Revised Version “stedfastness”; 8:25, etc.).

In all places the American Revised Version margin has “stedfastness,” except James 5:11, where it has “endurance”; makrothumia is translated “patience” ( Hebrews 6:12; James 5:10); makrothumeo , “to bear long” ( Matthew 18:26,29; James 5:7; See LONGSUFFERING); the same verb is translated “be patient” ( 1 Thessalonians 5:14, the Revised Version (British and American) “longsuffering”; James 5:7,8, the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) “patient”); makrothumos , “patiently” ( Acts 26:3); hupomeno ( 1 Peter 2:20); anexikakos is translated “patient” ( 2 Timothy 2:4, the Revised Version (British and American), the King James Version margin, “forbearing”); epieikes , “gentle” ( 1 Timothy 3:3, the Revised Version (British and American) “gentle”); hupomeno ( Romans 12:12, “patient in tribulation”). For “the patient waiting for Christ” ( 2 Thessalonians 3:5), the Revised Version (British and American) has “the patience of Christ.”

Patience is often hard to gain and to maintain, but, in Romans 15:5, God is called “the God of patience” (the American Revised Version margin “stedfastness”) as being able to grant that grace to those who look to Him and depend on Him for it. It is in reliance on God and acceptance of His will, with trust in His goodness, wisdom and faithfulness, that we are enabled to endure and to hope stedfastly. See also GOD.

W. L. Walker PATMOS <pat’-mos > ([ Pa>tmov, Patomos ]; Italian: San Giovanni di Patino): A Turkish island of the group Sporades, Southwest of Samos, mentioned once in the Bible, Revelation 1:9, “I, John .... was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God and the testimony of Jesus” ([dia< togon tou~ qeou~ kai< than jIhsou~, dia ton logon tou theou kai ten marturian Iesou ]). The island is 10 miles long, and about 6 broad along the northern coast. It is for the most part rocky. The highest part is Mount Elias, which rises to a height of over 800 ft. As in Greece, and in the adjacent mainland of Asia Minor, the land is treeless. Near the city of Patmos there is a good harbor. A famous monastery, Christodulos, was founded on the island in 1088. Near this is a thriving school, attended by students from all parts of the Archipelago. The population of the island numbers 3,000, almost entirely Greek. The ancient capital was on an isthmus between the inlets of Lamentations Scala and Merika. Many ruins can still be seen. The huge walls of Cyclopean masonry, similar to those at Tiryns, attest their great age. In Roman times Patmos was one of the many places to which Rome banished her exiles. In 95 AD, according to a tradition preserved by Irenaeus, Eusebius, Jerome and others, John was exiled here — in the 14th year of the reign of Domitian — whence he returned to Ephesus under Nerva (96 AD). The cave in which he is said to have seen his visions is still pointed out to the traveler. Only a small part of the once valuable library in the monastery of Christodulos is left. Just years ago (1814) Mr. E.D. Clark purchased here the manuscript of Plato which is now in the Bodleian Library, the celebrated Clarkianus, a parchment written in the year 895, and admittedly the best of all for the 1st of the 2 volumes into which the works of Plato were divided for convenience. Patmos is mentioned by Thucydides (iii.33), by Pliny (NH, iv.23), and by Strabo (x.5). See also JOHN THE APOSTLE; REVELATION OF JOHN.

LITERATURE.

Tozer, The Islands of the Aegean (1890), 178-95; Walpole, Turkey (London, 1820), II, 43; E.D. Clark, Travels (London, 1818), VI, 2; Ross, Reisen (Stuttgart, 1840), II; Guerin, Description de l’Ile de Patmos (Paris, 1856). J. E. Harry PATRIARCH; PATRIACHS <pa’-tri-ark > , [patria>rchv, patriarches ]). The word occurs in the New Testament in application to Abraham ( Hebrews 7:4), to the sons of Jacob ( Acts 7:8,9), and to David ( Acts 2:29). In Septuagint it is used as the equivalent of the head of the fathers’ house, or of a tribe ( Chronicles 24:31; 27:32; 2 Chronicles 26:12). Commonly now the term is used of the persons whose names appear in the genealogies and covenant-histories in the periods preceding Moses (Genesis 5; 11, histories of Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc.; compare “patriarchal dispensation”).

The problems connected with the longevity ascribed to the patriarchs in the genealogies and narratives in Genesis are dealt with in special articles. See ANTEDILUVIAN PATRIARCHS; ANTEDILUVIANS GENEALOGY.

James Orr PATRIARCHS, TESTAMENTS OF THE TWELVE See APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE, IV, 1.

PATRIMONY <pat’-ri-mo-ni > ([ twOba;h; , ha-’abhoth ], “the fathers”): A word occurring once in English Versions of the Bible ( Deuteronomy 18:8), meaning literally, “the fathers,” which, however, is obscure, probably by reason of abbreviation for some phrase, e.g. “house of the fathers.” It may indicate “some private source of income possessed by the Levite (who has come up from a country district to the central sanctuary) distinct from what he receives as a priest officiating at the central sanctuary” (Driver, “Deuteronomy,” ICC, in the place cited.). Beyond this one occurrence of the word the same idea is conveyed often by other words or phrases: “He divided unto them his living” ( Luke 15:13); “Teacher, bid my brother divide the inheritance with me” ( Luke 12:13). Full and specific directions were given in the Law for the division of the patrimony (Numbers 27; Deuteronomy 21, etc.) and for its redemption ( Ruth 4:1-12). The idea was frequently used with figurative and spiritual application: the land of Canaan was Israel’s patrimony, being inherited from Yahweh ( <19A511> Psalm 105:11); salvation because of its origin in grace was the believer’s patrimony ( Galatians 3:26 through 4:7). Contrariwise Israel was Yahweh’s inheritance ( Isaiah 19:25; 63:14; compare Psalm 33:12; and the whole earth is the Messiah’s patrimony, inherited from His Eternal Father ( Psalm 2:8). See BIRTHRIGHT; FAMILY; INHERITANCE; PROPERTY.

Edward Mack PATROBAS <pat’-ro-bas > ([ Patro>bav, Patrobas ]): The name of a member of the Christian community at Rome to whom Paul sent greetings ( Romans 16:14). The name is an abbreviated form of “Patrobius.” There was a wealthy freedman of Nero of the same name who was put to death by Galba (Tacitus, History i.49; ii.95). The Patrobas of Paul may have been a dependent of his.

PATROCLUS <pa-tro’-klus > ([ Pa>troklov, Patroklos )]: The father of the Syrian general Nicanor (2 Macc 8:9).

PATTERN <pat’-ern > ([ tynib]T” , tabhnith ], “model,” [ ha,r]m” , mar’eh ], “a vision” or “view”): The Old Testament words translated “pattern” do not necessarily indicate a drawing such as a modern constructor begins with, or the patterns made from these drawings for the guidance of workmen. In Exodus 25:9,40 the word “idea” or “suggestion” would possibly indicate more distinctly than “pattern” what Moses received in regard to the building of the tabernacle, etc. It is doubtful if any architect’s drawing was ever made of the temple. It is not the custom in Palestine and Syria today to work from any pattern more concrete than an idea. A man who wants a house calls the builder and says he wants to build so many rooms of such and such dimensions with, for example, a court 10 drahs (arm’s lengths) wide and 15 drahs long, made of sandstone and plastered inside and out. With these meager instructions the builder starts. The details are worked out as the building proceeds. When a piece of iron or brass work is to be made, the customer by gestures with his hands outlines the form the piece should take. “I want it haik wa haik” (“thus and thus”), he says, and leaves the metal worker to conceive the exact form. It is probable that directions similar to these were given by David to Solomon. “Then David gave Solomon his son the pattern (his conception) of the porch of the temple,” etc. ( 1 Chronicles 28:11). The above does not apply to Greek and Roman work in Syria. Their workmen, probably mostly native, were trained to work from models. Williams in the Architect, January, 1913, says of the works at Baalbek and Palmyra, “There is a machine-like resemblance betokening slavish copying.” At the present time native workmen coming under the influence of foreigners are beginning to work from models and plans, but they show little tendency to create models of their own.

Three Greek words have been translated in the New Testament: [tu>pov, tupos ], “type,” occurs in Titus 2:7 and Hebrews 8:5. In the first instance the Revised Version (British and American) reads “ensample.” [uJpotu>pwsiv, hupotuposis ], “outline,” has been similarly translated in 1 Timothy 1:16, but “pattern” in 2 Timothy 1:13. In Hebrews 9:24 the American Standard Revised Version. [ajnti>tupov, antitupos ], is rendered “like in pattern.” [uJpo>deigma, hupodeigma ], the King James Version “pattern,” is translated in the American Standard Revised Version “copy” ( Hebrews 8:5), “copies” ( Hebrews 9:23). At the time of the translation of the King James Version the word “pattern” meant either the thing to be copied or the copy. James A. Patch PAU <pa’u > . See PAI.

PAUL, THE APOSTLE <pol > , 1. SOURCES. 1. The Acts: For discussion of the historical value of the Acts of the Apostles see the article on that subject. It is only necessary to say here that the view of Sir W.M. Ramsay in general is accepted as to the trustworthiness of Luke, whose authorship of the Acts is accepted and proved by Harnack (Die Apostelgeschichte, 1908; The Acts of the Apostles, translation by Wilkinson, 1909; Neue Untersuch. zur Ap., 1911; The Date of the Acts and of the Synoptic Gospels, translations by Wilkinson, 1911). The proof need not be given again. The same hand appears in the “we” sections and the rest of the book. Even Moffatt (Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, 311) admits the Lukan authorship though dating it in AD instead of 60-62 AD, against Harnack. The Acts is written independently of the Epistles of Paul, whether early or late, and supplements in a wonderful way the incidental references in the epistles, though not without lacunae and difficulties. 2. The Thirteen Epistles: (1) Pauline Authorship.

See the articles on each epistle for detailed criticism. It is here assumed that the Epistle to the Hebrews was not written by Paul, though Pauline in point of view. One cannot stop to prove every statement in an article like this, else a large book would be needed. Criticism is not an infallible science.

One can turn easily from the Hatch-Van Manen article on “Paul” in Encyclopedia Biblica (1902) to the Maclean article on “Paul the Apostle” in the 1-vol HDB (1909). Van-Manen’s part of the one denies all the thirteen, while Maclean says: “We shall, in what follows, without hesitation use the thirteen epistles as genuine.” It is certain that Paul wrote more epistles, or “letters,” as Deissmann (Light from the Ancient East, 225) insists on calling all of Paul’s epistles. Certainly Philera is a mere “letter,” but it is difficult to say as much about Romans. Deissmann (St. Paul,22) admits that portions of Romans are like “an epistolary letter.” At any rate, when Moffatt (Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, 64- 82) carefully justifies the Pauline authorship of both 1 and 2 Thessalonians, it is clear that the case against them cannot be very strong, especially as Moffatt stands out against the genuineness of Ephesians (op. cit., 393) and the Pastoral Epistles (p. 414).

Bartlet, who was once at a loss to know what to do with the Pastorals on theory that Paul was not released from the Roman imprisonment (Apostolic Age, 1899, 200), is now quite willing to face the new facts set forth by Ramsay (Expos, VII, viii-ix, VIII, i), even if it means the admission of a second Roman imprisonment, a view that Bartlet had opposed. He now pleads for “the fresh approach from the side of experience, by men who are in touch with the realities of human nature in all its variety, as well as at home in the historical background of society in the early Roman empire, that has renovated the study of them and taken it out of the old ruts of criticism in which it has moved for the most part in modern times” (Expos, January, 1913, 29). Here Bartlet, again, now eloquently presents the view of common-sense criticism as seen by the practical missionary better than by a life “spent amid the academic associations of a professor’s chair,” though he pauses to note as an exception Professor P. Gardner’s The Religious Experience of Paul (1912).

We may quote Bartlet once more (Expos, January, 1913, 30): “In the recovery of a true point of view a vital element has been the newer conception of Paul himself and so of Paulinism. Paul the doctrinaire theologian, or at least the prophet of a one-sided gospel repeated with fanatical uniformity of emphasis under all conditions, has largely given place to Paul the missionary, full indeed of inspired insight on the basis of a unique experience, but also of practical instinct, the offspring of sympathy with living men of other types of training. When the Pastorals are viewed anew in the light of this idea, half their difficulties disappear.” One need not adopt Deissmann’s rather artificial insistence on “letters” rather than “epistles,” and his undue depreciation of Paul’s intellectual caliber and culture as being more like Amos than Origen (St. Paul, 1912, 6), in order to see the force of this contention for proper understanding of the social environment of Paul. Against Van Manen’s “historical Paul” who wrote nothing, he places “the historic Paul” who possibly wrote all thirteen. “There is really no trouble except with the letters to Timothy and Titus, and even there the difficulties are perhaps not quite so great as many of our specialists assume” (St. Paul,15). See PASTORAL EPISTLES.

Deissmann denies sharply that Paul was an “obscurantist” who corrupted the gospel of Jesus, “the dregs of doctrinaire study of Paul, mostly in the tired brains-of gifted amateurs” (p. 4). But A. Schweitzer boldly proclaims that he alone has the key to Paul and Jesus. It is the “exclusively Jewish eschatological” (Paul and His Interpreters, 1912, ix), conception of Christ’s gospel that furnishes Schweitzer’s spring-board (The Quest of the Historical Jesus). Thus he will be able to explain “the Hellenization of the gospel” as mediated through Paul. To do that Schweitzer plows his weary way from Grotius to Holtzmann, and finds that they have all wandered into the wilderness. He is positive that his eschatological discovery will rescue Paul and some of his epistles from the ruin wrought by Steck and Van Manen to whose arguments modern criticism has nothing solid to offer, and the meager negative crumbs offered by Schweitzer ought to be thankfully received (ibid, 249). (2) Lightfoot’s Grouping. (Compare Biblical Essays, 224.) There is doubt as to the position of Galatians. Some advocates of the South-Galatian theory make it the very earliest of Paul’s Epistles, even before the Jerusalem Conference in Acts 15. So Eramet, Commentary on Galatians (1912), ix, who notes (Preface) that his commentary is the first to take this position. But the North Galatian view still has the weight of authority in spite of Ramsay’s powerful advocacy in his various books (see Historical Commentary on Galatians), as is shown by Moffatt, Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, 90 ff. Hence, Lightfoot’s grouping is still the best to use. (a) First Group (1 and 2 Thessalonians): 1 and 2 Thessalonians, from Corinth, 52-53 AD. Harnack’s view that Thessalonians is addressed to a Jewish Christian church in Thessalonica while 1 Thessalonians is addressed to a Gentilechurch is accepted by Lake (Earlier Epistles of Paul, 1911, 83 ff) but Frame (ICC, 1912, 54) sees no need for this hypothesis. Milligan is clear that 1 Thessalonians precedes Thessalonians (Commentary, 1908, xxxix) and is the earliest of Paul’s Epistles (p. xxxvi). The accent on eschatology is in accord with the position of the early disciples in the opening chapters of Acts. They belong to Paul’s stay in Corinth recorded in Acts 18. (b) Second Group (1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Romans): 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Romans, 55-58 AD. This is the great doctrinal group, the four chief epistles of Baur. They turn about the Judaizing controversy which furnishes the occasion for the expansion of the doctrine of justification by faith in opposition to the legalistic contention of the Judaizing Christians from Jerusalem ( Acts 15:1-3; Galatians 2:1-10). The dates of these epistles are not perfectly clear. Corinthians was written shortly before the close of Paul’s 3 years’ stay at Ephesus ( Acts 20:31; 1 Corinthians 16:8; Acts 20:1 f). Corinthians was written a few months later while he was in Macedonia (2:13; 7:5,13; 8:16-24). Romans was written from Corinth (16:23; Acts 20:2 f) and sent by Phoebe of Cenchrea ( Romans 16:1). The integrity of Romans is challenged by some who deny in particular that chapter belongs to the epistle Moffatt (Intro, 134-38) gives an able, but unconvincing, presentation of the arguments for the addition of the chapter by a later hand. Deissmann (St. Paul,19) calls Romans 16 “a little letter” addressed to the Christians at Ephesus. Von. Soden (History of Early Christian Literature, 78) easily justifies the presence of Romans 16 in the Epistle to the Romans: “These greetings, moreover, were certainly intended by Paul to create bonds of fellowship between the Pauline Christians and the Roman community, and to show that he had not written to them quite exclusively in his own name.” A common-sense explanation of Paul’s personal ties in Rome is the fact that as the center of the world’s life the city drew people thither from all parts of the earth. So, today many a man has friends in New York or London who has never been to either city. A much more serious controversy rages as to the integrity of Corinthians. Semler took 2 Corinthians 10 through 13 to be a separate and later ep., because of its difference in tone from 2 Corinthians 1 through 9, but Hausrath put it earlier than chapters 1 through 9, and made it the letter referred to in 2:4. He has been followed by many scholars like Schmiedel, Cone, McGiffert, Bacon, Moffatt, Kennedy, Rendall, Peake, Plummer.

Von Soden (History of Early Christian Literature, 50) accepts the partition-theory of 2 Corinthians heartily: “It may be shown with the highest degree of probability that this letter has come down to us in <471001> Corinthians 10:1 through 13:10.” But the unity of the epistle on theory that the change in tone is a climax to the disobedient element of the church is still maintained with force and justice by Klopper, Zahn, Bachmann, Denhey, Bernard, A. Robertson, Weiss, Menzies. The place of the writing of Galatians turns on its date. Lightfoot (in loc.) argues for Corinth, since it was probably written shortly before Romans. But Moffatt (Introduction, 102) holds tentatively to Ephesus, soon after Paul’s arrival there from Galatia. So he gives the order: Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans. In so much doubt it is well to follow Lightfoot’s logical argument. Galatians leads naturally to Romans, the one hot and passionate, the other calm and contemplative, but both on the same general theme. (c) Third group (Philippians, Philemon, Colossians, Ephesians):

Philippians, Philemon, Colossians, Ephesians. Date 61-63, unless Paul reached Rome several years earlier. This matter depends on the date of the coming of Festus to succeed Felix ( Acts 24:27). It was once thought to be 60 AD beyond any doubt, but the whole matter is now uncertain. See “Chronology,” III, 2, (2) , below. At any rate these four epistles were written during the first Roman imprisonment, assuming that he was set free.

But it must be noted that quite a respectable group of scholars hold that one or all of these epistles were written from Caesarea (Schultz, Thiersch, Meyer, Hausrath, Sabatier, Reuss, Weiss, Haupt, Spitta, McPherson, Hicks). But the arguments are more specious than convincing. See Hort, Romans and Ephesians, 101-10. There is a growing opinion that Philemon, Colossians and Ephesians were written from Ephesus during a possible imprisonment in Paul’s stay of 3 years there. So Deissmann (Light from the Ancient East, 229; Paul,16); Lisco (Vincula Sanctorum, 1900); M. Albertz (Theol. Studien und Kritiken, 1910, 551 ff); B. W. Bacon (Journal of Biblical Lit., 1910, 181 ff). The strongest argument for this position is that Paul apparently did not know personally the readers of Ephesians (1:15); compare also Colossians 1:4. But this objection need not apply if the so-called Ephesian Epistle was a circular letter and if Paul did not visit Colosse and Laodicea during his 3 years at Ephesus. The theory is more attractive at first than on reflection. It throws this group before Romans — a difficult view to concede.

But even so, the order of these epistles is by no means certain. It is clear that Philemon, Colossians and Ephesians were sent together. Tychicus was the bearer of Colossians (4:7 f) and Ephesians (6:21 f). Onesimus carried the letter to Philemon (1:10,13) and was also the companion of Tychicus to Colosse ( Colossians 4:9). So these three epistles went together from Rome. It is commonly assumed that Philippians was the last of the group of four, and hence later than the other three, because Paul is balancing life and death ( Philippians 1:21 ff) and is expecting to be set free ( Philippians 1:25), but he has the same expectation of freedom when he writes Philemon (1:22). The absence of Luke ( Philippians 2:20) has to be explained on either hypothesis. Moffatt (Introduction, 159) is dogmatic, “as Philippians was certainly the last letter that he wrote,” ruling out of court Ephesians, not to say the later Pastoral Epistles. But this conclusion gives Moffatt trouble with the Epistle to the Laodiceans ( Colossians 4:16) which he can only call “the enigmatic reference” and cannot follow Rutherford (St. Paul’s Epistles to Colosse and Laodicea, 1908) in identifying the Laodicean Epistle with Ephesians, as indeed Marcion seems to have done. But the notion that Ephesians was a circular letter designed for more than one church (hence, without personalities) still holds the bulk of modern opinion.

Von Soden (History of Early Christian Literature, 294) is as dogmatic as Wrede or Van Manen: “All which has hitherto been said concerning this epistle, its form, its content, its ideas, its presuppositions, absolutely excludes the possibility of a Pauline authorship.” He admits “verbal echoes of Pauline epistles” Lightfoot puts Philippians before the other three because of its doctrinal affinity with the second group in chapter 3 as a reminiscence, and because of its anticipation of the Christological controversy with incipient Gnosticism in chapter 2. This great discussion is central in Colossians and Ephesians. At any rate, we have thus a consistent and coherent interpretation of the group. Philemon, though purely personal, is wondrously vital as a sociological document. Paul is in this group at the height of his powers in his grasp of the Person of Christ. (d) Fourth Group (1 Timothy, Titus, 2 Timothy): 1 Timothy, Titus, 2 Timothy. The Pastoral Epistles are still hotly disputed, but there is a growing willingness in Britain and Germany to make a place for them in Paul’s life. Von Soden bluntly says: “It is impossible that these epistles as they stand can have been written by Paul” (History of Early Christian Literature, 310). He finds no room for the heresy here combated, or for the details in Paul’s life, or for the linguistic peculiarities in Paul’s style. But he sees a “literary nicety” — this group that binds them together and separates them from Paul. Thus tersely he puts the case against the Pauline authorship. So Moffatt argues for the “sub-Pauline environment” and “sub-Pauline atmosphere” of these epistles with the advanced ecclesiasticism (Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, ff). Wrede thrusts aside the personal details and argues that the epistles give merely the tendency of early Christianity (Ueber Aufgabe und Metbode der Sogen. New Testament Theologie, 1897, 357). The Hatch- Van Manen article in Encyclopedia Biblica admits only that “the Pastoral Epistles occupy themselves chiefly with the various affairs of the churches within `Pauline circles.’ “ Moffatt has a vigorous attack on these letters in EB, but he “almost entirely ignores the external evidence, while he has nothing to say to the remarkable internal evidence which immediately demands our attention” (Knowling, Testimony of Paul to Christ, 3rd edition, 1911, 129). Moffatt (Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, 414) holds that the Pastoral Epistles came from one pen, but the personality and motives are very vague to him. The personal details in 2 Timothy 1:14-18; 4:9-22 are not on a paragraph with those in The Acts of Paul and Thekla in the 2nd century. Many critics who reject the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles admit the personal details in 2 Timothy, but it is just in such matters that forgeries are recognizable. To admit these fragments is logically to admit the whole (Maclean in 1-vol HDB), as Moffatt sees (Intro, 414), however much he seeks to tone down the use of Paul’s name as “a Christian form of suasoriae,” and “a further and inoffensive development of the principle which sought to claim apostolic sanction for the expanding institutions and doctrines of the early church” (ibid., 415).

The objection against these epistles from differences in diction has been grievously overdone. As a matter of fact, each of the four groups has words peculiar to it, and naturally so. Style is a function of the subject as well as a mark of the man. Besides, style changes with one’s growth. It would have been remarkable if all four groups had shown no change in no change in vocabulary and style. The case of Shakespeare is quite pertinent, for the various groups of plays stand more or less apart. The Pastoral Epistles belong to Paul’s old age and deal with personal and ecclesiastical matters in a more or less reminiscential way, with less of vehement energy than we get in the earlier epistles, but this situation is what one would reasonably expect. The “ecclesiastical organization” argument has been greatly overdone. As a matter of fact, “the organization in the Pastoral Epistles is not apparently advanced one step beyond that of the church in Philippi in 61 AD” (Ramsay, The Expositor, VII, viii, 17). The “gnosis” met by these epistles ( 1 Timothy 6:20; Titus 1:14) is not the highly developed type seen in the Ignatian Epistles of the 2nd century. Indeed, Bartlet (“Historic Setting of the Pastoral Epistles,” The Expositor, January, 1913, 29) pointedly says that, as a result of Hort’s “Judaistic Christianity” and “Christian Ecclesia” and Ramsay’s “Historical Commentary on the Epistles of Timothy” (Expos, VII, vii, ix, VIII, i), “one feels the subject has been lifted to a new level of reality and that much criticism between Baur and Julicher is out of date and irrelevant.” It is now shown that the Pastoral Epistles are not directed against Gnosticism of advanced type, but even of a more Jewish type ( Titus 1:14) than that in Colossians. Ramsay (Expos, VIII, i, 263) sweeps this stock criticism aside as “from the wrong point of view.” It falls to the ground. Lightfoot (“Note on the Heresy Combated in the Pastoral Epistles,” Biblical Essays, 413) had insisted on the Jewish character of the Gnosticism attacked here. As a matter of fact, the main objection to these epistles is that they do not fit into the story in Acts, which breaks off abruptly with Paul in Rome. But it is a false premise to assume that the Pastoral Epistles have to fit into the events in Acts.

Harnack turns the objection that Paul in Acts 20:26 predicted that he would never see the Ephesian elders again into a strong argument for the date of Luke’s Gospel before 2 Timothy 4:21 (The Date of Acts and Synoptic Gospels, 103). Indeed, he may not have revisited Ephesus after all, but may have seen Timothy at Miletus also ( 1 Timothy 1:3).

Harnack frankly admits the acquittal and release of Paul and thus free play for the Pastoral Epistles Blass (Acta Apostolorum, 24) acknowledges the Pastoral Epistles as genuine. So also Findlay, article “Paul,” in HDB; Maclean in 1-vol HDB; Denney in Standard BD. Sanday (Inspiration, 364) comments on the strength of the external evidence for the Pastoral Epistles. Even Holtzmann (Einl (3) , 291) appears to admit echoes of the Pastoral Epistles in the Ignatian Epistles Lightfoot (Biblical Essays, “Date of the Pastoral Epistles,” 399-437) justifies completely the acceptance of the Pauline authorship. Deissman (St. Paul,15) has a needed word: “The delusion is still current in certain circles that the scientific distinction of a Bible scholar may be estimated in the form of a percentage according to the proportion of his verdicts of spuriousness. .... The extant letters of Paul have been innocently obliged to endure again a fair share of the martyrdom suffered by the historic Paul.” See further PASTORAL EPISTLES. (3) Paul’s Conception of His Epistles Assuming, therefore, the Pauline authorship of the thirteen epistles, we may note that they, reveal in a remarkable way the growth in Paul’s apprehension of Christ and Christianity, his adaptation to varied situations, his grasp of world-problems and the eternal values of life. Paul wrote other epistles, as we know. In 1 Corinthians 5:9 there is a clear reference to a letter not now known to us otherwise, earlier than 1 Corinthians. The use of “every epistle” in 2 Thessalonians 3:17 naturally implies that Paul had written more than two already. It is not certain to what letter Paul refers in 2 Corinthians 2:4 — most probably to one between 1 and Corinthians, though, as already shown, some scholars find that letter in Corinthians 10 through 13. Once more Paul ( Colossians 4:16) mentions an epistle addressed to the church at Laodicea. This epistle is almost certainly that which we know as Ephesians. If not, here is another lost epistle. Indeed, at least two apocryphal Epistles to the Laodiceans were written to supply this deficiency. As early as 2 Thessalonians 2:2 forgers were at work to palm, off epistles in Paul’s name, “or by epistle as from us,” to attack and pervert Paul’s real views, whom Paul denounces. It was entirely possible that this “nefarious work” would be continued (Gregory, Canon and Text of the New Testament, 1907, 191), though, as Gregory argues, Paul’s exposure here would have a tendency to put a stop to it and to put Christians on their guard and to watch for Paul’s signature to the epistles as a mark of genuineness ( 2 Thessalonians 3:17; Corinthians 16:21; Galatians 6:11; Colossians 4:18). This was all the more important since Paul evidently dictated his letters to amanuenses, as to Tertius in the case of Romans 16:22. In the case of Philem 1:19, Paul probably wrote the whole letter. We may be sure therefore that, if we had the other genuine letters of Paul, they would occupy the same general standpoint as the thirteen now in our possession. The point to note here is that the four groups of Paul’s Epistles fit into the historical background of the Acts as recorded by Luke, barring the fourth group which is later than the events in Acts. Each group meets a specific situation in a definite region or regions, with problems of vital interest. Paul attacks these various problems (theological, ecclesiastical, practical) with marvelous vigor, and applies the eternal principles of the gospel of Christ in such fashion as to furnish a norm for future workers for Christ. It is not necessary to say that he was conscious of that use. Deissmann (St. Paul, f) is confident on this point: “That a portion of these confidential letters should be still extant after centuries, Paul cannot have intended, nor did it ever occur to him that they would be.” Be that as it may, and granted that Paul’s Epistles are “survivals, in the sense of the technical language employed by the historical method” (ibid., 12), still we must not forget that Paul attached a great deal of importance to his letters and urged obedience to the teachings which they contained: “I adjure you by the, Lord that this epistle be read unto all the brethren” ( 1 Thessalonians 5:27). This command we find in the very first one preserved to us. Once more note 2 Thessalonians 3:14: “And if any man obeyeth not our word by this ep., note that man, that ye have no company with him.” Evidently therefore Paul does not conceive his epistles as mere incidents in personal correspondence, but authoritative instructions for the Christians to whom they are addressed. In 1 Corinthians 7:17, “And so ordain I in all the churches,” he puts his epistolary commands on a paragraph with the words of Jesus quoted in the same chapter. Some indeed at Corinth ( Corinthians 10:9 f) took his “letters” as an effort to “terrify” them, a thing that he was afraid to do in person. Paul ( 2 Corinthians 10:11) does not deny the authority of his letters, but claims equal courage when he comes in person (compare 2 Corinthians 13:2,10). That Paul expected his letters to be used by more than the one church to which they were addressed is clear from Colossians 4:16: “And when this epistle hath been read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye also read the epistle from Laodicea.” If the letter to Laodicea is our Ephesians and a sort of circular letter (compare Galatians), that is clear. But it must be noted that Colossians, undoubtedly a specific letter to Colosse, is likewise to be passed on to Laodicea. It is not always observed that in 1 Corinthians 1:2, though the epistle is addressed “unto the church of God which is at Corinth,” Paul adds, “with all that call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place, their Lord and ours.” Philemon is, of course, a personal letter, though it deals with a sociological problem of universal interest. The Pastoral Epistles are addressed to two young ministers and have many personal details, as is natural, but the epistles deal far more with the social aspects of church life and the heresies and vices that were threatening the very existence of Christianity in the Roman empire. Paul is eager that Timothy shall follow his teaching ( 2 Timothy 3:10 ff), and “the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also” ( 2 Timothy 2:2). It is this larger view of the future of Christianity that concerns Paul very keenly.

The very conception of his ministry to the Gentiles ( Romans 15:16; Ephesians 3:7 ff) led Paul to feel that he had a right to speak to all, “both to Greeks and to Barbarians” ( Romans 1:14), and hence, even to Rome ( Romans 1:15 f). It is a mistake to limit Paul’s Epistles to the local and temporary sphere given them by Deissmann. (4) Development in Paul’s Epistles For Paul’s gospel or theology see later. Here we must stress the fact that all four groups of Paul’s Epistles are legitimate developments from his fundamental experience of grace as conditioned by his previous training and later work. He met each new problem with the same basal truth that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, revealed to Paul on the way to Damascus. The reality of this great experience must here be assumed (see discussion later). It may be admitted that the Acts does not stand upon the same plane as the Pauline Epistles as a witness concerning Paul’s conversion (Fletcher, The Conversion of Paul, 1910, 5). But even so, the Epistles amply confirm Luke’s report of the essential fact that Jesus appeared to Paul in the same sense that He did to the apostles and Christians ( 1 Corinthians 15:4-9). The revelation of Christ to Paul and in Paul ([ejn ejmoi>, en emoi ], Galatians 1:16) and the specific call connected therewith to preach to the Gentiles gave Paul a place independent of and on a paragraph with the other apostles ( Galatians 1:16 f; 2:1-10). Paul’s first preaching ( Acts 9:20) “proclaimed Jesus, that he is the Son of God.” This “primitive Paulinism” (Sabatier, The Apostle Paul, 1893, 113) lay at the heart of Paul’s message in his sermons and speeches in Acts. Professor P. Gardner regards Luke as a “careless” historian (“The Speeches of Paul in Acts,” Cambridge Biblical Essays, 1909, 386), but he quite admits the central place of Paul’s conversion, both in the Acts and the Epistles (ib; compare also The Religious Experience of Paul).

We cannot here trace in detail the growth of Paulinism. Let Wernle speak (Beginnings of Christianity, 1903, I, 224) for us: “The decisive factor in the genius of Paul’s theology was his personal experience, his conversion on the road to Damascus.” This fact reappears in each of the groups of the Epistles. It is the necessary implication in the apostolic authority claimed in 1 Thessalonians 2:4-6; 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6,14. “We might have claimed authority as apostles of Christ” ( 1 Thessalonians 2:6). For the second group we need only refer to 1 Corinthians 9:1 f and 15:1-11, where Paul justifies his gospel by the fact of having seen the risen Jesus.

His self-depreciation in 15:9 is amply balanced by the claims in 15:10. See also 2 Corinthians 10 through 13 and Galatians 1 and 2 for Paul’s formal defense of his apostolic authority. The pleasantry in Romans 15:14 does not displace the claim in 15:16,23 f. In the third group note the great passage in Philippians 3:12-14, where Paul pointedly alludes to his conversion: “I was laid hold of by Jesus Christ,” as giving him the goal of his ambition, “that I may lay hold”; “I count not myself yet to have laid hold.” This concentration of effort to come up to Christ’s purpose in him is the key to Paul’s life and letters, “I press on toward the goal.” So the golden cord reappears in Ephesians 3:2-13: “How that by revelation was made known unto me the mystery, as I wrote before in few words, whereby, when ye read, ye can perceive my understanding in the mystery of Christ.” In the fourth group he still recalls how Christ Jesus took pity on him, the blasphemer, the persecutor, the chief of sinners, and put him into the ministry, “that in me as chief might Jesus Christ show forth all his longsuffering, for an ensample of them that should thereafter believe on him unto eternal life” ( 1 Timothy 1:16). He kept up the fight to the end ( 2 Timothy 4:6 f), for the Lord Jesus stood by him ( 2 Timothy 4:17), as on the road to Damascus. So the personal note of experience links all the epistles together.They reveal Paul’s growing conception of Christ. Paul at the very start perceived that men are redeemed by faith in Jesus as the Saviour from sin through His atoning death, not by works of the Law ( Acts 13:38 f). In the first group there are allusions to the “work of faith and labor of love and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ” ( 1 Thessalonians 1:3). He speaks of “election” ( Thessalonians 1:4) and “our gospel” ( 1 Thessalonians 1:5) and the resurrection of Jesus ( 1 Thessalonians 1:10). The Father, Son and Spirit cooperate in the work of salvation ( 2 Thessalonians 2:13 f), which includes election, belief, sanctification, glorification. It is not necessary to press the argument for the conception of salvation by faith in Christ, grace as opposed to works, in the second group. It is obviously present in the third and the fourth. We seem forced to the view therefore that Paul’s experience was revolutionary, not evolutionary. “If we consider the whole history of Paul as it is disclosed to us in his letters, are we not forced to the conclusion that his was a catastrophic or explosive, rather than a slowly progressive personality?” (Garvie, Studies of Paul and His Gospel, 1911, 32). “His gospel was included in his conversion, and it was meditation that made explicit what was thus implicit in his experience” (same place) . This is not to say that there was no “spiritual development of Paul” (Matheson, 1890). There was, and of the richest kind, but it was a growth of expression in the successive application of the fundamental Christian conception. The accent upon this or that phase of truth at different stages in Paul’s career does not necessarily mean that the truth is a new one to him. It may simply be that the occasion has arisen for emphasis and elaboration.

In a broad generalization the first group of the epistles is eschatological, the second soteriological, the third Christological, and the fourth pastoral (Garvie, Studies of Paul and His Gospel,22). But one must not get the notion that Paul did not have a full gospel of salvation in the first group, and did not come to the true motive of the person of Christ as Lord till the second, or understand the pastoral office till the fourth. See emphasis on Paul’s work as pastor and preacher in 1 Thessalonians 2 (first group), and the Lordship of Christ also ( 1 Thessalonians 1:1,3; 2 Thessalonians 1:1; 2:13 f), on a paragraph with the Father.

There was a change of accent in each group on questions of eschatology, but in each one Paul cherishes the hope of the second coming of Christ up to the very end when he speaks of his own death ( 2 Timothy 4:8,18).

Paul has a whole gospel of grace in all his epistles, but he presses home the special phase of truth needed at the moment, always with proper balance and modification, though not in the form of a system of doctrine. In the first group he relieves the minds of the Thessalonian Christians from the misapprehension into which they had fallen concerning his position on the immediate coming of Christ. In the second group Paul vindicates the gospel of grace from the legalistic addition of the Judaizers who sought to rob the Gentiles of their freedom by insisting that they become Jews as well as Christians. This ringing battle is echoed in Acts 15 and is the mightiest conflict of Paul’s career. We hear echoes of it in Philippians 3, but he had won his contention. In the third group the battle with error has shifted to the province of Asia, especially the Lycus Valley, where a mystic mixture of Judaism (Essenism) and heathen mystery-religions and philosophies (incipient Gnosticism) was so rife in the 2nd century (the various forms of Gnosticism which combined with some aspects of Christianity). It is possible also that Mithraism was already a foe of Christianity. The central position and essential deity of Jesus Christ was challenged by these new and world-old heresies, and Paul attacks them with marvelous skill in Colossians and Ephesians and works out in detail his teaching concerning the person of Christ with due emphasis on the soteriological aspects of Christ’s work and on Christian life. Bruce (St. Paul’s Conception of Christianity) conceives that Paul gives us his entire conception of Christianity in the four great epistles of the second group, while B. Weiss (Biblical Theology of the New Testament) sees a more developed doctrine in the third group. He is in his prime in both groups. In the fourth group the same struggle lingers on with variations in Crete and even in Ephesus.

The Jewish phase of the heresy is more decided (perhaps Pharisaic), and recalls to some extent the Judaistic controversy in the second group. Paul is older and faces the end, and Christianity has enemies within and without.

He turns to young ministers as the hope of the future in the propagation of the gospel of the happy God. The fires have burned lower, and there is less passion and heat. The tone is now fierce, now tender. The style is broken and reminiscent and personal, though not with the rush of torrential emotion in 2 Corinthians, nor the power of logic in Galatians and Romans.

Each epistle fits into its niche in the group. Each group falls into proper relation to the stage in Paul’s life and justly reveals the changes of thought and feeling in the great apostle. It is essential that one study Paul’s Epistles in their actual historical order if one wishes to understand the mind of Paul.

Scholars are not agreed, to be sure on this point. They are not agreed on anything, for that matter. See two methods of presenting Paul’s Epistles in Robertson, Chronological New Testament (1904), and Moffatt, Historical New Testament (1901). 2. MODERN THEORIES ABOUT PAUL. 1. Criticism Not Infallible: Findlay (HDB, “Paul”) utters a needed warning when he reminds us that the modern historical and psychological method of study is just as liable to prepossession and prejudice as the older categories of scholastic and dogmatic theology. “The focus of the picture may be displaced and its colors falsified by philosophical no less than by ecclesiastical spectacles” (same place). Deissmann (St. Paul,4 f) sympathizes with this protest against the infallibility of modern subjective criticism: “That really and properly is the task of the modern student of Paul: to come back from the paper Paul of our western libraries, Germanized, dogmatised, modernized, to the historic Paul; to penetrate through the `Paulinism’ of our New Testament theologies to the Paul of ancient reality.” He admits the thoroughness and the magnitude of the work accomplished in the 19th century concerning the literary questions connected with Paul’s letters, but it is a “doctrinaire interest” that “has gone farther and farther astray.”

Deissmann conceives of Paul as a “hero of piety first and foremost,” not as a theologian. “As a religious genius Paul’s outlook is forward into a future of universal history.” In this position of Deissmann we see a return to the pre-Baur time. Deissmann would like to get past all the schools of criticism, back to Paul himself. 2. The Tubingen Theory: Baur started the modern critical attitude by his Pastoralbriefe (1835, p. 79), in which he remarked that there were only four epistles of Paul (Galatians and 2 Corinthians, Romans) which could be accepted as genuine. In his Paulus (1845) he expounded this thesis. He also rejected the Acts. From the four great epistles and from the pseudo-Clementine literature of the 2nd century, Baur argued that Paul and Peter were bitter antagonists. Peter and the other apostles were held fast in the grip of the legalistic conception of Christianity, a sort of Christianized Pharisaism. Paul, when converted, had reacted violently against this view, and became the exponent of Gentile freedom. Christianity was divided into two factions, Jewish Christians (Petrinists) and Gentile Christians (Paulinists). With this “key” Baur ruled out the other Pauline epistles and Acts as spurious, because they did not show the bitterness of this controversy. He called them “tendency” writings, designed to cover up the strife and to show that peace reigned in the camp. This arbitrary theory cut a wide swath for 50 years, and became a fetich with many scholars, but it is now dead. “It has been seen that it is bad criticism to make a theory on insecure grounds, and then to reject all the literature which contradicts it” (Maclean in 1-vol HDB). Ramsay (The First Christian Century, 1911, 195) contends that the perpetuation of the Baur standpoint in Moffatt’s Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament is an anachronism: “We are no longer in the 19th century with its negations, but in the 20th century with its growing power of insight and the power of belief that springs therefrom.” Van Marten (Encyclopedia Biblica) calls the Baur view that of the “old guard” of liberal theology in Germany, Switzerland, France, Holland, and, to some extent, in Britain. 3. Protest against Baur’s View: But even in Germany the older conservative view of Paul has always had champions. The most consistent of the recent opponents of Baur’s views in Germany is Th. Zahn (compare his Einlin das New Testament, 2 volumes, 1897-99; Introduction to the New Testament, 3 volumes, 1910). In Britain the true successor of Lightfoot as the chief antagonist of the Tubingen School is Sir W.M. Ramsay, whose numerous volumes (Church in the Roman Empire, 1893; Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, 1895; Paul the Traveler, 1896; Pauline and Other Studies, 1906; Cities of Paul, 1908; Luke the Physician and Other Studies, 1908; Pictures of the Apostolic Church, 1910; The First Christian Century, 1911) have given the finishing touches to the overthrow of Baur’s contention. 4. Successors to Baur: But even so, already the Baur school had split into two parts. The ablest representatives, like H. J. Holtzmann, Pfleiderer, Harnack, Julicher, Lipsius, von Soden, were compelled to admit more of Paul’s Epistles as genuine than the four principal ones, till there are left practically none to fight over but Ephesians and the Pastoral Epistles. This progress eliminated completely Baur’s thesis and approached very nearly to the position of Lightfoot, Ramsay and Zahn. Von Soden (Early Christian Literature, 324) still stands out against 2 Thessalonians, but Harnack has deserted him on that point. But the old narrow view of Baur is gone, and von Soden is eloquent in his enthusiasm for Paul (ibid., 119): “As we gaze upon the great literary memorials of the Greeks we may well question whether these Pauline letters are not equal to them — indeed, do not surpass them — in spiritual significance, in psychological depths and loftiness of ideal, above all in the art of complete and forcible expression.” The other wing of Baur’s school Findlay (HDB) calls “ultra-Baurians.” It is mainly a Dutch school with Loman and Van Manen as its main exponents, though it has support in Germany from Steck and Volter, and in America from W. B.

Smith. These writers do not say that Paul is a myth, but that our sources (Acts and the 13 epistles) are all legendary. It is a relentless carrying of Baur’s thesis to a reductio ad absurdum. Van Manen (Encyclopedia Biblica) says of “the historical, Paul” as distinct from “the legendary Paul”: “It does not appear that Paul’s ideas differed widely from those of the other disciples, or that he had emancipated himself from Judaism or had outgrown the law more than they.” When one has disposed of all the evidence he is entirely free to reconstruct the pictures to suit himself. Quite arbitrarily, Van Manen accepts the “we”-sections in Acts as authoritative.

But these give glimpses of the historical Jesus quite as truly as the Pauline Epistles, and should therefore be rejected by advocates of the mythical Jesus. So the pendulum swings back and forth. One school destroys the other, but the fact of Paul’s personality remains. “The new start is one of such importance that we must distinguish the pre-Pauline from the post- Pauline Christianity, or, what amounts to the same thing, the Palestinian sect and the world-religion” (Wernle, Beginnings of Christianity, I, 159). 5. Appeal to Comparative Religion: In his Paulus (1904), Wrede finds the explanation of Paul’s theology in late Jewish apocalyptic views and in the oriental mystery religions. Bousset (Die Religion des Judenthums im New Testament Zeitalter, 1903) seeks to find in the “late Jewish apocalyptic” “conceptions from the Babylonian and the Irano-Zarathustrian religions” (Schweitzer, Paul and His Interpreters, 173). According to Wrede’s view, Paul is one of the creators of “Christ” as distinct from the Jesus of history (compare “Jesus or Christ,” HJ, suppl., January, 1909). “Wrede’s object is to overthrow the view predominant in modern theology, that Paul loyally and consistently expounded and developed theology of Jesus” (J. Weiss, Paul and Jesus, 1909, 2). J. Weiss in this book makes a careful reply to Wrede as others have done; compare A. Meyer, Jesus or Paul (1909), who concludes (p. 134) dramatically: “Paul — just one who points the way to Jesus and to God!” See also Julicher, Paulus und Jesus (1907); Kaftan, Jesus und Paulus (1906); Kolbing, Die geistige Einwirkung der Person Jesu und Paulus (1906). The best reply to Wrede’s arguments about the mystery-religion is found in articles in the The Expositor for 1912-13 (now in book form) by H.A.A.

Kennedy on “St. Paul and the Mystery-Religions.” The position of Wrede is carried to its logical conclusion by Drews (Die Christus-Mythe, 1909), who makes Paul the creator of Christianity. W. B. Smith (Der vorchristliche Jesus, 1906) tries to show that “Jesus” was a pre-Christian myth or god. Schweitzer (Paul and His Interpreters, 235) sums the matter up thus: “Drews’s thesis is not merely a curiosity; it indicates the natural limit at which the hypothesis advanced by the advocates of comparative religion, when left to its own momentum, finally comes to rest.” 6. The Eschatological Interpretation: Schweitzer himself may be accepted as the best exponent of the rigid application of this view to Paul (Paul and His Interpreters, 1912) that he had made to Jesus (The Quest of the Historical Jesus, 1910). He glories in the ability to answer the absurdities of Steck, Loman and Van Manen and Drews by showing that the eschatological conceptions of Paul in his epistles are primitive, not late, and belong to the 1st century, not to the 2nd (Paul and His Interpreters, 249). He thus claims to be the true pupil of Baur, though reaching conclusions utterly different. There is undoubtedly an element of truth in this contention of Schweitzer, but he loses his case, when he insists that nothing but eschatology must be allowed to figure. “The edifice constructed by Baur has fallen,” he proclaims (p. viii), but he demands that in its place we allow the “exclusively Jewish-eschatological” (p. ix) interpretation. There he slips, and his theory will go the way of that of Baur. C. Anderson Scott (“Jesus and Paul,” Cambridge Biblical Essays, 365) admits that Paul has the same eschatological outlook as Jesus, but also the same ethical interest. It is not “either ..... or,” but both in each case. See a complete bibliography of the “Jesus and Paul” controversy in J.

G. Machens’ paper on “Jesus and Paul” in Biblical and Theological Studies (1912, 547 f). As Ramsay insists, we are now in the 20th century of insight and sanity, and Paul has come to his own. Even Wernle (Beginnings of Christianity, I, 163) sees that Paul is not the creator of the facts: “He merely transmits historical facts. God — Christ — Paul, such is the order.”

Saintsbury (History of Criticism, 152) says: “It has been the mission of the 19th century to prove that everybody’s work was written by somebody else, and it will not be the most useless task of the 20th to betake itself to more profitable inquiries.” 3. CHRONOLOGY OF PAUL’S CAREER. 1. Schemes: There is not a single date in the life of Paul that is beyond dispute, though several are narrowed to a fine point, and the general course and relative proportion of events are clear enough. Luke gave careful data for the time of the birth of Jesus ( Luke 2:1 f), for the entrance of the Baptist on his ministry ( Luke 3:1 f), and the age of Jesus when He began His work ( Luke 3:23), but he takes no such pains in the Acts with chronology.

But we are left with a number of incidental allusions and notes of time which call for some discussion. For fuller treatment see CHRONOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Garvie (Life and Teaching of Paul, 1910, 181) gives a comparative table of the views of Harnack, Turner, Ramsay and Lightfoot for the events from the crucifixion of Christ to the close of Acts. The general scheme is nearly the same, differing from one to four years here and there. Shaw (The Pauline Epistles, xi) gives a good chronological scheme. Moffatt (Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, 62 f) gives theories of 23 scholars:

Turner, “Chronology,” in HDB; Neteler, Untersuchung New Testament Zeitverhaltnisse, 1894; O. Holtzmann, New Testament Zeitgeschichte, 1895, changed in 2nd edition, 1906; Bartlet, Apostolic Age, xiii f; Cornely (compare Laurent), New Testament Studien; Harnack, Chron. d. altchristl.

Lit. bis Eusebius, 233-329; McGiffert, Apostolic Age, 164, 172; Zahn, Intro, III, 450 f; Ramsay, “The Pauline Chronology,” Pauline and Other Studies, 345 f; Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, 213-33; Wendt, Acts, 53-60, Meyer, Commentary; Renan, Paul; Bornemann, Thessalonians, 17 f, Meyer, Comm.; Clemen, Paulus, I, 411; Giffert, Student’s Life of Paul, 242-59; Weiss, Intro, I, 154 f; Sabatier, Paul,13 f; Julicher, Einl6, 31 f; Findlay, “Paul” in HDB; Farrar, Paul, Appendix; Belser, Theol.

Quartalschrift; Steinmann, Abfassungszeit d. Galatians, 169; Hoennicke, Die Chronologie des Paulus.

Let us look at the dates given by ten of this list:

Turner Bartlet Harnack McGiffert Zahn Conversion 35-36 31-32 30 31-32 1st visit to Jerusalem 38 34-35 33 34-45 2nd visit to Jerusalem 46 46 44 45 1st missionary tour 47 47 45 before 45 50-51 Meeting in Jerusalem 49 49 46-47 45 2nd missionary tour 49 49 46-47 46 3rd missionary tour 52 52 50 49 Arrest in Jerusalem 56 56 53-54 53 Arrival in Rome 59 59 56-57 56 Death of Paul 64-65 61-62 64 58 66-67 Ramsay Lightfoot Clemen Findlay Hoennicke Conversion 32 34 31 36 33-35 1st visit to Jerusalem 34 37 34 39 36-38 2nd visit to Jerusalem 45 45 .. .. 45-46 1st missionary tour 46-48 48 46 46 49?

Meeting in Jerusalem 50 51 48 49 50-52 2nd missionary tour 50-53 51 49-52 49 .. 3rd missionary tour 53-57 54 53-59 53 ..

Arrest in Jerusalem 57 58 59 57 ..

Arrival in Rome 60 61 62 60 60-62 Death of Paul 67 67 64 67 ..

This table shows very well the present diversity of opinion on the main points in Paul’s life. Before expressing an opinion on the points at issue it is best to examine a few details. Paul himself gives some notes of time. He gives “after 3 years” ( Galatians 1:18) as the period between his conversion and first visit to Jerusalem, though he does not necessarily mean 3 full years. In Galatians 2:1, Paul speaks of another visit to Jerusalem “after the space of 14 years.” Then again Luke quotes him as saying to the Ephesian elders at Miletus that he had spent “3 years” at Ephesus ( Acts 20:31). These periods of time all come before Paul’s last visit and arrest in Jerusalem, and they do not embrace all the time between his conversion and arrest. There is also another note of time in Corinthians 12:2, where he speaks in an enigmatic way of experiences of his “14 years” ago from the writing of this epistle from Macedonia on the third tour. This will take him back to Tarsus before coming to Antioch at the request of Barnabas, and so overlaps a bit the other “14” above, and includes the “3 years” at Ephesus. We cannot, therefore, add these figures together for the total. But some light may be obtained from further details from Acts and the Epistles. 2. Crucial Points: (1) The Death of Stephen.

Saul is “a young man” ( Acts 7:58) when this event occurs. Like other young Jews he entered upon his life as a rabbi at the age of thirty. He had probably been thus active several years, especially as he was now in a position of leadership and may even have been a member of the Sanhedrin ( Acts 26:10). Pontius Pilate was not deposed from his procuratorship till 36 AD, but was in a state of uneasiness for a couple of years. It is more probable, therefore, that the stoning of Stephen would take place after his deposition in the interregnum, or not many years before, when he would be afraid to protest against the lawlessness of the Jewish leaders. He had shown timidity at the death of Jesus,29 or 30 AD, but some of the forms of law were observed. So nothing decisive is here obtained, though 35 AD seems more probable than 32 or 33. (2) The Flight from Damascus.

Paul locates this humiliating experience ( 2 Corinthians 11:32 f) when “the governor under Aretas the king guarded the city of the Damascenes.”

Aretas the Arabian, and not the Roman, has now control when Paul is writing. The likelihood is that Aretas did not get possession of Damascus till 37 AD, when Tiberius died and was succeeded by Caligula. It is argued by some that the expression “the city of the Damascenes” shows that the city was not under the control of Aretas, but was attacked by a Bedouin chieftain who lay in wait for Paul before the city. That to me seems forced.

Josephus (Ant., XVIII, v, 3; vi, 3) at any rate is silent concerning the authority of Aretas over Damascus from 35-37 AD, but no coins or inscriptions show Roman rule over the city between 35 and 62 AD.

Ramsay, however (“The Pauline Chronology,” Pauline and Other Studies, 364), accepts the view of Marquardt (Romische Staatsalterth., I, 404 f) that it was possible for Aretas to have had possession of Damascus before 37 AD. The flight from Damascus is the same year as the visit to Jerusalem, Paul’s first after his conversion ( Acts 9:26; Galatians 1:18). If we knew the precise year of this event, we could subtract two or three years and reach the date of his conversion. Lightfoot in his Commentary on Galatians gives 38 as the date of this first visit to Jerusalem, and 36 as the date of the conversion, taking “after 3 years” in a free way, but in his Biblical Essays, 221, he puts the visit in 37 and the conversion in 34, and says “ `after 3 years’ must mean three whole years, or substantially so.” Thus we miss a sure date again. (3) The Death of Herod Agrippa I.

Here the point of contact between the Acts (12:1-4,19-23) and Josephus (Ant., XIX, viii) is beyond dispute, since both record and describe in somewhat similar vein the death of this king. Josephus says that at the time of his death he had already completed the 3rd year of his reign over the whole of Judea (Ant., XIX, viii, 2). He received this dignity soon after Claudius began to reign in 41 AD, so that makes the date 44 AD. He died after the Passover in that year (44) , for Peter was imprisoned by him during that feast ( Acts 12:3). But unfortunately Luke sandwiches the narrative about Herod Agrippa in between the visit of Barnabas and Saul to Jerusalem from Antioch ( Acts 11:29 f) and their return to Antioch ( Acts 12:25). He does not say that the events here recorded were exactly synchronous with this visit, for he says merely “about that time.”

We are allowed therefore to place this visit before 44 AD or after, just as the facts require. The mention of “elders” in Acts 11:30 instead of apostles (compare both in 15:4) may mean that the apostles are absent when the visit is made. After the death of James ( Acts 12:1 f) and release of Peter we note that Peter “went to another place” ( Acts 12:17). But the apostles are back again in Jerusalem in Acts 15:4 ff.

Lightfoot (Biblical Essays, 216) therefore places the visit “at the end of 44, or in 45.” Once more we slip the connection and fail to fix a firm date for Paul. It is disputed also whether this 2nd visit to Jerusalem according to Acts (9:26; 11:29 f) is the same as the “again” in Galatians 2:1. Ramsay (St. Paul the Traveler, 59) identifies the visit in Galatians 2:1 with that in Acts 11:29 f, but Lightfoot (Biblical Essays, 221) holds that it “must be identified with the third of the Acts” (15:4 ff). In Galatians 1 and 2 Paul is not recording his visits to Jerusalem, but showing his independence of the apostles when he met them in Jerusalem. There is no proof that he saw the apostles on the occasion of the visit in Acts 11:29 f. The point of Lightfoot is well taken, hut we have no point of contact with the outside history for locating more precisely the date of the visit of Galatians 2:1 and Acts 15:4 ff, except that it was after the first missionary tour of Acts 13 and 14. (4) The First Missionary Tour.

Sergius Paulus is proconsul of Cyprus when Barnabas and Saul visit the island ( Acts 13:7). The proconsul Paulus is mentioned in a Greek inscription of Soloi (Hogarth, Devia Cypria, 1889, 114) and Lucius Sergius Paulus in CIL, VI, 31, 545, but, as no mention of his being proconsul is here made, it is probably earlier than that time. The Soloi inscription bears the date 53 AD, but Sergius Paulus was not proconsul in 51 or 52. Hence, he may have been proconsul in 50 or the early part of 51 AD.It could not be later and may have been earlier. (5) The First Visit to Corinth.

The point to note here is that Gallio becomes proconsul of Achaia ( Acts 18:12). Paul has been apparently in Corinth a year and six months when Gallio appears on the scene ( Acts 18:11). Aquila and Priscilla had “lately come from Italy” ( Acts 18:2) when Paul arrived there. They had been expelled from Rome by the emperor Claudius ( Acts 18:2). On the arrival of Gallio the Jews at once accuse Paul before him; he refuses to interfere, and Paul stays on for a while and then leaves for Syria with Aquila and Priscilla ( Acts 18:18). Deissmann (St. Paul, Appendix, I, “The Proconsulate of L. Junius Gallio”) has shown beyond reasonable doubt that Gallio, the brother of Seneca, became proconsul of Achaia about July, 51 AD (or possibly 52). On a stone found at Delphi, Gallio is mentioned as proconsul of Achaia according to the probable restoration of part of the text. But the stone mentions the fact that Claudius had been acclaimed imperator 26 times. By means of another inscription we get the 27th proclamation as imperator in connection with the dedication of an aqueduct on August 1, 52 AD. So thus the 26th time is before this date, some time in the earlier part of the year. We need not follow in detail the turns of the argument (see Deissmann, op. cit.). Once more we do not get a certain date as to the year. It is either. the summer of 51 or 52 AD, when Gallio comes. And Paul has already been in Corinth a year and a half. But the terminus ad quem for the close of Paul’s two years’ stay in Corinth would be the early autumn of 52 AD, and more probably 51 AD. Hence, the 2 Thessalonian Epistles cannot be later than this date. Before the close of 52 AD, and probably 51, therefore must come the 2nd missionary tour, the conference at Jerusalem, the first missionary tour, etc. Deissmann is justified in his enthusiasm on this point. He is positive that 51 AD is the date of the arrival of Gallio. (6) Paul at Troas according to Acts 20:6 f.

On this occasion Luke gives the days and the time of year (Passover).

Ramsay figures (St. Paul the Traveler, 289 f) that Paul had his closing service at Troas on Sunday evening and the party left early Monday morning. Hence, he argues back to the Passover at Philippi and concludes that the days as given by Luke will not fit into 56, 58, or 59 AD, but will suit 57. If he is correct in this matter, then we should have a definite year for the last trip to Jerusalem. Lewin (Fasti Sacri, numbers 1856, 1857) reaches the same conclusion. The conclusion is logical if Luke is exact in his use of days in this passage. Yet Lightfoot insists on 58 AD but Ramsay has the advantage on this point. See Pauline and Other Studies, 352 f. (7) Festus Succeeding Felix.

When was Felix recalled? He was appointed procurator in 52 AD (Schurer, Jewish People in the Time of Christ, I, ii, 174). He was already ruler “many years” ( Acts 24:10) when Paul appears before him in Caesarea. He holds on “two years” when he is succeeded by Festus ( Acts 24:27). But in the Chronicle of Eusebius (Armenian text) it is stated that the recall of Felix took place in the last year of Claudius, or 54 AD. But this is clearly an error, in spite of the support given to it by Harnack (Chronologie d.

Paulus), since Josephus puts most of the rule of Felix in the reign of Nero (Ant., XX, viii, 1-9; BJ, II, xii, 8-14), not to mention the “many years” of Paul in Acts 24:10. But the error of Eusebius has now been explained by Erbes in his Todestage Pauli und Petri, and is made perfectly clear by Ramsay in Pauline and Other Studies, 349 ff. Eusebius over-looked the interregnum of 6 years between the death of Herod Agrippa I in 44 AD and the first year of Herod Agrippa II in 50 AD. Eusebius learned that Festus came in the 10th year of Herod Agrippa II. Counting from 50 AD, that gives us 59 AD as the date of the recall of Felix. This date harmonizes with all the known facts. “The great majority of scholars accept the date for Festus; but they confess that it is only an approximate date, and there is no decisive argument for it” (Ramsay, Pauline and Other Studies, 351). For minute discussion of the old arguments see Nash, article “Paul” in new Sch-Herz Enc; Schurer, Hist of the Jewish People, I, ii, 182 ff. But if Erbes and Ramsay are correct, we have at last a date that will stand. So then Paul sails for Rome in the late summer of 59 AD and arrives at his destination in the early spring (“had wintered,” Acts 28:11) of 60 AD. He had been “two whole years in his own hired dwelling” ( Acts 28:30) when Luke closes the Acts. On the basis of his release in 63 or early 64 and the journeyings of the Pastoral Epistles, Paul’s death would come by early summer of 68 before Nero’s death, and possibly in 67. On this point see later. We can now count back from 59 AD with reasonable clearness to as the date of Paul’s arrest in Jerusalem. Paul spent at least a year and three months ( Acts 19:8,10) in Ephesus (called in round numbers three years in Acts 20:31). It took a year for him to reach Jerusalem, from Pentecost ( 1 Corinthians 16:8) to Pentecost ( Acts 20:16). From the spring of 57 AD we thus get back to the end of 53 as the time of his arrival in Ephesus ( Acts 19:1). We have seen that Gallio came to Corinth in the summer of 51 AD (or 52), after Paul had been there a year and a half ( Acts 18:11), leaving ample time in either case for the journeys from Corinth to Ephesus, to Caesarea, to Jerusalem apparently ( Acts 18:21 f), and to Ephesus ( Acts 19:1) from the summer of 51 (or 52) we go back two years to the beginning of the 2nd missionary tour ( Acts 16:1-6) as 49 (or 50). The Jerusalem Conference was probably in the same year, and the first missionary tour would come in the two (or three) preceding years 47 and 48 (48-49). The stay at Antioch ( Acts 14:28) may have been of some length. So we come back to the end of 44 or beginning of for the visit to Jerusalem in Acts 11:29 f. Before that comes the year in Antioch with Barnabas (11:26), the years in Tarsus in Cilicia, the “three years” after the conversion spent mostly in Arabia ( Galatians 1:17 f), Paul’s first appearance at the death of Stephen ( Acts 7:58). These early dates are more conjectural, but even so the facts seem to indicate 35 AD as the probable year of Saul’s conversion. The year of his birth would then be between 1 and 5 AD, probably nearer 1. If so, and if his death was in 67 or 68 AD, his age is well indicated. He was “Paul the Aged” (Philem 1:9) when he wrote to Philemon from Rome in 61-63 AD. 4. HIS EQUIPMENT.

Ramsay chooses as the title of chapter ii, in his Paul the Traveler, the words “The Origin of Paul.” It is not possible to explain the work and teaching of Paul without a just conception of the forces that entered into his life. Paul himself is still woefully misunderstood by some. Thus, A.

Meyer (Jesus or Paul, 1909, 119) says: “In spite of all that has been said, there is no doubt that Paul, with his peculiar personality, with his tendency to recondite Gnostic speculation and rabbinic argument, has heavily encumbered the cause of Christianity. For many simple souls, and for many natures that are otherwise constituted than himself, he has barred the way to the simple Christianity of Jesus.” That is a serious charge against the man who claimed to have done more than all the other apostles, and rightly, so far as we can tell ( 1 Corinthians 15:10), and who claimed that his interpretation of Jesus was the only true one ( Galatians 1:7-9).

Moffatt (Paul and Paulinism, 1910, 70) minimizes the effect of Paulinism: “The majority of Paul’s distinctive conceptions were either misunderstood, or dropped, or modified, as the case might be, in the course of a few decades.” “Paulinism as a whole stood almost as far apart from the Christianity that followed it as from that which preceded it” (ibid., 73). “The aim of some scholars seems to be to rob every great thinker of his originality” (Garvie, Studies of Paul and His Gospel,1). Ramsay (Pauline and Other Studies, 3 ff) boldly challenges the modern prejudice of some scholars against Paul by asking, “Shall we hear evidence or not?” Every successive age must study afresh the life and work of Paul (ibid., 27) if it would understand him. Deissmann (St. Paul,3 f) rightly sees that “St. Paul is spiritually the great power of the apostolic age.” Hence, “the historian, surveying the beginnings of Christianity, sees Paul as first after Jesus.”

Feine (Jesus Christus und Paulus, 1902, 298) claims that Paul grasped the essence of the ministry of Christ “auf das tiefste.” I own myself a victim to “the charm of Paul,” to use Ramsay’s phrase (Pauline and Other Studies, 27). In seeking to study “the shaping influences” in Paul’s career (Alexander, The Ethics of Paul, 1910, 27), we shall be in error if we seek to explain everything by heredity and environment and if we deny any influence from these sources. He is what he is because of original endowments, the world of his day, and his experience of Christ Jesus. He had both essential and accidental factors in his equipment (Fairbairn, Studies in Religion and Theology, 1910, 469 f). Let us note the chief factors in his religious development. 1. The City of Tarsus: Geography plays an important part in any life. John the Baptist spent his boyhood in the hill country of Judea in a small town ( Luke 1:39) and then in the wilderness. Jesus spent His boyhood in the town of Nazareth and the country round. Both John and Jesus show fondness for Nature in all its forms. Paul grew up in a great city and spent his life in the great cities of the Roman empire. He makes little use of the beauties of Nature, but he has a keen knowledge of men (compare Robertson, Epochs in the Life of Paul,12). Paul was proud of his great city ( Acts 21:39). He was not merely a resident, but a “citizen” of this distinguished city. This fact shows that Paul’s family had not just emigrated from Judea to Tarsus a few years before his birth, but had been planted in Tarsus as part of a colony with full municipal rights (Ramsay, Paul the Traveler, 31 f). Tarsus was the capital of Cilicia, then a part of the province of Syria, but it had the title of metropolis and was a free city, urbs libera (Pliny, NH, v.27). To the ancient Greek the city was his “fatherland” (Ramsay, Cities of Paul, 1908, 90).

Tarsus was situated on the river Cydnus, and in a wide plain with the hill country behind and the snow-covered Taurus Mountains in the distance. It was subject to malaria. Ramsay (ibid., 117 ff) from Genesis 10:4 f holds that the early inhabitants were Greeks mingled with Orientals. East and West flowed together here. It was a Roman town also with a Jewish colony (ibid., 169 ff), constituting a city tribe to which Paul’s family belonged. So then Tarsus was a typical city of the Greek-Roman civilization.

The religions of the times all met there in this great mart of business. But it was one of the great seats of culture also. Strabo (xiv.6,73) even says that “Tarsus surpassed all other universities, such as Alexandria and Athens, in the study of philosophy and educational literature in general.” “Its great preeminence,” he adds, “consists in this, that the men of learning here are all natives.” Accordingly, he and others have made up a long list of distinguished men who flourished at Tarsus in the late autumn of Greek learning: philosophers — of the Academy, of the Epicurean and Stoic schools — poets, grammarians, physicians. At Tarsus, one might say, “you breathed the atmosphere of learning” (Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, 205). But Ramsay (Cities of Paul, 231 f) cautions us not to misunderstand Strabo. It was not even one of the three great universities of the world in point of equipment, fame, students from abroad, or general standing. It was not on a paragraph with Athens and Alexandria, except that “it was rich in what constitutes the true excellence and strength of a university, intense enthusiasm and desire for knowledge among the students and great ability and experience among some at least of the teachers” (ibid., 233). Strabo was very fond of Athenodorus, for instance. No students from abroad came to Tarsus, but they went from Tarsus elsewhere. But Philostratus represents Apollonius of Tyana as disgusted with the university and the town, and Dio Chrysostom describes Tarsus as an oriental and non- Hellenic town.

Ramsay speaks of Tarsus in the reign of Augustus as “the one example known in history of a state ruled by a university acting through its successive principals.” “It is characteristic of the general tendency of university life in a prosperous and peaceful empire, that the rule of the Tarsian University was marked by a strong reaction toward oligarchy and a curtailment of democracy; that also belongs to the oriental spirit, which was so strong in the city. But the crowning glory of Tarsus, the reason for its undying interest to the whole world, is that it produced the apostle Paul; that it was the one city which was suited by its equipoise between the Asiatic and the Western spirit to mold the character of the great Hellenist Jew; and that it nourished in him a strong source of loyalty and patriotism as the citizen of no mean city” (Ramsay, op. cit., 235). The city gave him a schooling in his social, political, intellectual, moral, and religious life, but in varying degrees, as we shall see. It was because Tarsus was a cosmopolitan city with “an amalgamated society” that it possessed the peculiar suitability “to educate and mold the mind of him who would in due time make the religion of the Jewish race intelligible to the Greek-Roman world” (ibid., 88). As a citizen of Tarsus Paul was a citizen of the whole world. 2. Roman Citizenship: It was no idle boast with Paul when he said, “But I am a Roman born” ( Acts 22:28). The chief captain might well be “afraid when he knew that he was a Roman, and because he had bound him” ( Acts 22:29).

Likewise the magistrates at Philippi “feared when they heard that they were Romans” ( Acts 16:39), and promptly released Paul and Silas and “asked them to go away from the city.” “To the Roman his citizenship was his passport in distant lands, his talisman in seasons of difficulties and danger. It shielded him alike from the caprice of municipal law and the injustice of local magistrates” (Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, 203). As a citizen of Rome, therefore, Paul stood above the common herd. He ranked with the aristocracy in any provincial town (Ramsay, Paul the Traveler, 31). He would naturally have a kindly feeling for the Roman government in return for this high privilege and protection. In its pessimism the Roman empire had come to be the world’s hope, as seen in the Fourth Eclogue of Virgil (Ramsay, Cities of Paul,49). Paul would seize upon the Roman empire as a fit symbol of the kingdom of heaven. “Our citizenship is in heaven” ( Philippians 3:20); “Ye are no more strangers and sojourners, but ye are fellow-citizens with the saints” ( Ephesians 2:19). So he interprets the church in terms of the body politic as well as in terms of the Israelite theocracy ( Colossians 2:19). “All this shows the deep impression which the Roman institutions made on Paul” (Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, 205). Ramsay draws a striking parallel under the heading, “Paulinism in the Roman Empire” (Cities of Paul,70 ff). “A universal Paulinism and a universal Empire must either coalesce, or the one must destroy the other.” It was Paul’s knowledge of the Roman empire that gave him his imperialism and statesmanlike grasp of the problems of Christianity in relation to the Roman empire. Paul was a statesman of the highest type, as Ramsay has conclusively shown (Pauline and Other Studies, 49-100). Moffatt (Paul and Paulinism, 66) does say: “His perspective was not imperialistic,” but he shows thereby a curious inability to understand Paul. The vision of Paul saw that the regeneration of the empire could come only through Christianity. Ramsay strikingly shows how the emperor dreaded the spiritual upheaval in Paulinism and fought it steadily till the time of Constantine, when “an official Christianity was victorious, but Pauline Christianity had perished, and Paul was now a mere saint, no longer Paul but Paul, forgotten as a man or a teacher, but remembered as a sort of revivification of the old pagan gods” (Cities of Paul, 78). But, as Ramsay says, “it was not dead; it was only waiting its opportunity; it revived when freedom of thought and freedom of life began to stir in Europe; and it guided and stimulated the Protestants of the Reformation.” Suffer Ramsay once more (Pauline and Other Studies, 100): “Barbarism proved too powerful for the Greek-Roman civilization unaided by the new religious bond; and every channel through which that civilization was preserved or interest in it maintained, either is now or has been in some essential part of its course Christian after the Pauline form.”

Paul would show the Roman genius for organizing the churches established by him. Many of his churches would be in Roman colonies (Antioch in Pisidia, Philippi, Corinth, etc.). He would address his most studied epistle to the church in Rome, and Rome would be the goal of his ministry for many years (Findlay, HDB). He would show his conversance with Roman law, not “merely in knowing how to take advantage of his rights as a citizen, but also in the use of legal terms like “adoption” ( Galatians 4:5 f), where the adopted heir becomes son, and heir and son are interchangeable. This was the obsolete Roman law and the Greek law left in force in the provinces (compare Galatians 3:15). But in Romans 8:16 f the actual revocable Roman law is referred to by which “heirship is now deduced from sonship, whereas in Galatians sonship is deduced from heirship; for at Rome a son must be an heir, but an heir need not be a son (compare Hebrews 9:15 ff which presupposes Roman law and the revocability of a will)” (Maclean in 1-vol HDB). So in Galatians 3:24 the tutor or pedagogue presents a Greek custom preserved by the Romans.

This personal guardian of the child (often a slave) led him to school, and was not the guardian of the child’s property in Galatians 4:2. See Ramsay, Galatians, 337-93; Ball, Paul and the Roman Law, 1901, for further discussion. As a Roman, Paul would have “nomen and praenomen, probably taken from the Roman officer who gave his family civitas; but Luke, a Greek, had no interest in Roman names. Paulus, his cognomen, was not determined by his nomen; there is no reason to think he was an AEmilius” (Ramsay, Paul the Traveler, 31). It is probable, though not certain, that Paul spoke Latin (see Souter, The Expositor, April, 1911). He was at any rate a “Roman gentleman” (Findlay, HDB), as is shown by the dignity of his bearing before governors and kings and the respect accorded him by the proconsul Sergius Paulus, the procurator Porcius Festus, and the centurion Julius, whose prisoner he was in the voyage to Rome. His father, as a Roman citizen, probably had some means which may have come to Paul before the appeal to Rome, which was expensive (Ramsay, Paul the Traveler, 310 ff). Though a prisoner in Rome, he made Rome “his best vantage ground and his adoptive home,” and it was here that he rose to “his loftiest conceptions of the nation and destiny of the universal church” (Findlay, HDB) as “an ambassador in chains” ( Ephesians 6:20).

As a Roman citizen, according to tradition, he was beheaded with the sword and not subjected to crucifixion, the traditional fate of Simon Peter.

He saw the true pax Romana to be the peace that passeth all understanding ( Philippians 4:7; compare Rostron, The Christology of Paul, 1912, 19). 3. Hellenism: It is not possible “to specify all the influences that worked on Paul in his youth” (Ramsay, Cities of Paul, 79). We do not know all the life of the times. But he was subject to all that life in so far as any other Jewish youth was. “He was master of all the education and the opportunities of his time.

He turned to his profit and to the advancement of his great purpose all the resources of civilization” (Ramsay, Pauline and Other Studies, 285). I heartily agree with this conception of Paul’s ability to assimilate the life of his time, but one must not be led astray so far as Schramm who, in 1710, wrote Deuteronomy stupenda eruditione Pauli (“On the Stupendous Erudition of Paul”). This is, of course, absurd, as Lightfoot shows (Biblical Essays, 206). But we must not forget Paul lived in a Greek city and possessed Greek citizenship also (Ramsay, Paul the Traveler, 33). Certainly the Greek traits of adaptability, curiosity, alertness, the love of investigation were marked features of his character, and Tarsus afforded wide opportunity for the acquiring of these qualities (The Ethics of Paul,39). He learned to speak the vernacular koine like a native and with the ease and swing displayed by no other New Testament writer save Luke and the author of He. He has a “poet’s mastery of language,” though with the passion of a soul on fire, rather than with the artificial rules of the rhetoricians of the day (Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 239 f).

Blass (Die Rhythmen der asianischen und romischen Kunstprosa, 1905) holds that Paul wrote “rhythmically elaborated artistic prose — a singular instance of the great scholar’s having gone astray” (Deissmann, Light, etc., 64). But there is evidence that Paul was familiar with the use of the diatribe and other common rhetorical devices, though he was very far from being tinged with Atticism or Asianism. It is certain that Paul did not attend any of the schools of rhetoric and oratory. Heinrici (Vorrede to 1 Corinthians. in Meyer’s Krit. exeget. Komm.) argues that Paul’s methods and expressions conform more nearly to the cynic and Stoic diatribe than to the rabbinical dialectic; compare also Wendland und Kern Philo u. d. kynischstoische Diatribe, and Hicks, “St. Paul and Hellenism” in Stud. Biblical, IV.

How extensive was his acquaintance with Greek literature is in doubt.

Lightfoot says: “There is no ground for saying that Paul was a very erudite or highly-cultivated man. An obvious maxim of practical life from Menander ( 1 Corinthians 15:33), a religious sentiment of Cleanthes repeated by Aratus, himself a native of Tarsus ( Acts 17:28), a pungent satire of Epimenides ( Titus 1:12), with possibly a passage here and there which dimly reflects some classical writer, these are very slender grounds on which to build the supposition of vast learning” (Biblical Essays, 206); but Lightfoot admits that he obtained directly or indirectly from contact with Greek thought and learning lessons far wider and more useful for his work than a perfect style or a familiar acquaintance with the classical writers of antiquity. Even so, there is no reason to say that he made his few quotations from hearsay and read no Greek books (compare Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament, 52). Certainly he knew the Greek Old Testament and the Jewish Apocrypha and apocalypses in Greek Garvie is only willing to admit that Paul had such knowledge of Greek literature and philosophy as any Jew, living among Greeks, might pick up (Life and Teaching of Paul,2), and charges Ramsay with “overstating the influence of the Gentile environment on Paul’s development” (Studies of Paul and His Gospel,8). Ramsay holds that it is quite “possible that the philosophical school at Tarsus had exercised more influence on Paul than is commonly allowed” (St. Paul the Traveler, 354). Tarsus was the home of Athenodorus. It was a stronghold of Stoic thought. “At least five of the most eminent teachers of that philosophy were in the university” (Alexander, Ethics of Paul,47). It is not possible to say whether Paul artended these or any lectures at the university, though it is hard to conceive that a brilliant youth like Saul could grow up in Tarsus with no mental stimulus from such a university. Carvie (ibid., 6) asks when Paul could have studied at the university of Tarsus. He was probably too young before he went to Jerusalem to study under Gamaliel. But it is not probable that he remained in Jerusalem continuously after completing his studies till we see him at the death of Stephen ( Acts 7:58). He may have returned to Tarsus meanwhile and taken such studies. Another possibility is that he took advantage of the years in Tarsus after his conversion ( Acts 9:30; Galatians 1:21) to equip himself better for his mission to the Gentiles to which he had been called. There is no real difficulty on the score of time.

The world was saturated with Greek ideas, and Paul could not escape them. He could not escape it unless he was innocent of all culture. Ramsay sees in Paul a love of truth and reality “wholly inconceivable in a more narrow Hebrew, and wholly inexplicable without an education in Greek philosophy” (“St. Paul and Hellenism,” Cities of Paul,34). Paul exhibited a freedom and universalism that he found in the Greek thought of the time which was not so decayed as some think. For the discussion between Garvie and Ramsay see The Expositor, April and December, 1911.

Pfleiderer (Urchristenthum, Vorwort, 174-178) finds a “double root” of Paulinism, a Christianized Hellenism and a Christianized Pharisaism.

Harnack is more nearly correct in saying that “notwithstanding Paul’s Greek culture, his conception of Christianity is, in its deepest ground, independent of Hellenism.” The Hellenistic influence on Paul was relative and subordinate (Wendland, Die hell.-rom. Kultur in ihren Beziehungen zu Judenthum und Christenthum, 3te Aufl, 1912, 245), but it was real, as Kohler shows (Zum Verstandnis des Apostels Paulus, 9). He had a “Gr inheritance” beyond a doubt, and it was not all unconscious or subliminal as Rostron argues (Christology of Paul,17). It is true that in Athens the Stoics and Epicureans ridiculed Paul as a “picker up of learning’s crumbs” — Browning’s rendering (An Epistle) of [spermolo>gov, spermologos ].

Paul shows a fine scorn of the sophistries and verbal refinements of the mere philosophers and orators in 1 Corinthians 1 and 2, but all the same he reveals a real apprehension of the true significance of knowledge and life.

Dr. James Adam (The Religious Teachers of Greece, 360) shows instances of “the real kinship of thought between Plato and Paul.” He does not undertake to say how it came about. He has a Platonic expression, [ta< dia< tou~ sw>matov, ta dia tou somatos ], in 2 Corinthians 5:10, and uses a Stoic and cynic word in 2 Corinthians 9:8, [aujta>rkeian, autarkeian ].

Indeed, there are so many similarities between Paul and Seneca in language and thought that some scholars actually predicate an acquaintance or dependence of the one on the other. It is far more likely that Paul and Seneca drew upon the common phrases of current Stoicism than that Seneca had seen Paul’s Epistles or knew him personally. Lightfoot has a classic discussion of the matter in his essay on “St. Paul and Seneca” in the Commentary on Philippians (see also Carr, “St. Paul’s Attitude to Greek Philosophy,” The Expositor, V, ix). Alexander finds four Stoic ideas (Divine Immanence, Wisdom, Freedom, Brotherhood) taken and glorified by Paul to do service for Christ (Ethics of Paul, 49-55). Often Paul uses a Stoic phrase with a Christian content. Lightfoot boldly argues (Biblical Essays, 207) that the later Greek literature was a fitter handmaid for the diffusion of the gospel than the earlier.

Paul as the apostle to the Greek-Roman world had to “understand the bearings of the moral and religious life of Greece as expressed in her literature, and this lesson he could learn more impartially and more fully at Tarsus in the days of her decline than at Athens in the freshness of her glory” (same place). Ramsay waxes bold enough to discuss “the Pauline philosophy of history” (Cities of Paul, 10-13). I confess to sympathy with this notion and find it in all the Pauline Epistles, especially in Romans.

Moffatt (Paul and Paulinism, 66) finds “a religious philosophy of history” in Romans 9 through 11, throbbing with strong personal emotion. Paul rose to the height of the true Christian philosopher, though not a technical philosopher of the schools. Deissmann (St. Paul,53) admits his language assigns him “to an elevated class,” and yet he insists that he wrote “large letters” ( Galatians 6:11) because he had “the clumsy, awkward writing of a workman’s hand deformed by toil” (p. 51). I cannot agree that here Deissmann understands Paul. He makes “the world of Paul” on too narrow a scale. 4. The Mystery-Religions: Was Paul influenced by Mithraism? H.A.A. Kennedy has given the subject very careful and thorough treatment in a series of papers in The Expositor for 1912-13, already mentioned (see II, 5, above). His arguments are conclusive on the whole against the wild notions of W.B. Smith, Der vorchristliche Jesus; J.M. Robertson, Pagan Christs; A. Drews, Die Christus-Mythe; and Lublinski, Die Entstehung des Christenrums aus der antiken Kultur. A magic papyrus about 300 AD has “I adjure thee by the god of the Hebrew Jesu” (ll. 3019 f), but Deissmann (Light from the Ancient East, 256) refuses to believe this line genuine: “No Christian, still less a Jew, would have called Jesus `the god of the Hebrews.’ “ Clemen (Primitive Christianity and Its non-Jewish Sources, 1912, 336) endorses this view of Deissmann and says that in the 1st century AD “one cannot speak of non-Jewish influences on Christology.” One may dismiss at once the notion that Paul “deified” Jesus into a god and made Him Christ under the influence of pagan myths. Certainly pagan idolatry was forced upon Paul’s attention at every turn. It stirred his spirit at Athens to see the city full of idols ( Acts 17:16), and he caught eagerly at the altar to an unknown god to give him an easy introduction to the true God ( Acts 17:23); but no one can read Romans 1 and 2 and believe that Paul was carried away by the philosophy of vain deceit of his time. He does use the words “wisdom” and “mystery” often in 1 Corinthians, Colossians, and Ephesians, and in Philippians 4:12, “I (have) learned the secret,” he uses a word employed in the mystic cults of the time. It is quite possible that Paul took up some of the phrases of these mystery-religions and gave them a richer content for his own purposes, as he did with some of the Gnostic phraseology (Pleroma , “fullness,” for instance). But Schweitzer (Paul and His Interpreters, 191 f) deals a fatal blow against the notion that the mystery-religions had a formative influence on Paul. He urges, with point, that it is only in the 2nd century that these cults became widely extended in the Roman empire. The dates and development are obscure, but it “is certain that Paul cannot have known the mystery-religions in the form in which they are known to us, because in this fully developed form they did not exist.” Cumont (Lea religions orientales dana le paganisme romain, 2nd edition, 1909 (ET)) insists repeatedly on the difficulties in the way of assuming without proof that Mithraism had any influence on Paul. But in particular it is urged that Paul drew on the “mysteries” for his notions of baptism and the Lord’s Supper as having magical effects. Appeal is made to the magical use of the name of Jesus by the strolling Jewish exorcists in Ephesus ( Acts 18:13 ff). Kirsopp Lake (Earlier Epistles of Paul, 233) holds that at Corinth they all accepted Christianity as a mystery-religion and Jesus as “the Redeemer-God, who had passed through death to life, and offered participation in this new life to those who shared in the mysteries which He offered,” namely, baptism and the Lord’s Supper. But Kennedy (Expos, December, 1912, 548) easily shows how with Paul baptism and the Lord’s Supper are not magical sacraments producing new life, but symbolic pictures of death to sin and new life in Christ which the believer has already experienced. The battle is still raging on the subject of the mystery-religions, but it is safe to say that so far nothing more than illustrative material has been shown to be true of Paul’s teaching from this source.

There is nothing incongruous in the notion that Paul knew as much about the mystery-religions as he did about incipient Gnosticism. Indeed the two things may have been to some extent combined in some places. A passage in Colossians 2:18 has long bothered commentators: “dwelling in the things which he hath seen,” or (margin) “taking his stand upon the things,” etc. Westcott and Hort even suspected an early error in the text, but the same word, [ejmbateu>w, embateuo ], has been found by Sir W.M. Ramsay as a result of investigations by Makridi Bey, of the Turkish Imperial Museum, in the sanctuary of Apollo at Claros, a town on the Ionian coast.

Some of the initiates here record the fact and say that being “enquirers, having been initiated, they entered” (embateuo ). The word is thus used of one who, having been initiated, enters into the life of the initiate (compare Independent, 1913, 376). Clearly, then, Paul uses the word in that sense in Colossians 2:18.

For further discussion see Jacoby, Die antiken Mysterienreligionen und das Christentum; Glover, Conflict of Religions in the Early Roman Empire; Reitzenstein, Die hell. Mysterienreligionen; Friedlander, Roman Life and Manners under the Early Empire, III; Thorburn, Jesus Christ, Historical or Mythical.

M. Bruckner (Der sterbende und auferstehende Gottheiland in den orientalischen Religionen und ihr Verhaltnis zum Christentum, 1908) says: “As in Christianity, so in many oriental religions, a belief in the death and resurrection of a Redeemer-God (sometimes as His Son), occupied a central place in the worship and cult.” To this Schweitzer (Paul and His Interpreters, 193) replies: “What manipulations the myths and rites of the cults in question must have undergone before this general statement could become possible! Where is there anything about dying and resurrection in Mithra?” There we may leave the matter. 5. Judaism: Paul was Greek and Roman, but not “pan-Babylonian,” though he was keenly alive to all the winds of doctrine that blew about him, as we see in Colossians, Ephesians, and the Pastoral Epistles. But he was most of all the Jew, that is, before his conversion. He remained a Jew, even though he learned how to be all things to all men ( 1 Corinthians 9:22). Even though glorying in his mission as apostle to the Gentiles ( Ephesians 3:8), he yet always put the Jew first in opportunity and peril ( Romans 2:9 f). He loved the Jews almost to the point of death ( Romans 9:3). He was proud of his Jewish lineage and boasted of it ( 2 Corinthians 11:16-22; Acts 22:3 ff; 26:4 ff; Philippians 3:4-6). “His religious patriotism flickered up within his Christianity” (Moffatt, Paul and Paulinism, 66). Had he not been a Roman citizen with some Greek culture and his rich endowments of mind, he would probably not have been the “chosen vessel” for the work of Christ among the Gentiles (Garvie, Studies of Paul and His Gospel,15). Had he not been the thorough Jew, he could not have mediated Christianity from Jew to Greek. “In the mind of Paul a universalized Hellenism coalesced with a universalized Hebraism” (Ramsay, Cities of Paul,43). Ramsay strongly opposes the notion of Harhack and others that Paul can be understood “as purely a Hebrew.” So in Paul both Hebraism and Hellenism meet though Hebraism is the main stock. He is a Jew in the Greek-Roman world and a part of it, not a mere spectator. He is the Hellenistic Jew, not the Aramaic Jew of Palestine (compare Simon Peter’s vision on the house-top at Joppa, for instance).

But Paul is not a Hellenizing Jew after the fashion of Jason and Menelaus in the beginning of the Maccabean conflict. Findlay (HDB) tersely says: “The Jew in him was the foundation of everything that Paul became.” But it was not the narrowest type of Judaism in spite of his persecution of the Christians. He belonged to the Judaism of the Dispersion. As a Roman citizen in a Greek city he had departed from the narrowest lines of his people (Ramsay, Cities of Paul,47). His Judaism was pure, in fact, as he gives it to us in Philippians 3:5. He was a Jew of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin. He was a Hebrew, of the seed of Abraham ( Corinthians 11:22). He shared in full all the covenant blessings and privileges of his people ( Romans 9:1-5), whose crowning glory was, that of them came Jesus the Messiah. He was proud of the piety of his ancestors ( 2 Timothy 1:3), and made progress as a student of Judaism ahead of his fellows ( Galatians 1:14). His ancestry was pure, Hebrew of the Hebrews. ( Philippians 3:5), and so his family preserved the native Palestinian traditions in Tarsus. His name Saul was a proof of loyalty to the tribe of Benjamin as his cognomen Paul was evidence of his Roman citizenship. In his home he would be taught the law by his mother (compare Galatians 1:14), as was true of Timothy’s mother and grandmother ( 2 Timothy 1:5). In Tarsus he would go to the synagogue also. We know little of his father, save that he was a Roman citizen and so a man of position in Tarsus and possibly of some wealth; that he was a tent-maker and taught his son the same trade, as all Jewish fathers did, whatever their rank in life; that he was a Pharisee and brought up his son as a Pharisee ( Acts 23:6), and that he sent the young Saul to Jerusalem to study at the feet of Gamaliel ( Acts 22:3). Paul always considered himself a Pharisee as distinct from the Sadducaic scepticism ( Acts 23:6). Many of the Pharisaic doctrines were identical with those of Christianity. That Paul did not consider himself a Pharisee in all respects is shown later by his conflict with the Judaizers (Galatians 2; Acts 15; Corinthians 10 through 13). Paul says that he was reared as a strict Pharisee ( Acts 26:5), though the school of Gamaliel (grandson of Hillel) was not so hard and narrow as that of Shammai. But all Pharisees were stricter than the Sadducees. So Jerusalem played an important part in the training of Saul ( Acts 22:3), as Paul recognized. He was known in Jerusalem as a student. He knew Aramaic as well as Greek (and Latin), and could speak in it so as to attract the attention of a Jewish audience ( Acts 22:2). Paul was fortunate in his great teacher Gamaliel, who was liberal enough to encourage the study of Greek literature. But his liberality in defending the apostles against the Sadducees in Acts 5:34-39 must not be misinterpreted in comparison with the persecuting zeal of his brilliant pupil against Stephen (7:58). Stephen had opened war on the Pharisees themselves, and there is no evidence that Gamaliel made a defense of Stephen against the lawless rage of the Sanhedrin. It is common for pupils to go farther than their teachers, but Gamaliel did not come to the rescue. Still Gamaliel helped Saul, who was undoubtedly his most brilliant pupil and probably the hope of his heart for the future of Judaism.

Harnack (History of Dogma, I, 94) says: “Pharisaism had fulfilled its mission in the world when it produced this man.” Unfortunately, Pharisaism did not die; in truth has never died, not even from Christianity.

But young Saul was the crowning glory of Pharisaism. An effort has recently been made to restore Pharisaism to its former dignity. Herford (Pharisaism, Its Aim and Method, 1912) undertakes to show that the Gospels have slandered Pharisaism, that it was the one hope of the ancient world, etc. He has a chapter on “Pharisaism and Paul,” in which he claims that Paul has not attacked the real Pharisaism, but has aimed his blows at an unreal creation of his own brain (p. 222). But, if Paul did not understand Pharisaism, he did not understand anything. He knew not merely the Old Testament in the Hebrew and the Septuagint translation, for he quotes from both, though usually from the Septuagint, but he also knew the Jewish Apocrypha and apocalypses, as is shown in various ways in his writings (see articles on these subjects). Schweitzer (Paul and His Interpreters) carries too far his idea that Paul and Jesus merely moved in the circle of Jewish eschatology. He makes it explain everything, and that it cannot do. But Paul does show acquaintance with some of these books.

See Kennedy, Paul’s Conception of the Last Things (1904), for a sane and adequate discussion of this phase of the subject. Pfleiderer pursues the subject in his Paulinism, as does Kabisch in his Eschatologie. So Sanday and Headlam use this source in their Commentary on Romans. Paul knew Wisd, also, a book from the Jewish-Alexandrian theology with a tinge of Greek philosophy (see Goodrick, Book of Wisd, 398-403; compare also Jowett’s essay on “St. Paul and Philo” in his Epistles of Paul). Paul knew how to use allegory ( Galatians 4:24) in accord with the method of Philo. So then he knew how to use the Stoic diatribe, the rabbinical diatribe and the Alexandrian allegory. “In his cosmology, angelology, and demonology, as well as eschatology, he remains essentially Jewish” (Garvie, Studies of Paul and His Gospel,17). When he becomes a Christian he will change many of his views, for Christ must become central in his thinking, but his method learned in the rabbinical schools remains with him (Kohler, Zum Verstandnis, etc., 7). Here, then, is a man with a wonderfully rounded culture. What of his mental gifts? 6. Personal Characteristics: Much as we can learn about the times of Paul (compare Selden, In the Time of Paul, 1900, for a brief sketch of Paul’s world), we know something of the political structure of the Roman world, the social life of the 1st century AD, the religious condition of the age, the moral standards of the time, the intellectual tendencies of the period. New discoveries continue to throw fresh light on the life of the middle and lower classes among whom Paul chiefly labored. And, if Deissmann in his brilliant study (St. Paul, A Study in Social and Religious History) has pressed too far the notion that Paul the tent-maker ranks not with Origen, but with Amos the herdman (p. 6, on p. 52 he calls it a mistake “to speak of Paul the artisan as a proletarian in the sense which the word usually bears with us”), yet he is right in insisting that Paul is “a religious genius” and “a hero of piety” (p. 6). It is not possible to explain the personality and work of a man like Paul by his past and to refer with precision this or that trait to his Jewish or Greek training (Alexander, Ethics of Paul,58). “We must allow something to his native originality” (same place) . We are all in a sense the children of the past, but some men have much more the power of initiative than others.

Paul is not mere “eclectic patchwork” (Bruce, Paul’s Conception of Christ, 218). Even if Paul was acquainted with Philo, which is not certain, that fact by no means explains his use of Philo, the representative Jew of the Hellenistic age. “Both are Jews of the Dispersion, city-dwellers, with marked cosmopolitan traits. Both live and move in the Septuagint Bible.

Both are capable of ecstatic and mystical experiences, and have many points of contact in detail. And yet they stand in very strong contrast to one another, a contrast which reminds us of the opposition between Seneca and Paul. .... Philo is a philosopher, Paul the fool pours out the vials of his irony upon the wisdom of the world” (Deissmann, Paul, 110). Deissmann, indeed, cares most for “the living man, Paul, whom we hear speaking and see gesticulating, here playful, gentle as a father, and tenderly coaxing, so as to win the hearts of the infatuated children — there thundering and lightning with the passionate wrath of a Luther, with cutting irony and bitter sarcasm on his lips” (ibid., 16 f). (1) Personal Appearance.

We have no reliable description of Paul’s stature and looks. The Acts of Paul and Thecla (section3) have a protraiture thus: “Baldheaded, bowlegged, strongly built, a man small in size, with meeting eyebrows, with a rather large nose, full of grace, for at times he looked like a man and at times he had the face of an angel,” and Ramsay (Church in the Roman Empire, 32) adds: “This plain and unflattering account of the apostle’s personal appearance seems to embody a very early tradition,” and in chapter xvi he argues that this story goes back to a document of the 1st century. We may not agree with all the details, but in some respects it harmonizes with what we gather from Paul’s Epistles Findlay (HDB) notes that this description is confirmed by “the lifelike and unconventional figure of the Roman ivory diptych, `supposed to date not later than the 4th century.’ “ (Lewin’s Life and Epistles of Paul, Frontispiece, and II, 211).