TAANACH <ta’-nak > ( _]n;[\T” [ta`anakh], or _]n;[]]]]]T” [ta`nakh]; the Septuagint [ Tana>c, Tanach ], with many variants): A royal city of the Canaanites, the king of which was slain by Joshua ( Joshua 12:21). It was within the boundaries of the portion of Issachar, but was one of the cities reckoned to Manasseh ( Joshua 17:11; 1 Chronicles 7:29), and assigned to the Kohathite Levites ( Joshua 21:25). The Canaanites were not driven out; only at a later time they were set to taskwork ( Joshua 17:12 f; Judges 1:27 f). Here the great battle was fought when the defeat of Sisera broke the power of the oppressor Jabin ( Judges 5:19). It was in the administrative district of Baana ben Ahilud ( 1 Kings 4:12). The name appears in the list of Thothmes III at Karnak; and Shishak records his plundering of Taanach when he invaded Palestine under Jeroboam I (compare 1 Kings 14:25 f). Eusebius says in Onomasticon that it is a very large village,3 miles from Legio. It is represented by the modern Ta`annek, which stands on a hill at the southwestern edge of the plain of Esdraelon. Megiddo (Tell el-Mutesellim) lies 5 miles to the Northwest.

These two places are almost invariably named together. The great highway for traffic, commercial and military, from Babylon and Egypt, ran between them. They were therefore of high strategic importance. Excavations were recently conducted on the site by Professor Sellin, and a series of valuable and deeply interesting discoveries were made, shedding light upon the social and religious life and practices of the inhabitants down to the 1st century BC, through a period of nearly 2,000 years. The Canaanites were the earliest occupants. In accordance with Biblical history, “there is no evidence of a break or abrupt change in the civilization between the Canaanite and the Israelite occupation of Taanach; the excavations Show rather gradual development. The Canaanites will have gradually assimilated the Israelites drawn to them from the villages in the plain” (Driver, Schweich Lectures, 1908, 84). In the work just cited Driver gives an admirable summary of the results obtained by Professor Sellin. In his book on the Religion of Ancient Palestine, Professor Stanley A. Cook has shown, in short compass, what excellent use may be made of the results thus furnished. W. Ewing TAANATH-SHILOH <ta’-a-nath-shi’-lo > ( tn”a\T” hloovi” [ta’-anath shiloh]; Codex Vaticanus [ Qhnasa< kai< Sellhsa>, Thenasa kai Sellesa ], [ Thnaqshlw>, Tenathselo ]): A town on the border of the territory of Ephraim named between Michmethath and Janoah ( Joshua 16:6). According to Eusebius, Onomasticon (s.v. “Thena”) it lay about 10 Roman miles East of Neapolis, on the road to the Jordan. Ptolemy speaks of Thena, probably the same place, as a town in Samaria ( Joshua 16:16,5). It may be identified with Ta`na, a village about 7 miles Southeast of Nablus. Yanun, the ancient Janoah, lies 2 miles to the South. A Roman road from Neapolis to the Jordan valley passed this way. At Ta`na there are “foundations, caves, cisterns and rockcut tombs” (PEFM, II, 245). This identification being quite satisfactory, the Talmudic notion that Taanath-shiloh was the same place as Shiloh may be dismissed (Jerusalem Talmud, Meghillah, i). W. Ewing TABAOTH, TABBAOTH <ta-ba’-oth > , <tab’-a-oth > ( twO[B;f” [tabba`oth]; [ Tabaw>q, Tabaoth ], [ Tabw>q, Taboth ]): The name of a family of temple-servants (1 Esdras 5:29) = “Tabbaoth” (Hebrew: Tabba`oth ]) of Ezr 2:43; Nehemiah 7:46; perhaps called after the name of a place. Compare TABBATH .

TABBATH <tab’-ath > ( tB;f” [Tabbath]; Codex Vaticanus [ Taba>q, Tabath ]; [ Gaba>q, Gabath ]): A place named after Abel-meholah in the account of the Midianite flight before Gideon ( Judges 7:23). It must therefore have been a place in the Jordan valley to the East of Beth-shan. No trace of the name has yet been recovered.

TABEEL <ta’-be-el > : A name meaning “good is God,” borne by two persons in the Old Testament ( Isaiah 7:6, the King James Version, “Tabeal”). (1) The father of the man whom the kings of Israel and Damascus planned to place upon the throne of Judah ( Isaiah 7:6). The form of the name laeb]fâ; [Tabhe’el], suggests that he was a Syrian; his son evidently was a tool of Rezin, king of Damascus. The name is vocalized so as to read Tebeal ( la”b]t; [Tabhe’al]), which might be translated “good for nothing,” though some explain it as a pausal form, with the ordinary meaning. The change, probably due to a desire to express contempt, is very slight in Hebrew. (2) A Persian official in Samaria ( laeb]t; [Tabhe’el]) (Ezr 4:7). All that is known of him is that he joined with other officials in sending a letter to Artaxerxes for the purpose of hindering the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem. F. C. Eiselen TABELLIUS <ta-bel’-i-us > ([ Tabe>lliov, Tabellios ]): One of the Persian officials in Samaria who wrote a letter to Artaxerxes which caused the rebuilding of Jerusalem to be stopped for a time (1 Esdras 2:16) = “Tabeel” of Ezr 4:7.

TABER <ta’-ber > ( rP’T; [taphaph], “to strike a timbrel” (( Psalm 68:25)): The word is used only once in the King James Version, namely, in the exceedingly graphic account of the capture of Nineveh given in Nahum 2:7. The queen (perhaps the city personified) is dishonored and led into ignominious captivity, followed by a mourning retinue of “maids of honor” who taber upon, that is, beat violently, their breasts. Such drumming on the breasts was a gesture indicative of great grief ( Luke 18:3).

TABERAH <tab’-e-ra > , <ta-be’-ra > ( hr;[eb]T” [tabh`erah], “burning”): A wilderness camp of the Israelites, the site of which is unidentified. Here, it is recorded, the people complained against Yahweh, who destroyed many of them by fire. This is the origin of the name ( Numbers 11:3; Deuteronomy 9:22).

TABERNACLE <tab’-er-na-k’l > ( d[ewOm lh,ao [’ohel mo`edh] “tent of meeting,” ˆK;v]mi [mishkan], “dwelling”; [skhnh>, skene ]):

A. STRUCTURE AND HISTORY I. Introductory.

Altars sacred to Yahweh were earlier than sacred buildings. Abraham built such detached altars at the Terebinth of Moreh ( Genesis 12:6,7), and again between Beth-el and Ai ( Genesis 12:8). Though he built altars in more places than one, his conception of God was already monotheistic.

The “Judge of all the earth” ( Genesis 18:25) was no tribal deity. This monotheistic ideal was embodied and proclaimed in the tabernacle and in the subsequent temples of which the tabernacle was the prototype. 1. Earlier “Tent of Meeting”:

The first step toward a habitation for the Deity worshipped at the altar was taken at Sinai, when Moses builded not only “an altar under the mount,” but “12 pillars, according to the 12 tribes of Israel” ( Exodus 24:4).

There is no recorded command to this effect, and there was as yet no separated priesthood, and sacrifices were offered by “young men of the children of Israel” ( Exodus 24:5); but already the need of a separated structure was becoming evident. Later, but still at Sinai, after the sin of the golden calf, Moses is stated to have pitched “the tent” (as if well known: the tense is frequentative, “used to take the tent and to pitch it”) “without the camp, afar off,” and to have called it, “the tent of meeting,” a term often met with afterward ( Exodus 33:7 ff). This “tent” was not yet the tabernacle proper, but served an interim purpose. The ark was not yet made; a priesthood was not yet appointed; it was “without the camp”; Joshua was the sole minister ( Exodus 33:11). It was a simple place of revelation and of the meeting of the people with Yahweh ( Exodus 33:7,9-11). Critics, on the other hand, identifying this “tent” with that in Numbers 11:16 ff; 12:4 ff; Deuteronomy 31:14,15 (ascribed to the Elohist source), regard it as the primitive tent of the wanderings, and on the ground of these differences from the tabernacle, described later (in the Priestly Code), deny the historicity of the latter. On this see below under B, 4, (5) . 2. A Stage in Revelation:

No doubt this localization of the shrine of Yahweh afforded occasion for a possible misconception of Yahweh as a tribal Deity. We must remember that here and throughout we have to do with the education of a people whose instincts and surroundings were by no means monotheistic. It was necessary that their education should begin with some sort of concession to existing ideas. They were not yet, nor for long afterward, capable of the conception of a God who dwelleth not in temples made with hands. So an altar and a tent were given them; but in the fact that this habitation of God was not fixed to one spot, but was removed from place to place in the nomad life of the Israelites, they had a persistent education leading them away from the idea of local and tribal deities. 3. The Tabernacle Proper:

The tabernacle proper is that of which the account is given in Exodus through 27; 30 through 31; 35 through 40, with additional details in Numbers 3:25 ff; 4:4 ff; 7:1 ff. The central idea of the structure is given in the words, “Make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them” ( Exodus 25:8). It was the dwelling-place of the holy Yahweh in the midst of His people; also the place of His “meeting” with them ( Exodus 25:22). The first of these ideas is expressed in the name mishkan; the second in the name [’ohel mo`edh] (it is a puzzling fact for the critics that in Exodus 25 through 27:19 only [mishkan] is used; in Exodus 28 through 31 only [’ohel mo`edh]; in other sections the names intermingle). The tabernacle was built as became such a structure, according to the “pattern” shown to Moses in the mount (25:9,40; 26:30; compare Acts 7:44; Hebrews 8:2,5). The modern critical school regards this whole description of the tabernacle as an “ideal” construction — a projection backward by post-exilian imagination of the ideas and dimensions of the Temple of Solomon, the measurements of the latter being throughout halved. Against this violent assumption, however, many things speak. See below under B. II. Structure.

The ground plan of the Mosaic tabernacle (with its divisions, courts, furniture, etc.) can be made out with reasonable certainty. As respects the actual construction, knotty problems remain, in regard to which the most diverse opinions prevail. Doubt rests also on the precise measurement by cubits (see CUBIT ; for a special theory, see W. S. Caldecott, The Tabernacle; Its History and Structure). For simplification the cubit is taken in this article as roughly equivalent to 18 inches.

A first weighty question relates to the shape of the tabernacle. The conventional and still customary conception (Keil, Bahr, A. R. S. Kennedy in HDB, etc.) represents it as an oblong, flat-roofed structure, the rich coverings, over the top, hanging down on either side and at the back — not unlike, to use a figure sometimes employed, a huge coffin with a pall thrown over it. Nothing could be less like a “tent,” and the difficulty at once presents itself of how, in such a structure, “sagging” of the roof was to be prevented. Mr. J. Fergusson, in his article “Temple” in Smith’s DB, accordingly, advanced the other conception that the structure was essentially that of a tent, with ridge-pole, sloping roof, and other appurtenances of such an erection. He plausibly, though not with entire success, sought to show how this construction answered accurately to the measurements and other requirements of the text (e.g. the mention of “pins of the tabernacle,” Exodus 35:18). With slight modification this view here commends itself as having most in its favor.

To avoid the difficulty of the ordinary view, that the coverings, hanging down outside the framework, are unseen from within, except on the roof, it has sometimes been argued that the tapestry covering hung down, not outside, but inside the tabernacle (Keil, Bahr, etc.). It is generally felt that this arrangement is inadmissible. A newer and more ingenious theory is that propounded by A. R. S. Kennedy in his article “Tabernacle” in HDB. It is that the “boards” constituting the framework of the tabernacle were, not solid planks, but really open “frames,” through which the finely wrought covering could be seen from within. There is much that is fascinating in this theory, if the initial assumption of the flat roof is granted, but it cannot be regarded as being yet satisfactorily made out. Professor Kennedy argues from the excessive weight of the solid “boards.” It might be replied: In a purely “ideal” structure such as he supposes this to be, what does the weight matter? The “boards,” however, need not have been so thick or heavy as he represents.

In the more minute details of construction yet greater diversity of opinion obtains, and imagination is often allowed a freedom of exercise incompatible with the sober descriptions of the text. 1. The Enclosure or Court:

The attempt at reconstruction of the tabernacle begins naturally with the “court” ([chatser]) or outer enclosure in which the tabernacle stood (see COURT OF SANCTUARY ). The description is given in Exodus 27:9-18; 38:9-20. The court is to be conceived of as an enclosed space of cubits (150 ft.) in length, and 50 cubits (75 ft.) in breadth, its sides formed (with special arrangement for the entrance) by “hangings” or curtains ([qela`im]) of “fine twined linen,” 5 cubits (7 1/2 ft.) in height, supported by pillars of brass (bronze) 5 cubits apart, to which the hangings were attached by “hooks” and “fillets” of silver. It thus censisted of two squares of 50 cubits each, in the anterior of which (the easterly) stood the “altar of burnt-offering” (see ALTAR ), and the “layer” (see LAVER ), and in the posterior (the westerly) the tabernacle itself. From Exodus 30:17-21 we learn that the laver — a large (bronze) vessel for the ablutions of the priests — stood between the altar and the tabernacle ( Exodus 30:18) The pillars were 60 in number, 20 being reckoned to the longer sides (North and South), and 10 each to the shorter (East and West). The pillars were set in “sockets” or bases (‘edhen) of brass (bronze), and had “capitals” (the King James Version and the English Revised Version “chapiters”) overlaid with silver ( Exodus 38:17). The “fillets” are here, as usually, regarded as silver rods connecting the pillars; some, however, as Ewald, Dillmann, Kennedy, take the “fillet” to be an ornamental band round the base of the capital. On the eastern side was the “gate” or entrance. This was formed by a “screen” ([macakh]) 20 cubits (30 ft.) in breadth, likewise of fine twined linen, but distinguished from the other (white) hangings by being embroidered in blue, and purple, and scarlet (see EAST GATE ). The hangings on either side of the “gate” were 15 cubits in breadth. The 10 pillars of the east side are distributed — 4 to the entrance screen, 3 on either side to the hangings. The enumeration creates some difficulty till it is remembered that in the reckoning round the court no pillar is counted twice, and that the corner pillars and those on either side of the entrance had each to do a double duty. The reckoning is really by the 5-cubit spaces between the pillars. Mention is made ( Exodus 27:19; 38:20) of the “pins” of the court, as well as of the tabernacle, by means of which, in the former case, the pillars were held in place. These also were of brass (bronze). 2. Structure, Divisions and Furniture of the Tabernacle:

In the inner of the two squares of the court was reared the tabernacle — a rectangular oblong structure, 30 cubits (45 ft.) long and 10 cubits (15 ft.) broad, divided into two parts, a holy and a most holy ( Exodus 26:33).

Attention has to be given here (1) to the coverings of the tabernacle, (2) to its framework and divisions, and (3) to its furniture. (1) Coverings of the Tabernacle ( Exodus 26:1-14; 36:8-19).

The wooden framework of the tabernacle to be afterward described had coverings — one, the immediate covering of the tabernacle or “dwelling,” called by the same name, [mishkan] ( Exodus 26:1,6); a second, the tent” covering of goats’ hair; and a third, a protective covering of rams’ and seal- (or porpoise-) skins, cast over the whole. (a) Tabernacle Covering Proper:

The covering of the tabernacle proper ( Exodus 26:1-6) consisted of curtains ([yeri`oth], literally, “breadth”) of fine twined linen, beautifullywoven with blue, and purple, and scarlet, and with figures of cherubim.

The 10 curtains, each 28 cubits long and 4 cubits broad, were joined together in sets of 5 to form 2 large curtains, which again were fastened by 50 loops and clasps (the King James Version “taches”) of gold, so as to make a single great curtain 40 cubits (60 ft.) long, and 28 cubits (42 ft.) broad. (b) Tent Covering:

The “tent” covering ( Exodus 26:7-13) was formed by 11 curtains of goats hair, the length in this case being 30 cubits, and the breadth 4 cubits.

These were joined in sets of 5 and 6 curtains, and as before the two divisions were coupled by 50 loops and clasps (this time of bronze), into one great curtain of 44 cubits (66 ft.) in length and 30 cubits (45 ft.) in breadth — an excess of 4 cubits in length and 2 in breadth over the fine tabernacle curtain. (c) Protective Covering:

Finally, for purposes of protection, coverings were ordered to be made ( Exodus 26:14) for the “tent” of rams’ skins dyed red, and of seal-skins or porpoise-skins (English Versions of the Bible, “badgers’ skins”). The arrangement of the coverings is considered below. (2) Framework and Division of the Tabernacle ( Exodus 26:15-37; 36:20-38) The framework of the tabernacle was, as ordinarily understood, composed of upright “boards” of acacia wood, forming 3 sides of the oblong structure, the front being closed by an embroidered screen,” depending from 5 pillars ( Exodus 26:36,37; see below). These boards,48 in number (20 each for the north and south sides, and 8 for the west side), were 10 cubits (15 ft.) in height, and 1 1/2 cubits (2 ft. 3 in.) in breadth (the thickness is not given), and were overlaid with gold. They were set by means of “tenons” (literally, “hands”), or projections at the foot,2 for each board, in 96 silver “sockets,” or bases (“a talent for a socket,” Exodus 38:27). In the boards were “rings” of gold, through which were passed horizontal “bars,” to hold the parts together — the middle bar, apparently, on the long sides, extending from end to end ( Exodus 26:28), the upper and lower bars being divided in the center (5 bars in all on each side). The bars, like the boards, were overlaid with gold. Some obscurity rests on the arrangement at the back: 6 of the boards were of the usual breadth (= cubits), but the 2 corner boards appear to have made up only a cubit between them ( Exodus 26:22-24). Notice has already been taken of theory (Kennedy, article “Tabernacle,” HDB) that the so-called “boards” were not really such, but were open “frames,” the 2 uprights of which, joined by crosspieces, are the “tenons” of the text. It seems unlikely, if this was meant, that it should not be more distinctly explained. The enclosure thus constructed was next divided into 2 apartments, separated by a “veil,” which hung from 4 pillars overlaid with gold and resting in silver sockets.

Like the tabernacle-covering, the veil was beautifully woven with blue, purple, and scarlet, and with figures of cherubim ( Exodus 26:31,32; see VEIL ). The outer of these chambers, or holy place” was as usually computed, 20 cubits long by 10 broad; the inner, or most holy place, was 10 cubits square. The “door of the tent” ( Exodus 26:36) was formed, as already stated, by a “screen,” embroidered with the above colors, and depending from 5 pillars in bronze sockets. Here also the hooks were of gold, and the pillars and their capitals overlaid with gold ( Exodus 36:38).

Arrangement of Coverings:

Preference has already been expressed for Mr. Fergusson’s idea that the tabernacle was not flat-roofed, the curtains being cast over it like drapery, but was tentlike in shape, with ridge-pole, and a sloping roof, raising the total height to 15 cubits. Passing over the ridge pole, and descending at an angle, 14 cubits on either side, the inner curtain would extend 5 cubits beyond the walls of the tabernacle, making an awning of that width North and South, while the goats’-hair covering above it, 2 cubits wider, would hang below it a cubit on either side. The whole would be held in position by ropes secured by bronze tent-pins to the ground ( Exodus 27:19; 38:31). The scheme has obvious advantages in that it preserves the idea of a “tent,” conforms to the principal measurements, removes the difficulty of “sagging” on the (flat) roof, and permits of the golden boards, bars and rings, on the outside, and of the finely wrought tapestry, on the inside, being seen (Professor Kennedy provides for the latter by his “frames,” through which the curtain would be visible). On the other hand, it is not to be concealed that the construction proposed presents several serious difficulties. The silence of the text about a ridge-pole, supporting pillars, and other requisites of Mr. Fergusson’s scheme (his suggestion that “the middle bar” of Exodus 26:28 may be the ridge-pole is quite untenable), may be got over by assuming that these parts are taken for granted as understood in tent-construction. But this does not apply to other adjustments, especially those connected with the back and front of the tabernacle. It was seen above that the inner covering was 40 cubits in length, while the tabernacle-structure was 30 cubits. How is this excess of 10 cubits in the tapestry-covering dealt with? Mr. Fergusson, dividing equally, supposes a porch of 5 cubits at the front, and a space of 5 cubits also behind, with hypothetical pillars. The text, however, is explicit that the veil dividing the holy from the most holy place was hung “under the clasps” ( Exodus 26:33), i.e. on this hypothesis, midway in the structure, or cubits from either end. Either, then, (1) the idea must be abandoned that the holy place was twice the length of the Holy of Holies (20 X 10; it is to be observed that the text does not state the proportions, which are inferred from those of Solomon’s Temple), or (2) Mr. Fergusson’s arrangement must be given up, and the division of the curtain be moved back 5 cubits, depriving him of his curtain for the porch, and leaving 10 cubits to be disposed of in the rear. Another difficulty is connected with the porch itself. No clear indication of such a porch is given in the text, while the 5 pillars “for the screen” ( Exodus 26:37) are most naturally taken to be, like the latter, at the immediate entrance of the tabernacle. Mr. Fergusson, on the other hand, finds it necessary to separate pillars and screen, and to place the pillars 5 cubits farther in front. He is right, however, in saying that the 5th pillar naturally suggests a ridge-pole; in his favor also is the fact that the extra breadth of the overlying tentcovering was to hang down, 2 cubits at the front, and 2 cubits at the back of the tabernacle ( Exodus 26:9,12). It is possible that there was a special disposition of the inner curtain — that belonging peculiarly to the “dwelling” — “according to which its “clasps” lay above the “veil” of the Holy of Holies (20 cubits from the entrance), and its hinder folds closed the aperture at the rear which otherwise would have admitted light into the secrecy of the shrine. But constructions of this kind must ever remain more or less conjectural.

The measurements in the above reckoning are internal. Dr. Kennedy disputes this, but the analogy of the temple is against his view. (3) Furniture of the Sanctuary The furniture of the sanctuary is described in Exodus 25:10-40 (ark, table of shewbread, candlestick); 30:1-10 (altar of incense); compare Exodus 37 for making. In the innermost shrine, the Holy of Holies, the sole object was the ark of the covenant, overlaid within and without with pure gold, with its molding and rings of gold, its staves overlaid with gold passed through the rings, and its lid or covering of solid gold — the propitiatory or mercy-seat — at either end of which, of one piece with it. (25:19; 37:8), stood cherubim, with wings outstretched over the mercy- seat and with faces turned toward it (for details see ARK OF COVENANT; MERCY-SEAT; CHERUBIM ). This was the meeting-place of Yahweh and His people through Moses (25:22). The ark contained only the two tables of stone, hence its name “the ark of the testimony” (25:16,22). It is not always realized how small an object the ark was — only 2 1/2 cubits (3 ft. 9 in.) long, 1 1/2 cubits (2 ft. 3 in.) broad, and the same (1 1/2 cubits) high.

The furniture of the outer chamber of the tabernacle consisted of (a) the table of shewbread; (b) the golden candlestick: (c) the altar of incense, or golden altar. These were placed, the table of shewbread on the north side ( Exodus 40:22), the candlestick on the south side ( Exodus 40:24), and the altar of incense in front of the veil, in the holy place. (a) The Table of Shewbread:

The table of shewbread was a small table of acacia wood, overlaid with gold, with a golden rim round the top, gold rings at the corners of its feet, staves for the rings, and a “border” (at middle?) joining the legs, holding them together. Its dimensions were 2 cubits (3 ft.) long, 1 cubit (18 inches) broad, and 1 1/2 cubits (2 ft. 3 inches) high. On it were placed cakes, renewed each week, in 2 piles (compare Leviticus 24:5-9), together with dishes (for the bread), spoons (incense cups), flagons and bowls (for drink offerings), all of pure gold. See SHEWBREAD, TABLE OF. (b) The Candlestick:

The candlestick or lampstand was the article on which most adornment was lavished. It was of pure gold, and consisted of a central stem (in Exodus 25:32-35 this specially receives the name “candlestick”), with curved branches on either side, all elegantly wrought with cups of almond blossom, knops, and flowers (lilies?) — 3 of this series to each branch and 4 to the central stem. Upon the 6 branches and the central stem were lamps from which the light issued. Connected with the candlestick were snuffers and snuff-dishes for the wicks — all of gold. The candlestick was formed from a talent of pure gold ( Exodus 25:38). See CANDLESTICK. (c) The Altar of Incense:

The description of the altar of incense occurs ( Exodus 30:1-10) for some unexplained reason or displacement out of the place where it might be expected, but this is no reason for throwing doubt (with some) upon its existence. It was a small altar, overlaid with gold, a cubit (18 in.) square, and 2 cubits (3 ft.) high, with 4 horns. On it was burned sweet-smelling incense. It had the usual golden rim, golden rings, and gold-covered staves. See ALTAR OF INCENSE.

III. History. 1. Removal from Sinai:

We may fix 1220 BC as the approximate date of the introduction of the tabernacle. It was set up at Sinai on the 1st day of the 1st month of the 2nd year ( Exodus 40:2,17), i.e. 14 days before the celebration of the Passover on the first anniversary of the exodus (see CHRONOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT , VII, VIII). When the people resumed their journey, the ark was wrapped in the veil which had served to isolate the most holy place ( Numbers 4:5). This and the two altars were carried upon the shoulders of the children of Kohath, a descendant of Levi, and were removed under the personal supervision of the high priest ( Numbers 3:31,32; 4:15). The rest of the dismembered structure was carried in six covered wagons, offered by the prince, each drawn by two oxen (Numbers 7). Doubtless others were provided for the heavier materials (compare Keil). Before leaving Sinai the brazen altar had been dedicated, and utensils of gold and silver had been presented for use at the services. The tabernacle had been standing at Sinai during 50 days ( Numbers 10:11). 2. Sojourn at Kadesh:

The journey lay along the “great and terrible wilderness” between Horeb in the heart of Arabia and Kadesh-barnea in the Negeb of Judah; of the years occupied in the journey to Canaan, nearly 38 were spent at Kadesh, a fact not always clearly recognized. The tabernacle stood here during years (one year being occupied in a punitive journey southward to the shore of the Red Sea). During this whole time the ordinary sacrifices were not offered (Am 5:25), though it is possible that the appropriate seasons were nevertheless marked in more than merely chronological fashion. Few incidents are recorded as to these years, and little mention is made of the tabernacle throughout the whole journey except that the ark of the covenant preceded the host when on the march ( Numbers 10:33-36). It is the unusual that is recorded; the daily aspect of the tabernacle and the part it played in the life of the people were among the things recurrent and familiar. 3. Settlement in Canaan:

When, at last, the Jordan was crossed, the first consideration, presumably, was to find a place on which to pitch the sacred tent, a place hitherto uninhabited and free from possible defilement by human graves. Such a place was found in the neighborhood of Jericho, and came to be known as Gilgal ( Joshua 4:19; 5:10; 9:6; 10:6,43). Gilgal, however, was always regarded as a temporary site. The tabernacle is not directly mentioned in connection with it. The question of a permanent location was the occasion of mutual jealousy among the tribes, and was at last settled by the removal of the tabernacle to Shiloh, in the territory of Ephraim, a place conveniently central for attendance of all adult males at the three yearly festivals, without the zone of war, and also of some strategic importance.

During the lifetime of Joshua, therefore, the tabernacle was removed over the 20 miles, or less, which separated Shiloh among the hills from Gilgal in the lowlands ( Joshua 18:1; 19:51). While at Shiloh it seems to have acquired some accessories of a more permanent kind ( 1 Samuel 1:9, etc.), which obtained for it the name “temple” ( 1 Samuel 1:9; 3:3). 4. Destruction of Shiloh:

During the period of the Judges the nation lost the fervor of its earlier years and was in imminent danger of apostasy. The daily services of the tabernacle were doubtless observed after a perfunctory manner, but they seem to have had little effect upon the people, either to soften their manners or raise their morals. In the early days of Samuel war broke out afresh with the Philistines. At a council of war the unprecedented proposal was made to fetch the ark of the covenant from Shiloh ( 1 Samuel 4:1 ff). Accompanied by the two sons of Eli — Hophni and Phinehas — it arrived in the camp and was welcomed by a shout which was heard in the hostile camp. It was no longer Yahweh but the material ark that was the hope of Israel, so low had the people fallen. Eli himself, at that time high priest, must at least have acquiesced in this superstition. It ended in disaster. The ark was taken by the Philistines, its two guardians were slain, and Israel was helpless before its enemies. Though the Hebrew historians are silent about what followed, it is certain that Shiloh itself fell into the hands of the Philistines. The very destruction of it accounts for the silence of the historians, for it would have been at the central sanctuary there, the center and home of what literary culture there was in Israel during this stormy period, that chronicles of events would be kept. Psalm 78:60 ff no doubt has reference to this overthrow, and it is referred to in Jeremiah 7:12. The tabernacle itself does not seem to have been taken by the Philistines, as it is met with later at Nob. 5. Delocalization of Worship:

For lack of a high priest of character, Samuel himself seems now to have become the head of religious worship. It is possible that the tabernacle may have been again removed to Gilgal, as it was there that Samuel appointed Saul to meet him in order to offer burnt offerings and peace offerings. The ark, however, restored by the Philistines, remained at Kiriath-jearim ( <090701> Samuel 7:1,2), while courts for ceremonial, civil, and criminal administration were held, not only at Gilgal, but at other places, as Beth-el, Mizpah and Ramah ( 1 Samuel 7:15-17), places which acquired a quasiecclesiastical sanctity. This delocalization of the sanctuary was no doubt revolutionary, but it is partly explained by the fact that even in the tabernacle there was now no ark before which to burn incense. Of the halfdozen places bearing the name of Ramah, this, which was Samuel’s home, was the one near to Hebron, where to this day the foundations of what may have been Samuel’s sacred enclosure may be seen at the modern Ramet-el- Khalil. 6. Nob and Gibeon:

We next hear of the tabernacle at Nob, with Ahimelech, a tool of Saul (probably the Ahijah of 1 Samuel 14:3), as high priest ( 1 Samuel 21:1 ff). This Nob was 4 miles to the North of Jerusalem and was moreover a high place, 30 ft. higher than Zion. It does not follow that the tabernacle was placed at the top of the hill. Here it remained a few years, till after the massacre by Saul of all the priests at Nob save one, Abiathar ( 1 Samuel 22:11 ff). Subsequently, possibly by Saul himself, it was removed to Gibeon ( 1 Chronicles 16:39; 21:29). Gibeon was 6 miles from Jerusalem, and 7 from Beth-el, and may have been chosen for its strategic advantage as well as for the fact that it was already inhabited by priests, and was Saul’s ancestral city. 7. Restoration of the Ark:

This removal by Saul, if he was the author of it, was recognized afterward by David as a thing done, with which he did not think it wise to interfere (of 1 Chronicles 16:40). On his capturing the fortress of Jebus (later Jerusalem), and building himself a “house” there, David prepared a place for the ark of God, and pitched a tent on Zion in imitation of the tabernacle at Gibeon ( 2 Samuel 6:17 ff; 1 Chronicles 16:1). He must also have provided an altar, for we read of burnt offerings and peace offerings being made there. Meanwhile the ark had been brought from Kiriath-jearim, where it had lain so long; it was restored in the presence of a concourse of people representing the whole nation, the soldiery and civilians delivering it to the priests ( 2 Samuel 6:1 ff). On this journey Uzzah was smitten for touching the ark. Arrived near Jerusalem, the ark was carried into the house of Obed-edom, a Levite, and remained there for 3 months. At the end of this time it was carried into David’s tabernacle with all fitting solemnity and honor. 8. The Two Tabernacles:

Hence, it was that there were now two tabernacles, the original one with its altar at Gibeon, and the new one with the original ark in Jerusalem, both under the protection of the king. Both, however, were soon to be superseded by the building of a temple. The altar at Gibeon continued in use till the time of Solomon. Of all the actual material of the tabernacle, the ark alone remained unchanged in the temple. The tabernacle itself, with its sacred vessels, was brought up to Jerusalem, and was preserved, apparently, as a sacred relic in the temple ( 1 Kings 8:4). Thus, after a history of more than 200 years, the tabernacle ceases to appear in history. IV. Symbolism.

Though the tabernacle was historically the predecessor of the later temples, as a matter of fact, the veil was the only item actually retained throughout the series of temples. Nevertheless it is the tabernacle rather than the temple which has provided a substructure for much New Testament teaching. All the well-known allusions of the writer to the Hebrews, e.g. in chapters 9 and 10, are to the tabernacle, rather than to any later temple. 1. New Testament References:

In general the tabernacle is the symbol of God’s dwelling with His people ( Exodus 25:8; compare 1 Kings 8:27), an idea in process of realization in more and more perfect forms till it reaches its completion in the carnation of the Word (“The Word became flesh, and dwelt (Greek “tabernacled”) among us,” John 1:14; compare 2 Corinthians 5:1), in the church collectively (2 Corinthians 6:16) and in the individual believer (1 Corinthians 6:19) and finally in the eternal glory (Revelation 2:13 ff). In the Epistle to the Hebrews, the locus classicus of the tabernacle in Christian thought, the idea is more cosmical — the tabernacle in its holy and most holy divisions representing the earthly and the heavenly spheres of Christ’s activity. The Old Testament was but a shadow of the eternal substance, an indication of the true ideal ( Hebrews 8:5; 10:1). The tabernacle in which Christ ministered was a tabernacle which the Lord pitched, and not man ( Hebrews 8:2). He is the high priest of “the greater and more perfect tabernacle” ( Hebrews 9:11). “Christ entered not into a holy place made with hands, like in pattern to the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear before the face of God for us” ( Hebrews 9:24). The symbolical significance of the tabernacle and its worship is not, however, confined to the Epistle to the Hebrews. It must be admitted that Paul. does not give prominence to the tabernacle symbolism, and further, that his references are to things common to the tabernacle and the temple.

But Paul speaks of “the layer of regeneration” ( Titus 3:5 the Revised Version margin), and of Christ, who “gave himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God, for an odor of a sweet smell” ( Ephesians 5:2).

The significance which the synoptic writers give to the rending of the veil of the temple ( Matthew 27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45) shows how this symbolism entered deeply into their thought and was felt by them to have divine attestation in this supernatural fact. The way into the holiest of all, as the writer to the Hebrews says, was now made manifest (9:8; 10:19,20). 2. God’s Dwelling with Man:

The suggestion which underlies all such New Testament references is not only that Christ, in His human manifestation, was both tabernacle and priest, altar and sacrifice, but also, and still more, that God ever has His dwelling among men, veiled no doubt from the unbelieving and insincere, but always manifest and accessible to the faithful and devout. As we have a great high priest who is now passed into the heavens, there to appear in our behalf in the true tabernacle, so we ourselves have permission and encouragement to enter into the holiest place of all on earth by the blood of the everlasting covenant. Of the hopes embodied in these two planes of thought, the earthly tabernacle was the symbol, and contained the prospect and foretaste of the higher communion. It is this which has given the tabernacle such an abiding hold on the imagination and veneration of the Christian church in all lands and languages. 3. Symbolism of Furniture:

The symbolism of the various parts of the tabernacle furniture is tolerably obvious, and is considered under the different headings. The ark of the covenant with its propitiatory was the symbol of God’s gracious meeting with His people on the ground of atonement (compare Romans 3:25; see ARK OF THE COVENANT ). The twelve cakes of shewbread denote the twelve tribes of Israel, and their presentation is at once an act of gratitude for that which is the support of life, and, symbolically, a dedication of the life thus supported; the candlestick speaks to the calling of Israel to be a people of light (compare Jesus in Matthew 5:14-16); the rising incense symbolizes the act of prayer (compare Revelation 5:8; 8:3).

LITERATURE. See the articles on “Tabernacle” and “Temple” in Smith’s DB, HDB, EB, The Temple BD, etc.; also the commentaries. on Exodus (the Speaker’s Pulpit Commentary, Keil’s, Lange’s, etc.); Bahr, Symbolik d.

Mosaischen Cult; Keil, Archaeology, I, 98 ff (English translation); Westcott, essay on “The General Significance of the Tabernacle,” in his Hebrews; Brown, The Tabernacle (1899); W. S. Caldecott, The Tabernacle: Its History and Structure. See the articles in this Encyclopedia on the special parts of the tabernacle. See also TEMPLE.

W. Shaw Caldecott James Orr B. IN CRITICISM I. Conservative and Critical Views.

The conservative view of Scripture finds: (1) that the tabernacle was constructed by Moses in the wilderness of Sinai; (2) that it was fashioned according to a pattern shown to him in the Mount; (3) that it was designed to be and was the center of sacrificial worship for the tribes in the wilderness; and (4) that centuries later the Solomonic Temple was constructed after it as a model.

However, the critical (higher) view of Scripture says: (1) that the tabernacle never existed except on paper; (2) that it was a pure creation of priestly imagination sketched after or during the exile; (3) that it was meant to be a miniature sanctuary on the model of Solomon’s Temple; (4) that it was represented as having been built in the wilderness for the purpose of legitimizing the newly-published Priestly Code (P) or Levitical ritual still preserved in the middle books of the Pentateuch; and (5) that the description of the tabernacle furnished in the Priestly Code (P) (Exodus 25 through 31; 36 through 40; Numbers 2:2,17; 5:1-4; 14:44) conflicts with that given in the Elohist (E) ( Exodus 33:7-11), both as to its character and its location.

The principal grounds on which it is proposed to set aside the conservative viewpoint and put in its place the critical theory are these: II. Arguments in Support of the Critical Theory Examined. (1) It is nowhere stated that Solomon’s Temple was constructed after the pattern of the Mosaic tabernacle; hence, it is reasonable to infer that the Mosaic tabernacle had no existence when or before the Solomonic Temple was built. (2) No trace of the Mosaic tabernacle can be found in the pre-Solomonic period, from which it is clear that no such tabernacle existed. (3) The Mosaic tabernacle could not have been produced as Exodus describes, and, accordingly, the story must be relegated to the limbo of romance. (4) The Biblical account of the Mosaic tabernacle bears internal marks of its completely unhistorical character. (5) The pre-exilic prophets knew nothing of the Levitical system of which the Mosaic tabernacle was the center, and hence, the whole story must be set down as a sacred legend.

These assertions demand examination: 1. Not Stated, That the Temple Was Constructed after the Pattern of the Tabernacle:

It is urged that nowhere is it stated that Solomon’s Temple was fashioned after the pattern of the Mosaic tabernacle. Wellhausen thinks (GI, chapter i, 3, p. 44) that, had it been so, the narrators in Kings and Chronicles would have said so. “At least,” he writes, “one would have expected that in the report concerning the building of the new sanctuary, casual mention would have been made of the old.” And so there was — in 1 Kings 8:4 and 2 Chronicles 5:5. Of course, it is contended that “the tent of meeting” referred to in these passages was not the Mosaic tabernacle of Exodus 25, but simply a provisional shelter for the ark — though in P the Mosaic tabernacle bears the same designation ( Exodus 27:21). Conceding, however, for the sake of argument, that the tent of the historical books was not the Mosaic tabernacle of Exodus, and that this is nowhere spoken of as the model on which Solomon’s Temple was constructed, does it necessarily follow that because the narrators in Kings and Chronicles did not expressly state that Solomon’s Temple was built after the pattern of the Mosaic tabernacle, therefore the Mosaic tabernacle had no existence when the narrators wrote? If it does, then the same logic will demonstrate the non-existence of Solomon’s Temple before the exile, because when the writer of P was describing the Mosaic tabernacle he made no mention whatever about its being a miniature copy of Solomon’s Temple. A reductio ad absurdum like this disposes of the first of the five pillars upon which the new theory rests. 2. No Trace of the Tabernacle in Pre-Solomonic Times It is alleged that no trace of the Mosaic tabernacle can be found in pre- Solomonic times. On the principle that silence about a person, thing or event does not prove the non-existence of the person or thing or the nonoccurrence of the event, this 2nd argument might fairly be laid aside as irrelevant. Yet it will be more satisfactory to ask, if the assertion be true, why no trace of the tabernacle can be detected in the historical books in pre-Solomonic times. The answer is, that of course it is true, if the historical books be first “doctored,” i.e. gone over and dressed to suit theory, by removing from them every passage, sentence, clause and word that seems to indicate, presuppose or imply the existence of the tabernacle, and such passage, sentence, clause and word assigned to a late R who inserted it into the original text to give color to his theory, and support to his fiction that the Mosaic tabernacle and its services originated in the wilderness. Could this theory be established on independent grounds, i.e. by evidence derived from other historical documents, without tampering with the sacred narrative, something might be said for its plausibility. But every scholar knows that not a particle of evidence has ever been, or is likely ever to be, adduced in its support beyond what critics themselves manufacture in the way described. That they do find traces of the Mosaic tabernacle in the historical books, they unconsciously and unintentionally allow by their efforts to explain such traces away, which moreover they can only do by denouncing these traces as spurious and subjecting them to a sort of surgical operation in order to excise them from the body of the text.

But these so-called spurious traces are either true or they are not true. If they are true, whoever inserted them, then they attest the existence of the tabernacle, first at Shiloh, and afterward at Nob, later at Gibeon, and finally at Jerusalem; if they are not true, then some other things in the narrative must be written down as imagination, as, e.g. the conquest of the land, and its division among the tribes, the story of the altar on the East of Jordan, the ministry of the youthful Samuel at Shiloh, and of Ahimelech at Nob. (1) The Mosaic Tabernacle at Shiloh.

That the structure at Shiloh ( 1 Samuel 1:3,9,19,24; 2:11,12; 3:3) was the Mosaic tabernacle everything recorded about it shows. It contained the ark of God, called also the ark of the covenant of God and the ark of the covenant of Yahweh, or more fully the ark of the covenant of Yahweh of Hosts, names, especially the last, which for the ark associated with the tabernacle were not unknown in the period of the wandering. It had likewise a priesthood and a sacrificial worship of three parts — offering sacrifice (in the forecourt), burning incense (in the holy place), and wearing an ephod (in the Holy of Holies) — which at least bore a close resemblance to the cult of the tabernacle, and in point of fact claimed to have been handed down from Aaron. Then Elkanah’s pious custom of going up yearly from Ramathaim-zophim to Shiloh to worship and to sacrifice unto Yahweh of Hosts suggests that in his day Shiloh was regarded as the central high place and that the law of the three yearly feasts ( Exodus 23:14; Leviticus 23:1-18; Deuteronomy 16:16) was not unknown, though perhaps only partially observed; while the statement about “the women who did service at the door of the tent of meeting” as clearly points back to the similar female institution in connection with the tabernacle ( Exodus 38:8). To these considerations it is objected (a) that the Shiloh sanctuary was not the Mosaic tabernacle, which was a portable tent, but a solid structure with posts and doors, and (b) that even if it was not a solid structure but a tent, it could be left at any moment without the ark, in which case it could not have been the Mosaic tabernacle of which the ark was an “inseparable companion”; while (c) if it was the ancient “dwelling” of Yahweh, it could not have been made the dormitory of Samuel. But (a) while it need not be denied that the Shiloh sanctuary possessed posts and doors — Jeremiah 7:12 seems to admit that it was a structure which might be laid in ruins — yet this does not warrant the conclusion that the Mosaic tabernacle had no existence in Shiloh. It is surely not impossible or even improbable that, when the tabernacle had obtained a permanent location at Shiloh, and that for nearly 400 years (compare above under A, III, 1, 8 and see CHRONOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT , VII, VIII), during the course of these centuries a porch with posts and doors may have been erected before the curtain that formed the entrance to the holy place, or that strong buildings may have been put up around it as houses for the priests and Levites, as treasure-chambers, and such like — thus causing it to present the appearance of a palace or house with the tabernacle proper in its interior. Then (b) as to the impossibility of the ark being taken from the tabernacle, as was done when it was captured by the Philistines, there is no doubt that there were occasions when it was not only legitimate, but expressly commanded to separate the ark from the tabernacle, though the war with the Philistines was not one. In Numbers 10:33, it is distinctly stated that the ark, by itself, went before the people when they marched through the wilderness; and there is ground for thinking that during the Benjamite war the ark was with divine sanction temporarily removed from Shiloh to Beth-el ( Judges 20:26,27) and, when the campaign closed, brought back again to Shiloh ( Judges 21:12). (c) As for the notion that the Shiloh sanctuary could not have been the Mosaic tabernacle because Samuel is said to have slept in it beside the ark of God, it should be enough to reply that the narrative does not say or imply that Samuel had converted either the holy place or the most holy into a private bedchamber, but merely that he lay down to sleep “in the temple of the Lord where the ark of God was,” doubtless “in the court where cells were built for the priests and Levites to live in when serving at the sanctuary” (Keil). But even if it did mean that the youthful Samuel actually slept in the Holy of Holies, one fails to see how an abuse like that may not have occurred in a time so degenerate as that of Eli, or how, if it did, it would necessarily prove that the Shiloh shrine was not the Mosaic tabernacle. (2) The Mosaic Tabernacle at Nob.

That the sanctuary at Nob ( 1 Samuel 21:1-6) was the Mosaic tabernacle may be inferred from the following circumstances: (a) that it had a high priest with 85 ordinary priests, a priest’s ephod, and a table of shewbread; (b) that the eating of the shewbread was conditioned by the same law of ceremonial purity as prevailed in connection with the Mosaic tabernacle ( Leviticus 15:18); and (c) that the Urim was employed there by the priest to ascertain the divine will — all of which circumstances pertained to the Mosaic tabernacle and to no other institution known among the Hebrews. If the statement ( 1 Chronicles 13:3) that the ark was not inquired at in the days of Saul calls for explanation, that explanation is obviously this, that during Saul’s reign the ark was dissociated from the tabernacle, being lodged in the house of Abinadab at Kiriath-jearim, and was accordingly in large measure forgotten. The statement ( 1 Samuel 14:18) that Saul in his war with the Philistines commanded Ahijah, Eli’s great-grandson, who was “the priest of the Lord in Shiloh, wearing an ephod” ( 1 Samuel 14:3) to fetch up the ark — if 1 Samuel 14:18 should not rather be read according to the Septuagint, “Bring hither the ephod” — can only signify that on this particular occasion it was fetched from Kiriath-jearim at the end of 20 years and afterward returned thither. This, however, is not a likely supposition; and for the Septuagint reading it can be said that the phrase “Bring hither” was never used in connection with the ark; that the ark was never employed for ascertaining the Divine Will, but the ephod was; and that the Hebrew text in 1 Samuel 14:18 seems corrupt, the last clause reading “for the ark of God was at that day and the sons of Israel,” which is not extremely intelligible. (3) The Mosaic Tabernacle at Gibeon.

The last mention of the Mosaic tabernacle occurs in connection with the building of Solomon’s Temple ( 1 Kings 8:4; 2 Chronicles 1:3; 5:3), when it is stated that the ark of the covenant and the tent of meeting, and all the holy vessels that were in the tent were solemnly fetched up into the house which Solomon had built. That what is here called the tabernacle of the congregation, or the tent of meeting, was not the Mosaic tabernacle has been maintained on the following grounds: (a) that had it been so, David, when he fetched up the ark from Obededom’s house, would not have pitched for it a tent in the city of David, but would have lodged it in Gibeon; (b) that had the Gibeon shrine been the Mosaic tabernacle it would not have been called as it is in Kings, “a great high place”; (c) that had the Gibeon shrine been the Mosaic tabernacle, Solomon would not have required to cast new vessels for his Temple, as he is reported to have done; and (d) that had the Gibeon shrine been the Mosaic tabernacle the brazen altar would not have been left behind at Gibeon but would also have been conveyed to Mt. Moriah.

But (a) if it was foolish and wrong for David not to lodge the ark in Gibeon, that would not make it certain that the Mosaic tabernacle was not at Gibeon. That it was either foolish or wrong, however, is not clear. David may have reckoned that if the house of Obed-edom had derived special blessing from the presence of the ark in it for three months, possibly it would be for the benefit of his (David’s) house and kingdom to have the ark permanently in his capital. And in addition, David may have remembered that God had determined to choose out a place for His ark, and in answer to prayer David may have been directed to fetch the ark to Jerusalem. As good a supposition this, at any rate, as that of the critics. (b) That the Gibeon shrine should have been styled “the great high place” ( 1 Kings 3:4) is hardly astonishing, when one calls to mind that it was the central sanctuary, as being the seat of the Mosaic tabernacle with its brazen altar. And may not the designation “high place,” or [bamah], have been affixed to it just because, through want of its altar, it had dwindled down into a mere shadow of the true sanctuary and become similar to the other “high places” or [bamoth]? (c) The casting of new vessels for Solomon’s Temple needs no other explanation than this, that the new house was at least twice as spacious as the old, and that in any case it was fitting that the new house should have new furniture. (d) That the brazen altar would not have been left behind at Gibeon when the Mosaic tabernacle was removed, may be met by the demand for proof that it was actually left behind. That it was left behind is a pure conjecture. That it was transplanted to Jerusalem and along with the other tabernacle utensils laid up in a side chamber of the temple is as likely an assumption as any other (see 1 Kings 8:4). 3. The Tabernacle Could Not Have Been Built as Exodus Describes It is maintained that the Mosaic tabernacle could not have been produced as Exodus describes: (1) that the time was too short, (2) that the Israelites were too little qualified, and (3) that the materials at their disposal were too scanty for the construction of so splendid a building as the Mosaic tabernacle. But (1) does any intelligent person believe that 9 months was too short a time for 600,000 able-bodied men, to say nothing of their women and children, to build a wooden house 30 cubits long, 10 high and broad, with not as many articles in it as a well-to-do artisan’s kitchen oftentimes contains? (2) Is it at all likely that they were so ill-qualified for the work as the objection asserts? The notion that the Israelites were a horde of savages or simply a tribe of wandering nomads does not accord with fact. They had been bond-men, it is true, in the land of Ham; but they and their fathers had lived there for 400 years; and it is simply incredible, as even Knobel puts it, that they should not have learnt something of the mechanical articles One would rather be disposed to hold that they must have had among them at the date of the Exodus a considerable number of skilled artisans. At least, archaeology has shown that if the escaped bondsmen knew nothing of the arts and sciences, it was not because their quondam masters had not been able to instruct them. The monuments offer silent witness that every art required by the manufacturers existed at the moment in Egypt, as e.g. the arts of metal-working, wood-carving, leather-making, weaving and spinning. And surely no one will contend that the magnificent works of art, the temples and tombs, palaces and pyramids, that are the world’s wonder today, were the production always and exclusively of native Egyptian and never of Hebrew thought and labor! Nor (3) is the reasoning good, that whatever the Israelites might have been able to do in Egypt where abundant materials lay to hand, they were little likely to excel in handicrafts of any sort in a wilderness where such materials were wanting. Even Knobel could reply to this, that as the Israelites when they escaped from Egypt were not a horde of savages, so neither were they a tribe of beggars; that they had not entered on their expedition in the wilderness without preparation, or without taking with them their most valuable articles; that the quantities of gold, silver and precious stones employed in the building of the tabernacle were but trifles in comparison with other quantities of the same that have been found in possession of ancient oriental peoples; that a large portion of what was contributed had probably been obtained by despoiling the Egyptians before escaping from their toils and plundering the Amalekites whom they soon after defeated at Rephidim, and who, in all likelihood, at least if one may judge from the subsequent example of the Midianites, had come to the field of war bedecked with jewels and gold; and that the acacia wood, the linen, the blue, the purple and the scarlet, with the goats’ skins, rams’ skins, and seal skins might all have been found and prepared in the wilderness (compare Kurtz, Geschichte des alten Bundes, II, section 53). In short, so decisively has this argument, derived from the supposed deficiency of culture and resources on the part of the Israelites, been disposed of by writers of by no means too conservative pro-clivities, that one feels surprised to find it called up again by Benzinger in Encyclopedia Biblica to do duty in support of the unhistorical character of the tabernacle narrative in Exodus. 4. Biblical Account Contains Marks of Its Unhistorical Character The Biblical account of the Mosaic tabernacle, it is further contended, bears internal marks of its completely unhistorical character, as e.g. (1) that it represents the tabernacle as having been constructed on a model which had been supernaturally shown to Moses; (2) that it habitually speaks of the south, north, and west sides of the tabernacle although no preceding order had been issued that the tent should be so placed; (3) that the brazen altar is described as made of timber overlaid with brass, upon which a huge fire constantly burned; (4) that, the tabernacle is depicted, not as a mere provisional shelter for the ark upon the march, but “as the only legitimate sanctuary for the church of the twelve tribes before Solomon”; and (5) that the description of the tabernacle furnished in P (Exodus through 31; 36 through 40; Numbers 2:2,17; 5:1-4; 14:44) conflicts with that given in E ( Exodus 33:7-11), both as to its character and its location.

But (1) why should the story of the tabernacle be a fiction, because Moses is reported to have made it according to a pattern showed to him in the Mount ( Exodus 25:40 (Hebrew 8:5))? No person says that the Temple of Solomon was a fiction, because David claimed that the pattern of it given to Solomon had been communicated to him (David) by divine inspiration ( 1 Chronicles 28:19). Every critic also knows that Ezekiel wrote the book that goes by his name. Yet Ezekiel asserts that the temple described by him was beheld by him in a vision. Unless therefore the supernatural is ruled out of history altogether, it is open to reply that God could just as easily have revealed to Moses the pattern of the tabernacle as He afterward exhibited to Ezekiel the model of his temple. And even if God showed nothing to either one prophet or the other, the fact that Moses says he saw the pattern of the tabernacle no more proves that he did not write the account of it, than Ezekiel’s stating that he beheld the model of his temple attests that Ezekiel never penned the description of it. The same argument that proves Moses did not write about the tabernacle also proves that Ezekiel could not have written about the vision-temple. Should it be urged that as Ezekiel’s temple was purely visionary so also was Moses’ tabernacle, the argument comes with small consistency and less force from those who say that Ezekiel’s vision-temple was the model of a real temple that should afterward be built; since if Ezekiel’s vision-temple was (or should have been, according to the critics) converted into a material sanctuary, no valid reason can be adduced why Moses’ visiontabernacle should not also have been translated into an actual building. (2) How the fact that the tabernacle had three sides, south, north and west, shows it could not have been fashioned by Moses, is one of those mysteries which takes a critical mind to understand. One naturally presumes that the tabernacle must have been located somewhere and oriented somehow; and, if it had four sides, would assuredly suit as well to set them toward the four quarters of heaven as in any other way. But in so depicting the tabernacle, say the critics, the fiction writers who invented the story were actuated by a deep-laid design to make the Mosaic tabernacle look like the Temple of Solomon. Quite a harmless design, if it was really entertained! But the Books of Kings and Chronicles will be searched in vain for any indication that the Temple foundations were set to the four quarters of heaven. It is true that the 12 oxen who supported the molten sea in Solomon’s Temple were so placed — 4 looking to the North, 4 to the South, 4 to the East, and 4 to the West ( 1 Kings 7:25); but this does not necessarily warrant the inference that the sides of the Temple were so placed. Hence, on the well-known principle of modern criticism, that when a thing is not mentioned by a writer the thing does not exist, seeing that nothing is recorded about how the temple was placed, ought it not to be concluded that the whole story about the Temple is a myth? (3) As to the absurdity of representing a large fire as constantly burning upon a wooden altar overlaid with a thin plate of brass, this would certainly have been all that the critics say — a fatal objection to receiving the story of the tabernacle as true. But if the story was invented, surely the inventor might have given Moses and his two skilled artisans, Bezalel and Oholiab, some credit for common sense, and not have made them do, or propose to do, anything so stupid as to try to keep a large fire burning upon an altar of wood. This certainly they did not do. An examination of Exodus 27:1-8; 38:1-7 makes it clear that the altar proper upon which “the strong fire” burned was the earth or stone-filled ( Exodus 20:24 f) hollow which the wooden and brass frame enclosed. (4) The fourth note of fancy — what Wellhausen calls “the chief matter” — that the tabernacle was designed for a central sanctuary to the church of the Twelve Tribes before the days of Solomon, but never really served in this capacity — is partly true and partly untrue. That it was meant to be a central sanctuary, until Yahweh should select for Himself a place of permanent habitation, which He did in the days of Solomon, is exactly the impression a candid reader derives from Exodus, and it is gratifying to learn from so competent a critic as Wellhausen that this impression is correct. But that it really never served as a central sanctuary, it is impossible to admit, after having traced its existence from the days of Joshua onward to those of Solomon. That occasionally altars were erected and sacrifices offered at other places than the tabernacle — as by Gideon at Ophrah ( Judges 6:24-27) and by Samuel at Ramah ( 1 Samuel 7:17) — is no proof that the tabernacle was not the central sanctuary. If it is, then by parity of reasoning the altar in Mt. Ebal ( Deuteronomy 27:5) should prove that Jerusalem was not intended as a central sanctuary. But, if alongside of the Temple in Jerusalem, an altar in Ebal could be commanded, then also alongside of the tabernacle it might be legitimate to erect an altar and offer sacrifice for special needs. And exactly this is what was done. While the tabernacle was appointed for a central sanctuary the earlier legislation was not revoked: “An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt-offerings, and thy peace-offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen: in every place where I record my name I will come unto thee and I will bless thee” ( Exodus 20:24). It was still legitimate to offer sacrifice in any spot where Yahweh was pleased to manifest Himself to His people. And even though it had not been, the existence of local shrines alongside of the tabernacle would no more warrant the conclusion that the tabernacle was never built than the failure of the Christian church to keep the Golden Rule would certify that the Sermon on the Mount was never preached. (5) With regard to the supposed want of harmony between the two descriptions of the tabernacle in P and E, much depends on whether the structures referred to in these documents were the same or different. (a) If different, i.e. if the tent in E ( Exodus 33:7-11) was Moses’ tent (Kurtz, Keil, Kalisch, Ewald and others), or a preliminary tent erected by Moses (Havernick, Lange; Kennedy, and section A (I, 1), above), or possessed by the people from their forefathers (von Gerlach, Benzinger in EB), no reason can be found why the two descriptions should not have varied as to both the character of the tent and its location. The tent in E, which according to the supposition was purely provisional, a temporary sanctuary, may well have been a simple structure and pitched outside the camp; while the tent in P could just as easily have been an elaborate fabric with an ark, a priesthood and a complex sacrificial ritual and located in the midst of the camp. In this case no ground can arise for suggesting that they were contradictory of one another, or that P’s tent was a fiction, a paper-tabernacle, while E’s tent was a reality and the only tabernacle that ever existed in Israel.

But (b) if on the other hand the tent in E was the same as the tent in P (Calvin, Mead in Lange, Konig, Eerdmans, Valeton and others), then the question may arise whether or not any contradiction existed between them, and, if such contradiction did exist, whether this justifies the inference that P’s tent was unhistorical, i.e. never took shape except in the writer’s imagination.

That the tent in E was not P’s Mosaic tabernacle has been argued on the following grounds: (a) that the Mosaic tabernacle (assuming it to have been a reality and not a fiction) was not yet made; so that E’s tent must have been either the tent of Moses or a provisional tent; (b) that nothing is said about a body of priests and Levites with an ark and a sacrificial ritual in connection with E’s tent, but only of a non- Levitical attendant Joshua, and (c) that it was situated outside the camp, whereas P’s tabernacle is always represented as in the midst of the camp.

The first of these grounds largely disappears when Exodus 33:7 is read as in the Revised Version: “Now Moses used to take the tent and to pitch it without the camp.” The verbs, being in the imperfect, point to Moses’ practice (Driver, Introduction and Hebrew Tenses; compare Ewald, Syntax, 348), which again may refer either to the past or to the future, either to what Moses was in the habit of doing with his own or the preliminary tent, or what he was to do with the tent about to be constructed. Which interpretation is the right one must be determined by the prior question which tent is intended. Against the idea of E’s tent being Moses’ private domicile stands the difficulty of seeing why it was not called his tent instead of the tent, and why Moses should be represented as never going into it except to hold communion with Yahweh. If it was a provisional tent, struck up by Moses, why was no mention of its construction made? And if it was a sort of national heirloom come down from the forefathers of Israel, why does the narrative contain not the slightest intimation of any such thing?

On the other hand if E’s tent was the same as P’s, the narrative does not require to be broken up; and Exodus 33:7-11 quite naturally falls into its place as an explanation of how the promises of 33:3 and 5 were carried out (see infra).

The second supposed proof that E’s tent was not P’s but an earlier one, namely, that P’s had a body of priests and Levites, an ark and a complex ritual, while E’s had only Joshua as attendant and made no mention of ark, priests or sacrifices, loses force, unless it can be shown that there was absolute necessity that in this paragraph a full description of the tabernacle should be given. But obviously no such necessity existed, the object of the writer having been as above explained. Driver, after Wellhausen (GJ, 387), conjectures that in E’s original document Exodus 33:7-11 may have been preceded “by an account of the construction of the Tent of Meeting and of the ark,” and that “when the narrative was combined with that of P this part of it (being superfluous by the side of Exodus 25 through 35) was probably omitted.” As this however is only a conjecture, it is of no more (probably of less) value than the opinion that Exodus 25 through including 33:7-11 proceeded from the same pen. The important contribution to the interpretation of the passage is that the absence from the paragraph relating to E’s tent of the ark, priests and sacrifices is no valid proof that E’s tent was not the Mosaic tabernacle.

The third argument against their identity is their different location — E’s outside and P’s inside the camp. But it may be argued (a) that the translation in the Revised Version (British and American) distinctly relieves this difficulty. For if Moses used to take and pitch the tabernacle outside the camp, the natural implication is that the tabernacle was often, perhaps usually, inside the camp, as in the Priestly Code (P), and only from time to time pitched outside the camp, when Yahweh was displeased with the people (Eerdmans, Valeton). Or (2) that “outside the camp” may signify away, at an equal distance from all the four camps (“over against the tent of meeting” — in the King James Version “far off,” after Joshua 3:4 — were the various tribes with their standards, i.e. the four camps, to be pitched; Numbers 2:2); so that the tabernacle might easily be in the midst of all the camps and yet “outside” and “far off” from each camp separately, thus requiring every individual who sought the Lord to go out from his camp unto the tabernacle. Numbers 11:26 through 30 may perhaps shed light upon the question. There it is stated that “there remained two men in the camp (who) had not gone out with Moses unto the Tent,” and that Moses and the elders after leaving the tent, “gat (them) into the camp.” Either the tent at this time was in the center of the square, around which the four camps were stationed, or it was outside.

If it was outside, then the first of the foregoing explanations will hold good; if it was inside the camp, then the second suggestion must be adopted, namely, that while the camps were round about the tabernacle, the tabernacle was outside each camp. “Although the tabernacle stood in the midst of the camp, yet it was practically separated from the tents of the tribes by an open space and by the encampment of the Levites” (Pulpit Commentary, in the place cited.; compare Keil, in the place cited.). When one calls to mind that the tabernacle was separated from each side of the square probably, as in Joshua 3:4, by 2,000 cubits (at 19-25 inches each = about 3/4 of a mile), one has small difficulty in understanding how the tabernacle could be both outside the several camps and inside them all; how the two promises in Exodus 33 (the King James Version) — “I will not go up in the midst of thee” (33:3) and “I will come up into the midst of thee” (33:5) — might be fulfilled; how Moses and the elders could go out from the camp (i.e. their several camps) to the tabernacle and after leaving the tabernacle return to the camp (i.e. their several camps); and how no insuperable difficulty in the shape of an insoluble contradiction exists between E’s account and P’s account. 5. Pre-exilic Prophets Knew Nothing of Levitical System of Which the Tabernacle Was Said to Be the Center.

That the pre-exilic prophets knew nothing about the Levitical system of which the tabernacle was the center is regarded as perhaps the strongest proof that the tabernacle had no existence in the wilderness and indeed never existed at all except on paper. The assertion about the ignorance of the pre-exilic prophets as to the sacrificial system of the Priestly Code has been so often made that it has come to be a “commonplace” and “stockphrase” of modern criticism. In particular, Amos in the 8th century BC (5:25,26) and Jeremiah in the 7th century BC (7:21-23) are quoted as having publicly taught that no such sacrificial ritual as the tabernacle implied had been promulgated in the wilderness. But, if these prophets were aware that the Levitical Law had not been given by Moses, one would like to know, (1) how this interpretation of their language had been so long in being discovered; (2) how the critics themselves are not unanimous in accepting this interpretation — which they are not; (3) how Amos could represent Yahweh as saying “I hate, I despise your feasts, and I will take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Yea, though ye offer me your burnt-offerings and meal-offerings, I will not accept them; neither will I regard the peace-offerings of your fat beasts” (5:21,22), if Yahweh had never accepted and never enjoined them; (4) how Jeremiah could have been a party to putting forward Deuteronomy as a work of Moses if he knew that Yahweh had never commanded sacrifices to be offered, which Deuteronomy does; and (5) how Jeremiah could have blamed Judah for committing spiritual adultery if Yahweh had never ordered the people to offer sacrifice.

In reply to (1) it will scarcely do to answer that all previous interpreters of Amos and Jeremiah had failed to read the prophets’ words as they stand (Am 5:25,26; Jeremiah 7:22), because the question would then arise why the middle books of the Pentateuch should not also be read as they stand, as e.g. when they say, “The Lord spake unto Moses,” and again “These (the legislative contents of the middle books) are the commandments, which Yahweh commanded Moses for the children of Israel in mount Sinai” ( Leviticus 27:34). As for (2) it is conveniently forgotten that Bohlen (Introduction to Genesis, I, 277) admitted that some of the Pentateuch “might possibly have originated in the time of Moses,” and when quoting Jeremiah 7:22 never dreamed of putting forward an explanation different from the orthodox rendering of the same, and certainly did not cite it as a proof that the Law had no existence prior to the exile; that De Wette in his Einleitung (261, 262, 8th edition) stated that “the holy laws and institutions of theocratic people had for their author Moses, who in giving them stood under divine guidance”; that Knobel (Die Bucher Exodus und Lev, xxii) explicitly declared that Moses must be regarded not only as the liberator and founder of his people, but also the originator of the peculiar Israelite constitution and lawgiving, at least in its fundamental elements; that Ewald (Die Propheten, II, 123) regarded Jeremiah 7:22 as making no announcement about the origin of the sacrificial cult; and that Bleek (Introduction to the Old Testament) forgot to read the modern critical interpretation into the words of Amos and Jeremiah for the simple reason that to have done so would have stultified his well-known view that many of the laws of the middle books of the Pentateuch are of Mosaic origin. Nor is the difficulty (3) removed by holding that, if prior to the days of Amos Yahweh did accept the burnt offerings and meal offerings of Israel, these were not sacrifices that had been appointed in the wilderness, because Yahweh Himself appears to intimate (Am 5:25,26) that no such sacrifices or offerings had been made during the whole 40 years’ wandering. Had this been the case, it is not easy to see why the post-exilic authors of the Priestly Code should have asserted the contrary, should have represented sacrifices as having been offered in the wilderness, as they have done (see Numbers 16; 18). The obvious import of Yahweh’s language is either that the sacrificial worship which He had commanded had been largely neglected by the people, or that it had been so heartless and formal that it was no true worship at all — their real worship being given to their idols — and that as certainly as the idolaters in the wilderness were excluded from Canaan, so the idolaters in Amos’ day, unless they repented, would be carried away into exile.

As to (4) Jeremiah’s action in putting forward or helping to put forward Deuteronomy as a work of Moses when he knew that it represented Yahweh as having commanded sacrifices to be offered both in the wilderness and in Canaan ( Deuteronomy 12:6,11,13), and must have been aware as well that J-E had represented Yahweh as commanding sacrifice at Sinai ( Exodus 20:24,25), no explanation can be offered that will clear the prophet from the charge of duplicity and insincerity, or prevent his classification with the very men who were a grief of mind to him and against whom a large part of his life was spent in contending, namely, the prophets that prophesied lies in the name of God. Nor does it mend matters to suggest (Cheyne) that when Jeremiah perceived that Deuteronomy, though floated into publicity under high patronage, did not take hold, he changed his mind, because in the first place if Jeremiah did so, he should, like an honest man, have washed his hands clear of Deuteronomy, which he did not; and in the second place, because had he done so he could not have been “the iron pillar and brazen wall” which Yahweh had intended him to be and indeed had promised to make him against the princes, priests and people of the land (1:18). And, still further, (5) it passes comprehension how, if Yahweh never commanded His people to offer sacrifice to Him, Jeremiah could have represented Yahweh as enjoining him to pronounce a curse upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem because they transgressed the words of Yahweh’s covenant, which He had made with their fathers in the day when He brought them out of the land of Egypt, by running after other gods to serve them, setting up altars and burning incense unto Baal and even working lewdness in Yahweh’s house ( Jeremiah 11:1-15). It is urged in answer to this, that the offense complained of was not that the men of Judah did not offer sacrifices to Yahweh, but that they offered them to Baal and polluted His temple with heathen rites — that what Yahweh demanded from His worshippers was not the offering of sacrifice, but obedience to the moral law conjoined with abstinence from idolatry.

But in that case, what was the use of a temple at all? And why should Yahweh speak of it as “mine house,” if sacrifices were not required to be offered in it (compare on this Kittel, The Scientific Study of the Old Testament, 218)? Why idolatrous sacrifices were denounced was not merely because they were wrong in themselves, but also because they had supplanted the true sacrificial worship of Yahweh. As already stated, it is not easy to perceive how Jeremiah could have said that Yahweh had never commanded sacrifices to be offered to Him, when he (Jeremiah) must have known that the Book of the Covenant in J-E ( Exodus 20:24,25) represented Yahweh as expressly enjoining them. Had Jeremiah not read the Book of the Covenant with sufficient care? This is hardly likely in so earnest a prophet. Or will it be lawful to suggest that Jeremiah knew the Book of the Covenant to be a fiction and the assumption of divine authority for its enactments to be merely a rhetorical device? In this case his words might be true; only one cannot help regretting that he did not distinctly state that in his judgment the Book of the Covenant was a fraud.

It may now be added in confirmation of the preceding, that the various references to a tabernacle in the New Testament appear at least to imply that in the 1st Christian century the historicity of the Mosaic tabernacle was generally accepted. These references are Peter’s exclamation on the Mount of Transfiguration ( Matthew 17:4; Mark 9:5; Luke 9:33); Stephen’s statement in the council ( Acts 7:44); the affirmations in Hebrews (chapters 8; 9); and the voice which John heard out of heaven (Revelation 21:3). It may be admitted that taken separately or unitedly these utterances do not amount to a conclusive demonstration that the tabernacle actually existed in the wilderness; but read in the light of Old Testament aeclarations that such a tabernacle did exist, they have the force of a confirmation. If the language of Peter and that of John may fairly enough be regarded as figurative, even then their symbolism suggests, as its basis, what Stephen and the writer to the He affirm to have been a fact, namely, that their “fathers had the tabernacle .... in the wilderness,” and that, under the first covenant, “there was a tabernacle prepared.”

LITERATURE.

I, critical: De Wette, Beitrage; von Bohlen, Genesis; Georg, Judische Feste; Reuss, Geschichte der heiligen Schriften des AT; Graf, de Templo Silonensi; Kuenen, The Religion of Israel; Wellhausen, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels; HDB and EB, articles “Tabernacle,” II, conservative:

Bredenkamp, Gesetz und Propheten; Kurtz, Geschichte des alten Bundes; Havernick, Einleitung; Hengstenberg, Egypt and the Books of Moses; Riehm, Handworterbuch, and Herzog, RE (ed 1; edition 3 is “critical”), articles “Stiftshutte”; Baxter, Sanctuary and Sacrifice; Bissell, The Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure; Orr, The Problem of the Old Testament; Whitelaw, Old Testament Critics. T. Whitelaw TABERNACLE OF TESTIMONY (WITNESS) ( Numbers 9:15; 2 Chronicles 24:6, the Revised Version (British and American) “the tent of the testimony”). See TABERNACLE.

TABERNACLES, FEAST OF See FEASTS AND FASTS, I, A, 3.

TABITHA <tab’-i-tha > ([ Tabeiqa>, Tabeitha ]). See DORCAS.

TABLE “Table” is derived from the Latin tabula, meaning primarily “a board,” but with a great variety of other significances, of which “writing-tablet” is the most important for the Biblical use of “table.” So in English “table” meant at first “any surface” and, in particular, “a surface for writing,” and further specialization was needed before “table” became the name of the familiar article of furniture (“object with a horizontal surface”), a meaning not possessed by tabula in Latin. After this specialization “table” in the sense of “a surface for writing” was replaced in later English by the diminutive form “tablet.” But “surface for writing” was still a common meaning of “table,” and in this sense it represents j”Wl [luach] ( Exodus 24:12, etc.), a word of uncertain origin, [pla>x, plax ], “something flat” (2 Corinthians 3:3; Hebrews 9:4), [de>ltov, deltos ], “a writing tablet” (1 Macc 8:22; 14:18,27,48), or [pinaki>dion, pinakidion ] “writing tablet” ( Luke 1:63 — a rather unusual word). the American Standard Revised Version has kept the word in the familiar combination “tables of stone” ( Exodus 24:12, etc.), but elsewhere ( Proverbs 3:3; 7:3; Isaiah 30:8; Jeremiah 17:1; Habbakuk 2:2; Luke 1:63) has replaced “table” by “tablet,” a change made by the English Revised Version only in Isaiah 30:8; Luke 1:63. See TABLET.

The table as an article of furniture is ˆj;l]vu [shulchan], in the Hebrew and [tra>peza, trapeza ], in the Greek. The only exceptions are Song of Solomon 1:12, bs”me [mecabh], “something round,” perhaps a “round table,” perhaps a “cushion,” perhaps a “festal procession,” and Mark 7:4, the King James Version [kli>nh, kline ], “couch” (so the Revised Version (British and American)), while John 13:28 and John 12:2, the King James Version “at the table,” and Tobit 7:8, the King James Version “on the table,” represent only the general sense of the original. Of the two regular words, [shulchan] is properly “a piece of hide,” and so “a leather mat,” placed on the ground at meal time, but the word came to mean any “table,” however elaborate (e.g. Exodus 25:23-30). Trapeza means “having four feet.” 2 Kings 4:10 seems to indicate that a table was a necessary article in even the simpler rooms. Curiously enough, however, apart from the table of shewbread there is no reference in the Bible to the form or construction of tables, but the simpler tables in Palestine of the present day are very much lower than ours. The modern “tables of the money changers” ( Mark 11:15 and parallel’s) are small square trays on stands, and they doubtless had the same form in New Testament times. See SHEWBREAD, TABLE OF; MONEY-CHANGERS.

To eat at a king’s table ( 2 Samuel 9:7, etc.) is naturally to enjoy a position of great honor, and the privilege is made by Christ typical of the highest reward ( Luke 22:30). Usually “to eat at one’s table” is meant quite literally, but in 1 Kings 18:19; Nehemiah 5:17 (compare Kings 10:5) it probably means “be fed at one’s expense.” On the other hand, the misery of eating the leavings of a table ( Judges 1:7; Mark 7:28; Luke 16:21) needs no comment. The phrase “table of the Lord (Yahweh)” in Malachi 1:7,12 the King James Version (compare Ezekiel 41:22; 44:16 — Ezekiel 39:20 is quite different) means “the table (altar) set before the Lord,” but the same phrase in 1 Corinthians 10:21 is used in a different sense and the origin of its use by Paul is obscure. Doubtless the language, if not the meaning, of Malachi had its influence and may very well have been suggested to Paul as he wrote Corinthians 10:18. On the other hand, light may be thrown on the passage by such a papyrus fragment as “Chareimon invites you to dine at the table (kline ) of the lord Serapis,” a formal invitation to an idol-banquet (1 Corinthians 8:10; Pap. Oxyr. i.110; compare iii.523). This would explain Paul’s “table of demons” — a phrase familiar to the Corinthians — and he wrote “table of the Lord” to correspond (compare, however, Pirqe ‘Abhoth, iii.4). “Table at which the Lord is Host,” at any rate, is the meaning of the phrase. On the whole passage see the comms., especially that of Lietzmann (fullest references). Probably Luke 22:30 has no bearing on 1 Corinthians 10:21. The meaning of Psalm 69:22 (quoted in Romans 11:9), “Let their table before them become a snare,” is very obscure (“let them be attacked while deadened in revelings”?), and perhaps was left intentionally vague. Burton Scott Easton TABLE OF NATIONS 1. THE TABLE AND ITS OBJECT:

This is the expression frequently used to indicate “the generations of the sons of Noah” contained in Genesis 10. These occupy the whole chapter, and are supplemented by Genesis 11:1-9, which explain how it came about that there were so many languages in the world as known to the Hebrews. The remainder of Genesis 11 traces the descent of Abram, and repeats a portion of the information contained in Genesis 10 on that account only. The whole is seemingly intended to lead up to the patriarch’s birth. 2. WHAT IT INCLUDES AND EXCLUDES:

Noah and his family being the only persons left alive after the Flood, the Table naturally begins with them, and it is from his three sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, that the inhabitants of the earth, as known to the Hebrews, were descended. All others — the Mongolians of the Far East and Japan, the American Indians, both North and South, the natives of Australia and New Zealand — were naturally omitted from the list. It may, of course, be argued that all the nations not regarded as descended from Shem and Japheth might be included among the descendants of Ham; but apart from the fact that this would give to Ham far more than his due share of the human race, it would class the Egyptians and Canaanites with the Mongolians, Indians, etc., which seems improbable. “The Table of Nations,” in fact, excludes the races of which the Semitic East was in ignorance, and which could not, therefore, be given according to their lands, languages, families, and nations ( Genesis 10:5,20,31). 3. ORDER OF THE THREE RACES:

Notwithstanding that the sons of Noah are here ( Genesis 10:1) and elsewhere mentioned in the order Shem, Ham and Japheth ( Genesis 5:32; 6:10), and Ham was apparently the youngest (see HAM ), the Table begins ( Genesis 10:2) with Japheth, enumerates then the descendants of Ham ( Genesis 10:6), and finishes with those of Shem ( Genesis 10:21). This order in all probability indicates the importance of each race in the eyes of the Hebrews, who as Semites were naturally interested most in the descendants of Shem with whom the list ends. This enabled the compiler to continue the enumeration of Shem’s descendants in Genesis 11:12 immediately after the verses dealing with the building of the Tower of Babel and the Confusion of Tongues. 4. EXTENT OF EACH:

The numbers of the descendants of each son of Noah, however, probably bear witness to the compiler’s knowledge, rather than their individual importance in his eyes. Thus, the more remote and less known race of Japheth is credited with 14 descendants only (7 sons and 7 grandsons), while Ham has no less than 29 descendants (4 sons, 23 grandsons, and great-grandsons), and Shem the same (5 sons, 5 grandsons, 1 greatgrandson, and 20 remoter descendants to the 6th generation). Many of the descendants of Shem and Ham, however, are just as obscure as the descendants of Japheth. How far the relationship to the individual sons of Noah is to be taken literally is uncertain. The earlier names are undoubtedly those of nations, while afterward we have, possibly, merely tribes, and in chapter 11 the list develops into a genealogical list of individuals. 5. SONS OF JAPHETH:

It is difficult to trace a clear system in the enumeration of the names in the Table. In the immediate descendants of Japheth ( Genesis 10:2), Gomer, Magog, Tubal and Mesech, we have the principal nations of Asia Minor, but Madai stands for the Medes on the extreme East, and Javan (the Ionians) for the Greeks (? and Romans) on the extreme West (unless the Greeks of Asia Minor were meant). Gomer’s descendants apparently located themselves northward of this tract, while the sons of Javan extended themselves along the Mediterranean coastlands westward, Tarshish standing, apparently, for Spain, Kittim being the Cyprians, and Rodanim the Rhodians. 6. SONS AND DESCENDANTS OF HAM:

Coming to the immediate descendants of Ham ( Genesis 10:6), the writer begins with those on the South and then goes northward in the following order: Cush or Ethiopia, Mizraim or Egypt, Phut (better Put, the Revised Version (British and American)) by the Red Sea, and lastly Canaan — the Holy Land — afterward occupied by the Israelites. The sons of Cush, which follow ( Genesis 10:7), are apparently nationalities of the Arabian coast, where Egyptian influence was predominant. These, with the sons of Raamah, embrace the interior of Africa as known to the Hebrews, and the Arabian tract as far as Canaan, its extreme northern boundary. The reference to Babylonia (Nimrod) may be regarded as following not unnaturally here, and prominence is given to the district on account of its importance and romantic history from exceedingly early times.

Nevertheless, this portion ( Genesis 10:8-12) reads like an interpolation, as it not only records the foundation of the cities of Babylonia, but those of Assyria as well — the country mentioned lower down ( Genesis 10:22) among the children of Shem. 7. FURTHER DESCENDANTS OF HAM:

The text then goes back to the West again, and enumerates the sons of Mizraim or Egypt ( Genesis 10:13), mostly located on the southeastern and eastern shores of the Mediterranean. These include the “Libyans in the narrowest sense” (Lehabim), two districts regarded as Egyptian (Naphtuhim and Pathrusim), the Casluhim from whom came the Philistines, and the Caphtorim, probably not the Cappadocians of the Targums, but the island of Crete, “because such a large island ought not to be wanting” (Dillmann). The more important settlements in the Canaanitish sphere of influence are referred to as the sons of Canaan ( Genesis 10:15) — Sidon, Heth (the Hittites), the Jebusites (who were in occupation of Jerusalem when the Israelites took it), the Amorites (whom Abraham found in Canaan), and others. Among the sons of Canaan are, likewise, the Girgashites, the Arkites and Sinites near Lebanon, the Arvadites of the coast, and the Hamathites, in whose capital, Hamath, many hieroglyphic inscriptions regarded as records of the Hittites or people of Heth have been found. It is possibly to this occupation of more or less outlying positions that the “spreading abroad” of the families of the Canaanites ( Genesis 10:18) refers. In Genesis 10:19 the writer has been careful to indicate “the border of the Canaanites,” that being of importance in view of the historical narrative which was to follow; and here he was evidently on familiar ground. 8. SONS OF SHEM:

In his final section — the nations descended from Shem ( Genesis 10:21) — the compiler again begins with the farthest situated — the Elamites — after which we have Asshur (Assyria), to the Northwest; Arpachshad (? the Chaldeans), to the West; Lud (Lydia), Northwest of Assyria; and Aram (the Aramean states), South of Lud and West of Assyria. The tribes or states mentioned as the sons of Aram (Uz, Hul, Gether and Mash), however, do not give the names with which we are familiar in the Old Testament (Aram Naharaim, Aram Zobah, etc.), and have evidently to be sought in different positions, indicating that they represent an earlier stage of their migrations. With regard to their positions, it has been suggested that Uz lay in the neighborhood of the Hauran and Damascus; Hul near the Sea of Galilee; and that Mash stands for Mons Masius. This last, however, may have been the land of Mas, West of Babylonia. 9. FURTHER DESCENDANTS OF SHEM:

Only one son is attributed to Arpachshad, namely, Shelah ([shalach], [shelach], Genesis 10:24), unidentified as a nationality. This name should, however, indicate some part of Babylonia, especially if his son, Eber, was the ancestor of the Hebrews, who were apparently migrants from Ur (Mugheir) (see ABRAHAM; UR OF THE CHALDEES ). Though Peleg, “in whose days the land was divided,” may not have been an important link in the chain, the explanatory phrase needs notice. It may refer to the period when the fertilizing watercourses of Babylonia — the “rivers of Babylon” ( <19D701> Psalm 137:1) — were first constructed (one of their names was [pelegh]), or to the time when Babylonia was divided into a number of small states, though this latter seems to be less likely.

Alternative renderings for Selah, Eber and Peleg are “sending forth” (Bohlen), “crossing” (the Euphrates), and “separation” (of the Joktanites) (Bohlen), respectively.

The Babylonian geographical fragment 80-6-17, 504 has a group explained as Pulukku, perhaps a modified form of Peleg, followed by (Pulukku) sa ebirti, “Pulukku of the crossing”, the last word being from the same root as Eber. This probably indicates a city on one side of the river (? Euphrates), at a fordable point, and a later foundation bearing the same name on the other side.

Reu, Serug, and Nahor, however, are regarded generally as place-names, and Terah as a personal name (the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran).

From this point onward the text ( Genesis 11:27) becomes the history of the Israelite nation, beginning with these patriarchs. 10. VALUE OF TABLE AND ITS HISTORICAL NOTES:

Arguments for its early date. — There is hardly any doubt that we have in this ethnographical section of Genesis one of the most valuable records of its kind. Concerning the criticisms upon it which have been made, such things are unavoidable, and must be regarded as quite legitimate, in view of the importance of the subject. The interpolated sections concerning Nimrod and the Tower of Babel are such as would be expected in a record in which the compiler aimed at giving all the information which he could, and which he thought desirable for the complete understanding of his record. It may be regarded as possible that this information was given in view of the connection of Abraham with Babylonia. In his time there were probably larger cities than Babylon, and this would suggest that the building of the Babylonian capital may have been arrested. At the time of the captivity on the other hand, Babylon was the largest capital in then known world, and the reference to its early abandonment would then have conveyed no lesson — seeing the extent of the city, the reader realized that it was only a short setback from which it had suffered, and its effects had long since ceased to be felt. 11. FURTHER ARGUMENTS FOR EARLY DATE OF TABLE:

Limits of its information. — For the early date of the Table also speaks the limited geographical knowledge displayed. Sargon of Agade warred both on the East and the West of Babylonia, but he seems to have made no expeditions to the North, and certainly did not touch either Egypt or Ethiopia. This suggests not only that the information available was later than his time, but also that it was obtained from merchants, travelers, envoys and ambassadors. The scantiness of the information about the North of Europe and Asia, and the absence of any reference to the Middle or the Far East, imply that communications were easiest on the West, the limit of trade in that direction being apparently Spain. If it could be proved that the Phoenicians came as far westward as Britain for their tin, that might fix the latest date of the compilation of the Table, as it must have been written before it became known that their ships went so far; but in that case, the date of their earliest journeys thither would need to be fixed.

Noteworthy is the absence of any reference to the Iranians (Aryan Persians) on the East. These, however, may have been included with the Medes (Madai), or one of the unidentified names of the descendants of Japheth in Genesis 10:2,3. See SHEM; HAM; JAPHETH, and the other special articles in this Encyclopedia; also, for a great mass of information and theories by many scholars and specialists, Dillmann, Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Altes Testament, “Die Genesis,” Leipzig, 1882; W.

Max Muller, Asien und Europa, Leipzig, 1893; and F. Hommel, Grundriss der Geographic und Geschichte des alten Orients, Munich, 1904. T. G. Pinches TABLET <tab’-let > : A rigid flat sheet (plate, pad or slab) used to receive writing.

Stone, clay, wood and perhaps bronze, gold and lead tablets, at least, are mentioned in the Bible. In the Old English sense of “locket” the word is incorrectly used in the King James Version also of what the Revised Version (British and American) translates as “armlets,” margin “necklaces” ( Exodus 35:22; Numbers 31:50) and “perfume boxes” ( Isaiah 3:20).

The technical Hebrew word for tablet, j”Wl [luach], is generally translated in both the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) as “table.” This is used for stone, wood or metal plates or tablets with or without writing. In Isaiah (30:8) where the Revised Version (British and American) translates “tablet,” it is contrasted with the “roll” and probably means the wood or waxed tablet. In Habakkuk (2:2, the American Standard Revised Version “tablet,” the King James Version and the English Revised Version “table”) it perhaps refers to a metal tablet to be erected on a wall, but more likely it refers to the wooden tablet. It is also used in Proverbs (3:3; 7:3, the American Standard Revised Version “tablet,” the King James Version and the English Revised Version “table”) and in Jeremiah (17:1) figuratively of the writing upon the tablets of the heart, the word being rendered in the Septuagint by the same word (plax ) used by Paul (2 Corinthians 3:3, “tables” in the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American)) in the same figure. In other cases ( Exodus 24:12, etc.) it is used of the tablets of stone containing the Decalogue.

The word ˆwOyL;GI [gillayon] ( Isaiah 8:1), which is translated in the Revised Version (British and American) “tablet” and in the King James Version “roll,” is elsewhere ( Isaiah 3:23) translated “mirror,” and is thought to mean a blank polished surface for writing, particularly because in later use it means the blank margin of a roll. See ROLL.

The clay tablet is referred to in Ezekiel (4:1, English Versions of the Bible “tile”), and its use there for a map of the city has been strikingly illustrated in modern excavation by a tablet map discovered at Nippur (Hilprecht, Explorations, 518). Jeremiah (32:14, the Revised Version (British and American) “deeds,” the King James Version “evidences”) may also refer to clay tablets, but not surely, since roll deeds were also kept in earthen jars.

Job (19:24) is thought by some to refer to the writing on leaden tablets, such as were in very common use in antiquity and in the Middle Ages for the writing of charms and especially curses, but more hold that inscriptions filled with lead are meant here. The plate of pure gold ( Exodus 28:36; Leviticus 8:9), engraved like the gravings of a signet, which was on Aaron’s miter, may also be properly described as a tablet, recalling the silver treaty between the Hittites and Egyptians and the gold plate on which Queen Helena of Adiabene (Yoma’ 37a; Jewish Encyclopedia, VI, 334) had engraved a passage from the Pentateuch ( Numbers 5:19-22).

Bronze tablets ([de>ltov, deltos ]) are several times referred to in Maccabees (8:22; 14:18,27,48). “Daleth” ([daleth] or [deleth]), the Semitic (Phoenician) original from which the generic Greek word for tablet (deltos ) is derived (Gardthausen, p. 124, note 1), is perhaps not found strictly in this meaning in the Old Testament. The word is used, however, of two kinds of written documents and in such a way as to suggest that one is the original of, and the other derived from, the “daleth”-tablet. In Deuteronomy 6:9 and 11:20 it is enjoined that the laws of Yahweh shall be written upon the gates of the houses, and in each case the “daleths” (doors) are meant, since the doorposts are also mentioned, and in 1 Samuel 21:13, where David “scrabbles,” it is expressly said to be upon the “doors” (“daleths”) of the gate. This practice of writing upon house doors and city gates corresponds to the modern posting of notices on church doors and scoring of tallies on a door by the rural innkeeper; and the name seems to have passed from this great door tablet to the portable tablet. On the other hand Jeremiah (36:23) uses “daleths” (English Versions of the Bible “leaves”) for the columns of a roll, obviously transferring the term from the panel form of the folding tablets. [ Pinaki>v, pinakis ], or [pinaki>dion, pinakidion ], is found in Ezekiel 9:2,11 in the version of Symmachus in place of the “writer’s inkhorn,” and pinakidion , in Luke 1:63, of the (wooden) tablet on which Zacharias wrote the name of John. Puxion is used several times by Septuagint as the translation for [luach], and once ( Song of Solomon 5:14) for ivory tablets. Sanis is used as the translation of “daleth” or [luach] 2 or 3 times in the Septuagint and still oftener in the other versions. The most common Greek term both in the New Testament (2 Corinthians 3:3; Hebrews 9:4) and in the Greek Old Testament is [pla>x, plax ], most often used of the tables of stone. This, like platos , which is also used for [luach] in Septuagint, is not recognized in the modern textbooks (Thompson, Gardthausen, Birt).

LITERATURE.

Gardthausen, Griechische Palaeog., Leipzig, I (1911), 123-32; compare pp. 24-45. See also literature under WRITING.

E. C. Richardson TABOR <ta’-ber > , <tar’-bor > ( rwObT; [tabhor]; Codex Vaticanus [ Qacceia>, Thachcheia ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ Qabw>r, Thabor ]): One of the towns in the territory of Zebulun, given to the Merarite Levites ( 1 Chronicles 6:77). The parallel list in Joshua 21:24 f contains no name like this.

There is no indication of its position. Some have thought that it may correspond to Daberath in the territory of Issachar (21:28), now represented by Deburiyeh on the western slope of Mt. Tabor; others that it may be the mountain itself; and yet others that it may be a city on the mountain, which probably was occupied from very early times. There is a Tabor mentioned as on the border of Issachar ( Joshua 19:22); but that is almost certainly the mountain. It has been suggested that Tabor in Chronicles 6:17 may be a contraction of Chisloth-tabor ( Joshua 19:12), the modern Iksal, 3 miles West of the mountain. No certainty is possible. W. Ewing TABOR, MOUNT ( rwObT; [tabhor], rwObT; rh” [har tabhor]; [o[rov Qabw>r, oros Thabor ], [to< jItabu>rion, to Itaburion ]): This mountain seems to be named as on the border of Issachar ( Joshua 19:22). It is possibly identical with the mountain to which Zebulun and Issachar were to call the peoples ( Deuteronomy 33:19). Standing on the boundary between the tribes, they would claim equal rights in the sanctuary on the top. The passage seems to indicate that it was a place of pilgrimage. The worshippers, bringing with them the “abundance of the sea” and the “treasures of the sand,” would be a source of profit to the local authorities.

The mountain can be no other than Jebel et-Tur, an isolated and shapely height, rising at the northeast corner of the Plain of Esdraelon, about miles West of Nazareth. The mountain has retained its sacred character, and is still a place of pilgrimage, only the rites being changed. The present writer has mingled with great interest among the crowds that assemble there from all parts at the Feast of the Transfiguration.

It was on the summit and slopes of this mountain that Deborah and Barak gathered their forces; and hence, they swept down to battle with Sisera in the great plain ( Judges 4:6,12,14). Here probably the brothers of Gideon were murdered by Zeba and Zalmunna ( Judges 8:18). Moore (“Jgs,” ICC, at the place) thinks the scene of the slaughter must have been much farther South. He does not see what the brothers of Gideon were doing so far North of their home in Abiezer. There is, however, no reason for placing Ophrah so far to the South as he does; and in any case the men were probably captured and taken to Tabor as prisoners. Josephus (Ant., VII, ii, 3) says it was in one of Solomon’s administrative districts (compare 1 Kings 4:17). Such a prominent and commanding position must always have invited fortification. In the time of Antiochus the Great, 218 BC, we find a fortress here, which that king took by stratagem, Atabyrion by name (Polyb. v. 70, 6). It was recovered by the Jews, and was held by them under Janneus, 105-70 BC (Ant., XIII, xv, 4). The place fell to the Romans at the conquest under Pompey; and not far from the mountain Alexander, son of Aristobulus II, suffered defeat at the hands of Gabinius, proconsul of Syria, 53 BC (Ant., XIV, iv, 3; BJ, I, viii, 7). Josephus, who commanded in Galilee at the outbreak of the Jewish war, recognized the importance of the position, and built a wall round the summit. After the disaster to Jewish arms at Jotapata, where Josephus himself was taken prisoner, many fugitives took refuge here. Placidus the Roman general did not attempt an assault upon the fortress. Its defenders were by a feint drawn into the plain, where they were defeated, and the city surrendered.

A tradition which can be traced to the 4th century AD places the scene of the Transfiguration on this mountain. Allusion has been made above to the sacred character of the place. To this, and to the striking appearance of the mountain, the rise of the tradition may have been due. Passing centuries have seen a succession of churches and monasteries erected on the mountain. The scene of the Transfiguration was laid at the southeastern end of the summit, and here a church was built, probably by Tancred. Hard by was also shown the place where Melchizedek met Abraham returning from the pursuit of Chedorlaomer. The mountain shared to the full the vicissitudes of the country’s stormy history. In 1113 AD the Arabs from Damascus plundered the monasteries and murdered the monks. An unsuccessful attack was made by Saladin in 1183, but 4 years later, after the rout of the Crusaders at Hattin, he devastated the place. Twenty-five years after that it was fortified by el-Melek el-`Adel, brother of Saladin, and the Crusaders failed in an attempt to take it in 1217. In 1218, however, the Saracens threw down the defenses. Sultan Bibars in 1263 ordered the destruction of the Church of the Transfiguration, and for a time the mountain was deserted. The Feast of the Transfiguration, however, continued to be celebrated by the monks from Nazareth. During the last quarter of the 19th century much building was done by the Latin and Greek churches, who have now large and substantial monasteries and churches.

They have also excavated the ruins of many of the old ecclesiastical buildings. The remains now to be seen present features of every period, from Jewish times to our own.

Mt. Tabor rises to a height of 1,843 ft. above the sea, and forms the most striking feature of the landscape. Seen from the South it presents the shape of a hemisphere; from the West, that of a sugar loaf. Its rounded top and steep sides are covered with thick brushwood. It is about half a century since the oak forest disappeared; but solitary survivors here and there show what the trees must have been. A low neck connects the mountain with the uplands to the North. It is cut off from Jebel ed-Duchy on the South by a fertile vale, which breaks down into Wady el-Bireh, and thence to the Jordan. A zigzag path on the Northwest leads to the top, whence most interesting and comprehensive views are obtained. Southward, over Little Hermon, with Endor and Nain on its side, and Shunem at its western base, we catch a glimpse of Mt. Gilboa. Away across the plain the eye runs along the hills on the northern boundary of Samaria, past Taanach and Megiddo to Carmel by the sea, and the oak forest that runs northward from the gorge of the Kishon. A little to the North of West, 5 miles of broken upland, we can see the higher houses of Nazareth gleaming white in the sun. Eastward lies the hollow of the Jordan, and beyond it the wall of Gilead and the steep cliffs East of the Sea of Galilee, broken by glens and watercourses, and especially by the great chasm of the Yarmuk. The mountains of Zebulun and Naphtali seem to culminate in the shining mass of Great Hermon, rising far in the northern sky. Standing here one realizes how aptly the two mountains may be associated in the Psalmist’s thought, although Hermon be mighty and Tabor humble ( Psalm 89:12). Tabor is referred to by Jeremiah (46:18), and Hosea alludes to some ensnaring worship practiced on the mountain (5:1).

The present writer spent some weeks on Mt. Tabor, and as the result of careful observation and consideration concluded that the scene of the Transfiguration cannot be laid here. The place would appear to have been occupied at that time; and the remoteness and quiet which Jesus evidently sought could hardly have been found here. See TRANSFIGURATION, MOUNT OF.

W. Ewing TABOR, OAK OF (PLAIN OF TABOR in the King James Version) ( rwObT; ˆwOlae [elon tabhor]; [hJ dru~v Qabw>r, he drus Thabor ]): A place mentioned only in Samuel’s directions to Saul after his anointing ( 1 Samuel 10:3). It lay between the city where the two met and Gibeah whither Saul was returning. Ewald and Thenius thought it might be identical with the palm tree of Deborah, but there is nothing to support this conjecture. Others have thought we might read “oak of Deborah,” as signifying the place where Rachel’s nurse was buried ( Genesis 35:8). The truth is that nothing whatever is now known of the site. W. Ewing TABRET; TIMBREL <tab’-ret > , <tim’-brel > . See MUSIC, III, 3, (1).

TABRIMMON <tab-rim’-on > , <tab’-ri-mon > ( ˆwOMrib]f” [Tabhrimmon], “Rimmon is good”; Codex Vaticanus [ Taberema>, Taberema ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ Tabenrahma>, Tabenraema ]): The son of Hezion and father of BENHADAD (which see) ( 1 Kings 15:18, the King James Version, “Tabrimon”).

TACHES <tach’-iz > . See CLASPS.

TACHMONITE <tak’-mo-nit > . See TASCHEMO-NITE.

TACKLING <tak’-ling > . See SHIPS AND BOATS, II, 2, (2).

TADMOR <tad’-mor > , <tad’-mor > ( rmod]T” [tadhmor]): A city built by Solomon in the wilderness ( 2 Chronicles 8:4), the Roman Palmyra. Tadmor is the native name and is found on inscriptions. It occurs also in the Kere of Kings 9:18, where the Kethibh or consonants read “Tamar” (compare Ezekiel 47:19; 48:28). It is famous in Arabian as well as in Hebrew literature, and enters Roman history in connection with Zenobia and Longinus. The inscriptions, which belong for the most part to the latter period (266-73 AD), have been published by Dawkins and Wood and also by M. Waddington and the Duc de Luynes. Popular works on the subject are An Account of Palmyra and Zenobia by W. Wright, and The Last Days and Fall of Palmyra by W. Ware. See TAMAR.

Thomas Hunter Weir TAHAN; TAHANITES <ta’-han > , <ta’-han-its > ( ˆj”T” [tachan], ynIj”T” [tachani]): The name of two Ephraimites who lived toward the end of the exodus of the Israelites (circa 1415 BC). (1) The head of one of the families of the tribe of Ephraim ( Numbers 26:35). (2) The son of Telah and father of Ladan, also of the tribe of Ephraim ( 1 Chronicles 7:25 f).

TAHAPANES <ta-hap’-a-nez > ( sjen]P”jiT” [tachpanchec]). See TAHPANHES.

TAHASH <ta’-hash > ( vj”T” [tachash]; [ To>cov, Tochos ]; the King James Version Thahash): A son of Nahor by his concubine Reumah ( Genesis 22:24). The word [tachash] means a kind of leather or skin, and perhaps the animal yielding it, probably the “dugong” (compare Brown, Briggs, and Driver). [Tachash] has been identified by Winckler with Tichis (Egypt), located on the Orontes, North of Kadesh.

TAHATH (1) <ta’-hath > ( tj”T” [tachath], “below”): A wilderness station of the Israelites ( Numbers 33:26,27), between Makheloth and Terah. See WANDERINGS OF ISRAEL.

TAHATH (2) (1) A Kohathite Levite ( 1 Chronicles 6:24). (2) The name is mentioned twice among the sons of Ephraim ( Chronicles 7:20); two families may be meant, or perhaps the name has been accidentally repeated.

TAHCHEMONITE <ta-ke’-mo-nit > , <ta’-ke-mon-it > ( ynImoK]H]T” [tachkemoni]): Name of a family to which Jashobeam, the chief captain in David’s army, belonged ( 2 Samuel 23:8; 1 Chronicles 11:11). In 1 Chronicles it is “Hachmonite.”

TAHPANHES <ta’-pan-hez > , <ta-pan’-hez > (usually in the Old Testament sHen]P”HT” [tachpanchec]; Septuagint [ Tafna>v, Taphnas ]; Coptic, Taphnes): The various spellings of the Hebrew text are fairly well indicated in the King James Version by Tahapanes ( Jeremiah 2:16); Tahpanhes ( Jeremiah 43:7-9; 44:1; 46:14); Tehaphnehes ( Ezekiel 30:18), while an Egyptian queen (XXIst Dynasty) is named Tahpenes ( 1 Kings 11:19,20). Tahpanhes was a city on the eastern frontier of Lower Egypt, represented today by Tell Defenneh, a desert mound lying some 20 miles Southwest from Pelusium (Biblical “Sin”) and a little North of the modern Al-Kantarah (“the bridge”), marking the old caravan route from Egypt to Palestine, Mesopotamia and Assyria. Its Egyptian name is unknown, but it was called [ Dafnai>, Daphnai ], by the Greeks, and by the modern Arabs Def’neh. The site is now desolate, but it was a fertile district when watered by the Pelusiac branch of the Nile (compare Isaiah 19:6,7). Tahpanhes was so powerful that Jeremiah can say that it, with Memphis, has “broken the crown” of Israel’s head (2:16), and Ezekiel can speak of its “daughters” (colonies or suburban towns), and names it with Heliopolis and Bubastis when the “yokes Septuagint “sceptres”) of Egypt” shall be broken by Yahweh (30:18). In a later passage Jeremiah describes the flight of the Jews from their ruined capital to Tahpanhes after the death of Gedaliah (43:1-7) and prophesies that Nebuchadnezzar shall invade Egypt and punish it, establishing his throne upon the brick pavement (the King James Version “kiln”) which is at the entry of Pharaoh’s royal palace at Tahpanhes ( Jeremiah 43:8-11). He calls Tahpanhes as a witness to the desolation of the cities of Judah ( Jeremiah 44:1), but prophesies an equal destruction of Tahpanhes and other Egyptian cities (probably occupied by fugitive Jews) when Nebuchadnezzar shall smite them ( Jeremiah 46:14).

This invasion of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar was for a long time strenuously denied (e.g. as late as 1889 by Kuenen, Historisch-critisch Onderzoek, 265-318); but since the discovery and publication (1878) of fragments of Nebuchadnezzar’s annals in which he affirms his invasion of Egypt in his 37th year (568-567 BC), most scholars have agreed that the predictions of Jeremiah (43:9-13; 44:30) uttered shortly after 586 BC and of Ezekiel (29:19) uttered in 570 BC were fulfilled, “at least in their general sense” (Driver, Authority and Archaeology, 116). Three cuneiform inscriptions of Nebuchadnezzar were found by Arabs probably on or near this site. The excavation of Tahpanhes in 1886 by W. M. Flinders Petrie made it “highly probable that the large oblong platform of brickwork close to the palace fort built at this spot by Psammetichus I, circa 664 BC, and now called Kasr Bint el-Yehudi, `the castle of the Jew’s daughter,’ is identical with the quadrangle `which is at the entry of Pharaoh’s house in Tahpanhes’ in which Jeremiah was commanded to bury the stones as a token that Nebuchadnezzar would spread his pavilion over them when he led his army into Egypt” (ibid., 117). Josephus explicitly mentions that Nebuchadnezzar, when he captured Tahpanhes, carried off a Jewish contingent from that city (Ant., IX, vii). Dr. Petrie found that while a small fort had existed here since the Rameside era (compare Herodotus ii.17), yet the town was practically founded by Psammetichus I, continued prosperous for a century or more, but dwindled to a small village in Ptolemaic times. Many sealings of wine jars stamped with the cartouches of Psammetichus I and Amosis were found in situ. Tahpanhes being the nearest Egyptian town to Palestine, Jeremiah and the other Jewish refugees would naturally flee there (43:7). It is not at all unlikely that Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion of Egypt was partly due to Egypt’s favorable reception of these refugees.

The pottery found at Tahpanhes “shows on the whole more evidence of Greeks than Egyptians in the place. .... Especially between 607-587 BC a constant intercourse with the Greek settlers must have been going on and a wider intercourse than even a Greek colony in Palestine would have produced. .... The whole circumstances were such as to give the best possible opportunity for the permeation of Greek words and Greek ideas among the upper classes of the Jewish exiles” (Petrie, Nebesheh and Defenneh, 1888, 50). This was, however, only one of many places where the Greeks and Hebrews met freely in this century (see e.g. Duruy, History of Greece, II, 126-80; Cobern, Daniel, 301-307). A large foreign traffic is shown at Tahpanhes in which no doubt the Jews took part. Discoveries from the 6th century BC included some very finely painted pottery, “full of archaic spirit and beauty,” many amulets and much rich jewelry and bronze and iron weapons, a piece of scale armor, thousands of arrow heads, and three seals of a Syrian type. One of the few inscriptions prays the blessing of Neit upon “all beautiful souls.” There was also dug up a vast number of minute weights evidently used for weighing precious metals, showing that the manufacture of jewelry was carried on here on a large scale. One of the most pathetic and suggestive “finds” from this century, which witnessed the Babylonian captivity, consisted of certain curious figures of captives, carved in limestone, with their legs bent backward from their knees and their ankles and elbows bound together (Petrie, op. cit., chapters ix-xii). Camden M. Cobern TAHPENES <ta’-pe-nez > , <ta-pe’-nez > ( syneP”H]T” [tachpenec]; Septuagint [ Qekem(e)i>na, Thekem(e)ina ]): Queen of Egypt, the sister of Hadad’s wife and the foster-mother of his son Genubath ( 1 Kings 11:19 f). See PHARAOH.

TAHREA <ta’-re-a > , <ta-re’-a > ( [“rej]T” [tachrea`]): Son of Micah, a descendant of Gibeon ( 1 Chronicles 9:41; in 8:35 “Tarea”).

TAHTIM-HODSHI <ta-tim-hod’-shi > . See KADESH ON ORONTES.

TAIL <tal > ( hyl]a” [’alyah]; bn:z: [zanabh]; [oujra>, oura ]): The broad tail of the Syrian sheep, wrongly rendered “rump” (which see) in the King James Version, is mentioned as one of the portions of sacrifice which was burned on the altar as a sweet savor to God ( Exodus 29:22). The 2nd Hebrew word is used of the tails of serpents ( Exodus 4:4), of foxes, which Samson tied together in his cruel sport, in order to destroy the grainfields of the Philistines by means of attached firebrands ( Judges 15:4, etc.).

The following seems to be an allusion to this incident: “Fear not, neither let thy heart be faint, because of these two tails of smoking firebrands, for the fierce anger of Rezin and Syria, and of the son of Remaliah” ( Isaiah 7:4).

Figurative: “Tail” = inferiority, as opposed to “head” = superiority, leadership. “Yahweh will make thee the head, and not the tail; and thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be beneath; if thou shalt hearken unto the commandments of Yahweh” ( Deuteronomy 28:13; compare also 28:44).

In the New Testament we find oura used of the apocalyptic animals, scorpions, horses, and the dragon (Revelation 9:10,19; 12:4). H. L. E. Luering TAKE <tak > : Most of the very numerous examples of this word are still in good use and only a few call for special attention. “To take” in the sense of “capture” is still common, but when a person or living animal is in point, modern English usually adds “prisoner” or “captive.” English Versions of the Bible not infrequently has this addition ( Genesis 14:14, etc.), but more commonly “take” is used without it ( Joshua 10:39; Job 5:13; Sirach 23:21; John 7:30, etc.). An occasional obscurity is thus caused, as in Genesis 27:3, “take me venison” for “hunt venison for me.” “To take advice” ( 2 Chronicles 25:17; the King James Version Judges 19:30, the Revised Version (British and American) “counsel”) is “to reflect,” not “to consult others” (compare 1 Kings 12:28; but contrast 2 Kings 6:8, etc.). “To take knowledge of” is “to learn thoroughly,” “investigate” ( 1 Samuel 23:23, etc.), as is “to take notice of” ( 2 Samuel 3:36). “To take an oath of” ( Genesis 50:25, etc.) is “to exact an oath of.” “To be taken with a disease” in the King James Version Matthew 4:24; Luke 4:38 is “to suffer with” (the Revised Version (British and American) “be holden with”), but in 1 Macc 9:55; 2 Macc 9:21 (the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American)), the context gives the force “be attacked by,” as in modern English Compare the King James Version Luke 8:37 (the Revised Version (British and American) “holden”); Micah 4:9 (the Revised Version (British and American) “take hold of”). “Take” occurs in the sense “overtake” in the King James Version Genesis 19:19 (the Revised Version (British and American) “overtake”); Sirach 36:26. “Take away” has sometimes a more forcible significance than in modern English, as in the King James Version Leviticus 6:2, “a thing taken away by violence” (the Revised Version (British and American) “robbery”); Daniel 11:12, the King James Version “He hath taken away the multitude,” where the meaning is “swept away” (compare the Revised Version margin “carried away”; the Revised Version (British and American) “shall be lifted up” is inappropriate here).

So in “lest he take thee away with his stroke” (the King James Version Job 36:18), “take away” means simply “slay.” (The text here is intensely obscure, and the Revised Version (British and American) has followed a different interpretation.) So “to be taken away” may mean simply “to die,” as in Ezekiel 33:6; The Wisdom of Solomon 14:15; Sirach 16:9; 19:3; Mark 2:20, although in 1 Corinthians 5:2 it means “to be expelled.” “To take away judgment” or “right” ( Job 27:2; 34:5; Acts 8:33) is “to refuse it,” but in Zephaniah 3:15 English Versions of the Bible means “the sentence against thee is canceled” (the Hebrew text is dubious). Nehemiah 5:2 the King James Version has “take up” for “get” (so the Revised Version (British and American)), perhaps with the connotation “on credit.” “Take up” is also used frequently for “utter solemnly” ( Numbers 23:7; Isaiah 14:4, etc.), a use due to the Hebrew “lift up,” “exalt” ( ac;n: [nasa’]). For “take up” in the sense of “lift” (physically), compare Isaiah 40:15; Acts 7:43; the King James Version 21:15. “Take care” in Tobit 5:20; 1 Corinthians 9:9 the King James Version (the Revised Version (British and American) “to care”) means “be anxious about,” “have in mind” And the very obscure “scurrility in the matter of giving and taking” (Sirach 41:19) is explained by the Hebrew to mean “refusing the gift for which thou art besought.” The following phrases are archaic, but hardly need explanation: “Take indignation” ( Nehemiah 4:1); “take wrong” (1 Corinthians 6:7); “take up in the lips” ( Ezekiel 36:3; the King James Version Psalm 16:4, “take .... into my lips,” the Revised Version (British and American) “take .... upon my lips”); and in the King James Version “take to record” ( Acts 20:26, the Revised Version (British and American) “testify unto”); “take shame” ( Micah 2:6 the King James Version). Burton Scott Easton TALE <tal > ( ˆk,To [tokhen], tnleros ]): In the King James Version of the Old Testament (with one exception, Psalm 90:9) “tale” (in the sing.) means number. “Tell” often has the same meaning, e.g. “I may tell (i.e. reckon) all my bones” ( Psalm 22:17). When Moses requested permission to go three days’ journey into the wilderness to sacrifice to Yahweh, Pharaoh replied by demanding the full “tale” of bricks from the Israelites although they were compelled to provide themselves with straw ( Exodus 5:8,18; see also 1 Samuel 18:27; 1 Chronicles 9:28). In Psalm 90:9, “as a tale that is told” is a doubtful rendering (see GAMES). The Septuagint and the Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) render “as a spider’s web.”

The literal and perhaps accurate translation is “as a sigh” (Driver, in the Parallel Psalter, gives “as a murmur”). The word used in this psalm means “to whisper,” or “speak sotto voce,” as a devout believer repeats to himself the words of a favorite hymn or passage ( Psalm 1:2).

The disciples considered the account given by the women in regard to the resurrection as “idle tales” (the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) “idle talk”), literally, “nonsensical talk” ( Luke 24:11).

In talebearer the word has another meaning, namely, “slanderous talk or gossip.” The word occurs 5 times in Proverbs 11:13; 18:8; 20:19; 26:20,22 (the King James Version) and once in Leviticus (19:16). The word used in Leviticus and also in Proverbs 20:19 means a person who gads about from house to house hawking malicious gossip (compare Timothy 5:13). From the same root comes the Hebrew word for “merchant.” In Ezekiel 22:9 for the King James Version “men that carry tales” the Revised Version (British and American) gives “slanderous men,” as Doeg ( 1 Samuel 22:9,22); Ziba ( 2 Samuel 16:3; 19:27); and a certain maid-servant ( 2 Samuel 17:17). See SLANDER.

T. Lewis TALENT <tal’-ent > ( rK;Kings [kikkar]; [ta>lanton, talanton ]): A weight composed of 60 manehs (English Versions of the Bible “pounds”) equal to about 120 pounds troy and 96 pounds avoirdupois, or 672,500 grains, of the Phoenician standard. See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES . When used in the monetary sense the talent might be either of silver or gold, and the value varied according to the standard, but is probably to be taken on the Phoenician, which would give about 410 British pounds, or $2,050 (in 1915), for the silver talent and 6,150 British pounds or $30,750 (in 1915), for the gold. See MONEY.

Figurative: “Talent,” like “pound,” is used metaphorically in the New Testament for mental and spiritual attainments or gifts ( Matthew 25:15-28). H. Porter TALITHA CUMI <ta-le’-tha koo’-me > ([taliqa< kou~mi, talitha koumi ]): Derived from the Aramaic at;y]l]f” ymWq [Talyetha’ qumi], “damsel, arise”), which in the New Testament manuscripts is transliterated variously (Westcott-Hort, [ Taleiqa< kou>m, Taleitha koum ], otherwise [ Taliqa< kou~mi, Talitha koumi ]). We have no data for determining how far Jesus employed the Aramaic language, but Mark (5:41) notes its use in this tender incident, and there is strong probability that Aramaic was used normally, if not exclusively, by Christ. There is, however, no ground for attributing any magical significance to the use of the Aramaic words in connection with this miracle.

TALMAI <tal’-mi > , <tal’-ma-i > ( ym”l]T” [talmay]): (1) A clan, possibly of Aramean origin, generally reputed to be of gigantic height; resident in Hebron at the time of the Hebrew conquest and driven thence by Caleb ( Numbers 13:22; Joshua 15:14; Judges 1:10). (2) A son of Ammihur (or Ammihud), king of Geshur, a small Aramean kingdom, and a contemporary of David, to whom he gave his daughter Maacah in marriage. When Absalom fled from David after the assassination of Amnon he took refuge with Talmai at Geshur ( 2 Samuel 3:3; 13:37; 1 Chronicles 3:2).

TALMON <tal’-mon > ( ˆwOml]f” [talmon]): One of the porters in connection with the temple-service ( 1 Chronicles 9:17; Ezr 2:42; Nehemiah 7:45; 11:19; 12:25).

TALMUD <tal’-mud > ( dWml]T” [talmudh]):

The present writer is, for brevity’s sake, under necessity to refer to his Einleitung in den Talmud, 4th edition, Leipzig, 1908. It is quoted here as Introduction.

There are very few books which are mentioned so often and yet are so little known as the Talmud. It is perhaps true that nobody can now be found, who, as did the Capuchin monk Henricus Seynensis, thinks that “Talmud” is the name of a rabbi. Yet a great deal of ignorance on this subject still prevails in many circles. Many are afraid to inform themselves, as this may be too difficult or too tedious; others (the anti-Semites) do not want correct information to be spread on this subject, because this would interfere seriously with their use of the Talmud as a means for their agitation against the Jews.

I. PRELIMINARY REMARKS AND VERBAL EXPLANATIONS. (1) hn:v: [Mishnah], “the oral doctrine and the study of it” (from [shanah], “to repeat,” “to learn,” “to teach”), especially (a) the whole of the oral law which had come into existence up to the end of the 2nd century AD; (b) the whole of the teaching of one of the rabbis living during the first two centuries AD ([tanna’], plural [tanna’im]); (c) a single tenet; (d) a collection of such tenets; (e) above all, the collection made by Rabbi Jehudah (or Judah) ha- Nasi’. (2) ar;m;G] [Gemara’], “the matter that is leaned” (from [gemar], “to accomplish,” “to learn”), denotes since the 9th century the collection of the discussions of the Amoraim, i.e. of the rabbis teaching from about 200 to 500 AD. (3) dWml]T” [Talmudh], “the studying” or “the teaching,” was in older times used for the discussions of the Amoraim; now it means the Mishna with the discussions thereupon. (4) hk;l;h\ [Halakhah] (from [halakh], “to go”): (a) the life as far as it is ruled by the Law; (b) a statutory precept. (5) hd;G;h” [Haggadhah] (from [higgidh], “to tell”), the non-halakhic exegesis.

II. IMPORTANCE OF THE TALMUD.

Commonly the Talmud is declared to be the Jewish code of Law. But this is not the case, even for the traditional or “orthodox” Jews. Really the Talmud is the source whence the Jewish Law is to be derived. Whosoever wants to show what the Jewish Law says about a certain case (point, question) has to compare at first the [Shulchan `arukh] with its commentary, then the other codices (Maimonides, Alphasi, etc.) and the Responsa, and finally the Talmudic discussions; but he is not allowed to give a decisive sentence on the authority of the Talmud alone (see Intro, 116, 117; David Hoffmann, Der Schulchan-Aruch, 2nd edition, Berlin, 1894, 38, 39). On the other hand, no decision is valid if it is against the yield of the Talmudic discussion. The liberal (Reformed) Jews say that the Talmud, though it is interesting and, as a Jewish work of antiquity, ever venerable, has in itself no authority for faith and life.

For both Christians and Jews the Talmud is of value for the following reasons: (1) on account of the language, Hebrew being used in many parts of the Talmud (especially in Haggadic pieces), Palestinian Aramaic in the Palestinian Talmud, Eastern Aramaic in the Babylonian Talmud (compare “Literature,” (7) , below). The Talmud also contains words of Babylonian and Persian origin; (2) for folklore, history, geography, natural and medical science, jurisprudence, archaeology and the understanding of the Old Testament (see “Literature,” (6) , below, and Introduction, 159-75). For Christians especially the Talmud contains very much which may help the understanding of the New Testament (see “Literature,” (12) , below).

III. THE TRADITIONAL LAW UNTIL THE COMPOSITION OF THE MISHNA.

The Law found in the Torah of Moses was the only written law which the Jews possessed after their return from the Babylonian exile. This law was neither complete nor sufficient for all times. On account of the everchanging conditions of life new ordinances became necessary. Who made these we do not know. An authority to do this must have existed; but the claim made by many that after the days of Ezra there existed a college of 120 men called the “Great Synagogue” cannot be proved. Entirely untenable also is the claim of the traditionally orthodox Jews, that ever since the days of Moses there had been in existence, side by side with the written Law, also an oral Law, with all necessary explanations and supplements to the written Law.

What was added to the Pentateuchal Torah was for a long time handed down orally, as can be plainly seen from Josephus and Philo. The increase of such material made it necessary to arrange it. An arrangement according to subject-matter can be traced back to the 1st century AD; very old, perhaps even older, is also the formal adjustment of this material to the Pentateuchal Law, the form of Exegesis (Midrash). Compare Introduction, 19-21.

A comprehensive collection of traditional laws was made by Rabbi Aqiba circa 110-35 AD, if not by an earlier scholar. His work formed the basis of that of Rabbi Me’ir, and this again was the basis of the edition of the Mishna by Rabbi Jehudah ha-Nasi’. In this Mishna, the Mishna paragraph excellence, the anonymous portions generally, although not always, reproduce the views of Rabbi Me’ir. See TIBERIAS.

The predecessors Rabbi (as R. Jehudah ha-Nasi’, the “prince” or the “saint,” is usually called), as far as we know, did not put into written form their collections; indeed it has been denied by many, especially by German and French rabbis of the Middle Ages, that Rabbi put into written form the Mishna which he edited. Probably the fact of the matter is that the traditional Law was not allowed to be used in written form for the purposes of instruction and in decisions on matters of the Law, but that written collections of a private character, collections of notes, to use a modern term, existed already at an early period (see Intro, 10 ff).

IV. DIVISION AND CONTENTS OF THE MISHNA (AND THE TALMUD).

The Mishna (as also the Talmud) is divided into six “orders” ([cedharim]) or chief parts, the names of which indicate their chief contents, namely, [Zera`im], Agriculture; [Moe`dh], Feasts; [Nashim], Women; [Neziqin], Civil and Criminal Law; [Qodhashim], Sacrifices; [Teharoth], Unclean Things and Their Purification.

The “orders” are divided into tracts ([maccekheth], plural [maccikhtoth]), now 63, and these again into chapters ([pereq], plural [peraqim]), and these again into paragraphs ([mishnayoth]). It is Customary to cite the Mishna according to tract chapter and paragraph, e.g. Sanh. (Sanhedhrin) x.1. The Babylonian Talmud is cited according to tract and page, e.g. (Babylonian Talmud) Shabbath 30b; in citing the Palestinian Talmud the number of the chapter is also usually given, e.g. (Palestinian Talmud) Shabbath vi.8d (in most of the editions of the Palestinian Talmud each page has two columns, the sheet accordingly has four). 1. Zera`im, “Seeds”: (1) [Berakhoth], “Benedictions”: “Hear, O Israel” ( Deuteronomy 6:4, [shema`]); the 18 benedictions, grace at meals, and other prayers. (2) [Pe’ah], “Corner” of the field ( Leviticus 19:9 f; Deuteronomy 24:19 ff). (3) [Dema’i], “Doubtful” fruits (grain, etc.) of which it is uncertain whether the duty for the priests and, in the fixed years, the 2nd tithe have been paid. (4) [Kil’ayim], “Heterogeneous,” two kinds, forbidden mixtures ( Leviticus 19:19; Deuteronomy 22:9 ff). (5) [Shebhi`ith], “Seventh Year,” Sabbatical year ( Exodus 23:11; Leviticus 25:1 ff); Shemiqqah ( Deuteronomy 15:1 ff). (6) [Terumoth], “Heave Offerings” for the priests ( Numbers 18:8 ff; Deuteronomy 18:4). (7) [Ma`aseroth] or [Ma`aser ri’shon], “First Tithe” ( Numbers 18:21 ff). (8) [Ma`aser sheni], “Second Tithe” ( Deuteronomy 14:22 ff). (9) [Challah], (offering of a part of the) “Dough” ( Numbers 15:18 ff). (10) [`Orlah], “Foreskin” of fruit trees during the first three years ( Leviticus 19:23). (11) [Bikkurim], “First-Fruits” ( Deuteronomy 26:1 ff; Exodus 23:19). 2. Mo`edh, “Feasts”: (1) [Shabbath] ( Exodus 20:10; 23:12; Deuteronomy 5:14). (2) [`Erubhin], “Mixtures,” i.e. ideal combination of localities with the purpose of facilitating the observance of the Sabbatical laws. (3) [Pesachim], “Passover” (Exodus 12; Leviticus 23:5 ff; Numbers 28:16 ff; Deuteronomy 16:1); Numbers 9, the Second Passover ( Numbers 9:10 ff). (4) [Sheqalim], “Shekels” for the Temple (compare Nehemiah 10:33; Exodus 30:12 ff). (5) [Yoma’], “The Day” of Atonement (Leviticus 16). (6) [Cukkah], “Booth,” Feast of Tabernacles ( Leviticus 23:34 ff; Numbers 29:12 ff; Deuteronomy 16:13 ff). (7) [Betsah], “Egg” (first word of the treatise) or [Yom Tobh], “Feast,” on the difference between the Sabbath and festivals (compare Exodus 12:10). (8) [Ro’sh ha-shanah], “New Year,” first day of the month [Tishri] ( Leviticus 23:24 f; Numbers 29:1 ff). (9) [Ta`anith], “Fasting.” (10) [Meghillah], “The Roll” of Esther, [Purim] ( Esther 9:28). (11) [Mo`edh qatan], “Minor Feast,” or [Mashqin], “They irrigate” (first word of the treatise), the days between the first day and the last day of the feast of Passover, and likewise of Tabernacles. (12) [Chaghighah], “Feast Offering,” statutes relating to the three feasts of pilgrimage (Passover, Weeks, Tabernacles); compare Deuteronomy 16:16 f. 3. Nashim, “Women”: (1) [Yebhamoth], “Sisters-in-Law” (perhaps better, [Yebhamuth], Levirate marriage; Deuteronomy 25:5 ff; compare Ruth 4:5; Matthew 22:24). (2) [Kethubhoth], “Marriage Deeds.” (3) [Nedharim], “Vows,” and their annulment (Numbers 30). (4) [Nazir], “Nazirite” (Numbers 6). (5) [Gittin], “Letters of Divorce” ( Deuteronomy 24:1; compare Matthew 5:31). (6) [Cotah], “The Suspected Woman” ( Numbers 5:11 ff). (7) [Qiddushin], “Betrothals.” 4. Nezikin, “Damages”: (1) (2) and (3) [Babha’ qamma’], [Babha’ metsi`a’], [Babha’ bathra’], “The First Gate,” “The Second Gate,” “The Last Gate,” were in ancient times only one treatise called [Neziqin]: (a) Damages and injuries and the responsibility; (b) and (c) right of possession. (4) and (5) Sanhedhrin, “Court of Justice,” and [Makkoth] “Stripes” ( Deuteronomy 25:1 ff; compare 1 Corinthians 11:24). In ancient times only one treatise; criminal law and criminal proceedings. (6) [Shebhu`oth], “Oaths” ( Leviticus 5:1 ff). (7) [`Edhuyoth], “Attestations” of later teachers as to the opinions of former authorities. (8) [`Abhodhah zarah], “Idolatry,” commerce and intercourse with idolaters. (9) [’Abhoth], (sayings of the) “Fathers”; sayings of the [Tanna’im]. (10) [Horayoth], (erroneous) “Decisions,” and the sin offering to be brought in such a case ( Leviticus 4:13 ff). 5. Qodhashim, “Sacred Things”: (1) [Zebhahim], “Sacrifices” (Leviticus 1 ff). (2) [Menachoth], “Meal Offerings” ( Leviticus 2:5,11 ff; 6:7 ff; Numbers 5:15 ff, etc.). (3) [Chullin], “Common Things,” things non-sacred; slaughtering of animals and birds for ordinary use. (4) [Bekhoroth], “The Firstborn” ( Exodus 13:2,12 f; Leviticus 27:26 f,32; Numbers 8:6 ff, etc.). (5) [`Arakhin], “Estimates,” “Valuations” of persons and things dedicated to God ( Leviticus 27:2 ff). (6) [Temurah], “Substitution” of a common (non-sacred) thing for a sacred one (compare Leviticus 27:10,33). (7) [Kerithoth], “Excisions,” the punishment of being cut off from Israel ( Genesis 17:14; Exodus 12:15, etc.). (8) [Me`ilah], “Unfaithfulness,” as to sacred things, embezzlement ( Numbers 5:6 ff; Leviticus 5:15 f). (9) [Tamidh], “The Daily Morning and Evening Sacrifice” ( Exodus 29:38 ff; Numbers 38:3 ff). (10) [Middoth], “Measurements” of the Temple. (11) [Qinnim], “Nests,” the offering of two turtle-doves or two young pigeons ( Leviticus 1:14 ff; 5:1 ff; 12:8). 6. Teharoth, “Clean Things”: This title is used euphemistically for “unclean things”: (1) [Kelim], “Vessels” ( Leviticus 6:20 f; 11:32 ff; Numbers 19:14 ff; 31:20 ff). (2) [’Oholoth], “Tents,” the impurity originating with a corpse or a part of it (compare Numbers 19:14). (3) [Negha`im], “Leprosy” (Leviticus 13; 14). (4) [Parah], “Red Heifer”; its ashes used for the purpose of purification ( Numbers 19:2 ff). See HEIFER, RED. (5) [Teharoth], “Clean Things,” euphemistically for defilements. (6) [Mikwa’oth], “Diving-Baths” ( Leviticus 15:12; Numbers 31:33; Leviticus 14:8; 15:5 ff; compare Mark 7:4). (7) [Niddah], “The Menstruous” ( Leviticus 15:19 ff; 12). (8) [Makhshirin], “Preparers,” or [Mashqin], “Fluids” (first word of the treatise). Seven liquids (wine, honey, oil, milk, dew, blood, water) which tend to cause grain, etc., to become defiled (compare Leviticus 11:34,37 f) . (9) [Zabhim], “Persons Having an Issue,” flux (Leviticus 15). (10) [Tebhul yom], “A Person Who Has Taken the Ritual Bath during the Day,” and is unclean until sunset ( Leviticus 15:5; 22:6 f). (11) [Yadhayim], “Hands,” the ritual impurity of hands and their purification (compare Matthew 15:2,20; Mark 7:22 ff). (12) [`Uqtsin], “Stalks,” the conveyance of ritual impurity by means of the stalks and hulls of plants.

V. THE PALESTINIAN TALMUD.

Another name, [Talmudh Yerushalmi] (“Jerusalem Talmud”), is also old, but not accurate. The Palestinian Talmud gives the discussions of the Palestinian Amoraim, teaching from the 3rd century AD until the beginning of the 5th, especially in the schools or academies of Tiberias, Caesarea and Sepphoris. The editions and the Leyden manuscript (in the other manuscripts there are but few treatises) contain only the four [cedharim] iiv and a part of Niddah. We do not know whether the other treatises had at any time a Palestinian Gemara. “The Mishna on which the Palestinian Talmud rests” is said to be found in the manuscript Add. 470,1 of the University Library, Cambridge, England (ed W.H. Lowe, 1883). The treatises [`Edhuyoth] and [’Abhoth] have no Gemara in the Palestinian Talmud or in the Babylonian.

Some of the most famous Palestinian Amoraim may be mentioned here (compare Introduction, 99 ff): 1st generation: Chanina bar Chama, Jannai, Jonathan, Osha’ya, the Haggadist Joshua ben Levi; 2nd generation:

Jochnnan bar Nappacha, Simeon ben Lackish; 3rd generation: Samuel bar Nachman, Levi, Eliezer ben Pedath, Abbahu, Ze`ira (i); 4th generation:

Jeremiah, Acha’, Abin (i), Judah, Huna; 5th generation: Jonah, Phinehas, Berechiah, Jose bar Abin, Mani (ii), Tanhuma’.

VI. THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

The Babylonian Talmud is later and more voluminous than the Palestinian Talmud, and is a higher authority for the Jews. In the first [cedher] only [Berakhoth] has a Gemara; [Sheqalim] in the 2nd [cedher] has in the manuscripts and in the editions the Palestinian Gemara; [Middoth] and [Qinnim] in the 5th cedher have no Babylonian Gemara. The greatest Jewish academies in Babylonia were in Nehardea, Cura, Pumbeditha and Mahuza.

Among the greatest Babylonian Amoraim are the following (compare Introduction, 99 ff): 1st generation: Abba Arikha or, shortly, Rab in Cura (died 247 AD). Mar Samuel in Nehardea (died 254 AD). 2nd generation:

Rab Huna, Rab Judah (bar Ezekiel). 3rd generation: Rab Chisda, Rab Shesheth, Rab Nachman (bar Jacob), Rabbah bar Chana, the story-teller, Rabbah bar Nahmai, Rab Joseph (died 323 AD). 4th generation: Abaye, Raba’ (bar Joseph). 5th generation: Rab Papa. 6th generation: Amemar, Rab Ashi.

VII. THE NON-CANONICAL LITTLE TREATISES AND THE TOCEPHTA’.

In the editions of the Babylonian Talmud after the 4th [cedher] we find some treatises which, as they are not without some interest, we shall not pass over in silence, though they do not belong to the Talmud itself (compare Introduction, 69 ff). 1. Treatises after the 4th Cedher: (1) [’Abhoth deRabbi Nathan], an expansion of the treatise [’Abhoth], edition. S. Schechter, Vienna, 1887. (2) [Copherim], edition Joel Muller, Leipzig, 1878. (3) [’Ebhel Rabbathi], “Mourning,” or, euphemistically, [Semachoth], “Joys.” (4) [Kallah], “Bride.” (5) [Derekh ‘erets], “Way of the World,” i.e. Deportment; [Rabba’] and [Zuta’], “Large” and “Small.” 2. Seven Little Treatises: Septem Libri Talmudici parvi Hierolymitani, edition. R. Kirchheim, Frankfurt a. Main, 1851: Cepher Torah, Mezuzah, Tephillin, Tsitsith, `Abhadhim, Kuthim (Samaritans), Gerim (Proselytes).

The Tocephta’, a work parallel to Rabbi’s Mishna, is said to represent the views of R. Nehemiah, disciple of R. Aqiba, edition. M. S. Zuckermandel, Posewalk, 1880. Zuckermandel tries to show that the Tocephta’ contains the remains of the old Palestinian Mishna, and that the work commonly called Mishna is the product of a new revision in Babylonia (compare his Tosephta, Mischna und Boraitha in ihrem Verhaltnis zu einander, volumes, Frankfurt a. Main, 1908, 1909).

LITERATURE. (1) Introductions: Hermann L. Strack, Einleitung in d. Talmud, 4th edition, Leipzig, 1908, in which other books on this subject are mentioned, pp. 139-44. (2) Manuscripts (Introduction, 72-76): There are manuscripts of the whole Mishna in Parma, in Budapest, and in Cambridge, England (the latter is published by W.H. Lowe, 1883). The only codex of the Palestinian Talmud is in Leyden; Louis Ginsberg, Yerushalmi Fragments from the Genizah, volume I, text with various readings from the editio princeps, New York, 1909 (372 pp., 4to). The only codex of the Babylonian Talmud was published whole in 1912 by the present writer: Talmud Babylonian codicis Hebrew Monacensis phototypice depictum, Leyden (1140 plates, royal folio). On the manuscripts in the Vatican see S. Ochser, ZDMG, 1909, 365-93,126, f. (3) Editions (Introduction, 76-81): (a) Mishna, editio princeps, Naples, 1492, folio, with the commentary of Moses Maimonides; Riva di Trento, 1559, folio, contains also the commentary of Obadiah di Bertinoro. The new edition printed in Wilna contains a great number of commentaries (b) Palestinian Talmud, editio princeps, Venice, 1523 f, folio; Cracow, 1609, folio. Of a new edition begun by Asia Minor Luncz, Jerusalem, 1908 ff, two books, Berakhoth and Pe’ah, are already published.

Another new critical edition, with German translation and notes, was begun in 1912 by G. Beer and O. Holtzman (Die Mischna, Giessen).

Compare also B. Ratner, Ahabath Tsijjon Wirushalayim, Varianten und Erganzungen des Jerusalem Talmuds, Wilna, 1901 ff. (c) Babylonian Talmud, editio princeps, Venice, 1520-23. The edition, Bale, 1578-81, is badly disfigured by the censorship of Marcus Marinus, Amsterdam, 1644-48, Berlin 1862-66. Compare R.

Rabbinowicz, Variae Lectiones in Mishna et in Talmud Babylonicum, Munich, 1868-86, Przemysl, 1897 (the cedharim 3, 6 and 5 in part are missing). (4) Translations: E. Bischoff, Krit. Geschichte d. Tal-mudubersetzungen, Frankfurt a. Main, 1899. (a) Mishna, Latin: Gull. Surenhusius, Amsterdam, 1698-1703 (contains also a translation of Maimonides and Obadiah di Bertinoro); German.: J.J. Rabe, Onolzbach, 1760 ff; A. Saminter, D. Hoffmann and others, Berlin, 1887 ff (not yet complete); English: De Sola and Raphall, 18 Treatises from the Mishna, London, 1843; Josephus Barclay, The Talmud, a Translation of 18 Treatises, London, 1878 (but 7 treatises also in De Sola and Raphall; Fiebig, Ausgewahlte Mischnatractate, Tubingen, 1905 ff (annotated German translation). (b) Palestinian Talmud, Latin: 20 treatises in B. Ugolini, Thesaurus antiquitatum sacrarum, volumes XVII-XXX, Venice, 1755 ff. French:

M. Schwab, Paris, 1878-89 (in 1890 appeared a 2nd edition of volume I). (c) Babylonian Talmud, German.: L. Goldschmidt, Berlin (Leipzig), 1897 ff; gives also the text of the 1st Venetian edition and some variant readings (cedharim 1, 2, and 4 are complete); A. Wunsche, Der Babylonian Talmud in seinen haggadischen Bestandteilen ubersetzt, Leipzig, 1886-89. English: M.L. Rodkinson, New Edition of the Babylonian Talmud .... Translated into English, New York, 1896 ff (is rather an abridgment (unreliable)). (5) Commentaries (Introduction, 146-51): (a) Mishna:

Moses Maimonides (1135-1204), Obadiah di Bertinoro (died 1510), Yom- Tobh Lipmann Heller (1579-1654), Israel Lipschutz. (b) Babylonian Talmud:

Rashi or Solomon Yitschaqi (died 1105); The Tosaphoth (see L. Zunz, Zur Geschichte und Literatur, Berlin, 1845, 29-60); Menahem ben Solomon or Me’-iri (1249-1306); Solomon Luria (died 1573), commonly called Maharshal; Bezaleel Ashkenazi (16th century), author of the Shittah Mequbbetseth; Samuel Edels (1559-1631) or Maharsha’; Meir Lublin (died 1616); Elijah Wilna (died 1797); Aqiba Eger (died 1837). (6) Single Treatises (Compare Introduction, 151-55): (a) Mishna:

The present writer is publishing: Ausgewahlte Misnatraktate, nach Handschriften und alten Drucken (Text vokalisiert, Vokabular), ubersetzt und mit Berucksichtigung des Neuen Testaments erlautert, Leipzig (J. C.

Hinrichs); Yoma’, 3rd edition, 1912, `Abhodhah Zarah, 2nd edition, 1909, Pirqe ‘Abhoth, 4th edition, 1914, Shabbath, 2nd edition, 1914, Sanhedhrin, Makkoth, 1910, Pecachim 1911, Berakhoth, 1914. This series is to be continued (H. Laible, e.g., is writing Nedharim); Ch. Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, in Hebrew and English, 2nd edition, Cambridge, 1897; W.

A. L. Elmslie, The Mishna on Idolatry, with Translation, Cambridge, 1911. (b) Gemara, Berakhoth, German:

E. M. Pinner, Berlin, 1842, fol; Pe’ah (Palestintan Talmud), German.: J. J.

Rabe, Ansbach, 1781; Cukkah, Latin: F. B. Dachs, Utrecht, 1726, 4to; Ro’sh ha-shanah, German: M. Rawicz, Frankfurt a. Main, 1886; Ta`anith German.: Straschun Halle, 1883; Chaghighah, English: A. W. Streane Cambridge, 1891; Kethubhoth, German: M. Rawicz, 1891; Cotah, Latin: J.

Chr. Wagenseil, Altdorf, 1674-78; Babha’ Metsi`a’, German: A. Sammter, Berlin, 1876, fol; Sanhedhrin, Latin: Ugolini, Thesaurus, volume XXV, German.: M. Rawicz, 1892; `Abhodhah Zarah, German: F. Chr. Ewald, Nurnberg, 1856; Zebhachin and Menachoth, Latin: Ugolini, Thesaurus, volume XIX; Hullin, German: M. Rawicz, Offenburg, 1908; Tamidh, Latin: Ugolini, Thesaurus, Vol XIX. (7) Helps for the Grammatical Understanding (Introduction, 155-58): (a) Mishna:

M. H. Segal, “Misnaic Hebrew,” JQR, 1908, 647-737; K. Albrecht, Grammatik des Neuhebraischen (Sprache der Mishna), Munich, 1913; (b) Talmud:

J. Levy, Neuhebr. und chald. Worterbuch, Leipzig, 1876-89; M. Jastrow, Dictionary of the .... Talmud Babylonian and Yerushalmi, New York, 1886-1903; W. Bacher, Die Terminologie der jud. Traditionsliteratur, Leipzig, 1905; G. Dalman, Grammatik des judischpalastin. Aramaisch, 2nd edition, Leipzig, 1905; C. Levias, Grammar of the Aramaic Idiom Contained in the Babylonian Talmud, Cincinnati, 1900; Max L. Margolis, Grammar of the Aramaic Language of the Babylonian Talmud with a Chrestomathy, Munich, 1909. (8) The Haggadah (Introduction, 159-62): The Haggadic elements of the Palestinian Talmud are collected by Samuel Jaffe in Yepheh Mar’eh, Constantinople, 1587, etc., those of the Babylonian by Jacob ibn Chabib in `En Ya`aqobh, Saloniki, about 1516, etc.; W. Bacher, Die Agada der Tannaiten, 2 volumes, Strassburg, 1884, 1890 (1st volume, 2nd edition, 1903); Die A. der babylon. Amoraer, 1878; Die A. der palastinensischen Amoraer, 1892-99, 3 volumes; P. T. Hershon, A Talmudic Miscellany or 1001 Extracts, London, 1880; Treasures of the Talmud, London, 1882. (9) Theology (Introduction, 162-65): F. Weber, Judische Theologie, 2nd edition, Leipzig, 1897; J. Klausner, Die messianischen Vorstellungen des jud. Volkes im Zeitalter der Tannaiten, Berlin, 1904; R.T. Herford, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, London, 1903; H.L. Strack, Jesus, die Haretiker und die Christen nach den altesten jud. Angaben (texts, translation, commentary), Leipzig, 1910; L. Blau, Das altjudische Zauberwesen, Budapest, 1898; M. Lazarus, Die Ethik des Judentums, 2 volumes, Frankfurt a. Main, 1898, 1911. (10) The Talmud and the Old Testament (Introduction, 167 f): G. Aicher, Das Altes Testament in der Mischna, Freiburg i. Baden, 1906; V. Aptowitzer, Das Schriftwort in der rabbin. Literatur, 4 parts, Wien, 1906-11 (to be continued; various readings in the quotations); P.T.

Hershon, Genesis, with a Talmudical Commentary, London, 1883. (11) The Talmud and the New Testament (Introduction, 165-67): Joh. Lightfoot, Horae hebraicae et talmudicae, edition Leusden, 2 volumes, fol T, Franeker, 1699; Chr. Schottgen, Horae hebraicae et talmudicae in universum Novum Test., 2 volumes, 4to, Dresden, 1733; Franz Delitzsch, “Horae hebraicae et talmudicae,” in Zeitschrift fur die gesammte luther.

Theologie u. Kirche, 1876-78; Aug. Wunsche, Neue Beitrage zur Erlauterung der Evangelien aus Talmud und Midrash, Goettingen, 1878; Th. Robinson, The Evangelists and the Mishna, London, 1859; W.H.

Bennett, The Mishna as Illustrating the Gospels, Cambridge, 1884; Erich Bischoff, Jesus und die Rabbinen, Jesu Bergpredigt und “Himmelreich” in ihrer Unabhangigkeit vom Rabbinismus, Leipzig, 1905. (12) Jurisprudence (Introduction, 169-71): J. L. Saalschtitz, Das Mosaische Recht, 2nd edition, Berlin, 1853; Josephus Kohler, “Darstellung des talludischen Rechts,” in Zeitschrift fur vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft, 1908, 161-264; Z. Frankel, Der gerichtliche Beweis nach mosaisch-talmud. Rechte, Berlin, 1846; P.B.

Benny, The Criminal Code of the Jews, London, 1880; S. Mendelsohn, The Criminal Jurisprudence of the Ancient Hebrews, Baltimore, 1891; H.B. Fassel, Das mosaisch-rabbinische Civilrecht, Gross-Kanischa, volumes, 1852-54; Das mos.-rabb. Gerichtsverfahren in civilrechtl. Sachen, 1859; M. Mielziner, The Jewish Law of Marriage and Divorce, Cincinnati, 1884; D.W. Amram, The Jewish Law of Divorce, Philadelphia, 1896; M.

Rapaport, Der Talmud und sein Recht, Berlin, 1912. (13) History (Introduction, 171 f): J. Derenbourg, Histoire de la Palestine depuis Cyrus jusqu’a Adrien, Paris, 1867; L. Herzfeld, Handelsgeschichte der Juden des Altertums, 2nd edition, Braunschweig, 1894; A. Buchler, The Political and the Social Leaders of the Jewish Community of Sepphoris, London, 1909; S. Funk, Die Juden in Babylonien 200-500, 2 volumes, Berlin, 1902, 1908. (14) Medical Science (Intro, 173): Jul. Preuss, Biblisch-talmudische Medizin, Berlin, 1911 (735 pp.); L.

Kotelmann, Die Ophthalmologie bei den alten Hebraern, Hamburg, (436 pp.). (15) Archaeology: Sam. Krauss, Talmudische Archaologic, 3 volumes, Leipzig, 1910-1912. Hermann L. Strack TALSAS <tal’-sas > (Codex Alexandrinus [ Salo>av, Saloas ], Codex Vaticanus [ Za>lqav, Zalthas ]; the Revised Version (British and American) “Saloas”):

In 1 Esdras 9:22 the King James Version = “Elasha” of Ezr 10:22.

TAMAH <ta’-ma > . See TEMAH.

TAMAR (1) <ta’-mar > ( rm;T; [tamar], “palm”; Codex Vaticanus [ Qhma>r, Themar ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ Qama>r, Thamar ] (so Codex Vaticanus in Genesis)): (1) The wife of Er, the oldest son of Judah ( Genesis 38:6 ff). Upon her husband’s death under the displeasure of Yahweh, his brother Onan ought to have performed the husband’s part, but he evaded his duty in this respect, and likewise perished. Shelah, the next brother, was promised to her, but not given. This led Tamar to the extraordinary course narrated in Genesis 38:13 ff, on which see JUDAH . By her father-in-law she became the mother of Perez and Zerah (the King James Version “Pharez and Zarah”). Judah, who at first condemned her to be burned ( Genesis 38:24), was compelled to vindicate her ( Genesis 38:25,26). Through Perez she became an ancestress of Jesus ([ Qama>r, Thamar ], Matthew 1:3). (2) A daughter of David and sister of Absalom ( 2 Samuel 13:1 ff). Her beauty inflamed her half-brother Amnon with passion, and by stratagem he forcibly violated her. This brought upon Amnon the terrible revenge of Absalom. See ABSALOM; AMNON. (3) A daughter of Absalom ( 2 Samuel 14:27). See MAACAH.

James Orr TAMAR (2) ( rm;T; [tamar], “palm tree”; [ Qaima>n, Thaiman ]): (1) This name occurs in Ezekiel’s ideal delimitation of the territory to be occupied by Israel ( Ezekiel 47:19; 48:28). The Dead Sea is the eastern border; and the southern boundary runs from Tamar as far as the waters of Meriboth-kadesh to the Brook of Egypt and the Great Sea. The place therefore lay somewhere to the Southwest of the Dead Sea. “Hazazontamar (the same is En-gedi)” ( 2 Chronicles 20:2) is of course out of the question, being much too far to the North. Eusebius (in Onomasticon) mentions Asasonthamar, with which Thamara was identified. This place was a village with fortress and Roman garrison, a day’s journey from Mampsis on the way from Hebron to Elath. It is the Thamaro mentioned by Ptolemy (v.16, 8), as a military station on the road from Hebron to Petra. It is named also in the Peutinger Tables. Neither Mampsis nor Thamaro has been identified. (2) Among the towns “built” or fortified by Solomon, named in 1 Kings 9:18, is Tamar (the Revised Version (British and American) following Kethibh), or Tadmor (the King James Version following Qere; compare 2 Chronicles 8:4). Gezer, Beth-horon and Baalath, named along with it, are all in Southern Palestine, while Tamar is described as in the wilderness in the land, pointing to the Negeb or to the Wilderness of Judah. It was probably intended to protect the road for trade from Ezion-geber to Jerusalem. We may with some confidence identify it with (1) above. It is interesting to note that the Chronicler ( 2 Chronicles 8:4) takes it out of connection with the other cities ( 2 Chronicles 8:5), and brings its building into relation with Solomon’s conquest of Hamath-zobah. Clearly in his mind it denoted the great and beautiful city of Palmyra, which has so long been known as “Tadmor in the Wilderness.” W. Ewing TAMARISK <tam’-a-risk > : (1) lv,ae [’eshel] ( Genesis 21:33, the King James Version “grove,” margin “tree”; 1 Samuel 22:6, the King James Version “tree,” margin “grove”; 1 Samuel 31:13, the King James Version “tree”).

The Revised Version (British and American) translation is due to the similarity of [’eshel] to the Arabic ‘athl, “the tamarisk.” (2) r[;r”[“ [ar`ar] ( Jeremiah 17:6 margin (compare Jeremiah 48:6), English Versions of the Bible “heath” (which see)). The tamarisk (Tamarix, with various species in Palestine, chiefly T. Syriaca) is a very characteristic tree of Palestine, especially in the Maritime Plain, near the sea itself, and in the Jordan Valley. Eight species are described.

They are characterized by their brittle, feathery branches and by their tiny scale-like leaves. Some varieties flourish not infrequently in salty soil unsuited to any ordinary vegetation. E. W. G. Masteran TAMMUZ <tam’-uz > , <tam’-mooz > ( zWMT” [tammuz]; [ Qammou>z, Thammouz ]): (1) The name of a Phoenician deity, the Adonis of the Greeks. He was originally a Sumerian or Babylonian sun-god, called Dumuzu, the husband of Ishtar, who corresponds to Aphrodite of the Greeks. The worship of these deities was introduced into Syria in very early times under the designation of Tammuz and Astarte, and appears among the Greeks in the myth of Adonis and Aphrodite, who are identified with Osiris and Isis of the Egyptian pantheon, showing how widespread the cult became. The Babylonian myth represents Dumuzu, or Tammuz, as a beautiful shepherd slain by a wild boar, the symbol of winter. Ishtar long mourned for him and descended into the underworld to deliver him from the embrace of death (Frazer, Adonis, Attis and Osiris). This mourning for Tammuz was celebrated in Babylonia by women on the 2nd day of the 4th month, which thus acquired the name of Tammuz (see CALENDAR ). This custom of weeping for Tammuz is referred to in the Bible in the only passage where the name occurs ( Ezekiel 8:14). The chief seat of the cult in Syria was Gebal (modern Gebail, Greek Bublos) in Phoenicia, to the South of which the river Adonis (Nahr Ibrahim) has its mouth, and its source is the magnificent fountain of Apheca (modern `Afqa), where was the celebrated temple of Venus or Aphrodite, the ruins of which still exist. The women of Gebal used to repair to this temple in midsummer to celebrate the death of Adonis or Tammuz, and there arose in connection with this celebration those licentious rites which rendered the cult so infamous that it was suppressed by Constantine the Great.

The name Adonis, by which this deity was known to the Greeks, is none other than the Phoenician ˆwda [’Adhon], which is the same in Hebrew.

His death is supposed to typify the long, dry summer of Syria and Palestine, when vegetation perishes, and his return to life the rainy season when the parched earth is revivified and is covered with luxuriant vegetation, or his death symbolizes the cold, rough winter, the boar of the myth, and his return the verdant spring.

Considering the disgraceful and licentious rites with which the cult was celebrated, it is no wonder that Ezekiel should have taken the vision of the women weeping for Tammuz in the temple as one of the greatest abominations that could defile the Holy House. See ADONIS. (2) The fourth month of the Jewish year, corresponding to July. The name is derived from that of a Syrian god, identified with Adonis ( Ezekiel 8:14). See above, and CALENDAR.

H. Porter TANACH <ta’-nak > ( _]n:[]T” [ta`nakh], _]n:[\T” [ta`andkh]). See TAANACH.

TANHUMETH <tan-hu’-meth > ( tm,jun”T” [tanchumeth]): One of those who were left in Judah by Nebuchadnezzar under the governorship of Gedallah ( Kings 25:23; Jeremiah 40:8).

TANIS <ta’-nis > ([ Ta>niv, Tanis ] (Judith 1:10)). See ZOAN.

TANNER <tan’-er > ([burseu>v, burseus ], from [bu>rsa, bursa ] “a hide”): The only references to a tanner are in Acts 9:43; 10:6,32. The Jews looked upon tanning as an undesirable occupation and well they might, for at best it was accompanied with unpleasant odors and unattractive sights, if not even ceremonially unclean. We can imagine that Simon the tanner found among the disciples of Jesus a fellowship which had been denied him before. Peter made the way still easier for Simon by choosing his house as his abode while staying in Joppa. Simon’s house was by the seashore, as is true of the tanneries along the Syrian coast today, so that the foul-smelling liquors from the vats can be drawn off with the least nuisance, and so that the salt water may be easily accessible for washing the skins during the tanning process. These tanneries are very unpretentious affairs, usually consisting of one or two small rooms and a courtyard. Within are the vats made either of stone masonry, plastered within and without, or cut out of the solid rock. The sheep or goat skins are smeared on the flesh side with a paste of slaked lime and then folded up and allowed to stand until the hair loosens.

The hair and fleshy matter are removed, the skins are plumped in lime, bated in a concoction first of dog dung and afterward in one of fermenting bran, in much the same way as in a modern tannery. The bated skins are tanned in sumach (Arabic summak), which is the common tanning material in Syria and Palestine. After drying, the leather is blackened on one side by rubbing on a solution made by boiling vinegar with old nails or pieces of copper, and the skin is finally given a dressing of olive oil. In the more modern tanneries degras is being imported for the currying processes. For dyeing the rams’ skins red (Exodus 25 ff) they rub on a solution of qermes (similar to cochineal; see DYEING ), dry, oil, and polish with a smooth stone.

Pine bark is sometimes used for tanning in Lebanon. According to Wilkinson (Ancient Egypt, II, 186), the Arabs use the juice of a desert plant for dehairing and tanning skins. The skins for pouches are either tawed, i.e. tanned with a mineral salt like alum, or treated like parchment (see PARCHMENT ). About Hebron oak branches, chopped into small chips, are used for tanning the leather bottles or water skins. In this case the hair is not removed. The tanning is accomplished, after removing the fleshy matter, by filling the skin with oak chips and water, tying up all openings in the skins, and allowing them to lie in the open on their “backs,” with “legs” upright, for weeks. The field near Hebron where they arrange the bulging skins in orderly rows during the tanning process presents a weird sight. These are the bottles referred to in the King James Version (the Revised Version (British and American) “skins”) ( Joshua 9:4,13; Hosea 7:5; Matthew 9:17; Mark 2:22; Luke 5:37).

Leather was probably used more extensively than any records show. We know that the Egyptians used leather for ornamental work. They understood the art of making stamped leather. The sculptures give us an idea of the methods used for making the leather into sandals, trimmings for chariots, coverings of chairs, decorations for harps, sarcophagi, etc. There are two Biblical references to leather, where leather girdles are mentioned ( 2 Kings 1:8; Matthew 3:4). See also CRAFTS, II, 17.

James A. Patch TAPESTRY <tap’-es-tri > ( MyDIb”r”m” [marebhaddim], from db”r; [rabhadh], “to spread”): “Carpets of tapestry” are mentioned in Proverbs 7:16; 31:22. We have no means of knowing just what form of weaving is here referred to. See WEAVING.

TAPHATH <ta’-fath > ( tp”t; [taphath]): Daughter of Solomon and wife of Benabinadab ( 1 Kings 4:11).

TAPHON <ta’-fon > See TEPHON.

TAPPUAH (1) <tap’-u-a > , <ta-pu’-a > ( h”WPT” [tappuach], “apple”): (1) A royal city of the Canaanites, the king of which was slain by Joshua (12:17). It is named between Beth-el and Hepher, and may possibly be identical with the city named in Joshua 16:8; see (3) below. There is nothing to guide us to a decision. (2) (Omitted by Septuagint.) A city in the Shephelah of Judah ( Joshua 15:34). It is named between Engannim and Enam in a group of cities that lay in the Northwest of the territory of Judah. Tristram suggested identification with `Artuf, about 1 1/2 miles Southeast of Zorah. G.A.

Smith places it in Wady el `Afranj, possibly identifying it with Tuffuch, fully 4 miles West of Hebron. This position, however, is not in the Shephelah. The place probably represents “Beth-tappuah” of Joshua 15:53. No quite satisfactory identification has yet been suggested. (3) A place on the border between Ephraim and Manasseh ( Joshua 16:8). “The land of Tappuah,” i.e. the land adjoining the town, belonged to Manasseh, but the town itself belonged to Ephraim ( Joshua 17:8). Entappuah was probably a neighboring spring. Tappuah was to the South of Michmethath, and the border ran from here westward to the brook Kanah.

Some would place it at Khirbet `Atuf, about 11 miles Northeast of Nablus.

More probably it should be sought to the Southwest of the plain of Makhneh (Michmethath). It may be identical with Tephon, which, along with Timnath, Pharathon, and other cities, Bacchides fortified “with high walls and gates and bars” (1 Macc 9:50). No identification is possible. W. Ewing TAPPUAH (2) ( j”Puf” [Tappuach]; Codex Vaticanus [ Qapou>v, Thapous ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ Qaffou>, Thaphphou ]; Lucian, [ Feqrou>q, Phethrouth ]): A “son” of Hebron ( 1 Chronicles 2:43).

TARAH <ta’-ra > , <tar’-a > ( Numbers 33:27 f the King James Version). See TERAH.

TARALAH <tar’-a-la > ( hl;a\r”T” [tar’alah]; Codex Vaticanus [ Qareh>la, Thareela ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ Qarala>, Tharala ]): A town in the territory of Benjamin named between Irpeel and Zelah ( Joshua 18:27).

Eusebius, Onomasticon (s.v. “Therama”) simply says it was in the tribe of Benjamin. In the times of Eusebius and Jerome, therefore, the site was already lost, and has not since been covered.

TAREA <ta’-re-a > , <ta-re’-a > ( [“rea\T” [ta’area`], a copyist’s mistake ( Chronicles 8:35) for [“rej\T” [tacharea], “the shrewd one,” in Chronicles 9:41; Codex Vaticanus [ Qere>e, Theree ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ Qare>e, Tharee ]; Lucian, [ Qara>a, Tharaa ]; in 1 Chronicles 9:41, Codex Vaticanus [ Qara>c, Tharach ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ Qara>, Thara ]; Lucian, [ Qara>a, Tharaa ]; see TAHREA): A descendant of Saul mentioned in a genealogy of Benjamin ( 1 Chronicles 9:41).

TARES <tarz > ([ziza>nia, zizania ] ( Matthew 13:25 ff), margin “darnel”):

Zizania is equivalent to Arabic zuwan, the name given to several varieties of darnel of which Lolium temulentum, the “bearded darnel,” is the one most resembling wheat, and has been supposed to be degenerated wheat.

On the near approach of harvest it is carefully weeded out from among the wheat by the women and children. Zuwan is commonly used as chickens’ food; it is not poisonous to human beings unless infected with the mold ergot.

TARGET <tar’-get > . See MARK.

TARGUM <tar’-gum > ( µWGr”T” [targum]):

The Targums were explanations of the Hebrew Scriptures in Chaldaic (Western Aramaic) for the benefit of those Jews who had partially or completely ceased to understand the sacred tongue. 1. MEANING AND ETYMOLOGY OF THE TERM:

By Gesenius the word [methurgam], which occurs in Ezr 4:7, is interpreted as derived from [ragham], “to pile up stones,” “to throw,” hence, “to stone,” and then “to translate,” though no example is given. Jastrow derives it from the Assyrian r-g-m, “to speak aloud,” an etymology which suits the origin of the Targums. It is unfortunate that he gives no reference to any Assyrian document.

The word [turgamanu] is found, e.g., in the Tell el-Amarna Letters (Berlin edition, 21, 1. 25, Knudtzon, 154), with the meaning “interpreter.” It may, none the less, be of Aramaic origin. See Muss-Arnolt, Concise Dictionary of the Assyrian Language, 1191 f, and the references there given.

The word is used as the Aramaic interpretation of [shiggayon] ( Psalm 7:1), a term the precise force of which is yet unfixed. From this [ragham] comes [meturgheman], “an interpreter,” and our modern “dragoman.”

Whatever the original meaning of the root, the word came to mean “to translate,” “to explain.” 2. ORIGIN OF THE TARGUMS:

At the time when Nebuchadnezzar carried the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judah captive to the banks of the Tigris and the Euphrates, the language of everyday life in Assyria and Babylonia had ceased to be that which has come down to us in the cuneiform inscriptions, and had become Aramaic, the lingua franca of Southwestern Asia. It was the language of diplomacy, of business and of social intercourse, and had long been so. Dwelling in the midst of those who used Aramaic alone, the Jews soon adopted it for every occasion save worship. In the family they might retain their mother tongue for a time, but this would yield at length to continuous pressure from without. In Palestine a similar process had been going on in the absence of the captives. Intruders from various neighboring peoples had pressed in to occupy the blanks left by the removal of the Jewish captives to Babylon.

Although it is not recorded, it is not impossible that following the example of the Assyrians, Nebuchadnezzar may have sent into Judea compulsory colonists from other parts of his empire. The language common to all these, in addition to their native dialect, was Aramaic. The Jewish inhabitants that had been left in the land would, like their relatives in Babylonia, have become accustomed to the use of Aramaic, to the exclusion, more or less complete, of Hebrew. Another process had begun among the captives. Away from the site of their destroyed temple, the exiles did not, like those in Upper Egypt, erect another temple in which to offer sacrifices. Their worship began to consist in the study of the Law in common, in chanting of the Psalms and united prayers. This study of the Law implied that it should be understood. Though some form of synagogue worship was known in the times preceding the captivity under the direction probably of the prophets ( 2 Kings 4:23), it must have become weak and ineffective. With the arrival of Ezra there was a revival of the study of the Law, and with that the necessity for the interpretation of it in language which the people could understand. 3. LANGUAGE OF THE TARGUMS:

From the facts above narrated, this language was of necessity Aramaic.

There were, however, forces at work to modify the language. A translation is liable to be assimilated so far, to the language from which it is made.

Thus there is a difference, subtle but observable, between the English of our the King James Version of the Bible and that of Shakespeare, Bacon, or even Hooker. Or, to take an example more cognate, if less accessible to the general reader, the difference may be seen if one compares the Syriac of the New Testament Peshitta with that of the Peshitta of the Old Testament. The Aramaic of the Targums is Western Aramaic, but it is Western Aramaic tinctured with Hebrew. The fact that the returned captives originally had spoken Hebrew would doubtless have its effect on their Aramaic. German in Jewish lips becomes Yiddish. One very marked feature is the presence of yath, the sign of the accusative translating the Hebrew [’eth], whereas in ordinary Aramaic, Eastern and Western, this is unused, except as supporting the oblique case of pronouns. Further, the intensive construction of infinitive with finite sense, so frequent in Hebrew, though little used in ordinary Aramaic, appears in the Targums wherever it occurs in the Hebrew text. As a negative characteristic there is to be noted the comparative rarity with which the emphatic repetition of the personal pronoun, so frequent in ordinary Aramaic, occurs in the Targumic. 4. MODE IN WHICH THE TARGUMS WERE GIVEN:

The account given in Nehemiah (8:8) of the reading of the Law to the people not only mentions that Ezra’s helpers read “distinctly” ([mephorash]), but “gave the sense” ([som sekhel]) “and caused them to understand the reading,” the King James Version ([wayyabhinu bamiqra’]).

This threefold process implies more than merely distinct enunciation. If this passage is compared with Ezr 4:18 it would seem that [mephorash] ought to mean “interpreted.” The most natural explanation is that alongside of the readers of the Law there were interpreters, [meturghemanim], who repeated in Aramaic what had been read in Hebrew. What interval separated this public reading of the Law from the reading of the Law as a portion of synagogue worship we have no means of knowing. The probability is that in no long time the practice of reading the Law with an Aramaic interpretation was common in all Jewish synagogues. Elaborate rules are laid down in the Talmud for this interpretation; how far these were those actually used we cannot be absolutely certain. They at least represent the ideal to which aftergenerations imagined the originators of the practice aspired. The Law was read by the reader verse by verse, and each verse was followed by a recitation by the meturgheman of the Aramaic version. Three verses of the prophetic books were read before the Aramaic was recited. The Talmudists were particular that the reader should keep his eye on the roll from which he read, and that the meturgheman should always recite his version without looking at any writing, so that a distinction should be kept between the sacred word and the version. At first the Targum was not committed to writing, but was handed down by tradition from [meturgheman] to [meturgheman]. That of the Law became, however, as stereotyped as if it had been written. So to some extent was it with the Prophets and also the Psalms. The Targums of the rest of the [Kethubhim] seem to have been written from the beginning and read in private. 5. DATE OF THE TARGUMS:

We have assumed that the action of Ezra narrated in Nehemiah 8:8 implied not only the reading of the Law, but also the interpretation of its language — its translation in fact from Hebrew to Aramaic, and that, further, this practice was ere long followed in all the synagogues in Judea.

This view is maintained by Friedmann (Onkelos u. Akylas, 1896) and was that assumed to be correct by the Talmud. Dr. Dalman assures his readers that this is a mistake, but without assigning any reasons for his assertion.

Dr. Dalman is a very great authority, but authority is not science, so we venture to maintain the older opinion. The fact is undeniable that, during the Persian domination all over Southwestern Asia, Aramaic was the lingua franca, so much so that we see by the Assouan and Elephantine papyri the Jewish garrison at Assouan in Egypt wrote to their co- religionists in Judea, and to the Persian governors, in Aramaic. Moreover, there is no trace that they used any other tongue for marriage contracts or deeds of sale.

We may assume that in Judea the language commonly used in the 5th century BC was Aramaic. We may neglect then the position of Mr.

Stenning (Enc Brit (11th edition), XXVI, 418b) that “probably as early as the 2nd century BC the people had adopted Aramaic.” By that time Aramaic was giving place to Greek. His reason for rejecting the position above maintained is that the dates assigned by criticism to certain prophetic writings conflict with it — a mode of reasoning that seems to derive facts from theories, not theories from facts.

The fact that the necessity for translation into Aramaic existed in the Persian period implies the existence of the [meturgheman] and the [targum]. It is more difficult to know when these Targums were committed to writing. It is probable that the same movement, which led Jehudah ha- Nasi’ to commit to writing the decisions of the rabbis which form the Mishna, would lead to writing down the Targums — that is to say late in the 2nd century of our era. Aramaic was disappearing in Palestine and the traditional renderings would be liable to be forgotten. Talmudic stories as to dates at which the various Targums were written down are absolutely valueless. 6. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DIFFERENT TARGUMS:

The Targums that require most to be considered are the official Targums, those that are given in the rabbinic Bibles in columns parallel with the columns of Hebrew. In addition, there is for the Law the Targum Yerushalmi, another recension of which is called Targum Yonathan ben Uzziel. The Book of Esther has two Targums. Besides these, Targums of doubtful value have been written by private individuals. Certain books have no official Targums: Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah and Chronicles. The reason for this is supposed to be that in both Daniel and Ezra there are portions written in Aramaic. Nehemiah and Chronicles were regarded as forming one book with Ezra. A late Targum on Chronicles has been found and published separately. Some of the apocryphal additions to Esther appear in a late Targum to that book. The official Targums of the Law and the Prophets approach more nearly the character of translations, though even in them verses are at times explained rather than translated. The others are paraphrastic to a greater or less degree. (1) Onqelos — the Man.

This is the name given to the official Targum of the Pentatuech. The legend is that it was written by one Onqelos, a proselyte son of Kalonymus or Kalonikus, sister’s son of Titus. He was associated with the second Gamaliel and is represented as being even more minutely punctilious in his piety than his friend. The legend goes on to say that, when he became a proselyte, his uncle sent company after company of soldiers to arrest him, but he converted them, one after another. It is at the same time extremely doubtful whether there ever was such a person, a view that is confirmed by the fact that legends almost identical are related of Aquila, the translator of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. The names are similar, and it may be are identical. While there may have been a person so named, the admission of this does not imply that he had any connection with the Targum of the Pentateuch named after him. Another explanation is that as the Greek version of Aquila was much praised by the Jews for its fastidious accuracy, and this Targum of the Law was credited with equally careful accuracy, so all that is meant is that it was regarded as a version which as accurately represented in Aramaic the Hebrew of the Law as did Aquila’s Greek. The probability is that whoever it was who committed the Targum to writing did little or no actual translating. It might not be the work of one unassisted author; the reference to the guidance Onqelos is alleged to have received from the rabbis Eliezer and Joshua suggests this. Owing to the fact that the Law was read through in the course of a year in Babylonian (once in three years in Pal) and every portion interpreted verse by verse in Aramaic, as it was read, the very words of the traditional rendering would be remembered. This gives the language of the Targum an antique flavor which may be seen when it is compared with that of the Palestinian lectionary discovered by Mrs. Gibson and Mrs. Lewis. Especially is this observed when the renderings of the same passage are put in comparison.

Both in vocabulary and grammar there is a difference; thus [mar] occurs for [shalleT], and [yath] as the sign of the accusative has disappeared in the lectionary. An analogy may be seen in the antique flavor of the language of our English Bible, even in the Revised Version (British and American). If any credence were to be given to the traditional account of the alleged authors, the date of this Targum would be the end of the 1st century AD.

But we have seen that it has been named Aquila and that the title means “as accurate as Aquila.” He, however, lived in the beginning of the 2nd century. His Greek version must have already gained a reputation before the Aramaic Targum appeared. We cannot therefore date the actual committing of this Targum to writing earlier than late in the 2nd century, not improbably, as suggested above, contemporary with the writing down of the Mishna by Jehadah ha-Nasi’.

Characteristics of His Targum:

The characteristics of this Targum are in general close adherence to the original, sometimes even to the extent of doing violence to the genius of the language into which it has been translated. One prominent example of this is the presence of yath as the sign of the accusative; and there is also the intensive construction of infinitive with finite tense. There is a tendency to insert something between God and His worshipper, as “mimera’ Yahweh” instead of simply “Yahweh.” Where anthropomorphisms occur, an exact translation is not attempted, but the sense is represented in an abstract way, as in Genesis 11:5, where instead of “The Lord ([YHWH]) came down” there is “The Lord ([yiya’]) was revealed.” At the same time there is not a total avoidance of paraphrase. In Genesis 4:7 the Targum renders, “If thou doest thy work well, is it not remitted unto thee? if thou doest not thy work well, thy sin is reserved unto the day of judgment when it will be required of thee if thou do not repent, but if thou repent it shall be remitted to thee.” It will be observed that the last clause of the Hebrew is omitted. So in Genesis 3:22, instead of “Man has become as one of us,” Onqelos writes “Man has become alone in the world by himself to know good and evil.’ A more singular instance occurs in Genesis 27:13, where Rebekah answers Jacob, “Upon me be thy curse, my son”; in the Targum it is, “Unto me it hath been said in prophecy, there shall be no curse upon thee my son.” Sometimes there is a mere explanatory expansion, as in Exodus 3:1, where instead of “the mount of God,” Onqelos has “the mountain on which the glory of the Lord was revealed.” In the mysterious passage, Exodus 4:24-26, later Jewish usage is brought in to make an easy sense: “And it was on the way in the inn (house of rest) that the angel of the Lord met him and sought to slay him. And Zipporah took a flint knife and cut off the foreskin of her son and came near before him and said ‘In the blood of this circumcision is the bridegroom given back to us,’ and when therefore he had desisted she said, `Had it not been for the blood of this circumcision the bridegroom would have been condemned to die.’” Here [chathan] (“ bridegroom”) is used according to later custom of the child to be circumcised. Sometimes reasons of propriety come in, as when the sin of Onan is described “corrupting his way on the earth. It is, however, in the poetical passages that the writer gives loose rein to paraphrase. As an example the blessing of Judah in Jacob’s blessing of his sons may be given: “Judah, thou art praise and not shame; thee thy brethren shall praise. Thy hands shall be strong upon thine enemies, those that hate thee shall be scattered; they shall be turned back before thee; the sons of thy father shall come before thee with salutations. (Thy) rule shall be in the beginning, and in the end the kingdom shall be increased from the house of Judah, because from the judgment of death, my son, thy soul hast thou removed. He shall rest, he shall abide in strength, as a lion and as a lioness there is nothing may trouble him. The ruler shall not depart from the house of Judah nor the scribe from his son’s sons for ever till the Messiah come whose is the kingdom and whom the heathen shall obey. Israel shall trade in his cities, the people shall build his temple, the saints shall be going about to him and shall be doers of the Law through his instruction. His raiment shall be goodly crimson; his clothing covering him, of wool dyed bright with colors. His mountains shall be red with his vineyards, his hills shall flow down with wine, and his valleys shall be white with corn and with flocks of sheep.”

Committed to writing in Palestine, the Targum of Onqelos was sent to Babylon to get the imprimatur of the famous rabbis residing there. There are said to be traces in the language of a revision by the Babylonian teachers, but as this lies in the prevalence of certain words that are regarded as more naturally belonging to Eastern than Western Aramaic, it is too restrictedly technical to be discussed here. The result of the Babylonian sanction was the reception of this Targum as the official interpretation of the books of the Law. It seems probable that the mistake which led to its being attributed to Onqelos was made in Babylon where Aquila’s Greek version was not known save by vague reputation. (2) The Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel on the Prophets.

This Jonathan, to whom the Targum on the Prophets is attributed, is declared to be one of the most distinguished pupils of Hillel. The prophetic section of the Bible according to the Jews contains, besides what we ordinarily reckon prophetic books, also all the earlier historical books except Ruth, which is placed among the Hagiographa. During the persecution of the Jews by Epiphanes, when the Law was forbidden to be read in the synagogue, portions of the Prophets were read instead. There was no attempt to read the whole of the Prophets thus, but very considerable portions were used in worship. This necessitated the presence of the meturgheman. If one might believe the Talmudic traditions, Jonathan’s Targum was committed to writing before that of Onqelos.

Jonathan is regarded as the contemporary of the first Gamaliel, whereas Onqelos is the friend of Aqiba, the contemporary of Hadrian. The tradition is that when he published his Targum of the Prophets, all Palestine was shaken, and a voice from heaven was heard demanding, “Who is this who revealeth my secrets to the sons of men?” As an example of the vagueness of Talmudic chronology, it may be mentioned that Jonathan was said to have made his Targum under the guidance of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. He is said to have desired to write a Targum of the Kethubhim, but was forbidden by a voice from heaven. The Targum of Job was skid to have been already written, but was buried by Gamaliel. It is said to have been exhumed and that the present Targum on that book is from Jonathan’s hand. The tomb of Jonathan ben Uzziel is shown on the face of a hill to the North of Safed, Palestine.

Characteristics of His Targum — Earlier Prophets; Later Prophets In the former Prophets — the historical books — the style does not differ much from that of Onqelos. Occasionally there are readings followed which are not in the Massoretic Text, as Joshua 8:12, where the Targum has “the west side of Ai” instead of as in the Massoretic Text, “the west side of the city.” Sometimes two readings are combined, as in 8:16, where the Massoretic Text has “all the people which were in the city,” the Targum adds “in Ai.” Again, the Targum translates proper names, as, in Joshua 7:5, “Shebarim” ([shebharim]) is rendered “till they were scattered.” Such are the variations to be seen in the narrative portion of the Targum of the earlier Prophets. When, however, a poetical piece occurs, the writer at times gives rein to his imagination. Sometimes one verse is exceedingly paraphrastic and the next an accurate rendering without any addition. In the song of Deborah (Judges 5) the 1st verse has only a little of paraphrase: “Then sang praises Deborah and Barak the son of Abinoam on account of the lifting up and deliverance which had been wrought in that day, saying .... “The verse which follows is very paraphrastic; instead of the 7 words of the verse in the Massoretic Text the Targum has 55. it is too long to quote in full, but it begins, “Because the house of Israel rebelled against His Law, the Gentiles came up upon them and disturbed their assemblies, and because they refused to obey the Law, their enemies prevailed against them and drove them from the borders of the land of Israel,” and so on, Sisera and all his host being introduced. Judges 5:3 reads thus, “Hear O kings who are with him, with Sisera for war, who obey the officers of Jabin the king of Canaan; with your might and your valor ye shall not prevail nor go up against Israel, said I Deborah in prophecy before the Lord. I will sing praise and bless before Yahweh the God of Israel.”

The later prophets are more paraphrastic as a whole than the earlier, as having more passages with poetic metaphors in them — a fact that is made plain to anyone by the greater space occupied in the rabbinic Bibles by the Targums of the Prophets. A marked example of this tendency to amplify is to be found in Jeremiah 10:11: “Thus shall ye say unto them, The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, these shall perish from the earth, and from under the heavens.” As this verse is in Aramaic it might have been thought that it would have been transferred to the Targum unchanged, but the Targumist has made of the 10 words of the original text 57. Sometimes these expansions may be much shorter than the above example, but are illuminative, showing the views held by the Jewish teachers. In Isaiah 29:1, “Ho Ariel, Ariel, the city where David encamped!” the Targum has “Woe to the altar, the altar which David built in the city in which he dwelt.” In this rendering we see the Jewish opinion that “Ariel,” which means “lion of God,” in this connection stood for the “altar” which David erected in Jerusalem. It seems unlikely that this whole Targum was the work of one writer, but the style gives little indication of difference. The paraphrase of the synagogal [haphTaroth] being traditional, the style of the person who committed it to writing had little scope. The language represents naturally an older stage of development than we find in the contemporary Christian lectionaries. As only portions of the Prophets were used in synagogue worship, only those portions would have a traditional rendering; but these fixed the style. In the Revised Version (British and American) of the Apocrypha the 70 verses which had been missing from 2 Esdras 7 are translated in the style adopted by the translators under King James. It is impossible to fix the date at which the Targum of any of the prophetic books was written down. It is probable that it was little if at all after that of Onqelos. The completion of the paraphrases of the prophetic writings, of which only portions were used in the synagogue, seems to imply that there were readers of the Aramaic for whose benefit those Targums were made. (3) Hagiographa: Psalms, Job and Proverbs (a) The Meghilloth The Targums of the third division of the Hebrew sacred writings, the [Kethubhim] (the Hagiographa), are ascribed to Joseph Caecus, but this is merely a name. There is no official Targum of any of the Hagiographa, and several of them, Daniel, Nehemiah and Ezra, as above noted, have no Targum at all. Those of the longer books of this class, Psalms, Proverbs and Job, are very much closer to the text than are the Targums of the Meghilloth. In the Psalms, the paraphrase is explanatory rather than simply expansive. Thus in Psalm 29:1, “ye sons of the mighty” is rendered “ye companies of angels, ye sons of the mighty.” Psalm 23 is further from the text, but it also is exegetic; instead of “Yahweh is my shepherd, I shall not want,” the Targum reads, “The Lord nourished His people in the wilderness so that they lacked nothing.” So the last clause of the last verse of this psalm is, “‘I shall indeed dwell in the house of the holiness of the Lord for the length of days.” Another example of exegesis is Psalm 46:4, in which the “river whose streams make glad the city of our God” is explained as “the nations as rivers making glad the city of Yahweh.” Much the same may be said of Job, so examples need not be given.

The Targum of Proverbs has been very much influenced by the Peshitta; it may be regarded as a Jewish recension of it. Those of the five Meghilloth, as they are called, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentation, Ecclesiates, and Esther, are excessively paraphrastic. If one compare the space occupied by the text of Canticles and Proverbs, it will be found that the former occupies about one-sixth of the latter; if the Targums of the two books are compared in Lagarde’s text, the Canticles are two-thirds of Proverbs. So Lamentations occupies in the Massoretic Text less than a quarter the space which Proverbs occupies; but the Targum of Lain is two-fifths the size of the Targum of Proverbs. Ruth has not suffered such a dilatation; in the text it is a fifth, in the Targum a fourth, the size of Proverbs. The expansion mainly occurs in the first verse in which ten different famines are described.

Ecclesiates in the Massoretic Text uses about three-eighths of the space occupied by Proverbs. This is increased to five-sixths in the Targum. There are two Targums of Esther, the first about five-sixths the size of Proverbs, the second, nearly double. The text is under one-half. We subjoin the Targum of Lamentations 11 from Mr. Greenup’s translation: Jeremiah the prophet and high priest said: “How is it decreed against Jerusalem and against her people that they should be condemned to exile and that lamentation should be made for them? How? Just as Adam and Eve were condemned who were ejected from the garden of Eden and over whom the Lord of the universe lamented. How? God the judge answers and speaks thus: `Because of the multitude of the sins which were in the midst of her, therefore she will dwell alone as the man in whose flesh is the plague of leprosy dwells alone! And the city that was full of crowds and many people hath been deserted by them and become like a widow. And she that was exalted among the peoples and powerful among the provinces, to whom they paid tribute, hath been scattered abroad so as to be oppressed and to give tribute to them after this.” This gives a sufficient example of the extent to which expansion can go. Verse 1 of Esther in the first Targum informs us that the cessation of the work of building the Temple was due to the advice of Vashti, and that she was the daughter of Evil-merodach, the son of Nebuchadnezzar, and a number of equally accurate pieces of information. Yet more extravagant is the 2nd Targum; it begins by asserting that there are ten great monarchs of whom Achhashverosh was the 6th, the Greek and Roman were the 7th and the 8th, Messiah the king the 9th, and the Almighty Himself the 10th. It evidently has no connection with the first Targum. (b) Chronicles The Targum of Chronicles, although late, is modeled on the Targums of Jonathan ben Uzziel. In cases where the narrative of Chronicles runs parallel with that of Samuel the resemblance is very great, even to verbal identity at times. The differences sometimes are worthy of note, as where in 1 Chronicles 21:2, instead of “Dan” the Targum has “Pameas” (Paneas), which affords an evidence of the lateness of this Targum. In the rabbinic Bible, Chronicles appear, as do Ezra, Nehemiah and Daniel, without a parallel Targum. (4) The Non-official Targums — Jonathan ben Uzziel and the Pentateuch There is a Targum on the Pentateuch attributed to Jonathan ben Uzziel which is very paraphrastic. Fragments of another closely related Targum have been preserved, known as the Jerusalem Targum. In face the two may really be regarded as different recensions of the same Targum. It is supposed that some manuscript was denominated simply “the targum of J,” which, really being the initial representing, “Jerusalem,” was taken as representing Jonathan. At the end of each of the books of the Pentateuch is is stated that this Targum is the “targum Yerushalmi” Of the two the Yerushalmi is the longer. Both assert that five signs accompanied Jacob in his stay in Haran: the time was shortcried; the distance was shortened; the four stones for his pillow became one; his strength was increased so that with his own arm he moved the stone covering the well which it took all the shepherds to move; the water gushed from the well all the days he dwelt in Haran. But the narrative of ben Uzziel is expanded to nearly twice the length in the Yerushalmi. This Targum may be regarded as to some extent semi-official. 7. USE OF THE TARGUMS:

As the Targums appear to have been committed to writing after the Massoretic Text was fixed, textual differences are few and unimportant.

Kohn mentions that in a few cases Onqelos agrees with the Samaritan against the Massoretic Text; they are, however, few, and possibly may be explained by differences of idiom, though from the slavish way in which Onqelos follows the Hebrew text this is improbable. The Palestine Targum agrees with the Samaritan and the versions in adding “Let us go into the field” in Genesis 4:8. The main benefit received from the Targums is the knowledge of the views of the Jewish rabbis as to the meaning of certain passages Thus in Genesis 49:10 there is no doubt in the mind of the Targumist that “Shiloh” refers to the Messiah. Some other cases have been noted above. The frequency with which the word of the Lord ([mimera’ yeya’]) is used in Onqelos as equivalent to [YHWH], as Genesis 3:8, “They heard the voice of the word of the Lord God,” [mimera’ dheyeya’ ‘Elohim], requires to be noted from its bearing on Christian theology.

There is a peculiar usage in Genesis 15:1: [YHWH] says to Abraham, “Fear not, Abram, my word ([mimera’]) shall help thee.” Pharaoh is represented as using this periphrasis: “The word of the Lord ([mimera’ yeya’]) be for your help when I send away you and your little ones” ( Exodus 10:10). A striking use of this phrase is to be found in Deuteronomy 33:27, where instead of “Underneath are the everlasting arms,” we have “By His word the world was made.” This is at once seen to resemble the usage of Philo and the apostle John. As the Targums had not been committed to writing during the lifetime of either of these writers, it might be maintained that the Targumists had been influenced by Philo.

This, however, does not follow necessarily, as both apostle and philosopher would have heard the Targum of the Law recited Sabbath after Sabbath from their boyhood, and the phrase [mimera’ yeya’] would remain in their memory. The Targums of the pseudo-Jonathan and that of Jerusalem have a yet more frequent use of the term. Edersheim has counted 176 occurrences of the phrase in Onqelos and 321 in that of the pseudo- Jonathan and in the fragments of the Yerushalmi 99. This is made the more striking by the fact that it rarely occurs in the rest of Scripture. In Am 1:2, instead of “Yahweh .... will utter his voice from Jerusalem,” we have “From Jerusalem will He lift up His word” ([memerih]). The usual equivalent for the prophet’s formula “the word of the Lord” is [pithgam YHWH]. An example of the usage before us may be found in Psalm 56:4,10: “In the righteousness of the judgment of God will I praise his word” ([memerih]). There was thus a preparation for the Christian doctrine of the Trinity imbedded in the most venerated Targum, that of the Law.

LITERATURE.

The text of the official Targums is to be found in every rabbinic Bible.

Berliner has published a careful, vocalized edition of Onqelos. The Prophets and the Hagiographa have been edited by Lagarde, but unvocalized. For the language Peterrnann’s grammar in the Porta Linguarum Orientalium is useful. Levy’s Chaldaisches Woterbuch is very good. Jastrow’s Diet. of the Targumim is invaluable. Brextorf’s Lexicon Talmudicum supplies information not easily available elsewhere. The Targums on the Pentateuch have been translated by Etheridge. There is an extensive literature on this subject in German. In English the different Bible Dictionaries. may be consulted, especially McClintock, DB, HDB, EB, etc.

The article in Encyclopedia Brit is worthy of study, as also naturally that in the Jewish Encyclopedia. J. E. H. Thomson TARPELITES <tar’-pel-its > ( ay´l;P]r”F” [Tarpelaye’] (Ezr 4:9)): Various theories have been advanced as to the identity of the Tarpelites. Rawlinson suggested the Tuplai, which name appears in the inscriptions as equivalent to the Greek [ Tibarhnoi>, Tibarenoi ], a tribe on the coast of Pontus.

Hitzig located them in Tripolis in Northern Phoenicia. The latest theory emends the text to ay;r”s]p]fi [Tiphceraya’], “tablet-writers” (from the Assyrian dup sarru); compare Schrader, Schrader, The Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testament, on Jeremiah 51:27.

TARSHISH <tar’-shish > ( vyvir”T” [tarshish]): (1) Eponym of a Benjamite family ( 1 Chronicles 7:10); [ JRamessai>, Rhamessai ], A and Lucian, [ Qarsei>v, Tharseis ] (2) One of the “seven princes” at the court of Ahasuerus ( Esther 1:14 Massoretic Text). (3) The Hebrew name of a precious stone ( Ezekiel 10:9 margin, English Versions of the Bible “beryl”; Exodus 28:20; 39:13; Ezekiel 1:16; 28:13; Song of Solomon 5:14; Daniel 10:6). See STONES, PRECIOUS.

TARSHISH, NAVY (SHIPS) OF See SHIPS AND BOATS, II, 1, (2).

TARSUS <tar’-sus > ([ Tarso>v, Tarsos ], ethnic [ Tarseu>v, Tarseus ]) : 1. SITUATION:

The chief city of Cilicia, the southeastern portion of Asia Minor. It lay on both banks of the river Cydnus, in the midst of a fertile alluvial plain, some 10 miles from the seacoast. About 6 miles below the city the river broadened out into a considerable lake called Rhegma (Strabo xiv.672), which afforded a safe anchorage and was in great part fringed with quays and dockyards. The river itself, which flowed southward from the Taurus Mountains with a clear and swift stream, was navigable to light craft, and Cleopatra, when she visited Antony at Tarsus in 38 BC, was able to sail in her richly decorated barge into the very heart of the city (Plut. Ant. 26).

The silting-up of the river’s mouth seems to have resulted in frequent floods, against which the emperor Justinian (527-65 AD) attempted to provide by cutting a new channel, starting a short distance North of the city, to divert the surplus water into a watercourse which lay to the East of Tarsus. Gradually, however, the original bed was allowed to become choked, and now the Cydnus flows wholly through Justinian’s channel and passes to the East of the modern town. Two miles North of Tarsus the plain gives way to low, undulating hills, which extend to the foothills of Taurus, the great mountain chain lying some 30 miles North of the city, which divides Cilicia from Lycaonia and Cappadocia. The actual frontierline seems to have varied at different periods, but the natural boundary lies at the Cilician Gates, a narrow gorge which Tarsian enterprise and engineering skill had widened so as to make it a wagon road, the chief highway of communication and trade between Cilicia and the interior of Asia Minor and one of the most decisive factors in Anatolian history.

Eastward from Tarsus ran an important road crossing the Sarus at Adana and the Pyramus at Mopsuestia; there it divided, one branch running southeastward by way of Issus to Antioch on the Orontes, while another turned slightly northward to Castabala, and thence ran due East to the passage of the Euphrates at Zeugma. Thus the fertility of its soil, the safety and convenience of its harbor and the command of the main line of communication between Anatolia and Syria or Mesopotamia combined to promote the greatness of Tarsus, though its position was neither a healthful or a strong one and the town had no acropolis. 2. FOUNDATION LEGENDS:

Of the foundation of the city various traditions were current in antiquity, and it is impossible to arrive any certain conclusion, for such foundation legends often reflected the sympathies and wishes of a city’s later population rather than the historic facts of its origin. At Anchiale, about miles Southeast of Tarsus, was a monument commonly known as the tomb of Sardanapalus, king of Assyria, bearing an inscription “in Assyrian letters” stating that that monarch “built Anchiale and Tarsus in a single day” (Strabo xiv. 672; Arrian Anab. ii.5). The statement of Alexander Polyhistor, preserved by Eusebius (Chron. i, p. 27, ed Schoene), that Sennacherib, king of Nineveh (705-681 BC), rounded the city, also ascribes to it an Assyrian origin.

On the other hand, the Greeks had their own traditions, claiming Tarsus as a Greek or semi-Gr foundation. Strabo says that it owed its rise to the Argives who with Triptolemus wandered in search of Io (xiv.673), while others spoke of Heracles or Perseus as the founder. It must be admitted that these tales, taken by themselves, give us little aid. 3. TARSUS UNDER ORIENTAL POWER:

Ramsay believes that Tarsus existed from time immemorial as a native Cilician settlement, to which was added, at some early date unknown to us, a body of Ionians, which migrated from the western coast of Asia Minor under the auspices and direction of the oracle of Clarian Apollo near Colophon. The earliest historical record of the town is found on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser, about 850 BC, where it figures among the places captured by that king. It is thus proved that Tarsus already existed at that remote date. For many centuries it remained an oriental rather than a Hellenic city, and its history is almost a blank. After the fall of the Assyrian empire, Cilicia may have regained its independence, at least partially, but it subsequently became a province of the Persian empire, paying to the Great King an annual tribute of 260 white horses and 500 talents of silver (Herodotus iii.90) and contributing considerable fleets, when required, to the Persian navy. From time to time we hear of rulers named Syennesis, who appear to have been vassal princes in a greater or less degree of dependence upon the oriental empires. Two clear glimpses of the city are afforded us, thanks to the passage through it of Hellenic troops engaged upon eastern expeditions. Xenophon (Anab. i.2, 21 ff) tells how, in 40l BC, Cyrus the Younger entered Cilicia on his famous march against his brother Artaxerxes, and how some of his Greek mercenaries plundered Tarsus, which is described as a great and prosperous city, in which was the palace of King Syennesis. The king made an agreement with Cyrus, who, after a delay of 20 days, caused by the refusal of his troops to march farther, set out from Tarsus for the Euphrates. Again, in 333 BC, Alexander the Great passed through the Cilician Gates on his way to Issus, where he met and routed the Persian army under Darius III. Arsames, the satrap of Cilicia, failed to post a sufficient force at the pass, the garrison fled without resistance and Alexander thus entered the province without striking a blow.

The Persians thereupon set fire to Tarsus, but the timely arrival of the Macedonian advance guard under Parmenio saved the city from destruction. A bath in the cold waters of the Cydnus which Alexander took while heated with his rapid advance brought on a fever which all but cost him his life (Arrian Anab. ii.4; Q. Curtius Hist. Alex. iii.4 f) For two centuries Tarsus had been the capital of a Persian satrapy, subject to oriental rather than to Hellenic influence, though there was probably a Hellenic element in its population, and its trade brought it into touch with the Greeks. The Cilician coins struck at Tarsus confirm this view. Down to Alexander’s conquest, they ordinarily bear Aramaic legends, and many of them show the effigy of Baal Tarz, the Lord of Tarsus; yet, these coins are clearly influenced by Greek types and workmanship. 4. TARSUS UNDER GREEK SWAY:

Alexander’s overthrow of the Persian power brought about a strong Hellenic reaction in Southeastern Asia Minor and must have strengthened the Greek element in Tarsus, but more than a century and a half were to elapse before the city attained that civic autonomy which was the ideal and the boast of the Greek polis . After Alexander’s death in 323 BC his vast empire was soon dismembered by the rivalries and wars of his powerful generals. Cilicia ultimately fell under the rule of the Seleucid kings of Syria, whose capital was Antioch on the Orontes. Though Greeks, they inherited certain features of the old Persian policy and methods of rule; Cilicia was probably governed by a satrap, and there was no development within it of free city life. Early in the 2nd century, however, came a change. Antiochus III, defeated by the Romans in the battle of Magnesia (190 BC), was forced to evacuate most of his possessions in Asia Minor. Cilicia thus became a frontier province and gained greatly in importance. The outcome was the reorganization of Tarsus as an autonomous city with a coinage of its own, which took place under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164), probably in 171 BC. It is at this time that Tarsus is first mentioned in the Bible, unless we are to accept the disputed identification with TARSHISH (which see). In 2 Macc 4:30 f we read that, about 171 “it came to pass that they of Tarsus and Mallus made insurrection, because they were to be given as a present to Antiochis, the king’s concubine. The king therefore came to Cilicia in all haste to settle matters.” That this settlement took the form of a compromise and the grant to Tarsus of at least a municipal independence we may infer from the fact that Tarsus struck its own coins from this reign onward. At first they bear the name of Antioch on the Cydnus, but from the death of Antiochus this new appellation falls into disuse and the old name reasserts itself. But it is almost certain that, in accordance with Seleucid policy, this reorganization was accompanied by the enlargement of the citizen body, the new citizens in this case consisting probably of Jews and Argive Greeks. From this time Tarsus is a city of Hellenic constitution, and its coins no longer bear Aramaic but Greek legends. Yet it must be remembered that there was still a large, perhaps a preponderating, native and oriental element in the population, while the coin types in many cases point to the continued popularity of non-Hellenic cults. 5. TARSUS IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE:

About 104 BC part of Cilicia became a Hem province, and after the Mithridatic Wars, during which Tarsus fell temporarily into the hands of Tigranes of Armenia, Pompey the Great reorganized the eastern portion of the Hem Empire (64-63 BC), and Tarsus became the capital of a new and enlarged province, administered by Hem governors who usually held office for a single year. Thus we find Cicero in command of Cilicia from the summer of 51 BC to the summer of the following year, and though he expressly mentions Tarsus only rarely in his extant letters of this period (e.g. Ad Art. v.20,3; Ad Faro. ii.17,1), yet there is reason to believe that he resided there during part of his year of office. Julius Caesar passed through the city in 47 BC on his march from Egypt to Pontus, and was enthusiastically received. In his honor the name Tarsus was changed to Juliopolis, but this proved no more lasting than Antioch on the Cydnus had been. Cassius temporarily overawed it and imposed on it a crushing fine, but, after the overthrow of the republican cause at Philippi and the assignment of the East to Antony’s administration, Tarsus received the position of an independent and duty-free state (civitas libera et immunis) and became for some time Antony’s place of residence. This privileged status was confirmed by Augustus after the victory of Actium had made him sole master of the Roman Empire (31 BC). It did not by itself bestow Roman citizenship on the Tarsinas, but doubtless there were many natives of the city to whom Pompey, Caesar, Antony and Augustus granted that honor for themselves and, as a consequence, for their descendants. 6. THE UNIVERSITY:

It is under the rule of Augustus that our knowledge of Tarsus first becomes fairly full and precise, Strabo, writing about 19 AD, tells us (xiv.673 ff) of the enthusiasm of its inhabitants for learning, and especially for philosophy.

In this respect, he says, Tarsus surpasses Athens and Alexandria and every other university town. It was characterized by the fact that the student body was composed almost entirely of natives, who, after finishing their course, usually went abroad to complete their education and in most cases did not return home, whereas in most universities the students were to a large extent foreigners, and the natives showed no great love of learning.

Alexandria, however, formed an exception, attracting a large number of foreign students and also sending out many of its younger citizens to other centers. In fact, adds Strabo, Rome is full of Tarsians and Alexandrians.

Among the famous men who learned or taught at Tarsus, we hear of the Stoics Antipater, Archedemus, Nestor, Athenodorus surnamed Cordylion, the friend and companion of the younger Marcus Cato, and his more famous namesake (called Canaanites after the village of his birth), who was the tutor and confidant of Augustus, and who subsequently reformed the Tarsian constitution. Other philosophers of Tarsus were Nestor, a representative of the Academy, and tutor of Marcellus, Augustus’ nephew and destined successor, and of Tiberius, Plutiades and Diogenes; the latter was also famous as an improvisatore, and indeed the Tarsians in general were famed for their ease and fluency in impromptu speaking. Artemidorus and Diodorus the grammarians and Dionysides the tragic poet, a member of the group of seven writers known as “the Pleiad,” complete Strabo’s list of eminent Tarsians. A less attractive view of the life in Tarsus is given by Philostratus in his biography of Apollonius of Tyana, who went there to study in the early part of Tiberius’ reign (14-37 AD). So disgusted was he by the insolence of the citizens, their love of pleasure and their extravagance in dress, that he shook the dust of Tarsus off his feet and went to Aegae to pursue his studies in a more congenial atmosphere (Vit.

Apollon. i.7). But Strabo’s testimony is that of a contemporary and an accurate historian and must outweigh that of Philostratus, whose work is largely tinged with romance and belongs to the early years of the 3rd century AD. 7. THE TARSIAN CONSTITUTION:

Strabo also tells us something of an important constitutional reform carried out in Tarsus under the Emperor Augustus, probably about 15-10 BC.

Athenodorus Canaanites, the Stoic, returned to his city as an old man, after some 30 years spent at Rome, armed with authority from the emperor to reform abuses in its civic life. He found the constitution a democracy, swayed and preyed upon by a corrupt clique headed by a certain Boethus, “bad poet and bad citizen,” who owed his position partly to his ready and persuasive tongue, partly to the favor of Antony, whom he had pleased by a poem composed to celebrate the victory of Philippi. Athenodorus sought at first to mend matters by argument and persuasion, but, finding Boethus and his party obdurate, he at length exercised his extraordinary powers, banished the offenders and remodeled the constitution, probably in a timocratic mold, restricting the full citizenship to those possessed of a considerable property qualification. On his death, his place as head of the state was taken for a while by the academic philosopher Nestor (Strabo xiv.674 f). Next to Strabo’s account our most valuable source of information regarding Tarsus is to be found in the two orations of Dio Chrysostom addressed to the Tarsians about 110 AD (Orat. xxxiii, xxxiv; see Jour. Hell. Studies, XXIV, 58 ff). Though admitting that the city was an Argive colony, he emphasized its non-Hellenic character, and, while criticizing much in its institutions and manners, found but a single feature to commend, the strictness with which the Tarsian women were veiled whenever they appeared in public. 8. PAUL OF TARSUS:

Such was Tarsus, in which Paul was born ( Acts 22:3) and of which he was a citizen ( Acts 9:11; 21:39). Its ancient traditions and its present greatness explain and justify the pride with which he claimed to be “a citizen of no mean city” ( Acts 21:39). It is probable that his forefathers had been among the Jews settled at Tarsus by Antiochus Epiphanes, who, without sacrificing nationality or religion, became citizens of a community organized after the Greek model. On what occasion and for what service Roman civitas had been conferred on one of Paul’s ancestors we cannot say; this only we know, that before his birth his father had possessed the coveted privilege ( Acts 22:28). It is a fascinating, but an elusive, quest to trace in Paul’s life and writings the influence of his Tarsian ancestry, birth and early life. Jerome, it is true, claims that many Pauline words and phrases were characteristic of Cilicia, and some modern scholars profess to find traces, in the apostle’s rhetoric and in his attitude toward pagan religion and secular learning, of Tarsian influence. But such speculations are likely to be misleading, and it is perhaps best to admit that, save in the trade learned by Paul, which was characteristic of his birthplace, we cannot with any precision gauge the effects of his early surroundings. At the same time it is certain that the character of his native city, its strong oriental element, its Greek constitution and speech, its position in the Roman Empire, its devotion to learning, must have made an impression upon one who, uniting Jewish nationality with membership of a Greek state and Roman citizenship, was to be the great interpreter to the Greco-Roman world of a religion which sprang from the soil of Judaism. How long Paul remained at Tarsus before beginning his studies in Jerusalem we cannot say. His own declaration that he was “born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city” ( Acts 22:3) seems to show that his training at Jerusalem began at an early age, and is inconsistent with the supposition that he was one of those Tarsian students who, after studying at their native university, completed their education abroad. During his first visit to Jerusalem after his conversion, plots were formed against his life, and he was induced to return to Tarsus ( Acts 9:30), where, according to Ramsay’s chronology, he remained for some 8 years. Thither Barnabas went to seek him when he felt the need of a helper in dealing with the new problems involved in the growth of the Antiochene church and the admission into it of Gentiles in considerable numbers ( Acts 11:25). Tarsus is not again mentioned in the New Testament, but Paul doubtless revisited it on his second missionary journey, when he “went through Syria and Cilicia” ( Acts 15:41), and traveled thence by way of the Cilician Gates into Lycaonia, and again at the beginning of his third journey when, after some time spent at Antioch, “he departed, and went through the region of Galatia, and Phrygia, in order” ( Acts 18:23). 9. LATER HISTORY:

This is not the place to discuss in detail the later history of Tarsus, many passages of which are obscure and difficult. It remained a focus of imperial loyalty, as is indicated by the names Hadriane, Commodiane, Severiane and others, which appear, isolated or conjoined, upon its coins, together with the title of metropolis and such epithets as “first,” “greatest,” “fairest.”

Indeed it was chiefly in the matter of such distinctions that it carried on a keen, and sometimes bitter, rivalry, first with Mallus and Adana, its neighbors in the western plain, and later with Anazarbus, the chief town of Eastern Cilicia. But Tarsus remained the capital of the district, which during the 1st century of the empire was united with Syria in a single imperial province, and when Cilicia was made a separate province Tarsus, as a matter of course, became its metropolis and the center of the provincial Caesar-worship, and, at a later date, the capital of “the three eparchiae,”Cilicia, Isauria and Lycaonia. Toward the close of the 4th century Cilicia was divided into two, and Tarsus became the capital of Cilicia Prima only. Soon after the middle of the 7th century it was captured by the Arabs, and for the next three centuries was occupied by them as their northwestern capital and base of operations against the Anatolian plateau and the Byzantine empire. In 965 it was recaptured, together with the rest of Cilicia, by the emperor Nicephorus Phocas, but toward the close of the following century it fell into the hands of the Turks and afterward of the Crusaders. It was subsequently ruled by Armenian princes as part of the kingdom of Lesser Armenia, and then by the Memluk sultans of Egypt, from whom it was finally wrested by the Ottoman Turks early in the 16th century. The modern town, which still bears the ancient name in the slightly modified form Tersous, has a very mixed population, numbering about 25,000, and considerable trade, but suffers from its unhealthful situation and the proximity of large marshy tracts. Few traces of its ancient greatness survive, the most considerable of them being the vast substructure of a Greco-Roman temple, known locally as the tomb of Sardanapalus (R. Koldewey in C. Robert, Aus der Anomia, 178 ff).

LITERATURE.

The best account of Tarsus will be found in W. M. Ramsay, The Cities of Paul (London, 1907), 85-244; the same writer’s articles on “Cilicia, Tarsus and the Great Taurus Pass” in the Geographical Journal, 1903, 357 ff, and on “Tarsus” in HDB should also be consulted, as well as H. Bohlig, Die Geisteskultur yon Tarsos im augusteischen Zeitalter (Gottingen, 1913). For inscriptions see LeBas-Waddington, Voyage archeologique, III, numbers 1476 ff; Inscr. Graec. ad res Roman. pertinetes, III, 876 ff. For coins, B.

V. Head, Historia Numorum2, 729 ff; G. F. Hill, British Museum Catalogue of Coins: Lycaonia, Isauria and Cilicia, lxxvi ff, 162 ff. M. N. Top TARTAK <tar’-tak > ( qT;r]T” [tartaq]): In 2 Kings 17:31 mentioned as the name of an idol of the Avvites, one of the peoples sent by Shalmaneser to the cities of Samaria. It is otherwise unknown.

TARTAN <tar’-tan > ( ˆT;r”T” [tartan]): For a long time the word was interpreted as a proper name, but the Assyrian inscriptions have shown it to be the title of a high official. From the eponym lists it would seem that it was the title of the highest official next to the king, which in a military empire like Assyria would be the “commander-in-chief.” The Assyrian form of the name is tartanu or turtanu. In both Old Testament passages the reference is to a military officer. In Isaiah 20:1 it is used of the officer sent by Sargon, king of Assyria, against Ashdod; according to 2 Kings 18:17, Sennacherib sent Tartan and RABSARIS (which see) and RABSHAKEH (which see) with a great host against Jerusalem. The names of the-two officials are not known. F. C. Eiselen TASKMASTER <task’-mas-ter.> ( sme rc” [sar mac], “chief of the burden” or “levy” ( Exodus 1:11); cg´nO [noghes], “distress,” “driver,” “oppressor,” “raiser of taxes,” “taskmaster” ( Exodus 3:7; 5:6,10,13,14)): Officials of this class seem to have been officially appointed by Pharaoh for the purpose of oppressing the Israelites and subduing their spirits, lest they seek complete independence or organize a rebellion against the government ( Exodus 1:11). The condition of the Israelites at this time became one of complete vassalage or slavery, probably owing to the fact that the Hyksos were driven out and a new dynasty was established, which knew nothing of Joseph and his people. Frank E. Hirsch TASSEL <tas’-’l > ( txiyxi [tsitsith]): This word occurs only in Numbers 15:38 (Revised Version margin), which reads “tassels in the corners” for “fringes in the borders of their garments” (the King James Version).

It is probable that the dress of the Palestinian peasant has undergone little change in the centuries since the occupation of the land by the Hebrews.

His outer garment, worn for protection against cold and rain, is the [simlah] of Exodus 22:26, now known as ‘abayah by the Arabs. It is a square cloak, with unsewn spaces for armholes, and is composed of either three or four widths of woven stuff. The outer strips of the stuff, folded back and sewn at the upper edges, form shoulder-straps. It was to such a garment as this that the injunctions of Numbers 15:37-41 and of Deuteronomy 22:12 applied. See FRINGES.

W. Shaw Caldecott TASTE <tast > (Hebrew µ[“F” [Ta`am], “the sense of taste,” “perception,” from µ[“F; [Ta`am], “to taste,” “to perceive”; Aramaic µ[ef] [Te`em], “flavor,” “taste” (of a thing); Hebrew _]je [chekh], “palate,” “roof of the mouth” = “taste”; [geu>omai, geuomai ]; noun [geu~siv, geusis ]; in 2 Macc 7:1 the verb is [ejfa>ptomai, ephaptomai ]): (1) LITERAL: (a) Gustation, to try by the tongue: “The taste ([ta`am]) of it [manna] was like wafers made with honey” ( Exodus 16:31); “Doth not the ear try words, even as the palate ([chekh]) tasteth ([Ta`am]) its food?” ( Job 12:11); “Belshazzar, while he tasted (literally, “at the taste of,” [Te`em]) the wine, commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels which Nebuchadnezzar his father had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem; that the king and his lords, his wives and his concubines, might drink therefrom” ( Daniel 5:2). (b) “To sample,” “to eat but a small morsel”: “I did certainly taste ([Ta`am]) a little honey with the end of the rod that was in my hand; and, lo, I must die” ( 1 Samuel 14:43). (2) FIGURATIVE: “To experience,” “to perceive”: “Oh taste and see that Yahweh is good” ( Psalm 34:8; compare 1 Peter 2:3); “How sweet are thy words unto my taste!” (margin “palate,” [chekh]) ( <19B9103> Psalm 119:103); “That by the grace of God he should taste of death for every man” ( Hebrews 2:9); “For as touching those who were once enlightened and tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the age to come .... “ ( Hebrews 6:4,5). H. L. E. Luering TATTENAI <tat’-e-ni > ( yn’T]T” [tattenay], various forms in the Septuagint; the King James Version Tatnai, tat’ni, tat’na-i’): A Persian governor, who was the successor of Rehum in Samaria and some other provinces belonging to Judah, bordering on Samaria. He governed the provinces during the reign of Darius Hystaspis and Zerubbabel (Ezr 5:3,6; 6:6,13). He was friendly to the Jews, and when he heard adverse reports from Jerusalem he suspended judgment till he had investigated the matter on the ground, and then reported to the Persian government in a very moderate manner. In 1 Esdras 6:3,7,27; 7:1 he is called “Sisinnes.” S. L. Umbach TATTLER <tat’-ler > : Only in 1 Timothy 5:13 for [flu>arov, phluaros ]. A “silly talker,” rather than a “revealer of secrets,” is meant.

TAV <tav > . See TAW.

TAVERNS, THREE <tav’-ernz > : Three Taverns (Latin Tres Tabernae, Greek transliterates treis tabernai; Cicero Ad Att. i.13; ii.12, 13) was a station on the Appian Road at the 33rd milestone (301/3 English miles from Rome), according to the Itineraries of the Roman Empire (Itin. Ant. vii; Tab. Peut.; Geogr. Rav. iv.34), a converging point of traffic at the crossing of a road from Antium to Norba. Tripontium, 6 miles down the Appian Road in the direction of Appii Forum, was reckoned as the point where the highway entered the region of the Pontiac marshes, the most notable natural feature of this part of Italy.

Parties of the Christian brethren in Rome went out to greet the apostle Paul when news was brought that he had arrived at Puteoli, one group proceeding as far as Appii Forum, while another awaited his coming at Three Taverns ( Acts 28:15). George H. Allen TAW <tau > ( T “t”, t “th”): The 22nd letter of the Hebrew alphabet; transliterated in this Encyclopedia with the [daghesh] as “t”, and as “th” without. It came also to be used for the number 400. For name, etc., see ALPHABET . See also FOREHEAD; MARK.

TAX; TAXING <taks > , <taks’-ing > :

I. INTRODUCTION. 1. General Considerations: Taxation, in the sense of regular, graduated imposts levied by authority upon wealth, whether in the form of flocks and herds, tilled lands or accumulated treasure, is a comparatively late product of social evolution.

The beginnings of this trouble-breeding institution are, of course, very ancient. If in the beginning all wealth was common wealth, all property vested in the family or tribe, making any kind of levies unnecessary, with the rise of individualism, the prorata setting aside, for common uses, of certain possessions held as private property by individuals, which is the essence of taxation, is inevitable. With the advent of more advanced civilization, by which is meant fixed residence, systematic use and cultivation of defined and limited territory, established political organization centering in rulers of one kind or another, regular taxation must necessarily have begun. Throughout history the burden of taxation has kept pace with the elaboration of the machinery of government; kings, courts, ceremonials, legislative and judicial administration, wars, diplomacy — all these institutions spell expense and, consequently, taxation. In a very real sense, the history of taxation is the history of civilization. 2. Limits of the Discussion: In following the history of taxation in the Bible, two lines of development are to be noted: Israel’s internal history when left to herself, and her experiences as tributary to successive conquerors. These two lines of experience form the main divisions of this article. We shall confine ourselves so far as possible to the civil aspects of the subject, leaving for others those interesting problems of taxation connected with the origin and development of the priestly legislation. See TITHE etc.

II. TAXES IN ISRAEL UNDER SELF-GOVERNMENT.

In the first glimpses of the ancestors of the Hebrew people given us in the Bible, no such institution as taxation appears. 1. In the Earliest Period: Like all primitive communities, the nomadic Hebrews had no regular system of taxation nor use for any. Voluntary presents were given by the less to the more powerful in return for protection or other advantages.

These are really ominous words, for even as late as the United Kingdom, when, of a certainty, the voluntary element had long since gone out the royal income was spoken of, with perhaps unconscious irony as “presents” ( 1 Samuel 10:27; 1 Kings 4:21; 10:25). One great tap-root of the whole after-development of systematic taxation is to be found in this primitive custom of giving presents ( Genesis 32:13-21; 33:10; 43:11).

The transition is so fatally easy from presents voluntarily given to those which are expected and finally to those which are demanded ( 2 Kings 16:8; compare 17:4, where the King James Version has “presents”).

The first evidence of what corresponds to compulsory taxation discoverable in the Bible is in connection with the conquered Canaanites who were compelled to serve under tribute, that is, to render forced labor ( Joshua 16:10; 17:13; Judges 1:28-35). In the early custom of making presents to the powerful and in the exactions laid upon conquered peoples, with the necessary public expense of community life as the natural basis, we have the main sources of what grew to be institutional taxation. 2. Under the Theocracy; in the Period of the Judges: The only fixed impost under theocracy which has a semi-civil character was the so-called “atonement money” ( Exodus 30:11-16), really a poll-tax amounting to a half-shekel for each enrolled male member of the community above 20 years of age. The proceeds of this tax were to be used for the service of the Tent of Meeting (see TABERNACLE). It seems to have been levied by the authorities and accepted by the people whenever faithfulness to the ordinances of Yahweh was the order of the day ( Chronicles 24:4-14; Nehemiah 10:32; note here the emphasis laid upon the offering as voluntary, and the variation in amount from one-half to onethird shekel). In later times this tax was devoted to the service of the temple, and was paid by Jews at a distance during the Dispersion. Josephus speaks of the large amounts accruing to the temple-treasury from this source (Ant., XIV, vii, 2). It was still collected as the distinctive temple-tax levied upon the citizen as such ( Matthew 17:24). It is interesting to note that Jesus paid it under protest and with one of the most distinctive of His miracles, on the ground of His being the founder and head of a new temple, and hence, not subject to the impost which was the badge of citizenship in the old order.

The period of the Judges was too disorganized and chaotic to exhibit many of the characteristics of a settled mode of procedure. As far as we know the only source of public moneys was the giving of presents. If the action of Gideon ( Judges 8:24) is to be taken as indicating the ordinary policy of the period, the judges received nothing. more than a share of the spoil taken in battle. The account emphasizes, evidently with purpose, the fact that Gideon proffers a request ( Judges 8:24), and that the people respond freely and gladly. 3. Under the Kings: As was to be expected, taxation assumes far greater prominence the moment we cross the threshold of the kingdom. 1 Samuel 8:10-18 is equally significant for our purpose whether it was, as appears on the face of the narrative, the actual words of warning uttered by Samuel in view of the well-known attitude of kings in general, or a later recension from the viewpoint of experience. In either case, the passage gives us a fairly exhaustive list of royal prerogatives. Aside from various forms of public and private service, the king would take (note the word) the best of the vineyards, etc., together with a tenth of the seed and of the flocks. The underlying principle, suggested by Samuel’s summary and fully exemplified in the actions of Israel’s kings, is that the king would take what he needed for his public and private needs from the strength and substance of his people. Constitutional laws regulating the expenditure of public funds and the amount of exactions from the people in taxation seem never to have been contemplated in these early monarchies. The king took what he could get; the, people gave what they could not hold back. The long battle for constitutional rights has centered from the beginning about the matter of taxation.

In 1 Samuel 10:27 (compare 2 Chronicles 17:5) the case cited of worthless fellows who brought Saul no present clearly shows that fealty to the new king was expressed in the giving of presents. The refusal to make these so-called presents was an act of constructive treason, so interpreted by the writer, who mentions Saul’s silence in the premises as something notable. It is evident that the word “present” has become euphemistic. In 1 Samuel 17:25 exemption from taxation is specifically mentioned, together with wealth and marriage into the royal family, as one element in the reward to be obtained for ridding Israel of the menace of Goliath.

In David’s time an unbroken series of victories in war so enriched the public treasury (see 2 Samuel 8:2,7,8) that we hear little of complaints of excessive taxation. If David’s census was for fiscal purposes ( Samuel 24:2), we can understand why he was so severely dealt with for it, but the matter is still obscure. David’s habit of dedicating spoil to Yahweh ( 2 Samuel 8:10-12) kept the sacred treasury well supplied. Solomon undoubtedly inherited David’s scale of public expense ( 1 Chronicles 27:25-31) and added to it through his well-developed love of luxury and power. At the same time the cessation of war made the development of internal resources for carrying on his ambitious schemes imperative. The boundaries of his kingdom are specified ( 1 Kings 4:21 (Hebrew 5:1)) together with the amount of his income ( 1 Kings 10:14,28; compare 2 Kings 3:4). It is also stated that other kingdoms paid tribute to him.

His system of fiscal administration was very thoroughly organized. He put the whole country under twelve officers (to specify one feature) whose business was to provide, by months, provisions for the court ( 1 Kings 4:7-19). Under Solomon also, for the first time, so far as we know, Israelites were compelled to render forced labor ( 1 Kings 5:13-17). By the end of his reign the burden of taxation had become so severe that in the public address made to Rehoboam the people demanded a lightening of the “grievous service” of Solomon as the condition of their fealty to his successor. Rehoboam’s foolish answer of defiance precipitated the separation of the tribes which proved in the end so disastrous. During the period of prophetic activity which follows, one recurring specification in the denunciations uttered by the prophets against the kings was the excessive burden of taxation imposed upon the people. Amos speaks of “exactions of wheat taken from the poor” (5:11; compare 2:6-8). In 7:1 he incidentally refers to a custom which has grown up of rendering to the king the first mowings of grass. Isaiah speaks of eating up the vineyards and taking the spoil of the poor (3:14). Micah, with even greater severity, denounces rulers “who eat the flesh of my people” (3:1-4). These citations are sufficient to show that all through the later monarchy the Israelites suffered more or less from official rapacity and injustice.

III. TAXES IN ISRAEL UNDER CONQUERORS. 1. Under the Assyrians and Babylonians: During the reign of Menahem, who-succeeded Jeroboam II as king of Israel, the Assyrian invasion under Tiglath-pileser III (Biblical “Pul,” Kings 15:19) began. The one act of Menahem (aside from his general sinfulness) which is specified in 2 Kings 15:17-22, the remainder of his unedifying career being left to the Chronicles of the kings of Israel, is that he bought off the Assyrian conqueror by a tribute of a thousand talents which he obtained by mulcting men of wealth in his kingdom to the extent of fifty talents each. A little later, Ahaz of Judah sent a present to the same ruler. He took the novel method of robbing the temple-treasury and adding the sum thus gained to the accumulations at hand in the royal treasury.

Both these kings were somewhat original in their methods. Hoshea of Israel, a contemporary of Ahaz, was reduced to tribute; later, upon his neglect to pay, he was put in prison ( 2 Kings 17:4). A little later still, Jehoahaz, the son of Josiah, was deposed by Pharaoh-necoh, who placed a tribute upon the land of a hundred talents of silver and one of gold ( Kings 23:31-33). Jehoiakim, the puppet king, raised this tribute by a special tax upon the people ( 2 Kings 23:34,35). This latter passage is especially interesting because it seems to indicate ( 2 Kings 23:35 f) a graduated system of taxation supposedly honored more often in the breach than in the observance. This same unfortunate Jehoiakim came under the heavy hand of Nebuchadnezzar ( 2 Kings 24:1-7). This latter ruler seems not to have levied a special tribute, at least it is not mentioned; but reimbursed himself for the expenses of conquest by carrying away to Babylon the vessels of the temple ( 2 Chronicles 36:7). 2. Under the Persians: In Ezr 4:13, a part of a letter addressed to Artaxerxes by officials “west of the river” (see whole passage Ezr 4:7-24) who were hostile to the Jews, it is charged that in the event of rebuilding the city the inhabitants would not pay “tribute, custom, or toll.” These three words, which are evidently combined in a formula and indicate three distinct classes of taxes, are interesting as being characteristic of the Persian period.

The three words are: (1) hD;mi [middah] = “tribute” (Ezr 4:13,10; compare Nehemiah 5:4, where the expression is “king’s tribute”); (2) wOlB] [belo] = according to Gesenius under the word: “tax on articles consumed” or “excise”. (HDB “impost”) (Ezr 4:13,10; 7:24); (3) _]l;h\ [halakh] = “road-toll” or “custom tax” (Ezr 4:13,10; 7:24).

These Assyrian words are to be contrasted with the words used elsewhere: (1) sm” [mac] = “forced labor” ( 1 Kings 5:13 (Hebrew 5:27); compare ut sup. Joshua 16:10; 17:13; Judges 1:28,30,33,35; Deuteronomy 20:11; Esther 10:1); (2) ac;m” [massa’] = “burden” ( 2 Chronicles 17:11); (3) sk,m, [mekhec] =“measure,” used of tribute exacted for Yahweh, taken from people, cattle, and spoil, etc. ( Numbers 31:25-31). From this enumeration and comparison it will be seen that the Hebrew had no general word corresponding to the English word “tax.”

To return to the situation in the Persian period, it is evident that the Persian rulers exacted practically the same classified tributes, direct and indirect, that are found elsewhere. It is recorded that Artaxerxes, in response to the letter of his officers in Palestine (Ezr 4:21), stopped the work of the rebuilding of Jerusalem in anticipation of the refusal of the Jewish leaders to pay taxes. The work was resumed in the 2nd year of Darius under the protection of a royal decree which gave to the Jewish authorities a sufficient amount from the “tribute beyond the river” to finish without delay.

Artaxerxes, in addition to his generous gifts, exempted the priests and temple-servants from all taxation (Ezr 7:24). In the days of Nehemiah a serious condition arose. The king’s tribute was so heavy that the Jewish common people were compelled to borrow money upon mortgages, and in so doing fell into the hands of usurers of their own people, by whom they were so impoverished as to be compelled to sell their sons and daughters into slavery ( Nehemiah 5:1-13). In addition to the royal tribute, they were forced to support the governors who were entitled to bread, wine and forty shekels of silver annually ( Nehemiah 5:14,15). In the prayer offered on the fast day (Nehemiah 9) it was asserted that their burdens of taxation were so heavy that they were servants in their own land ( Nehemiah 9:36,37). 3. Under the Ptolemies and Seleucid Kings: The Ptolemies, who practically controlled Palestine from 301 to 218 BC, do not appear to have been excessive in their demands for tribute (twenty talents for Jews (Ant., XII, iv, 1) seems no great amount), but the custom which they introduced, or at least established, of farming the taxes to the highest bidder, introduced a principle which prevailed through all the subsequent history and was the cause of much popular suffering and discontent. The story of Joseph, the Jewis tax-collector (Ant., XII, iv, 1-5), who was for 23 years farmer-general of taxes for Palestine under Ptolemy Euergetes, and the cause of “a long train of disasters” is peculiarly significant for the student of the New Testament.

The conquest of Palestine by Antiochus the Great (202 BC) brought a certain amount of relief to the “storm-tossed” (Josephus) Jews of Palestine, as of old the buffer state between contending powers. According to Josephus (Ant., XII, iii, 3), Antiochus gave the Jews generous gifts in money, remitted their taxes for three years, and permanently reduced them one-third (see Kent’s discussion of the credibility of these statements, Historical Series for Bible Students, Babylonian, Persian, Greek Periods, 296).

That the Selucid kings were particularly severe in their exactions is clearly shown in the letter of Demetrius to the Jews, whose favor he was seeking in rivalry with Alexander Balas of Smyrna, the pretender to the Selucid throne (see 1 Macc 10:26-30; 11:34,35; 13:39; compare 11:28).

In this quoted letter Demetrius promises the following exemptions: from (1) “tributes” ([fo>roi, phoroi ] = “polltaxes”); (2) tax on salt; (3) crown taxes ([ste>fanoi, stephanoi ] = “crowns of gold” or their equivalents); (4) the tribute of one-third of the seed; (5) another of one-half of the fruit of the trees (1 Macc 10:29,30). This seems almost incredibly severe, but evidence is not lacking of its probability (Lange’s Commentary Apocrypha, edition 1901, 525). With Selcucus IV (187-176 BC) the Jews felt for the first time, indirectly but powerfully, the pressure of Rome. This disreputable ruler had to pay tribute to Rome as well as to find means whereby to gratify his own passion for luxury, and was correspondingly rapacious in the treatment of his subjects (2 Macc 3). 4. Under the Romans: During the early part of the Heroadian epoch, taxes were paid to the king and collected by officers appointed by him. This method which worked fairly well, at least under Herod the Great, had passed away before any books of the New Testament were written. After the deposition of Archelaus (6 AD), at the request of the Jews themselves, Judea was incorporated into the Roman empire and put under procurators who were in charge of all financial administration, although the tetrarchs still collected the internal taxes. This fact conditions all that is to be said about “tribute” and “publicans” in connection with the New Testament. It is to be noted first of all (a fact that is often overlooked by the student) that in the imperial era the direct taxes were not farmed out, but collected by regular imperial officers in the regular routine of official duty. The customs or tolls levied upon exports and imposts, and upon goods in the hands of merchants passing through the country, were sold to the highest bidders, who were called publicans.

With this distinction clearly in mind we may dismiss the subject of general taxation with the following remarks: First that the taxes in Judea went to the imperial treasury ( Matthew 22:17; Mark 12:14; Luke 20:22); second that these taxes were very heavy. These two facts explain why the question of paying tribute to Caesar, which our Lord was obliged to meet, was so burning an issue. It touched at once religious and financial interest — a powerful combination. In 7 AD, immediately after the appointment of Coponius as procurator, Quirinius (see Quirinius, New Testament Chronology, etc.) was sent to Judea to take a census ([ajpografh>, apographe ]) for the purpose of poll-tax ([kh~nsov, kensos ], [fo>rov, phoros ], or [ejpikefa>laion, epikephalaion ] ( Matthew 22:17; Mark 12:13,14; Luke 20:20 ff)). This census was the occasion for the bloody uprising of Judas of Gamala (or Galilee) ( Acts 5:37; compare Ant, XVIII, i 1, 6).As a matter of historical faxct this same census was the occasion of the final destruction of the Jewish commonwealth, for the fierce antagonism to Rome which was aroused at that time never died out until it was extingushed in blood,70 AD.

We are now free to discuss thos matters which center in a general way about the term “publican.” According to Stapfer (PTC, 215) this term ([telw>nhv, telones ]) is commonly used to cover several grades of minor officials engaged in the customs service. The word was extended in meaning from the publicanus, properly so called, the farmer-general of a province, to his subordinate local officils. The publicans of the New Testament “examined the goods and collected tolls on roads and bridges” (Stapfer, op. cit., 216; compare Matthew 9:9). These tolls (Latin, portoria; Greek [te>lh, tele ]) were collected in Palestine at Caesarea, Capernaum and Jericho (Josephus, BJ, II, xiv, 4). Those collected at Capernaum went into the treasury of Herod Antipas. At Jericho there was a chief publican ([ajrcitelw>nhv, architelones ]), but most of the publicans mentioned in the New Testament were probably subordinate to men higher in authority.

Sufficient cause for the unpopularity of publicans in New Testament times is not far seek. Hatred of paying duties seems to be ingrained in human nature. Customs officials are always unpopular. The method is necessarily inquisitorial. The man who opens one’s boxes and bundles to appraise the value of what one has, is at best a tolerated evil. In Judea, under the Roman system, all circumstances combined to make the publican the object of bitter hatred. He represented and exercised in immediate contact, at a sore spot with individuals, the hatred power of Rome. The tax itself was looked upon as an inherent religious wrong, as well as civil imposition, and by many the payment of it was considered a sinful act of disloyalty to God.

The tax-gatherer, if a Jew, was a renegade in the eyes of his patriotic fellows. He paid a fixed sum for the taxes, and received for himself what he could over and above that amount. The ancient and widespread curse of arbitrariness was in the system. The tariff rates were vague and indefinite (see Schurer, HJP, I, ii, 67 f). The collector was thus always under the suspicion of being an extortioner and probably was in most instances. The name was apt to realize itself. The unusual combination in a publican of petty tyrant, renegade and extortioner, made by circumstances almost inevitable, was not conductive to popularity. In the score of instances in the New Testament where publicans are mentioned, their common status, their place in the thought and action of Jesus, their new hope in the gospel are clearly set forth. The instances in which our Lord speaks of them are especially illuminating: (1) He uses them on the basis of the popular estimate which the disciples undoubtedly shared, to point in genial irony a reproach addressed to His hearers for their low standard of love and forgiveness ( Matthew 5:46,47). (2) He uses the term in the current combination in giving directions about excommunicating a persistently unrepentant member of the church ( Matthew 18:17). (3) He uses the term in the popular sense in describing the current condemnation of His attitude of social fellowship with them, and constructively accepts the title of “friend of publicans and sinners” ( Matthew 11:19; Luke 7:34). (4) Most significant of all, Jesus uses the publican, as He did the Samaritan, in a parable in which the despised outcast shows to advantage in an attitude acceptable to God ( Luke 18:9 ff).

This parable is reinforced by the statement, made more than once by our Lord, that the readiness to repent shown by the publicans and other outcasts usually found with them was more promising of salvation than the spiritual pride shown by some who were satisfied with themselves ( Luke 3:12; compare 7:29; Matthew 21:31,32; Luke 15:1). The choice of Levi as a disciple ( Matthew 10:3, etc.) and the conversion of Zaccheus ( Luke 19:8 f), of whom Jesus speaks so beautifully as a son of Abraham ( Luke 19:9), justified the characteristic attitude which our Lord adopted toward the despised class, about equally guilty and unfortunate. He did not condone their faults or crimes; neither did He accept the popular verdict that pronounced them unfit for companionship with the good and without hope in the world. According to the teaching and accordant action of jesus, no man or woman is without hope until the messenger of hope has been definitely rejected.

It is fitting, if somewhat dramatic, that a study of taxation — that historic root of bitterness periodically springing up through the ages — should end in comtemplation of Him who spoke to an outcast and guilty tax-collector ( Luke 19:10) the wonderful words: “The Son of man came to seek and to save that which was lost.” Louis Matthews Sweet TEACH; TEACHER; TEACHING <tech > , <tech’-er > , <tech’-ing > :

A rich variety of words is employed in the Bible to describe the teaching process. The terms do not so much indicate an office and an official as a function and a service, although both ideas are often expressed or implied.

I. OLD TESTAMENT TERMS. 1. Discipline: dm”l; [lamadh], “to beat”: A very common word for “to teach”; it may have meant “to beat with a rod,” “to chastise,” and may have originally referred to the striking and goading of beasts by which they were curbed and trained. By a noble evolution the term came to describe the process of disciplining and training men in war, religion and life ( Isaiah 2:3; Hosea 10:11; Micah 4:2). As teaching is both a condition and an accompaniment of disciplining, the word often means simply “to teach,” “to inform” ( 2 Chronicles 17:7; Psalm 71:17; Proverbs 5:13).

The glory of teaching was its harmony with the will of God, its source in God’s authority, and its purpose to secure spiritual obedience ( Deuteronomy 4:5,14; 31:12,13). 2. Law: hr;y: [yarah], “to cast”: The teaching idea from which the law was derived is expressed by a verb which means “to throw,” “to cast as an arrow or lot.” It is also used of thrusting the hand forth to point out or show clearly ( Genesis 46:28; Exodus 15:25). The original idea is easily changed into an educational conception, since the teacher puts forth new ideas and facts as a sower casts seed into the ground. But the process of teaching was not considered external and mechanical but internal and vital ( Exodus 35:34,35; 2 Chronicles 6:27). The nominal form is the usual word for law, human and divine, general and specific ( Deuteronomy 4:8; Psalm 19:8; Proverbs 1:8). The following are suggestive phrases: “the book of the law” ( Deuteronomy 28:61; Kings 22:8); “the book of the law of Moses” ( Joshua 8:31; 2 Kings 14:6); “the book of the law of God” ( Joshua 24:26); “the book of the law of Yahweh” ( 2 Chronicles 17:9). Thus even in the days of Joshua there was in the possession of the religious teachers a book of the Law of the Lord as given by Moses. This recorded revelation and legislation continued to be the divine norm and ultimate authority for priest, king and people ( 2 Chronicles 23:11; Nehemiah 8:1-3). 3. Discernment: ˆyB [bin], “to separate”: The word meaning “to separate,” “to distinguish,” is often used in a causative sense to signify “to teach.” The idea of teaching was not an aggregation of facts bodily transferred like merchandise. Real learning followed genuine teaching. This word suggests a sound psychological basis for a good pedagogy. The function of teaching might be exercised with reference to the solution of difficult problems, the interpretation of God’s will, or the manner of a godly life ( Daniel 8:16,26; Nehemiah 8:7-9; <19B934> Psalm 119:34). 4. Wisdom: lk”c; [sakhal], “to be wise”: The verb from which the various nominal forms for “wisdom” are derived means “to look at,” “to behold,” “to view,” and in the causative stem describes the process by which one is enabled to see for himself what had never before entered his physical or intellectual field of consciousness. The noun indicates a wise person or sage whose mission is to instruct others in the ways of the Lord ( Proverbs 16:23; 21:11; and often in the Wisdom literature). In Daniel 12:3 we read: “They that are wise (margin, “the teachers”) shall shine as the brightness of the firmament.” 5. Knowledge: [d”y: [yadha’], “to see” (compare [oi+da, oida ]): This verb literally means “to see” and consequently “to perceive,” “to know,” “to come to know,” and “cause to know or teach.” It describes the act of knowing as both progressive and completed. The causative conception signifies achievement in the sphere of instruction. It is used of the interpretation and application by Moses of the principles of the law of God ( Exodus 18:16,20), of the elucidation of life’s problems by the sages ( Proverbs 9:9; 22:19), and of constant Providential guidance in the way of life ( Psalm 16:11). 6. Illumination: [d”y: [zahar], “to shine”: This verbal root signifies “to shine,” and when applied to the intellectual sphere indicates the function of teaching to be one of illumination. Ignorance is darkness, knowledge is light. Moses was to teach the people statutes and laws, or to enlighten them on the principles and precepts of God’s revelation ( Exodus 18:20). The service rendered by the teachers — priests, Levites and fathers — sent forth by Jehoshaphat, was one of illumination in the twofold sense of instruction and admonition ( 2 Chronicles 19:8-10). 7. Vision: ha;r; [ra’-ah], “to see”: The literal meaning of this verb is “to see,” and the nominal form is the ancient name for prophet or authoritative teacher who was expected to have a clear vision of spiritual realities, the will of God, the need of man and the way of life ( 1 Samuel 9:9; Chronicles 9:22; 2 Chronicles 16:7 f; Isaiah 30:10). 8. Inspiration; ab;n: [nabha’], “to boil up”: The most significant word for “prophet” is derived from the verb which means “to boil up or forth like a fountain,” and consequently to pour forth words under the impelling power of the Spirit of God. The Hebrews used the passive forms of the verb because they considered the thoughts and words of the prophets due not to personal ability but to divine influence. The utterances of the prophets were characterized by instruction, admonition, persuasion and prediction ( Deuteronomy 18:15-22; Ezekiel 33:1-20). 9. Nourishment: h[;r; [ra`ah], “to feed a flock”: The name “shepherd,” so precious in both the Old Testament and the New Testament, comes from a verb meaning “to feed,” hence, to protect and care for out of a sense of devotion, ownership and responsibility. It is employed with reference to civil rulers in their positions of trust ( 2 Samuel 5:2; Jeremiah 23:2); with reference to teachers of virtue and wisdom ( Proverbs 10:21; Ecclesiastes 12:11); and preeminently with reference to God as the great Shepherd of His chosen people ( Psalm 23:1; Hosea 4:16). Ezekiel 34 presents an arraignment of the unfaithful shepherds or civil rulers; Psalm 23 reveals Yahweh as the Shepherd of true believers, and John 10 shows how religious teachers are shepherds under Jesus the Good Shepherd.

II. NEW TESTAMENT TERMS.

Further light is thrown upon religious teaching in Bible times by a brief view of the leading educational terms found in the New Testament. 1. Instruction: [dida>skw, didasko ], “to teach”: The usual word for “teach” in the New Testament signifies either to hold a discourse with others in order to instruct them, or to deliver a didactic discourse where there may not be direct personal and verbal participation. In the former sense it describes the interlocutory method, the interplay of the ideas and words between pupils and teachers, and in the latter use it refers to the more formal monologues designed especially to give information ( Matthew 4:23; Matthew through 7; 13:36 f; John 6:59; 1 Corinthians 4:17; 1 Timothy 2:12). A teacher is one who performs the function or fills the office of instruction.

Ability and fitness for the work are required ( Romans 2:20; Hebrews 5:12). The title refers to Jewish teachers (John 1:38), to John the Baptist ( Luke 3:12), to Jesus (John 3:2; 8:4, and often), to Paul ( 1 Timothy 2:7; 2 Timothy 1:11), and to instructors in the early church ( Acts 13:1; Romans 12:7; 1 Corinthians 12:28). Teaching, like preaching, was an integral part of the work of an apostle ( Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:15; Ephesians 4:1). 2. Acquisition: [manqa>nw, manthano ], “to learn”: The central thought of teaching is causing one to learn. Teaching and learning are not scholastic but dynamic, and imply personal relationship and activity in the acquisition of knowledge ( Matthew 11:29; 28:19; Acts 14:21). There were three concentric circles of disciples in the time of our Lord: learners, pupils, superficial followers, the multitude (John 6:66); the body of believers who accepted Jesus as their Master ( Matthew 10:42); and the Twelve Disciples whom Jesus also called apostles ( Matthew 10:2). 3. Presentation: [parati>qhmi, paratithemi ], “to place beside”: The presentative idea involved in the teaching process is intimately associated with the principle of adaptation. When it is stated that Christ put forth parables unto the people, the sacred writer employs the figure of placing alongside of, or near one, hence, before him in an accessible position. The food or teaching should be sound, or hygienic, and adapted to the capacity and development of the recipient ( Matthew 13:24; Mark 8:6; Acts 16:34; Corinthians 10:27; 2 Timothy 4:3; Hebrews 5:12-14). 4. Elucidation: [diermhneu>w, diermeneuo ], “to interpret”: In the walk to Emmaus, Christ explained to the perplexed disciples the Old Testament Scriptures in reference to Himself. The work of interpreter is to make truth clear and to effect the edification of the hearer ( Luke 24:27; 1 Corinthians 12:30; 14:5,13,17). 5. Exposition: [ejkti>qhmi, ektithemi ], “to place out”: The verb literally means “to set or place out,” and signifies to bring out the latent and secret ideas of a literary passage or a system of thought and life. Thus Peter interpreted his vision, Aquila and Priscilla unfolded truth to Apollos, and Paul expounded the gospel in Rome ( Acts 11:4; 18:26; 28:23). True teaching is an educational exposition. 6. Authority: [profh>thv, prophetes ], “one who speaks for”: A prophet was a man who spoke forth a message from God to the people. He might deal with past failures and achievements, present privileges and responsibilities, or future doom and glory. He received his message and authority from God ( Deuteronomy 18:15-22; Isaiah 6). The word refers to Old Testament teachers ( Matthew 5:12), to John the Baptist ( Matthew 21:26), to Jesus the Messiah ( Acts 3:25), and to special speakers in the Apostolic age ( Matthew 10:41; Acts 13:1; 1 Corinthians 14:29,37). 7. Care: [poimh>n, poimen ], “a shepherd”: The word for shepherd signifies one who tends a flock, and by analogy a person who gives mental and spiritual nourishment, and guards and supports those under his care ( Matthew 9:36; John 10:2,16; 1 Peter 2:25; Ephesians 4:11). Love is a fundamental prerequisite to the exercise of the shepherding function (John 21:15-18). The duties are to be discharged with great diligence and in humble recognition of the gifts and appointment of the Holy Spirit ( Acts 20:28). 8. Supervision: [ejpi>skopov, episkopos ], “an overseer”: The bishop or overseer was to feed and protect the blood-bought church of God ( Acts 20:28). Among the various qualifications of the religious overseers was an aptitude for teaching ( 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:9). The Lord is pre-eminently shepherd and bishop ( 1 Peter 2:25).

III. OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY. 1. In the Home: In the Jewish home the teaching of the law of the Lord was primarily incumbent upon the parents. The teaching was to be diligent, the conversation religious, and the atmosphere wholesome ( Deuteronomy 6:7-9). 2. In Public: Provision was also made for public instruction the law of God ( Deuteronomy 31:12,13). This is a compact summary of early Hebrew teaching in regard to the extent of patronage, the substance of instruction, and the purpose of the process. Samuel the judge and prophet recognized that his duty was fundamentally to pray, to God for his people and to teach the nation “the good and the right way” ( 1 Samuel 12:23). The glory and prosperity of Judah under Jehoshaphat were due in large measure to the emphasis he laid upon religious instruction as the basis of national character and stability. His peripatetic Bible school faculty consisted of five princes, nine Levites and two priests who effected a moral and religious transformation, for “they taught in Judah, having the book of the law of Yahweh with them” ( 2 Chronicles 17:7-9). The most striking illustration we have of public religious instruction in the Old Testament is found in Nehemiah 8. Ezra the priest and scribe was superintendent, and had an ample corps of teachers to instruct the multitude of men, women and children eager to hear. Prayer created a devotional atmosphere. The reading was distinct, the interpretation correct and intelligible. There was real teaching because the people were made to understand and obey the law. In Nehemiah 9 and 10 we have recorded the spiritual, ceremonial, social and civic effects of ancient religious instruction.

IV. EXTRA-BIBLICAL TEACHING.

The captivity gave mighty impulse to teaching. In far-away Babylon the Jews, deprived of the privilege and inspiration of the temple, established the synagogue as an institutional center of worship and instruction. During the latter part of the inter-Biblical period, religious teaching was carried on in the synagogue and attendance was compulsory, education in the Law being considered the fundmental element of national security (Deutsch, Literary Remains, 23; Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, I, 230). The Bible text alone was taught those from 5 to 10 years of age, the first lessons being taken from Leviticus (Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, 111). From 10 to 15 years of age the pupil was taught the substance of the Mishna or unwritten tradition, and accorded the privilege of entering into the discussions of the Mishna which constitute the Gemara (Edersheim, op. cit., I, 232). Selections of Scriptures like the shema ( Deuteronomy 6:4-9) were made for study, and lesson helps were adapted to the capacity of the pupils (Ginsburg, article “Education” in Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature). The significance of the teaching idea among the Jews is indicated by numerous expressions for school (article “Education,” Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature) and the prevalence of the synagogues, there being perhaps 480 in Jerusalem in the time of Christ (Hor. Heb. I, 78). The pupil was not expected to be a passive hearer but an active participant (Ab., vi.6; Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, 115 f).

Great emphasis was laid upon audible repetition and exact memory, yet the teacher was culpable if the pupil failed to understand the prescribed lesson (Hamburger, RE, II, 672, 674). The pupil was regarded as the child of his teacher (Sanhedhrin 19), which is a familiar idea in the New Testament.

The faithful teacher was considered destined to occupy a high seat among the ancients ( Daniel 12:3). The scribes were secretaries or copyists of the sacred Law, and would thus acquire at least an accurate verbal knowledge of its contents. Quite naturally they would become religious teachers ( Nehemiah 8:4). Hence, also their prominence in the New Testament. LITERATURE.

Article “Torah,” Jewish Encyclopedia (compare the articles “Talmud’’ and “Education”); Trumbull, Yale Lectures on the Sunday-School, 3-40; Hamburger. See Hauck-Herzog, Realencyklopadie fur protestantische Theologie und Kirche.

V. NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY. 1. Christ’s Life: In the New Testament we find that Jesus is pre-eminently the teacher, though He was also preacher and healer ( Matthew 4:23). His Sermon on the Mount was matchless teaching. He opened His mouth and “taught” ( Matthew 5:2). The titles “teacher,” “master,” “rabbi” all indicate the most prominent function of His active ministry. Even at the age of 12 years He revealed His wisdom and affinity in the midst of the rabbis or Jewish teachers of the Law in the temple ( Luke 2:41 f). In the power of the Spirit He taught so that all recognized His authority ( Luke 4:14,15; Matthew 7:29). He explained to the disciples in private what He taught the people in public ( Matthew 13:36). His principles and methods of teaching constitute the standard by which all true pedagogy is measured, and the ideal toward which all subsequent teachers have toiled with only partial success ( Matthew 7:28,29; John 1:49; 3:2; 6:46). In the Commission as recorded in Matthew 28:18,19,20 we have the work of Christianity presented in educational terms. We find the supreme authority (28:18), the comprehensive content — the evangelistic, the ceremonial, the educational, the practical (28:19 and 20a), and the inspiring promise (28:20b). 2. Apostolic Labors: The emphasis laid upon teaching in the Apostolic age is a natural consequence of the need of the people and the commands of Jesus. The practice of the apostles is quite uniform. They preached or proclaimed, but they also expounded. In Jerusalem the converts continued in the apostles’ teaching ( Acts 2:42); and daily in the temple and in the homes of the people the teaching was correlated with preaching ( Acts 5:42). In Antioch, the center of foreign missionary operations, Paul, Silas, Barnabas and many others taught the word of the Lord ( Acts 15:35). In Thessalonica, Paul and Silas for three weeks reasoned with the people out of the Scriptures, opening up the sacred secrets and proving to all candid minds that Jesus was the Messiah ( Acts 17:1-3). In Berea, instruction in the synagogue was followed by private study, and as a result many believed in the Lord ( Acts 17:10-15). In Athens, Paul discussed and explained the things of the kingdom of God, both in the synagogue 3 times a week and in the market daily ( Acts 17:16 f). In Corinth, Paul having been denied the use of the synagogue taught the word of the Lord for a year and a half in the house of Justus, and thus laid the foundation for a great church ( Acts 18:1-11). In Ephesus, Paul taught for 2 years in the school of Tyrannus, disputing and persuading the people concerning the kingdom of God ( Acts 19:8-10). In Rome, Paul expounded the word, testified to its truth, and persuaded men to accept the gospel ( Acts 28:23). His method of work in Rome under trying limitations is described as cordially receiving the people and preaching the kingdom of God, and “teaching the things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ” ( Acts 28:30,31). 3. General Considerations: The office of teacher is fundamentally related to the creation of a missionary atmosphere ( Acts 13:1). Religious teaching is necessary to the development of Christian character and the highest efficiency in service (1 Corinthians 12:4-11,28,29; Ephesians 4:11,12). The qualification of the pastor is vitally connected with the teaching function of the church. He is to hold the truth, or to be orthodox ( Titus 1:9), to apply the truth, or to be practical ( Titus 1:9), to study the truth, or to be informed ( Timothy 4:13,15), to teach the truth, or to be equipped or able and tactful ( 2 Timothy 2:2; 1 Timothy 3:2), to live the truth, or to be faithful in all things ( 2 Timothy 2:2; 1 Timothy 4:16). The teaching function of Christianity in the 2nd century became strictly official, thereby losing much of its elasticity. A popular manual for the guidance of religious teachers was styled the “Teaching of the Twelve” ‘(see DIDACHE ). The writings of the Apostolic Fathers give valuable information in regard to the exercise of the gifts of teaching in the early centuries (Didache xiii.2; xv. 1, 2; Barnabas 18; Ignatius to the Ephesians 31). See CATECHIST; EDUCATION; SPIRITUAL GIFTS.

Byron H. Dement TEAR BOTTLE See next article.

TEARS <terz > ( h[;m]DI [dim`ah]; [da>krua, dakrua ]): In the instances recorded in Scripture weeping is more frequently associated with mental distress than with physical pain. Eastern peoples show none of the restraint of emotion in lamentation which is characteristic of modern Occidentals, and there are many records of this manifestation of woe, even among men accustomed to hardships and warfare, such as David and his soldiers. The flow of tears is the evidence of sorrow in prospect of approaching death in Psalm 39:12; 2 Kings 20:5; Isaiah 38:5, and of the suffering consequent on oppression ( Ecclesiastes 4:1), or defeat in battle ( Isaiah 16:9), or hopeless remorse, as with Esau ( Hebrews 12:17, probably referring to Genesis 27:34). The Psalmist describes his condition of distress metaphorically as feeding on the bread of tears and having tears to drink ( Psalm 80:5; 42:3). Tears in the figurative sense of anxiety for the future are referred to in <19C605> Psalm 126:5; Mark 9:24 the King James Version, and the tears accompanying penitence in Luke 7:38 (44 the Revised Version margin). Jeremiah is sometimes called the “weeping prophet” on account of his expressive hyperbole in Jeremiah 9:1,18 (see also 14:7; 31:16; Lamentations 1:2; 2:11,18 and ten other passages).

Conversely the deliverance from grief or anxiety is described as the wiping away of tears ( <19B608> Psalm 116:8; Isaiah 25:8; Revelation 7:17; 21:4).

The expression in Psalm 56:8 in which the Psalmist desires that God should remember his wanderings and his tears has given rise to a curious mistake. There is a paronomasia in the passage as he pleads that God should record his wanderings (Hebrew, [nodh]) and that his tears should be put into God’s [no’-dh] (receptacle or bottle). [No’dh] literally means a leathern or skin bottle, as is evident from <19B983> Psalm 119:83 and Joshua 9:4-13. The request is obviously figurative, as there is no evidence that there was even a symbolical collection of tears into a bottle in any Semitic funeral ritual, and there is no foundation whatever for the modern identification of the long, narrow perfume jars so frequently found in late Jewish and Greek-Jewish graves, as “lachrymatories” or tear bottles. See BOTTLE.

Alexander Macalister TEAT <tet > ( dv” [shadh] ( Isaiah 32:12), dD” [dadh] ( Ezekiel 23:3,11)): In all these passages the Revised Version (British and American) has replaced the word by “breast” or “bosom,” both of which occasionally stand in poetical parallelism. The above passages in Ezekiel are to be understood figuratively of the inclination of Israel to connive at, and take part in, the idolatry of their neighbors. To “smite upon the breasts” ( Isaiah 32:12, where the King James Version translates wrongly “lament for the teats”) means “to mourn and grieve in the ostentatious way of oriental women.” See PAP.

TEBAH <te’-ba > ( jb”f, [tebhach]): A son of Nahor, the brother of Abraham ( Genesis 22:24).

TEBALIAH <teb-a-li’-a > , <te-bal’-ya > ( Why:l]b”f] [Tebhalyahu], “Yahweh hath dipped,” i.e. “purified”; Codex Vaticanus [ Tablai>, Tablai ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ Tabeli>av, Tabelias ]; Lucian, [ Tabeh>l, Tabeel ]): A Merarite gatekeeper. ( 1 Chronicles 26:11). The name should perhaps read WhY:biwOf [Tobhiyahu], “Yahweh is good” (possibly from whybwf [t-w-b-y-h-w] misread whylbf [Tebhalyahu]). See TOBIJAH.

TEBETH <te-beth’ > , <te’-beth > ( tbefe [tebheth]): The tenth month of the Jewish year, corresponding to January ( Esther 2:16). See CALENDAR.

TEHAPHNEHES <te-haf’-ne-hez > See TAHPANHES.

TEHINNAH <te-hin’-a > ( hN:jiT] [techinnah], “supplication”; Codex Vaticanus [ Qaima>n, Thaiman ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ Qana>, Thana ]; Lucian, [ Qeenna>, Theenna ]): “The father of the city Nahash” ( 1 Chronicles 4:12). The verse seems to refer to some post-exilic Jewish settlement, but is utterly obscure.

TEIL; TREE: <tel > the King James Version Isaiah 6:13 = the Revised Version (British and American) TEREBINTH (which see).

TEKEL <te’-kel > ( lqeT] [teqel]). See MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN.

TEKOA <te-ko’-a > ( [“wOqT] [teqoa’], or h[;wOqTi [ teqo`ah]; [ Qekw~e, Thekoe ]; the King James Version Tekoah; one of David’s mighty men, “Ira the son of Ikkesh,” is called a Tekoite, te-ko’-it ( y[wOqT] [teqo`i]; 2 Samuel 23:26; 1 Chronicles 11:28; 27:9; the “woman of Tekoa” [ 2 Samuel 14:2] is in Hebrew ty[iwOqT] [teqo`ith]; in Nehemiah 3:5 mention is made of certain Tekoites, te-ko’its [ µy[iwOqTi , teqo’im], who repaired part of the walls of Jerusalem): 1. SCRIPTURE REFERENCES:

From here came the “wise woman” brought by Joab to try and make a reconciliation between David and Absalom ( 2 Samuel 14:2 f); it was one of the cities fortified by Rehoboam ( 2 Chronicles 11:6; Josephus, Ant, VIII, ix, 1). The wilderness of Tekoa is mentioned ( 2 Chronicles 20:20) as the extreme edge of the inhabited area; here Jehoshaphat took counsel before advancing into the wilderness of Judea to confront the Ammonites and Moabites. In Jeremiah 6:1, we read, “Blow the trumpet in Tekoa and raise a signal in Beth-haccherim” — because of the enemy advancing from the North. Amos 1:1, one of the “herdsmen of Tekoa,” was born here.

In Joshua 15:59 (addition to verse in Septuagint only) Tekoa occurs at the beginning of the list of 11 additional cities of Judah — a list which includes Bethlehem, Ain Kairem and Bettir — which are omitted in the Hebrew. A Tekoa is mentioned as a son of Ashhur ( 1 Chronicles 2:24; 4:5).

Jonathan Maccabeus and his brother Simon fled from the vengeance of Bacchides “into the wilderness of Thecoe (the Revised Version (British and American) “Tekoah”) and pitched their tents (the Revised Version (British and American) “encamped”) by the water of the pool Asphar” (1 Macc 9:33). 2. LATER HISTORY:

Josephus calls Tekoa a village in his day (Vita, 75), as does Jerome who describes it as 12 miles from Jerusalem and visible from Bethlehem; he says the tomb of the prophet Amos was there (Commentary on Jeremiah, VI, 1). “There was,” he says, “no village beyond Tekoa in the direction of the wilderness.” The good quality of its oil and honey is praised by other writers. In the 6th century a monastery, Laura Nova, was founded there by Saba. In the crusading times Tekoa was visited by pious pilgrims wishing to see the tomb of Amos, and some of the Christian inhabitants assisted the Crusaders in the first siege of Jerusalem. In 1138 the place was pillaged by a party of Turks from the East of the Jordan, and since that time the site appears to have lain desolate and ruined, although even in the 14th century the tomb of Amos was still shown. 3. THE SITE OF TEQU`A:

The site is without doubt the Khirbet Tequ’a, a very extensive ruin, covering 4 or 5 acres, about 6 miles South of Bethlehem and 10 miles from Jerusalem, near the Frank Mountain and on the road to `Ain Jidy. The remains on the surface are chiefly of large cut stone and are all, apparently, medieval. Fragments of pillars and bases of good hard limestone occur on the top of the hill, and there is an octagonal font of rose-red limestone; it is clear that the church once stood there. There are many tombs and cisterns in the neighborhood of a much earlier period. A spring is said to exist somewhere on the site, but if so it is buried out of sight. There is a reference in the “Life of Saladin” (Bahaoddenus), to the “river of Tekoa,” from which Richard Coeur de Lion and his army drank, 3 miles from Jerusalem: this may refer to the Arab extension of the “low-level aqueduct” which passes through a long tunnel under the Sahl Tequ`a and may have been thought by some to rise there.

The open fields around Teqa’a are attractive and well suited for olive trees (which have now disappeared), and there are extensive grazing-lands. The neighborhood, even the “wilderness” to the East, is full of the flocks of wandering Bedouin. From the site, Bethlehem, the Mount of Olives and Nebi Samuel (Mizpah) are all visible; to the Northeast is a peep of the Jordan valley near Jericho and of the mountains of Gilead, but most of the eastern outlook is cut off by rising ground (PEF, III, 314, 368, Sh XXI). E. W. G. Masterman TEL-ABIB <tel-a’-bib > ( bybia; lTe , [tel ‘abhibh]; Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) ad acervum novarum frugum): 1. THE NAME AND ITS MEAINING:

As written in Hebrew, [Tel-abib] means “hill of barley-ears” and is mentioned in Ezekiel 3:15 as the place to which the prophet went, and where he found Jewish captives “that dwelt by the river Chebar.” That Telabib is written, as Fried. Delitzsch suggests, for Til Ababi, “Mound of the Flood” (which may have been a not uncommon village-name in Babylonia) is uncertain. Moreover, if the captives themselves were the authors of the name, it is more likely to have been in the Hebrew language. Septuagint, which has meteoros , “passing on high,” referring to the manner in which the prophet reached Tel-abib, must have had a different Hebrew reading. 2. THE POSITION OF THE SETTLEMENT:

If the Chebar be the nar Kabari, as suggested by Hilprecht, Tel-abib must have been situated somewhere in the neighborhood of Niffer, the city identified with the Calneh of Genesis 10:10. The tablet mentioning the river Kabaru refers to grain (barley?) seemingly sent by boat from Niffer in Nisan of the 21st year of Artaxerxes I. Being a navigable waterway, this was probably a good trading-center.

LITERATURE. See Hilprecht and Clay, Business Documents of Murasha Sons (“Pennsylvania Exp.,” Vol IX, 28); Clay, Light on the Old Testament from Babel, 405. T. G. Pinches TEL-HARSHA <tel-har’-sha > ( av;r”j”ÎlTe [tel-charsha’]): In Ezr 2:59; Nehemiah 7:61 (the King James Version in latter, “‘Telharesha,” tel-hare’sha, -har’e-sha), a Babylonian town or village from which Jews who could not show their lineage returned with Zerubbabel. The site is unknown. In 1 Esdras 5:36 it is called “Thelersas.”

TELAH <te’-la > ( jl”T, [telah]; Codex Vaticanus [ Qa>leev, Thalees ], Codex Alexandrinus [ Qa>le, Thale ]; Lucian, [a>la, Thala ]): An Ephraimite ( Chronicles 7:25).

TELAIM <te-la’-im > ( µyail;F]h” [ha-tela’-im] “the young lambs”; [ejn Gala>liov, en Galgalois ]): The place where Saul “summoned the people, and numbered them” ( 1 Samuel 15:4) before his attack on Agag, king of the Amalekites. Some authorities read “Telam” for “Havilah” in verse and also find this name in 1 Samuel 27:8 instead of [me`olam]. In Septuagint and Josephus (Ant., VI, vii, 2) Gilgal occurs instead of Telaim, on what ground is not known. Probably Telaim is identical with TELEM (which see), though the former may have been the name of a Bedouin tribe inhabiting the latter district. Compare Dhallam Arabs now found South of Tell el-Milch. E. W. G. Masterman TELASSAR <te-las’-ar > ( rc;al”T] [tela’-ssar] ( 2 Kings 19:12), rc;l”T] [telassar] ( Isaiah 37:12); Codex Alexandrinus [ Qalassa>r, Thalassar ]; Codex Vaticanus [ Qaesqe>n, Thaesthen ]; Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) Thelassar, Thalassar ): 1. THE NAME AND ITS MEANING:

This city, which is referred to by Sennacherib’s messengers to Hezekiah, is stated by them to have been inhabited by the “children of Eden.” It had been captured by the Assyrian king’s forefathers, from whose hands its gods had been unable to save it. Notwithstanding the vocalization, the name is generally rendered “Hill of Asshur,” the chief god of the Assyrians, but “Hill of Assar,” or Asari (a name of the Babylonian Merodach), would probably be better. 2. SUGGESTIONS AS TO THE GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION:

As Telassar was inhabited by the “children of Eden,” and is mentioned with Gozan, Haran, and Rezeph, in Western Mesopotamia, it has been suggested that it lay in Bit Adini, “the House of Adinu,” or Betheden, in the same direction, between the Euphrates and the Belikh. A place named Til-Assuri, however, is twice mentioned by Tiglath-pileser IV (Ann., 176; Slab-Inscr., II, 23), and from these passages it would seem to have lain near enough to the Assyrian border to be annexed. The king states that he made there holy sacrifices to Merodach, whose seat it was. It was inhabited by Babylonians (whose home was the Edinu or “plain”; see EDEN ).

Esarhaddon, Sennacherib’s son, who likewise conquered the place, writes the name Til-Asurri, and states that the people of Mihranu called it Pitanu.

Its inhabitants, he says, were people of Barnaku. If this be Bit Burnaki in Elam, extending from the boundary of Rasu (see ROSH ), which was ravaged by Sennacherib (Babylonians Chronicles, III, 10 ff), Til-Assuri probably lay near the western border of Elam. Should this identification be the true one, the Hebrew form [telassar] would seem to be more correct than the Assyrian Til-Assuri (-Asurri), which latter may have been due to the popular idea that the second element was the name of the national god Assur. See French Delitzsch, Wo lag das Paradies? 264. T. G. Pinches TELEM (1) <te’-lem > ( µl,f, [Telem]; [ Te>lem, Telem ]): A city in the Negeb “toward the border of Edom,” belonging to Judah ( Joshua 15:24). In Septuagint of 2 Samuel 3:12 Abner is said to send messengers to David at Thelam ([qaila>m, Thailam ]); this would seem to be the same place and also to be identical with the Telaim and Telam of Saul (see TELAIM ). It is probably the same as the Talmia of the Talmud (Neubauer, Geog. du Talmud, 121).

The site has not been recovered.

TELEM (2) ( µl,f, [Telem]; Septuagint Codex Vaticanus [ Te>lhm, Telem ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ Te>llhm, Tellem ]): One of three “porters” who had married foreign wives (Ezr 10:24), his name appearing as “Tolbanes” in 1 Esdras 9:25; perhaps the same as TALMON (which see).

TELL See TALE.

TELL EL-AMARNA; TABLETS <tel-el-a-mar’-na > , A collection of about 350 inscribed clay tablets from Egypt, but written in the cuneiform writing, being part of the royal archives of Amenophis III and Amenophis IV; kings of the XVIIIth Egyptian Dynasty about 1480 to 1460 BC. Some of the tablets are broken and there is a little uncertainty concerning the exact number of separate letters. 81 are in the British Museum = BM; 160 in the New Babylonian and Assyrian Museum, Berlin= B; 60 in the Cairo Museum = C; 20 at Oxford = O; the remainder, 20 or more, are in other museums or in private collections.

I. INTRODUCTION. 1. Name: The name, Tell el-Armarna, “the hill Amarna,” is the modern name of ancient ruins about midway between Memphis and Luxor in Egypt. The ruins mark the site of the ancient city Khut Aten, which Amenophis IV built in order to escape the predominant influence of the old religion of Egypt represented by the priesthood at Thebes, and to establish a new cult, the worship of Aten, the sun’s disk. 2. Discovery: In 1887 a peasant woman, digging in the ruins of Tell el-Amarna for the dust of ancient buildings with which to fertilize her garden, found tablets, a portion of the royal archives. She filled her basket with tablets and went home. How many she had already pulverized and grown into leeks and cucumbers and melons will never be known. This time someone’s curiosity was aroused, and a native dealer secured the tablets. Knowledge of the “find” reached Chauncey Murch, D.D., an American missionary stationed at Luxor, who, suspecting the importance of the tablets, called the attention of cuneiform scholars to them. Then began a short but intense and bitter contest between representatives of various museums on the one hand, eager for scientific material, and native dealers, on the other hand, rapacious at the prospect of the fabulous price the curious tablets might bring. The contest resulted in the destruction of some of the tablets by ignorant natives and the final distribution of the remainder and of the broken fragments, as noted at the beginning of this article. (see also Budge, History of Egypt, IV, 186). After the discovery of the tablets the site of the ancient city was excavated by Professor Petrie in 1891-92 (Tell el-Amarna; compare also Baedeker, Egypt). 3. Physical Character: The physical character of the tablets is worthy of some notice. They are clay tablets. Nearly all are brick tablets, i.e. rectangular, flat tablets varying in size from 2 X 2 1/2 in. to 3 1/2 X 9 inches, inscribed on both sides and sometimes upon the edges. One tablet is of a convex form (B 1601). The clay used in the tablets also varies much. The tablets of the royal correspondence from Babylonia and one tablet from Mitanni (B 153) are of fine Babylonian clay. The Syrian and Palestinian correspondence is in one or two instances of clay which was probably imported from Babylonia for correspondence, but for the most part these tablets are upon the clay of the country and they show decided differences among themselves in color and texture: in some instances the clay is sandy and decidedly inferior. A number of tablets have red points, a kind of punctuation for marking the separation into words, probably inserted by the Egyptian translator of the letters at the court of the Pharaoh. These points were for the purpose of assisting in the reading. They do now assist the reading very much. Some tablets also show the hieroglyphic marks which the Egyptian scribe put on them when filing them among the archives. The writing also is varied.

Some of the tablets from Palestine (B 328, 330, 331) are crudely written.

Others of the letters, as in the royal correspondence from Babylonia, are beautifully written. These latter (B 149-52) seem to have been written in a totally different way from the others; those from Western Asia appear to have been written with the stylus held as we commonly hold a pen, but the royal letters from Babylonia were written by turning the point of the stylus to the left and the other end to the right over the second joint of the first finger.

The results of the discovery of the Tell el-Amarna Letters have been farreaching, and there are indications of still other benefits which may yet accrue from them. The discovery of them shares with the discovery of the Code of Hammurabi the distinction of the first place among Biblical discoveries of the past half-century.

II. EPIGRAPHICAL VALUE 1.Peculiar Cuneiform Script: The peculiar use of the cuneiform method of writing in these tablets in order to adapt it to the requirements of a strange land having a native tongue, and the demands made upon it for the representation of proper names of a foreign tongue, have already furnished the basis for the opinion that the same cuneiform method of writing was employed originally in other documents, especially some portions of the Bible and much material for Egyptian governmental reports. It is not improbable that by means of such data furnished by the tablets definite clues may be obtained to the method of writing, and by that also approximately the time of the composition, of the literary sources that were drawn upon in the composition of the Pentateuch, and even of the Pentateuch itself (compare especially Naville, Archaeology of the Bible). 2. Method of Writing Proper Names: Most of the letters were probably written by Egyptian officers or, more frequently, by scribes in the employ of native appointees of the Egyptian government. The writing of so many proper names by these scribes in the cuneiform script has thrown a flood of light upon the spelling of Canaanite names by Egyptian scribes in the hieroglyphic inscriptions of Egypt. It is evident now that certainly some, perhaps most, of these scribes worked from cuneiform lists (Muller, Egyptological Researches, 1906, 40). As the system of representation of Palestinian names by Egyptian scribes becomes thus better understood, the identification of more and more of the places in Palestine named in the Egyptian inscriptions becomes possible. Every such identification makes more nearly perfect the identification of Biblical places, the first and most important item in historical evidence.

III. PHILOLOGLCAL VALUE. 1. Knowledge of Amorite, Hittite and Mitannian Tongues: No other literary discovery, indeed, not all the others together, have afforded so much light upon philological problems in patriarchal Palestine as the Tell el-Amarna Letters. Something is now really definitely known of “the language of Canaan,” the speech of the people of patriarchal days in Palestine. The remarkable persistence of old Canaanite words and names and forms of speech of these tablets down to the present time makes it plain that the peasant speech of today is the lineal descendant of that of Abraham’s day. The letters are in the Babylonian tongue modified by contact with the speech of the country, a kind of early Aramaic (Conder, The Tell Amarna Tablets, X; Dhorme, “La langue de Canaan,” Revue Biblique, Juillet, 1913, 369). There are also frequent Canaanite words inserted as glosses to explain the Babylonian words (Dhorme, op. cit.). 2. Persistence of Canaanite Names to the Present Time: The facts evinced by the persistence of the early Canaanite speech (compare 1, above) down through all the centuries to the peasant speech of Palestine of today furnishes a verification of the Biblical reference to the “language of Canaan” (lsa 19:18). That peasant speech is, as it manifestly has always been since patriarchal times, a Semitic tongue. Now, even so adventurous a work as a grammar of the ancient Canaanite language has been attempted, based almost entirely upon the material furnished by the Tell el-Amarna Letters (Dhorme, op. cit.), in which the speech of Palestine in patriarchal days is described as “ancient Canaanite or Hebrew.” 3. Verification of Biblical Statements concerning “the Language of Canaan”: Some more specific knowledge is also supplied by the Tell el-Amarna Letters concerning the Amorite language through the many Amorite names and the occasional explanations given in Amorite words (compare especially the 50 letters of Ribadda), and some knowledge of Hittite (Letter of Tarkhundara; Conder, The Tell Amarna Tablets, 225 f), concerning the Mitannian tongue (B 153, 190, 191, 233). One other tablet (B 342) is in an unknown tongue.

IV. GEOGRAPHICAL VALUE. 1. Political and Ethnological Lines and Locations There was a very wide international horizon in the days of the correspondence contained in the Tell el-Amarna Letters, a horizon that enclosed Egypt, Babylonia, Canaan, Mitanni and the land of the Hittites; but the more definite geographical information supplied by the tablets is limited almost entirely to the great Syrian and Canaanite coast land. There is difference of opinion concerning the identification of a few of the places mentioned, but about 90 have been identified with reasonable certainty. 2. Verification of Biblical and Egyptian Geographical Notices It is possible now to trace the course of the military operations mentioned in the Tell el-Amarna Letters with almost as much satisfaction as the course of a modern military campaign, and there is much verification also of Biblical and Egyptian geographical notices. 3. Confirmation of General Evidential Value of Ancient Geographical Notes of Bible Lands The identification of such a large number of places and the ability thus given to trace the course of historical movements in that remote age are a remarkable testimony to the historical value of ancient records of that part of the world, for accuracy concerning place is of first importance in historical records.

V. HISTORICAL VALUE.

The Tell el-Amarna Letters furnish an amount of historical material about equal in bulk to one-half of the Pentateuch. While much of this bears more particularly upon general history of the ancient Orient, there is scarcely any part of it which does not directly or indirectly supply information which parallels some phase of Biblical history. It is not certain that any individual mentioned in the Bible is mentioned in these tablets, yet it is possible, many think it well established, that many of the persons and events of the conquest period are mentioned (compare 4 (1) , below). There is also much that reflects the civilization of times still imperfectly understood, reveals historical events hitherto unknown, or but little known, and gives many sidelights upon the movements of nations and peoples of whom there is something said in the Bible. 1. Revolutionary Change of Opinion concerning Canaanite Civilization in Patriarchal Times A revolutionary change of opinion concerning the civilization of patriarchal Palestine has taken place. It was formerly the view of all classes of scholars, from the most conservative, on the one hand, to the most radical, on the other, that there was a very crude state of civilization in Palestine in the patriarchal age, and this entirely independent of, and indeed prior to, any demand made by the evolutionary theory of Israel’s history. Abraham was pictured as a pioneer from a land of culture to a distant dark place in the world, and his descendants down to the descent into Egypt were thought to have battled with semi-barbarous conditions, and to have returned to conquer such a land and bring civilization into it. All this opinion is now changed, primarily by the information contained in the Tell el-Amarna Letters and secondarily by incidental hints from Egyptian and Babylonian inscriptions now seen to support the high stage of civilization revealed in the Tell el-Amarna Letters (see ARCHAEOLOGY AND CRITICISM ). The tablets make mention of “ `capital cities,’ `provincial cities,’ `fortresses,’ `towns,’ and `villages’ with `camps’ and Hazors (or enclosures); while irrigation of gardens is also noticed, and the papyrus grown at Gebal, as well as copper, tin, gold, silver, agate, money (not, of course, coins) and precious objects of many kinds, mulberries, olives, corn, ships and chariots” (Conder, op. cit., 4).

The account of a bride’s marriage portion from Mitanni reveals conditions farther north: “Two horses, and a chariot plated with gold and silver, and adorned with precious stones. The harness of the horses was adorned in like manner. Two camel litters appear to be next noticed, and apparently variegated garments worked with gold, and embroidered zones and shawls.

These are followed by lists of precious stones, and a horse’s saddle adorned with gold eagles. A necklace of solid gold and gems, a bracelet of iron gilt, an anklet of solid gold, and other gold objects follow; and apparently cloths, and silver objects, and vases of copper or bronze. An object of jade or jasper and leaves of gold. .... Five gems of `stone of the great light’ (probably diamonds) follow, with ornaments for the head and feet, and a number of bronze objects and harness for chariots” (ibid., 188- 89). The record of Thothmes III concerning booty brought from Palestine fully confirms this representation of the tablets (Birch, Records of the Past, 1st ser., II, 35-52; compare Sayce, Archaeology of the Cuneiform Inscriptions, 156-57).

The Babylonian inscriptions show that Abraham was a part of an emigration movement from the homeland to a frontier province, having the same laws and much of the same culture (Lyon, American Oriental Society Journal, XXV, 254; Barton, American Philosophical Proceedings, LII, number 209, April, 1913, 197; Kyle, Deciding Voice of the Monuments in Biblical Criticism, chapter xv). The Egyptian sculptured pictures make clear that the civilization of Palestine in patriarchal times was fully equal to that of Egypt (compare Petrie, Deshasheh, plural IV).

That these things of elegance and skill are not merely the trappings of “barbaric splendor” is manifest from the revelation which the Tell el- Amarna Letters make of ethnic movements and of influences at work from the great nations on either side of Canaan, making it impossible that the land could have been, at that period, other than a place of advanced civilization. Nearly all the tablets furnish most unequivocal evidence that Egypt had imperial rule over the land through a provincial government which was at the time falling into decay, while the cuneiform method of writing used in the tablets by such a variety of persons, in such high and low estate, implying thus long-established literary culture and a general diffusion of the knowledge of a most difficult system of writing, makes it clear that the civilization of Babylonia had been well established before the political power of Egypt came to displace that of Babylonia. 2. Anomalous Historical Situation Revealed by Use of Cuneiform Script The displacement of Babylonian political power in Palestine just mentioned (1, above) points at once to a most remarkable historical situation revealed by the Tell el-Amarna Letters, i.e. official Egyptian correspondence between the out-lying province of Canaan and the imperial government at home, carried on, not in the language and script of Egypt, but in the script of Babylonia and in a language that is a modified Babylonian. This marks one step in the great, age-long conflict between the East and the West, between Babylonia and Egypt, with Canaan as the football of empires. It reveals — what the Babylonian inscriptions confirm — the long-preceding occupation of Canaan by Babylonia, continuing down to the beginning of patriarchal times, which had so given Canaan a Babylonian stamp that the subsequent political occupation of the land by Egypt under Thothmes III had not yet been able to efface the old stamp or give a new impression. 3. Extensive Diplomatic Correspondence of the Age The extensive diplomatic correspondence between nations so widely separated as Egypt on the West, and Babylonia on the East, Mitanni on the North, and the Hittite country on the Northwest, is also shown by the Tell el-Amarna Letters. In addition to the large number of letters between Canaan and Egypt, there are quite a number of these royal tablets: letters from Kadashman Bell, or Kallima-Sin (BM 29784), and Burna-burias of Babylonia (B 149-52), Assur-uballidh of Assyria and Dusratta of Mitanni (B 150, 191-92, 233), etc. There seems at first sight a little pettiness about this international correspondence that is almost childish, since so much of it is occupied with the marriage of princesses and the payment of dowers, and the exchange of international gifts and privileges (Budge, History of Egypt, IV, 189-90). But one might be surprised at the amount of such things in the private correspondence of kings of the present day, if access to it could be gained. The grasping selfishness also revealed in these tablets by the constant cry for gold is, after all, but a less diplomatic and more frank expression of the commercial haggling between nations of today for advantages and concessions. 4. Unsolved Problem of the Habiri The subject of greatest historical interest in Biblical matters presented by the Tell el-Amarna Letters is the great, unsolved problem of the Habiri.

Unsolved it is, for while every writer on the subject has a very decided opinion of his own, all must admit that a problem is not solved upon which there is such wide and radical difference of opinion among capable scholars, and that not running along easy lines of cleavage, but dividing indiscriminately all classes of scholars. (1) One view very early advanced and still strongly held by some (Conder, op. cit., 138-44) is that Habiri is to be read `Abiri, and means the Hebrews.

It is pointed out that the letters referring to these people are from Central and Southern Palestine, that the Habiri had some relation with Mt. Seir, that they are represented as contemporaneous with Japhia king of Gezer, Jabin king of Hazor, and probably Adonizedek king of Jerusalem, contemporaries of Joshua, and that certain incidental movements of Israel and of the people of Palestine mentioned in the Bible are also mentioned or assumed in the tablets (Conder, op. cit., 139-51). In reply to these arguments for the identification of the Habiri with the Hebrews under Joshua, it may be noted that, although the letters which speak of the Habiri are all from Central or Southern Palestine, they belong to very nearly the same time as the very numerous letters concerning the extensive wars in the North. The distinct separation of the one set of letters from the other is rather arbitrary and so creates an appearance which has little or no existence in fact. Probably these southern letters refer to the same disturbances spreading from the North toward the South, which is fatal to theory that the Habiri are the Hebrews under Joshua, for these latter came in from the Southeast. The reference to Seir is obscure and seems rather to locate that place in the direction of Carmel (Conder, op. cit., 145). The mention of Japhia king of Gezer, and Jabin king of Hazor, does not signify much, for these names may be titles, or there may have been many kings, in sequence, of the same name. Concerning Adonizedek, it is diffcult to believe that this reading of the name of the king of Jerusalem would ever have been thought of, except for the desire to identify the Habiri with the Hebrews under Joshua. This name Adonizedek is only made out, with much uncertainty, by the unusual method of translating the king’s name instead of transliterating it. If the name was Adonizedek, why did not the scribe write it so, instead of translating it for the Pharaoh into an entirely different name because of its meaning? The seeming correspondences between the letters and the account of the conquest in the Bible lose much of their significance when the greater probabilities raised in the names and the course of the wars are taken away. (2) Against the view that the Habiri were the Hebrews of the Bible may be cited not only these discrepancies in the evidence presented for that view (compare (1) , above), but also the very strong evidence from Egypt that the Exodus took place in the Ramesside dynasties, thus not earlier than the XIXth Dynasty and probably under Merenptah, the successor of Rameses II. The name Rameses for one of the store cities could hardly have occurred before the Ramesside kings. The positive declaration of Rameses II: “I built Pithom,” against which there is no evidence whatever, and the coincidence between the Israel tablet of Merenptah (Petrie, Six Temples at Thebes, 28, pls. XIII-XIV) and the Biblical record of the Exodus, which makes the 5th year under Merenptah to be the 5th year of Moses’ leadership (see MOSES ), make it very difficult, indeed seemingly impossible, to accept the Habiri as the Hebrews of the conquest. (3) Another view concerning the Habiri, strongly urged by some (Sayce, The Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments, 175 ff), is that they are Habiri, not `Abiri, and that the name means “confederates,” and was not a personal or tribal name at all. The certainty that there was, just a little before this time, an alliance in conspiracy among the Amorites and others, as revealed in the tablets for the region farther north, gives much color to this view. This opinion also relieves the chronological difficulties which beset the view that the Habiri were the Biblical Hebrews (compare (2) , above), but it is contended that this reading does violence to the text. (4) Another most ingenious view is advanced by Jeremias (The Old Testament in the Light of the Ancient East, 341), that the name is Habiri, that “the name answers to the sounds of `Hebrews,’ and that the names are identical,” but that this name in the Tell el-Amarna Letters is not a proper name at all, but a descriptive word, as when we read of “Abraham the Hebrew,” i.e. the “stranger” or “immigrant.” Thus Habiri would be “Hebrews,” i.e. “strangers” or “immigrants” (see HEBERITES; HEBREW ), but the later question of the identification of these with the Hebrews of the Bible is still an open question. (5) It may be that the final solution of the problem presented by the Habiri will be found in the direction indicated by combining the view that sees in them only “strangers” with the view that sees them to be “confederates.”

There were undoubtedly “confederates” in conspiracy against Egypt in the time of the Tell el-Amarna Letters. The government of Egypt did not come successfully to the relief of the beleaguered province, but weakly yielded.

During the time between the writing of the tablets and the days of Merenptah and the building of Pithom no great strong government from either Egypt or Babylonia or the North was established in Palestine. At the time of the conquest there is constant reference made to “the Hittites and the Amorites and the Perizzites,” etc. Why are they so constantly mentioned as a group, unless they were in some sense “confederates”? It is not impossible, indeed it is probable, that these Hittites and Amorites and Perizzites, etc., Palestinian tribes having some kind of loose confederacy in the days of the conquest, represent the last state of the confederates,” the conspirators, who began operations in the Amorite war against the imperial Egyptian government recorded in the Tell el-Amarna Letters, and, in the correspondence from the South, were called in those days Habiri, i.e. “strangers” or “immigrants.” For the final decision on the problem of the Habiri and the full elucidation of many things in the Tell el-Amarna Letters we must await further study of the tablets by expert cuneiform scholars, and especially further discovery in contemporary history.

The Jerusalem letters of the southern correspondence present something of much importance which does not bear at all upon the problem of the Habiri. The frequently recurring title of the king of Jerusalem, “It was not my father, it was not my mother, who established me in this position” (Budge, History of Egypt, IV, 231-35), seems to throw light upon the strange description given of MELCHIZEDEK (which see), the king of Jerusalem in the days of Abraham. The meaning here clearly is that the crown was not hereditary, but went by appointment, the Pharaoh of Egypt having the appointing power. Thus the king as such had no ancestor and no descendant, thus furnishing the peculiar characteristics made use of to describe the character of the Messiah’s priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews (7:3).

LITERATURE.

Conder, The Tell Amarna Tablets; Knudtzon, Die El-Amarna-Tafeln, in Heinrich’s Vorderasiatische Bibliothek, II; Petrie, Tell el Amarna Tablets; idem, Syria and Egypt from the Tell el Amarna Letters; idem, Hist of Egypt; Jeremias, The Old Testament in the Light of the Ancient East. M. G. Kyle TEL-MELAH <tel-me’-la > ( jl”m,ÎlTe [tel-melah], “hill of salt”): A Babylonian town mentioned in Ezr 2:59; Nehemiah 7:61 with Tel-harsha and Cherub (see TEL-HARSHA). It possibly lay on the low salt tract near the Persian Gulf.

In 1 Esdras 5:36 it is called “Thermeleth.”

TEMA <te’-ma > ( am;yTe [tema’], “south country”; [ Qaima>n, Thaiman ]): The name of a son of Ishmael ( Genesis 25:15; 1 Chronicles 1:30), of the tribe descended from him ( Jeremiah 25:23), and of the place where they dwelt ( Job 6:19; Isaiah 21:14). This last was a locality in Arabia which probably corresponds to the modern Teima’ (or Tayma’ (see Doughty, Arabia Deserta, I, 285)), an oasis which lies about 200 miles North of el-Medina, and some 40 miles South of Dumat el-Jandal (Dumah), now known as el-Jauf. It is on the ancient caravan road connecting the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Aqaba; and doubtless the people took a share in the carrying trade ( Job 6:19). The wells of the oasis still attract the wanderers from the parched wastes ( Isaiah 21:14).

Doughty (loc. cit.) describes the ruins of the old city wall, some 3 miles in circuit. An Aramaic stele recently discovered, belonging to the 6th century BC, shows the influence of Assyrian article The place is mentioned in the cuneiform inscriptions (Schrader, KAT2, 149). W. Ewing TEMAH <te’-ma > ( hm”T, [temach], Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Vaticanus [ Qe>ma, Thema ]; Lucian, [ Qemaa>, Themaa ]; Nehemiah 7:55; Codex Vaticanus [ =Hmaq, Hemath ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ Qh>ma, Thema ]; Lucian, [ Qemaa>, Themaa ]; the King James Version, Thamah): The family name of a company of Nethinim (Ezr 2:53).

TEMAN <te’-man > ( ˆm;yTe [teman], “on the right,” i.e. “south”; [ Qaima>n, Thaiman ]): The name of a district and town in the land of Edom, named after Teman the grandson of Esau, the son of his firstborn, Eliphaz ( Genesis 36:11; 1 Chronicles 1:36). A duke Teman is named among the chiefs or clans of Edom ( Genesis 36:42; 1 Chronicles 1:53). He does not however appear first, in the place of the firstborn. Husham of the land of the Temanites was one of the ancient kings of Edom ( Genesis 36:34; 1 Chronicles 1:45). From Obadiah 1:9 we gather that Teman was in the land of Esau (Edom). In Am 1:12 it is named along with Bozrah, the capital of Edom. In Ezekiel 25:13 desolation is denounced upon Edom: “From Teman even unto Dedan shall they fall by the sword.”

Dedan being in the South, Teman must be sought in the North Eusebius, Onomasticon knows a district in the Gebalene region called Theman, and also a town with the same name, occupied by a Roman garrison,15 miles from Petra. Unfortunately no indication of direction is given. No trace of the name has yet been found. It may have been on the road from Elath to Bozrah.

The inhabitants of Teman seem to have been famous for their wisdom ( Jeremiah 49:7; Obadiah 1:8 f). Eliphaz the Temanite was chief of the comforters of Job (2:11, etc.). The manner in which the city is mentioned by the prophets, now by itself, and again as standing for Edom, shows how important it must have been in their time. W. Ewing TEMENI <tem’-e-ni > , <te’-me-ni > ( ynIm]yTe [temeni], Baer, ynIm]yTi [timeni]; Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus [ Qaima>n, Thaiman ]; Lucian, [ Qaimanei>, Thaimanei ]): The word [temeni] means a southerner, i.e. of Southern Judah; compare TEMAN (patronymic [temani]), the name of Edom ( Genesis 36:11, ete), the “son” of Ashhur ( 1 Chronicles 4:6).

TEMPER <tem’-per > : The word is used in the King James Version to render different Hebrew words. In Ezekiel 46:14 for “temper” ( ss”r; [racac]) the Revised Version (British and American) substitutes “moisten.”

In Song of Solomon (5:2) a noun from the same stem means “dew-drops.”

In Exodus 29:2 the King James Version we read “cakes unleavened, tempered ( ll”B; [balal], literally, “mixed”) with oil,” the Revised Version (British and American) “mingled.” The word denotes “rough-andready mixing.” In the recipe for the making of incense given in Exodus (30:35) occur the words “tempered together,” jl”m; [malach] (literally, “salted”; hence, the Revised Version (British and American) “seasoned with salt”). The word occurs in two interesting connections in The Wisdom of Solomon 15:7 (the Revised Version (British and American) “knead”) and 16:21. In 1 Corinthians 12:24 it occurs in English Versions of the Bible as a rendering of the Greek word [sugkera>nnumi, sugqerannumi ], which meant to “mix together.” Paul is arguing in favor of the unity of the church and of cooperation on the part of individual members, and uses as an illustration the human body which consists of various organs with various functions. It is God, argues the apostle, who has “tempered,” “compounded” or “blended,” the body. Each member has its place and function and must contribute to the welfare of the whole frame. The same Greek word occurs in Hebrews 4:2. The author urges the necessity of faith in regard to the gospel. The unbelieving Israelites had derived no benefit from their hearing of the gospel because their hearing of it was not “mixed” with faith. T. Lewis TEMPERANCE; TEMPERATE <tem’-per-ans > ; <tem’-per-at > ([ejgkra>teia, egkrateia ]), ([ejgkrath>v, egkrates ], [nhfa>liov, nephalios ], [sw>frwn, sophron ]): the American Standard Revised Version departs from the King James Version and the English Revised Version by translating egkrateia “self-control” ( Acts 24:25; Galatians 5:23; 2 Peter 1:6; 1 Corinthians 9:25), following the English Revised Version margin in several of these passages. This meaning is in accordance with classical usage, Plato applying it to “mastery” not only of self, but of any object denoted by a genitive following. Septuagint applies it to the possession “of strongholds” (2 Macc 8:30; 10:15), “of a position” (2 Macc 10:17), “of the city” (2 Macc 13:13), “of wisdom” (Sirach 6:27). The reflexive meaning of “self-mastery,” “selfrestraint,” is equally well established in the classics and Septuagint. Thus, in the verbal form, it is found in Genesis 43:31, for the self-restraint exercised by Joseph in the presence of his brethren, when they appeared before him as suppliants, and in 1 Samuel 13:12, where Saul professes that he “forced” himself to do what was contrary to his desire. For patristic use of the term, see illustrations in Suicer’s Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus, I, 1000 ff. Clement of Alexandria: “Not abstaining from all things, but using continently such things as one has judged should be used”; “such things as do not seem beyond right reason.” Basil: “To avoid excess on both sides, so as neither by luxury to be confused, nor, by becoming sickly, to be disabled from doing what has been commanded.” Chrysostom (on Timothy 1:8) applies it to “one mastering passion of tongue, hand and unbridled eyes.” Ellicott and Eadie (on Galatians 5:23) quote Diogenes Laertius to the effect that the word refers to “control over the stronger passions.” In 1 Corinthians 9:25, Paul illustrates it by the training of an athlete, whose regimen is not only described in the Ars Poetica of Horace (412 ff), and in Epictetus (quoted in Alford on this passage), but can be learned of the many devotees and admirers of similar pursuits today.

The principle involved is that of the concentration of all man’s powers and capabilities upon the one end of doing God’s will, in and through whatever calling God appoints, and the renunciation of everything either wholly or to whatever degree necessary, however innocent or useful it may be in its proper place, that interferes with one’s highest efficiency in this calling (1 Corinthians 10:31). Not limited to abstinence, it is rather the power and decision to abstain with reference to some fixed end, and the use of the impulses of physical, as servants for the moral, life. It does not refer to any one class of objects that meets us, but to all; to what concerns speech and judgment, as well as to what appeals to sense. It is properly an inner spiritual virtue, working into the outward life, incapable of being counterfeited or replaced by any abstinence limited to that which is external (Augsburg Confession, Articles XXVI, XXVII). When its absence, however, is referred to as sin, the negative is generally more prominent than the positive side of temperance. The reference in Acts 24:25 is to chastity, and in 1 Corinthians 7:9, as the context shows, to the inner side of chastity. In 1 Timothy 3:2,11; Titus 2:2, the word nephalios has its original meaning as the opposite to “drunken” (see SOBRIETY; DRINK, STRONG ). See also the treatises on ethics by Luthardt (both the Compendium and the History), Martensen, Koestlin and Haring on temperance, asceticism, continence. H. E. Jacobs TEMPEST <tem’-pest > ( hr;[;s] [ce`-arah], or hr;[;c] [ se`-arah], “a whirlwind,” srn, cheimon ], [qu>ella, thuella ]):

Heavy storms of wind and rain are common in Palestine and the Mediterranean. The storms particularly mentioned in the Bible are: (1) the 40 days’ rain of the great flood of Noah ( Genesis 7:4); (2) hail and rain as a plague in Egypt ( Exodus 9:18); (3) the great rain after the drought and the contest of Elijah on Carmel ( 1 Kings 18:45); (4) the tempest on the sea in the story of Jonah (1:4); (5) the storm on the Lake of Galilee when Jesus was awakened to calm the waves ( Matthew 8:24; Mark 4:37; Luke 8:23); (6) the storm causing the shipwreck of Paul at Melita ( Acts 27:18).

Frequent references are found to God’s power over storm and use of the tempest in His anger: “He maketh the storm a calm” ( <19A729> Psalm 107:29); He sends the “tempest of hail, a destroying storm” ( Isaiah 28:2). See also Job 9:17; 21:18; Isaiah 30:30. Yahweh overwhelms His enemies as with a storm: “She shall be visited of Yahweh of hosts with thunder, and with earthquake, and great noise, with whirlwind and tempest” ( Isaiah 29:6). Yahweh is a “refuge from the storm” ( Isaiah 25:4; 4:6). Alfred H. Joy TEMPLE <tem’-p’l > ( lk;yhe [hekhal], “palace”; sometimes, as in 1 Kings 6:3,5, etc.; Ezekiel 41:1,15 ff, used for “the holy place” only; tyIB” [bayith], “house,” thus always in the Revised Version (British and American); [iJero>n, hieron ], [nao>v, naos ]):

A. STRUCTURE AND HISTORY I. SOLOMON’S TEMPLE I. Introductory. 1. David’s Project:

The tabernacle having lasted from the exodus till the commencement of the monarchy, it appeared to David to be no longer fitting that the ark of God should dwell within curtains (it was then in a tent David had made for it on Zion: 2 Samuel 6:17), while he himself dwelt in a cedar-lined house.

The unsettled and unorganized state of the nation, which had hitherto necessitated a portable structure, had now given place to an established kingdom. The dwelling of Yahweh should therefore be henceforth a permanent building, situated at the center of the nation’s life, and “exceeding magnificent” ( 1 Chronicles 22:5), as befitted the glory of Yahweh, and the prospects of the state. 2. Plans and Preparations:

David, however, while honored for his purpose, was not permitted, because he had been a man of war (2 Samuel 7; 1 Chronicles 22:8; compare 1 Kings 5:3), to execute the work, and the building of the house was reserved for his son, Solomon. According to the Chronicler, David busied himself in making extensive and costly preparations of wood, stone, gold, silver, etc., for the future sanctuary and its vessels, even leaving behind him full and minute plans of the whole scheme of the building and its contents, divinely communicated ( 1 Chronicles 22:2 ff; 28:11 ff; 29). The general fact of lengthened preparation, and even of designs, for a structure which so deeply occupied his thoughts, is extremely probable (compare 1 Kings 7:51). 3. Character of the Building:

The general outline of the structure was based on that of the tabernacle (on the modern critical reversal of this relation, see under B, below). The dimensions are in the main twice those of the tabernacle, though it will be seen below that there are important exceptions to this rule, on which the critics found so much. The old question (see TABERNACLE ) as to the shape of the building — flat or gable-roofed — here again arises. Not a few modern writers (Fergusson, Schick, Caldecott, etc.), with some older, favor the tentlike shape, with sloping roof. It does not follow, however, even if this form is, with these writers, admitted for the tabernacle — a “tent” — that it is applicable, or likely, for a stone “house,” and the measurements of the Temple, and mention of a “ceiling” ( 1 Kings 6:15), point in the opposite direction. It must still be granted that, with the scanty data at command, all reconstructions of the Solomonte Temple leave much to be filled in from conjecture. Joseph Hammond has justly said: “It is certain that, were a true restoration of the Temple ever to be placed in our hands, we should find that it differed widely from all attempted `restorations’ of the edifice, based on the scanty and imperfect notices of our historian and Ezekiel” (Commentary on 1 Kings 6, “Pulpit Commentary”). 4. Site of the Temple:

The site of the Temple was on the eastern of the two hills on which Jerusalem was built — that known in Scripture as Mt. Moriah ( <140301> Chronicles 3:1) or Mt. Zion (the traditional view which locates Zion on the western hill, on the other side of the Tyropoeon, though defended by some, seems untenable; see “Zion,” in HDB; “Jerusalem,” in DB, etc.). The place is more precisely defined as that where Araunah (Ornan) had his threshing-floor, and David built his altar after the plague ( 1 Chronicles 21:22; 2 Chronicles 3:1). This spot, in turn, is now all but universally held to be marked by the sacred rock, es-Sakhra (within what is called the Haram area on the eastern summit; see JERUSALEM ), above which the “Dome of the Rock,” or so- called “Mosque of Omar,” now stands. Here, according to traditional belief, was reared the altar of burnt offering, and to the West of it was built the Temple. This location is indeed challenged by Fergusson, W. R. Smith, and others, who transfer the Temple-site to the southwestern angle of the Haram area, but the great majority of scholars take the above view. To prepare a suitable surface for the Temple and connected buildings (the area may have been some 600 ft. East to West, and 300 to 400 ft. North to South), the summit of the hill had to be leveled, and its lower parts heightened by immense substructures (Josephus, Ant, VIII iii, 9; XV, xi, 3; BJ, V, v, 1), the remains of which modern excavations have brought to light (compare Warren’s Underground Jerusalem; G. A. Smith’s Jerusalem, etc.). 5. Phoenician Assistance:

For aid in his undertaking, Solomon invited the cooperation of Hiram, king of Tyre, who willingly lent his assistance, as he had before helped David, granting Solomon permission to send his servants to cut down timber in Lebanon, aiding in transport, and in the quarrying and hewing of stones, and sending a skillful Tyrian artist, another Hiram, to superintend the designing and graving of objects made of the precious metals, etc. For this assistance Solomon made a suitable recompense (1 Kings 5; 2 Chronicles 2). Excavations seem to show that a large part of the limestone of which the temple was built came from quarries in the immediate neighborhood of Jerusalem (Warren, Underground Jerusalem,60). The stones were cut, hewn and polished at the places whence they were taken, so that “there was neither hammer nor axe nor any tool of iron heard in the house, while it was in building” ( 1 Kings 5:17,18; 6:7). Opinions differ as to the style of architecture of the building. It was probably unique, but Phoenician art also must have left its impress upon it. See ARCHITECTURE.

II. The Temple Building. 1. In General:

In contrast with the tabernacle, which was a portable “tent,” consisting of a framework of acacia wood, with rich coverings hung over it, and standing in a “court” enclosed by curtains (see TABERNACLE ), the Temple was a substantial “house” built of stone (probably the hard white limestone of the district), with chambers in three stories, half the height of the building ( 1 Kings 6:5,6), round the sides and back, and, in front, a stately porch ( 1 Kings 6:3), before which stood two lofty bronze pillars — Jachin and Boaz ( 1 Kings 7:21; 2 Chronicles 3:4,15-17). Within, the house was lined with cedar, overlaid with gold, graven with figures of cherubim, palms, and open flowers ( 1 Kings 6:15,18,21,22,29), and a partition of cedar or stone divided the interior into two apartments — one the holy place (the hekhal), the other the most holy place, or “oracle” (debhir) ( Kings 6:16-18). The floor was of stone, covered with fir (or cypress), likewise overlaid with gold ( 1 Kings 6:15,30). The platform on which the whole building stood was probably raised above the level of the court in front, and the building may have been approached by steps. Details are not given. The more particular description follows. 2. Dimensions, Divisions and Adornments:

The Temple, like the tabernacle, stood facing East, environed by “courts” (“inner” and “greater”), which are dealt with below, Internally, the dimensions of the structure were, in length and width, double those of the tabernacle, namely, length 60 cubits, width 20 cubits. The height, however, was 30 cubits, thrice that of the tabernacle ( 1 Kings 6:2; compare 6:18,20). The precise length of the cubit is uncertain (see CUBIT ); here, as in the article TABERNACLE, it is taken as approximately 18 inches. In internal measurement, therefore, the Temple was approximately 90 ft. long, 30 ft. broad, and 45 ft. high. This allows nothing for the thickness of the partition between the two chambers. For the external measurement, the thickness of the walls and the width of the surrounding chambers and their walls require to be added. It cannot positively be affirmed that the dimensions of the Temple, including the porch, coincided precisely with those of Ezekiel’s temple (compare Keil on 1 Kings 6:9,10); still, the proportions must have closely approximated, and may have been in agreement.

The walls of the building, as stated, were lined within with cedar; the holy place was ceiled with fir or cypress ( 2 Chronicles 3:5; the “oracle” perhaps with cedar); the flooring likewise was of fir ( 1 Kings 6:15). All was overlaid with gold, and walls and doors (see below) were adorned with gravings of cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers ( 1 Kings 6:19-35; 2 Chronicles 3:6 adds “precious stones”). Of the two chambers into which the house was divided, the outermost (or hekhal) was 40 cubits (60 ft.) long, and 20 cubits (30 ft.) wide ( 1 Kings 6:17); the innermost (or debhir) was 20 cubits in length, breadth and height — a cube ( 1 Kings 6:20). As the height of the Temple internally was 30 cubits, it is obvious that above the most holy place there was a vacant space 20 cubits long and 10 high. This apparently was utilized as a chamber or chambers for storage or other purposes. It has been held by some (Kurtz, Fergusson, etc.) that the ceiling along the entire Temple was at the height of 20 cubits, with chambers above (compare the allusion to “upper chambers” in Chronicles 28:11; 2 Chronicles 3:9); this, however, seems unwarranted (compare Bahr on 1 Kings 6:14-19; the upper chambers” were “overlaid with gold,” 2 Chronicles 3:9, which points to something nobler in character). The inner chamber was a place of “thick darkness” ( 1 Kings 8:12). 3. The Side-Chambers:

The thickness of the Temple walls is not given, but the analogy of Ezekiel’s temple (Ezekiel 41) and what is told of the side-chambers render it probable that the thickness was not less than 6 cubits (9 ft.). Around the Temple, on its two sides and at the back, were built chambers ([tsela`oth], literally, “ribs”), the construction of which is summarily described. They were built in three stories, each story 5 cubits in height (allowance must also be made for flooring and roofing), the lowest being 5 cubits in breadth, the next 6 cubits, and the highest 7 cubits. This is explained by the fact that the chambers were not to be built into the wall of the Temple, but were to rest on ledges or rebatements in the wall, each rebate a cubit in breadth, so that the wall became thinner, and the chambers broader, by a cubit, each stage in the ascent. ( 1 Kings 6:5-10). The door admitting into these chambers was apparently in the middle of the right side of the house, and winding stairs led up to the second and third stories ( 1 Kings 6:8). It is not stated how many chambers there were; Josephus (Ant., VIII, iii, 2) gives the number as 30, which is the number in Ezekiel’s temple ( Ezekiel 41:6). The outer wall of the chambers, which in Ezekiel is cubits thick (41:9), may have been the same here, though some make it less. It is a question whether the rebatements were in the Temple wall only, or were divided between it and the outer wall; the former seems the more probable opinion, as nothing is said of rebatements in the outer wall.

Above the chambers on either side were “windows of fixed lattice-work” (41:4), i.e. openings which could not be closed (“windows broad within and narrow without”). The purposes for which the chambers were constructed are not mentioned. They may have been used partly for storage, partly for the accommodation of those engaged in the service of the Temple (compare 1 Chronicles 9:27). 4. The Porch and Pillars:

A conspicuous feature of the Temple was the porch in front of the building, with its twin pillars, Jachin and Boaz. Of the porch itself a very brief description is given. It is stated to have been 20 cubits broad — the width of the house — and 10 cubits deep ( 1 Kings 6:3). Its height is not given in 1 Kings, but it is said in 2 Chronicles 3:4 to have been 120 cubits, or approximately 180 ft. Some accept this enormous height (Ewald, Stanley, etc.), but the majority more reasonably infer that there has been a corruption of the number. It may have been the same height as the Temple — 30 cubits. It was apparently open in front, and, from what is said of its being “overlaid within with pure gold” ( 2 Chronicles 3:4), it may be concluded that it shared in the splendor of the main building, and had architectural features of its own which are not recorded. Some find here, in the wings, treasury chambers, and above, “upper chambers,” but such restorations are wholly conjectural. It is otherwise with the monumental brass (bronze) pillars — Jachin and Boaz — of which a tolerably full description is preserved ( 1 Kings 7:15-22; 2 Chronicles 3:15-17; 4:11-13; compare Jeremiah 52:20-23), still, however, leaving many points doubtful. The pillars which stood in front of the porch, detached from it, were hollow bronze castings, each 18 cubits (27 ft.) in height (35 cubits in 2 Chronicles 3:15 is an error), and 12 cubits (18 ft.) in circumference, and were surmounted by capitals 5 cubits (7 1/2 ft.) high, richly ornamented on their lower, bowl-shaped ( 1 Kings 7:20,41,42) parts, with two rows of pomegranates, enclosing festoons of chain-work, and, in their upper parts, rising to the height of 4 cubits (6 ft.) in graceful lily-work. See JACHIN AND BOAZ.

It was seen that the holy place ([hekhal]) was divided from the most holy ([debhir]) by a partition, probably of cedar wood, though some think of a stone wall, one or even two cubits thick. In this partition were folding doors, made of olive wood, with their lintels 4 cubits wide ( 1 Kings 6:31; some interpret differently, and understand the upper part of the doorway to be a pentagon). The doors, like the walls, had carvings of cherubim, palm trees, and flowers, and the whole was gold-plated ( Kings 6:32). Behind the partition hung the sanctuary veil ( 2 Chronicles 3:14). At the entrance of the Temple, similarly, were folding doors, with their lintels 5 cubits in width, only this time the posts only were of olive, while the doors, divided into two leaves, were of fir (or cypress) wood ( 1 Kings 6:33-35). The carving and gold-plating were as on the inner doors, and all the doors had hinges of gold ( 1 Kings 7:50).

III. Courts, Gates and Royal Buildings.

The Temple was enclosed in “courts” — an “inner” ( 1 Kings 6:36; 7:12; 2 Chronicles 4:9, “court of the priests”; Jeremiah 36:10, “the upper court”; Ezekiel 8:3,16; 10:3), and an outer or “greater court” ( 1 Kings 7:9,12; 2 Chronicles 4:9) — regarding the situation, dimensions and relations of which, alike to one another and to the royal buildings described in 1 Kings 7 the scanty notices in the history leave room for great diversity of opinion. See COURT OF THE SANCTUARY. 1. The Inner Court:

The “inner court” ([chatser ha-penimith]) is repeatedly referred to (see above). Its dimensions are not given, but they may be presumed to be twice those of the tabernacle court, namely, 200 cubits (300 ft.) in length and 100 cubits (150 ft.) in breadth. The name in Jeremiah 36:10, “the upper court,” indicates that it was on a higher level than the “great court,” and as the Temple was probably on a platform higher still, the whole would present a striking terraced aspect. (1) Walls:

The walls of the court were built of three rows of hewn stone, with a coping of cedar beams ( 1 Kings 6:36). Their height is not stated; it is doubtful if it would admit of the colonnades which some have supposed; but “chambers” are mentioned ( Jeremiah 35:4; 36:10 — if, indeed, all belong to the “inner” court), which imply a substantial structure. It was distinctively “the priests’ court” ( 2 Chronicles 4:9); probably, in part, was reserved for them; to a certain degree, however, the laity had evidently free access into it ( Jeremiah 36:10; 38:14; Ezekiel 8:16, etc.). The mention of “the new court” ( 2 Chronicles 20:5, time of Jehoshaphat), and of “the two courts of the house of Yahweh” ( 2 Kings 21:5; Chronicles 33:5, time of Manasseh), suggests subsequent enlargement and division. (2) Gates:

Though gates are not mentioned in the narratives of the construction, later allusions show that there were several, though not all were of the time of Solomon. The principal entrance would, of course, be that toward the East (see EAST GATE ). In Jeremiah 26:10 there is allusion to “the entry of the new gate of Yahweh’s house.” This doubtless was “the upper gate” built by Jotham ( 2 Kings 15:35) and may reasonably be identified with the “gate that looketh toward the North” and the “gate of the altar” (i.e. through which the sacrifices were brought) in Ezekiel 8:3,1, and with “the upper gate of Benjamin” in Jeremiah 20:3. Mention is also made of a “gate of the guard” which descended to the king’s house ( 2 Kings 11:19; see below). Jeremiah speaks of a “third entry that is in the house of Yahweh” (38:14), and of “three keepers of the threshold” (52:24), but it is not clear which court is intended. 2. The Great Court:

The outer or “great court” of the Temple ([chatser ha-gedholah]) opens up more difficult problems. Some regard this court as extending to the East in front of the “inner court”; others, as Keil, think of it as a great enclosure surrounding the “inner court” and stretching perhaps 150 cubits East of the latter (compare his Biblical Archaeology, I, 170-71). These writers remove the court from all connection with the royal buildings of 1 Kings 7, and distinguish it from “the great court of 7:9,12.” A quite different construction is that advocated by Stade and Benzinger, and adopted by most recent authorities (compare articles on “Temple” in HDB, IV, in EB, IV, in one-vol HDB, in DB (Dalman); G. A. Smith, Jerusalem, II, 59 ff, etc.). The great court, on this view, not only surrounds the Temple, with its (inner) court, but, extending to the South, encloses the whole complex of the royal buildings of 1 Kings 7. This has the advantage of bringing together the references to the “great court” in 1 Kings 7:9,12 and the other references to the outer court. The court, thus conceived, must have been very large. The extensive part occupied by the royal buildings being on a lower level than the “inner court,” entrance to it is thought to have been by “the gate of the guard unto the king’s house” mentioned in 2 Kings 11:19. Its wall, like that of the inner court, was built in three courses of hewn stone, and one course of cedar ( 1 Kings 7:12). Its gates overlaid with brass ( 2 Chronicles 4:9, i.e., “bronze”) show that the masonry must have been both high and substantial. On the “other court” of 1 Kings 7:8, see next paragraph. 3. The Royal Buildings:

The group of buildings which, on theory now stated, were enclosed by the southern part of the great court, are those described in 1 Kings 7:1-12.

They were of hewn stone and cedar wood ( 1 Kings 7:9-11), and embraced: (1) The king’s house, or royal palace ( 1 Kings 7:8), in close contiguity with the Temple-court ( 2 Kings 11:19). (2) Behind this to the West, the house of Pharaoh’s daughter ( Kings 11:9) — the apartments of the women. Both of these were enclosed in a “court” of their own, styled in 2 Kings 11:8 “the other court,” and in 2 Kings 20:4 margin “the middle court.” (3) South of this stood the throne-room, and porch or hall of judgment, paneled in cedar” from floor to floor,” i.e. from floor to ceiling ( Kings 11:7). The throne, we read later ( 1 Kings 10:18-20), was of ivory, overlaid with gold, and on either side of the throne, as well as of the six steps that led up to it, were lions. The hall served as an audience chamber, and for the administration of justice. (4) Yet farther South stood the porch or hall of pillars,50 cubits (75 ft.) long and 30 cubits (45 ft.) broad, with a sub-porch of its own ( Kings 10:6). It is best regarded as a place of promenade and vestibule to the hall of judgment. (5) Lastly, there was the imposing and elaborate building known as “the house of the forest of Lebanon” ( 1 Kings 10:2-5), which appears to have received this name from its multitude of cedar pillars.

The scanty hints as to its internal arrangements have baffled the ingenuity of the commentators. The house was 100 cubits (150 ft.) in length, 50 cubits (75 ft.) in breadth, and 30 cubits (45 ft.) in height.

Going round the sides and back there were apparently four rows of pillars. The Septuagint has three rows), on which, supported by cedar beams, rested three tiers or stories of side-chambers (literally, “ribs,” as in 1 Kings 6:5; compare the Revised Version margin). In 1 Kings 6:3 it is disputed whether the number “forty and five; fifteen in a row” (as the Hebrew may be read) refers to the pillars or to the chambers; if to the former, the Septuagint reading of “three rows” is preferable. The windows of the tiers faced each other on the opposite sides ( 1 Kings 6:4,5). But the whole construction is obscure and doubtful. The spacious house was used partly as an armory; here Solomon put his 300 shields of beaten gold ( 1 Kings 10:17).

IV. Furniture of the Temple. 1. The Sanctuary:

We treat here, first, of the sanctuary in its two divisions, then of the (inner) court. (1) The “Debhir”.

In the most holy place, or [debhir], of the sanctuary stood, as before, the old Mosaic ark of the covenant, with its two golden cherubim above the mercy-seat (see ARK OF THE COVENANT; TABERNACLE ). Now, however, the symbolic element was increased by the ark being placed between two other figures of cherubim, made of olive wood, overlaid with gold,10 cubits (15 ft.) high, their wings, each 5 cubits (7 1/2 ft.) long, outstretched so that they reached from wall to wall of the oracle (20 cubits), the inner wings meeting in the center ( 1 Kings 6:23-28; Chronicles 3:10-13). See CHERUBIM. (2) The “Hekhal”.

In the holy place, or [hekhal], the changes were greater. (a) Before the oracle, mentioned as belonging to it ( 1 Kings 6:22), stood the altar of incense, covered with cedar, and overlaid with gold ( 1 Kings 6:20-22; 7:48; 2 Chronicles 4:19; see ALTAR OF INCENSE ). It is an arbitrary procedure of criticism to attempt to identify this altar with the table of shewbread. (b) Instead of one golden candlestick, as in the tabernacle, there were now 10, 5 placed on one side and 5 on the other, in front of the oracle.

All, with their utensils, were of pure gold ( 1 Kings 7:49; Chronicles 4:7). (c) Likewise, for one table of shewbread, there were now 10, 5 on one side, 5 on the other, also with their utensils made of gold ( 1 Kings 7:48, where, however, only one table is mentioned; 2 Chronicles 4:8, “100 basins of gold”). As these objects, only enlarged in number and dimensions, are fashioned after the model of those of the tabernacle, further particulars regarding them are not given here. 2. The Court (Inner): (1) The Altar.

The most prominent object in the Temple-court was the altar of burnt offering, or brazen altar (see BRAZEN ALTAR ). The site of the altar, as already seen, was the rock es Sakhra], where Araunah had his threshingfloor.

The notion of some moderns that the rock itself was the altar, and that the brazen (bronze) altar was introduced later, is devoid of plausibility.

An altar is always something reared or built (compare 2 Samuel 24:18,25). The dimensions of the altar, which are not mentioned in 1 K, are given in 2 Chronicles 4:1 as 20 cubits (30 ft.) long, 20 cubits (30 ft.) broad, and 10 cubits (15 ft.) high. As utensils connected with it — an incidental confirmation of its historicity — are pots, shovels, basins and fleshhooks ( 1 Kings 7:40,45; 2 Chronicles 4:11,16). It will be observed that the assumed halving proportions of the tabernacle are here quite departed from (compare Exodus 27:1). (2) The Molten (Bronze) Sea.

A new feature in the sanctuary court — taking the place of the “laver” in the tabernacle — was the “molten sea,” the name being given to it for its great size. It was an immense basin of bronze, 5 cubits (7 1/2 ft.) high, cubits (15 ft.) in diameter at the brim, and 30 cubits (45 ft.) in circumference, resting on 12 bronze oxen, and placed between the altar and the Temple-porch, toward the South ( 1 Kings 7:23-26,39; Chronicles 4:2-5,10). The bronze was a handbreadth in thickness. The brim was shaped like the flower of a lily, and encompassing the basin were ornamental knops. Its capacity is given as 2,000 baths ( 1 Kings 7:26; by error in 2 Chronicles 4:5, 3,000 baths). The oxen on which it rested faced the four cardinal points — three looking each way. The “sea,” like the laver, doubtless supplied the water for the washing of the priests’ hands and feet (compare Exodus 30:18; 38:8). The view of certain scholars (Kosters, Gunkel, etc.) that the “sea” is connected with Babylonian mythical ideas of the great deep is quite fanciful; no hint appears of such significance in any part of the narrative. The same applies to the lavers in the next paragraph. (3) The Lavers and Their Bases.

The tabernacle laver had its place taken by the “sea” just described, but the Temple was also provided with 10 lavers or basins, set on “bases” of elaborate design and moving upon wheels — the whole made of bronze ( 1 Kings 7:27-37). Their use seems to have been for the washing of sacrifices ( 2 Chronicles 4:6), for which purpose they were placed, 5 on the north side, and 5 on the south side, of the Temple-court. The bases were 4 cubits (6 ft.) long, 4 cubits broad, and 3 cubits (4 1/2 ft.) high.

These bases were of the nature of square paneled boxes, their sides being ornamented with figures of lions, oxen and cherubim, with wreathed work beneath. They had four feet, to which wheels were attached. The basin rested on a rounded pedestal, a cubit high, with an opening 1 1/2 cubits in diameter to receive the laver ( 1 Kings 7:31). Mythological ideas, as just said, are here out of place.

V. History of the Temple. 1. Building and Dedication:

The Temple was founded in the 4th year of Solomon’s reign ( 1 Kings 6:1), and occupied 7 1/2 years in building ( 1 Kings 6:38); the royal buildings occupied 13 years ( 1 Kings 7:1) — 20 years in all (the two periods, however, may in part synchronize). On the completion of the Temple, the ark was brought up, in the presence of a vast assemblage, from Zion, and, with innumerable sacrifices and thanksgiving, was solemnly deposited in the Holy of Holies ( 1 Kings 8:1-21; 2 Chronicles 5; 6:1- 11). The Temple itself was then dedicated by Solomon in the noble prayer recorded in 1 Kings 8:22-61; 2 Chronicles 6:12-42, followed by lavish sacrifices, and a 14 days’ feast. At its inauguration the house was filled with the “glory” of Yahweh ( 1 Kings 8:10,11; 2 Chronicles 5:13,14). 2. Repeated Plunderings, etc.:

The religious declension of the later days of Solomon ( 1 Kings 11:1-8) brought in its train disasters for the nation and the Temple. On Solomon’s death the kingdom was disrupted, and the Temple ceased to be the one national sanctuary. It had its rivals in the calf-shrines set up by Jeroboam at Beth-el and Dan ( 1 Kings 12:25-33). In the 5th year of Rehoboam an expedition was made against Judah by Shishak, king of Egypt, who, coming to Jerusalem, carried away the treasures of the Temple, together with those of the king’s house, including the 300 shields of gold which Solomon had made ( 1 Kings 14:25-28; 2 Chronicles 12:2-9).

Rehoboam’s wife, Maacah, was an idolatress, and during the reign of Abijam, her son, introduced many abominations into the worship of the Temple ( 1 Kings 15:2,12,13). Asa cleared these away, but himself further depleted the Temple and royal treasuries by sending all that was left of their silver and gold to Ben-hadad, king of Syria, to buy his help against Baasha, king of Israel ( 1 Kings 15:18,19). Again the Temple was foully desecrated by Athaliah ( 2 Chronicles 24:7), necessitating the repairs of Jehoash ( 2 Kings 12:4 ff; Chronicles 24:4 ff); and a new plundering took place in the reign of Ahaziah, when Jehoash of Israel carried off all the gold and silver in the Temple and palace ( 2 Kings 14:14). Uzziah was smitten with leprosy for presuming to enter the holy place to offer incense ( 2 Chronicles 26:16-20). Jehoshaphat, earlier, is thought to have enlarged the court ( 2 Chronicles 20:5), and Jotham built a new gate ( 2 Kings 15:35; 2 Chronicles 27:3). The ungodly Ahaz went farther than any of his predecessors in sacrilege, for, besides robbing the Temple and palace of their treasures to secure the aid of the king of Assyria ( 2 Kings 16:8), he removed the brazen altar from its timehonored site, and set up a heathen altar in its place, removing likewise the bases and ornaments of the lavers, and the oxen from under the brazen (bronze) sea ( 2 Kings 16:10-17). 3. Attempts at Reform:

An earnest attempt at reform of religion was made by Hezekiah ( <121801> Kings 18:1-6; 2 Chronicles 29:31), but even he was driven to take all the gold and silver in the Temple and king’s house to meet the tribute imposed on him by Sennacherib, stripping from the doors and pillars the gold with which he himself had overlaid them ( 2 Kings 18:14-16; Chronicles 32:31). Things became worse than ever under Manasseh, who reared idolatrous altars in the Temple-courts, made an Asherah, introduced the worship of the host of heaven, had horses dedicated to the sun in the Temple-court, and connived at the worst pollutions of heathenism in the sanctuary ( 2 Kings 21:3-7; 23:7,11). Then came the more energetic reforms of the reign of Josiah, when, during the repairs of the Temple, the discovery was made of the Book of the Law, which led to a new covenant with Yahweh, a suppression of the high places, and the thorough cleansingout of abuses from the Temple (2 Kings 22; 23:1-25; 2 Chronicles 34; 35).

Still, the heart of the people was not changed, and, as seen in the history, and in the pages of the Prophets, after Josiah’s death, the old evils were soon back in full force (compare e.g. Ezekiel 8:7-18). 4. Final Overthrow:

The end, however, was now at hand. Nebuchadnezzar made Jehoiakim his tributary; then, on his rebelling, came, in the reign of Jehoiachin, took Jerusalem, carried off the treasures of the Temple and palace, with the gold of the Temple vessels (part had already been taken on his first approach, 2 Chronicles 36:7), and led into captivity the king, his household and the chief part of the population ( 2 Kings 24:1-17). Eleven years later (586 BC), after a siege of 18 months, consequent on Zedekiah’s rebellion ( 2 Kings 25:1), the Babylonian army completed the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. Only a few lesser utensils of value, and the brazen (bronze) pillars, bases and sea remained; these were now taken away, the larger objects being broken up ( 2 Kings 25:13-16). The Temple itself, with its connected buildings, and the houses in Jerusalem generally, were set on fire ( 2 Kings 25:9). The ark doubtless perished in the conflagration, and is no more heard of. The residue of the population — all but the poorest — were carried away captive ( 2 Kings 25:11,12; see CAPTIVITY ). Thus ended the first Temple, after about 400 years of chequered existence. II. EZEKIEL’S PROPHETIC SKETCH I. Introductory. 1. Relation to History of Temple:

Wellhausen has said that Ezekiel 40 through 48 “are the most important in his book, and have been, not incorrectly, called the key to the Old Testament” (Prolegomena, English translation, 167). He means that Ezekiel’s legislation represents the first draft, or sketch, of a priestly code, and that subsequently, on its basis, men of the priestly school formulated the Priestly Code as we have it. Without accepting this view, dealt with elsewhere, it is to be admitted that Ezekiel’s sketch of a restored temple in chapters 40-43 has important bearings on the history of the Temple, alike in the fact that it presupposes and sheds back light upon the structure and arrangements of the first Temple (Solomon’s), and that in important respects it forecasts the plans of the second (Zerubbabel’s) and of Herod’s temples. 2. The Conception Unique and Ideal:

While, however, there is this historical relation, it is to be observed that Ezekiel’s temple-sketch is unique, presenting features not found in any of the actually built temples. The temple is, in truth, an ideal construction never intended to be literally realized by returned exiles, or any other body of people. Visionary in origin, the ideas embodied, and not the actual construction, are the main things to the prophet’s mind. It gives Ezekiel’s conception of what a perfectly restored temple and the service of Yahweh would be under conditions which could scarcely be thought of as ever likely literally to arise. A literal construction, one may say, was impossible.

The site of the temple is not the old Zion, but “a very high mountain” ( Ezekiel 40:2), occupying indeed the place of Zion, but entirely altered in elevation, configuration and general character. The temple is part of a scheme of transformed land, partitioned in parallel tracts among the restored 12 tribes ( Ezekiel 47:13 through 48:7,23-29), with a large area in the center, likewise stretching across the whole country, hallowed to Yahweh and His service ( Ezekiel 48:8-22). Supernatural features, as that of the flowing stream from the temple in Ezekiel 47, abound. It is unreasonable to suppose that the prophet looked for such changes — some of them quite obviously symbolical — as actually impending. 3. Its Symmetrical Measurements:

The visionary character of the temple has the effect of securing that its measurements are perfectly symmetrical. The cubit used is defined as “a cubit and a handbreadth” ( Ezekiel 40:5), the contrast being with one or more smaller cubits (see CUBIT ). In the diversity of opinion as to the precise length of the cubit, it may be assumed here that it was the same sacred cubit employed in the tabernacle and first Temple, and may be treated, as before, as approximately equivalent to 18 inches.

II. Plan of the Temple.

Despite obscurities and corruption in the text of Ezekiel, the main outlines of the ideal temple can be made out without much difficulty (for details the commentaries must be consulted; A. B. Davidson’s “Ezekiel” in the Cambridge Bible series may be recommended; compare also Keil; a very lucid description is given in Skinner’s “Book of Ezk,” in the Expositor’s Bible, 406-13; for a different view, see Caldecott, The Second Temple in Jerusalem). 1. The Outer Court:

The temple was enclosed in two courts — an outer and an inner — quite different, however, in character and arrangement from those of the first Temple. The outer court, as shown by the separate measurements (compare Keil on Ezekiel 40:27), was a large square of 500 cubits (750 ft.), bounded by a wall 6 cubits (9 ft.) thick and 6 cubits high ( Ezekiel 40:5). The wall was pierced in the middle of its north, east and south sides by massive gateways, extending into the court to a distance of 50 cubits (75 ft.), with a width of 25 cubits (37 1/2 ft.). On either side of the passage in these gateways were three guardrooms, each 6 cubits square ( Ezekiel 40:7 margin), and each gateway terminated in “porch,” 8 cubits (12 ft.) long ( Ezekiel 40:9), and apparently (thus, the Septuagint, Ezekiel 40:14; the Hebrew text seems corrupt), 20 cubits across. The ascent to the gateways was by seven steps ( Ezekiel 40:6; compare 40:22,26), showing that the level of the court was to this extent higher than the ground outside. Round the court, on the three sides named — its edge in line with the ends of the gateways — was a “pavement,” on which were built, against the wall, chambers,30 in number ( Ezekiel 40:17,18). At the four corners were enclosures (40 cubits by 30) where the sacrifices were cooked (compare Ezekiel 46:21-24) — a fact which suggests that the cells were mainly for purposes of feasting. (The “arches” (‘elammim) of Ezekiel 40:16,21, etc. (the Revised Version margin “colonnade”), if distinguished from the “porch” (‘ulam) — A. B. Davidson and others identify them — are still parts of the gateway — Ezekiel 40:21, etc.). 2. The Inner Court:

The inner court was a square of 100 cubits (150 ft.), situated exactly in the center of the larger court ( Ezekiel 40:47). It, too, was surrounded by a wall, and had gateways, with guardrooms, etc., similar to those of the outer court, saving that the gateways projected outward (50 cubits), not inward. The gates of outer and inner courts were opposite to each other on the North, East, and South, a hundred cubits apart ( Ezekiel 40:19,23,27; the whole space, therefore, from wall to wall was 50 and and 50 = 200 cubits). The ascent to the gates in this case was by eight steps ( Ezekiel 40:37), indicating another rise in level for the inner court.

There were two chambers at the sides of the north and south gates respectively, one for Levites, the other for priests ( Ezekiel 40:44-46; compare the margin); at the gates also (perhaps only at the north gate) were stone tables for slaughtering ( Ezekiel 40:39-43). In the center of this inner court was the great altar of burnt offering ( Ezekiel 43:14-17) — a structure 18 cubits (27 ft.) square at the base, and rising in four stages (1, 2, 4, and 4 cubits high respectively, Ezekiel 43:14,15), till it formed a square of 12 cubits (18 ft.) at the top or hearth, with four horns at the corners ( Ezekiel 43:15,16). Steps led up to it on the East ( Ezekiel 43:17). See ALTAR OF BURNT OFFERING. 3. The Temple Building and Adjuncts:

The inner court was extended westward by a second square of 100 cubits, within which, on a platform elevated another 6 cubits (9 ft.), stood the temple proper and its connected buildings ( Ezekiel 41:8). This platform or basement is shown by the measurements to be 60 cubits broad (North and and South) and 105 cubits long (East and West) — 5 cubits projecting into the eastern square. The ascent to the temple-porch was by 10 steps ( Ezekiel 40:49; Septuagint, the Revised Version margin). The temple itself was a building consisting, like Solomon’s, of three parts — a porch at the entrance,20 cubits (30 ft.) broad by 12 cubits (18 ft.) deep (so most, following the Septuagint, as required by the other measurements); the holy place or [hekhal], 40 cubits (60 ft.) long by 20 cubits (30 ft.) broad; and the most holy place, 20 cubits by 20 ( Ezekiel 40:48,49; 41:1-4); the measurements are internal. At the sides of the porch stood two pillars ( Ezekiel 40:49), corresponding to the Jachin and Boaz of the older Temple. The holy and the most holy places were separated by a partition cubits in thickness ( Ezekiel 41:3; so most interpret). The most holy place was empty; of the furniture of the holy place mention is made only of an altar of wood ( Ezekiel 41:22; see ALTAR A, III, 7; B, III, 3). Walls and doors were ornamented with cherubim and palm trees ( Ezekiel 41:18,25). The wall of the temple building was 6 cubits (9 ft.) in thickness ( Ezekiel 41:5), and on the north, south, and west sides, as in Solomon’s Temple, there were side-chambers in three stories,30 in number ( Ezekiel 41:6; in each story?), with an outer wall 5 cubits (7 1/2 ft.) in thickness ( Ezekiel 41:9). These chambers were, on the basement, cubits broad; in the 2nd and 3rd stories, owing, as in the older Temple, to rebatements in the wall, perhaps 5 and 6 cubits broad respectively ( Ezekiel 41:6,7; in Solomon’s Temple the side-chambers were 5, 6, and 7 cubits, 1 Kings 6:6). These dimensions give a total external breadth to the house of 50 cubits (with a length of 100 cubits), leaving 5 cubits on either side and in the front as a passage round the edge of the platform on which the building stood (described as “that which was left”) ( Ezekiel 41:9,11). The western end, as far as the outer wall, was occupied, the whole breadth of the inner court, by a large building ( Ezekiel 41:12); all but a passage of 20 cubits (30 ft.) between it and the temple, belonging to what is termed “the separate place” (gizrah, Ezekiel 41:12,13, etc.).

The temple-platform being only 60 cubits broad, there remained a space of 20 cubits (30 ft.) on the north and south sides, running the entire length of the platform; this, continued round the back, formed the [gizrah], or “separate place” just named. Beyond the [gizrah] for 50 cubits (75 ft.) were other chambers, apparently in two rows, the inner 100 cubits, the outer 50 cubits, long, with a walk of 10 cubits between ( Ezekiel 42:1-14; the passage, however, is obscure; some, as Keil, place the “walk” outside the chambers). These chambers were assigned to the priests for the eating of “the most holy things” ( Ezekiel 42:13). See GALLERY.

Such, in general, was the sanctuary of the prophet’s vision, the outer and inner courts of which, and, crowning all, the temple itself, rising in successive terraces, presented to his inner eye an imposing spectacle which, in labored description, he seeks to enable his readers likewise to visualize. III. THE TEMPLE OF ZERUBBABEL I. Introductory. 1. The Decree of Cyrus:

Forty-eight years after Nebuchadnezzar’s destruction of the first Temple, the Babylonian empire came to an end (538 BC), and Persia became dominant under Cyrus. In the year following, Cyrus made a decree sanctioning the return of the Jews, and ordering the rebuilding of the Temple at Jerusalem ( 2 Chronicles 36:23; Ezr 1:1-4). He not only caused the sacred vessels of the old Temple to be restored, but levied a tax upon his western provinces to provide materials for the building, besides what was offered willingly (Ezr 1:6-11; 6:3 ff). The relatively small number of exiles who chose to return for this work (40,000) were led by Sheshbazzar, “the prince of Judah” (Ezr 1:11), whom some identify with Zerubbabel, likewise named “governor of Judah” ( Haggai 1:1). With these, if they were distinct was associated Joshua the high priest (in Ezra and Nehemiah called “Jeshua”). 2. Founding of the Temple:

The first work of Joshua and Zerubbabel was the building of the altar on its old site in the 7th month of the return (Ezr 3:3 ff). Masons and carpenters were engaged for the building of the house, and the Phoenicians were requisitioned for cedar wood from Lebanon (Ezr 3:7). In the 2nd year the foundations of the temple were laid with dignified ceremonial, amid rejoicing, and the weeping of the older men, who remembered the former house (Ezr 3:8-13). 3. Opposition and Completion of the Work:

The work soon met with opposition from the mixed population of Samaria, whose offer to join it had been refused; hostile representations, which proved successful, were made to the Persian king; from which causes the building was suspended about 15 years, till the 2nd year of Darius Hystaspis (520 BC; Ezr 4). On the other hand, the prophets Haggai and Zechariah stimulated the flagging zeal of the builders, and, new permission being obtained, the work was resumed, and proceeded so rapidly that in 516 BC the temple was completed, and was dedicated with joy (Ezr 5; 6).

II. The Temple Structure. 1. The House:

Few details are available regarding this temple of Zerubbabel. It stood on the ancient site, and may have been influenced in parts of its plan by the descriptions of the temple in Ezekiel. The inferiority to the first Temple, alluded to in Ezr 3:12 and Haggai 2:3, plainly cannot refer to its size, for its dimensions as specified in the decree of Cyrus, namely, 60 cubits in height, and 60 cubits in breadth (Ezr 6:3; there is no warrant for confining the 60 cubits of height to the porch only; compare Josephus, Ant, XI, i), exceed considerably those of the Temple of Solomon (side-chambers are no doubt included in the breadth). The greater glory of the former Temple can only refer to adornment, and to the presence in it of objects wanting in the second. The Mishna declares that the second temple lacked five things present in the first — the ark, the sacred fire, the shekhinah, the Holy Spirit, and the Urim and Thummim (Yoma’, xxi.2). 2. Its Divisions and Furniture:

The temple was divided, like its predecessor, into a holy and a most holy place, doubtless in similar proportions. In 1 Macc 1:22 mention is made of the “veil” between the two places. The most holy place, as just said, was empty, save for a stone on which the high priest, on the great Day of Atonement, placed his censer (Yoma’ v.2). The holy place had its old furniture, but on the simpler scale of the tabernacle — a golden altar of incense, a single table of shewbread, one 7-branched candlestick. These were taken away by Antiochus Epiphanes (1 Macc 1:21,22). At the cleansing of the sanctuary after its profanation by this prince, they were renewed by Judas Maccabeus (1 Macc 4:41 ff). Judas pulled down also the old desecrated altar, and built a new one (1 Macc 4:44 ff). 3. Its Courts, Altar, etc.:

The second temple had two courts — an outer and an inner (1 Macc 4:38,48; 9:54; Josephus, Ant, XIV, xvi, 2) — planned apparently on the model of those in Ezekiel. A.R.S. Kennedy infers from the measurements in the Haram that “the area of the great court of the second temple, before it was enlarged by Herod on the South and East, followed that of Ezekiel’s outer court — that is, it measured 500 cubits each way with the sacred rock precisely in the center” (Expository Times, XX, 182). The altar on this old Sakhra site — the first thing of all to be “set on its base” (Ezr 3:3) — is shown by 1 Macc 4:47 and a passage quoted by Josephus from Hecataeus (Apion, I, xxii) to have been built of unhewn stones. Hecataeus gives its dimensions as a square of 20 cubits and 10 cubits in height. There seems to have been free access to this inner court till the time of Alexander Janneus (104-78 BC), who, pelted by the crowd as he sacrificed, fenced off the part of the court in front of the altar, so that no layman could come farther (Josephus, Ant, XIII, xiii, 5). The courts were colonnaded (Ant., XI, iv, 7; XIV, xvi, 2), and, with the house, had numerous chambers (compare Nehemiah 12:44; 13:4 ff, etc.).

A brief contemporary description of this Temple and its worship is given in Aristeas, 83-104. This writer’s interest, however, was absorbed chiefly by the devices for carrying away the sacrificial blood and by the technique of the officiating priests. 4. Later Fortunes:

The vicissitudes of this temple in its later history are vividly recorded in Maccabees and in Josephus. In Ecclesiasticus 50 is given a glimpse of a certain Simon, son of Onias, who repaired the temple, and a striking picture is furnished of the magnificence of the worship in his time. The desecration and pillaging of the sanctuary by Antiochus, and its cleansing and restoration under Judas are alluded to above (see HASMONEANS; MACCABEANS ). At length Judea became an integral part of the Roman empire. In 66 BC Pompey, having taken the temple-hill, entered the most holy place, but kept his hands off the temple-treasures (Ant., XIV, iv, 4).

Some years later Crassus carried away everything of value he could find (Ant., XIV, vii, 1). The people revolted, but Rome remained victorious.

This brings us to the time of Herod, who was nominated king of Judea by Rome in 39 BC, but did not attain actual power until two years later. IV. THE TEMPLE OF HEROD I. Introductory. 1. Initiation of the Work:

Herod became king de facto by the capture of Jerusalem in 37 BC. Some years later he built the fortress Antonia to the North of the temple (before 31 BC). Midway in his reign, assigning a religious motive for his purpose, he formed the project of rebuilding the temple itself on a grander scale (Josephus gives conflicting dates; in Ant, XV, xi, 1, he says “in his 18th year”; in BJ, I, xxi, 1, he names his 15th year; the latter date, as Schurer suggests (GJV4, I 369), may refer to the extensive preparations). To allay the distrust of his subjects, he undertook that the materials for the new building should be collected before the old was taken down; he likewise trained 1,000 priests to be masons and carpenters for work upon the sanctuary; 10,000 skilled workmen altogether were employed upon the task. The building was commenced in 20-19 BC. The naos , or temple proper, was finished in a year and a half, but it took 8 years to complete the courts and cloisters. The total erection occupied a much longer time (compare John 2:20, “Forty and six years,” etc.); indeed the work was not entirely completed till 64 AD-6 years before its destruction by the Romans. 2. Its Grandeur:

Built of white marble, covered with heavy plates of gold in front and rising high above its marble-cloistered courts — themselves a succession of terraces — the temple, compared by Josephus to a snow-covered mountain (BJ, V, v, 6), was a conspicuous and dazzling object from every side. The general structure is succinctly described by G. A. Smith: “Herod’s temple consisted of a house divided like its predecessor into the Holy of Holies, and the Holy Place; a porch; an immediate fore-court with an altar of burnt offering; a Court of Israel; in front of this a Court of Women; and round the whole of the preceding, a Court of the Gentiles” (Jerusalem, II, 502).

On the “four courts,” compare Josephus, Apion, II, viii. 3. Authorities:

The original authorities on Herod’s temple are chiefly the descriptions in Josephus (Ant., XV, xi, 3, 5; BJ, V, v, etc.), and the tractate Middoth in the Mishna. The data in these authorities, however, do not always agree.

The most helpful modern descriptions, with plans, will be found, with differences in details, in Keil, Biblical Archaeology, I, 187 ff; in Fergusson, Temples of the Jews; in the articles “Temple” in HDB (T. Witton Davies) and Encyclopedia Biblica (G. H. Box); in the important series of papers by A. R. S. Kennedy in The Expository Times (vol XX), “Some Problems of Herod’s Temple” (compare his article “Temple” in one-vol DB); in Sanday’s Sacred Sites of the Gospels (Waterhouse); latterly in G. A.

Smith, Jerusalem, II, 499 ff. 4. Measurements:

Differences of opinion continue as to the sacred cubit. A. R. S. Kennedy thinks the cubit can be definitely fixed at 17,6 inches. (Expostory Times, XX, 24 ff); G. A. Smith reckons it at 20,67 inches. (Jerusalem, II, 504); T.

Witton Davies estimates it at about 18 in. (HDB, IV, 713), etc. W. S.

Caldecott takes the cubit of Josephus and the Middoth to be 1 1/5 ft. It will suffice in this sketch to treat the cubit, as before, as approximately equivalent to 18 inches.

II. The Temple and Its Courts. 1. Temple Area — Court of Gentiles:

Josephus states that the area of Herod’s temple was double that of its predecessor (BJ, I, xxi, 1). The Mishna (Mid., ii.2) gives the area as cubits (roughly 750 ft.); Josephus (Ant., XV, xi, 3) gives it as a stadium (about 600 Greek ft.); but neither measure is quite exact. It is generally agreed that on its east, west and south sides Herod’s area corresponded pretty nearly with the limits of the present Haram area (see JERUSALEM ), but that it did not extend as far North as the latter (Kennedy states the difference at about 26 as compared with 35 acres, and makes the whole perimeter to be about 1,420 yards, ut supra, 66). The shape was an irregular oblong, broader at the North than at the South. The whole was surrounded by a strong wall, with several gates, the number and position of some of which are still matters of dispute. Josephus mentions four gates on the West (Ant., XV, xi, 5), the principal of which, named in Mid., i.3, “the gate of Kiponos,” was connected by a bridge across the Tyropoeon with the city (where now is Wilson’s Arch). The same authority speaks of two gates on the South. These are identified with the “Huldah” (mole) gates of the Mishna — the present Double and Triple Gates — which, opening low down in the wall, slope up in tunnel fashion into the interior of the court.

The Mishna puts a gate also on the north and one on the east side. The latter may be represented by the modern Golden Gate — a Byzantine structure, now built up. This great court — known later as the “Court of the Gentiles,” because open to everyone — was adorned with splendid porticos or cloisters. The colonnade on the south side — known as the Royal Porch — was specially magnificent. It consisted of four rows of monolithic marble columns — 162 in all — with Corinthian capitals, forming three aisles, of which the middle was broader and double the height of the other two. The roofing was of carved cedar. The north, west, and east sides had only double colonnades. That on the east side was the “Solomon’s Porch” of the New Testament (John 10:23; Acts 3:11; 5:19). There were also chambers for officials, and perhaps a place of meeting for the Sanhedrin ([beth din]) (Josephus places this elsewhere). In the wide spaces of this court took place the buying and selling described in the Gospels ( Matthew 21:12 and parallel’s; John 2:13 ff). 2. Inner Sanctuary Inclosure: (1) Wall, “Chel,” “Coregh,” Gates.

In the upper or northerly part of this large area, on a much higher level, bounded likewise by a wall, was a second or inner enclosure — the “sanctuary” in the stricter sense (Josephus, BJ, V, v, 2) — comprising the court of the women, the court of Israeland the priests’ court, with the temple itself (Josephus, Ant, XV, xi, 5). The surrounding wall, according to Josephus (BJ, V, v, 2), was 40 cubits high on the outside, and 25 on the inside — a difference of 15 cubits; its thickness was 5 cubits. Since, however, the inner courts were considerably higher than the court of the women, the difference in height may have been some cubits less in the latter than in the former (compare the different measurements in Kennedy, ut supra, 182), a fact which may explain the difficulty felt as to the number of the steps in the ascent (see below). Round the wall without, at least on three sides (some except the West), at a height of 12 (Mid.) or 14 (Jos) steps, was an embankment or terrace, known as the [chel] (fortification), 10 cubits broad (Mid. says 6 cubits high), and enclosing the whole was a low balustrade or stone parapet (Josephus says 3 cubits high) called the [coregh], to which were attached at intervals tablets with notices in Greek and Latin, prohibiting entry to foreigners on pain of death (see PARTITION, WALL OF ). From within the [coregh] ascent was made to the level of the [chel] by the steps aforesaid, and five steps more led up to the gates (the reckoning is probably to the lower level of the women’s court). Nine gates, with two-storied gatehouses “like towers” (Josephus, BJ, V, v, 3), are mentioned, four on the North, four on the South, and one on the East — the last probably to be identified, though this is still disputed (Waterhouse, etc.), with the “Gate of Nicanor” (Mid.), or “Corinthian Gate” (Jos), which is undoubtedly “the Beautiful Gate” of Acts 3:2,10 (see for identification, Kennedy, ut supra, 270). This principal gate received its names from being the gift of a wealthy Alexandrian Jew, Nicanor, and from its being made of Corinthian brass. It was of great size — 50 cubits high and 40 cubits wide — and was richly adorned, its brass glittering like gold (Mid., ii.3). See BEAUTIFUL GATE . The other gates were covered with gold and silver (Josephus, BJ, V, v, 3). (2) Court of the Women.

The eastern gate, approached from the outside by 12 steps (Mid., ii.3; Maimonides), admitted into the court of the women, so called because it was accessible to women as well as to men. Above its single colonnades were galleries reserved for the use of women. Its dimensions are given in the Mishna as 135 cubits square (Mid., ii.5), but this need not be precise.

At its four corners were large roofless rooms for storage and other purposes. Near the pillars of the colonnades were 13 trumpet-shaped boxes for receiving the money-offerings of the people (compare the incident of the widow’s mite, Mark 12:41 ff; Luke 21:1 ff); for which reason, and because this court seems to have been the place of deposit of the temple-treasures generally, it bore the name “treasury” (gazophulakion, John 8:20). See TREASURY. (3) Inner Courts: Court of Israel; Court of the Priests:

From the women’s court, the ascent was made by 15 semicircular steps (Mid., ii.5; on these steps the Levites chanted, and beneath them their instruments were kept) to the inner court, comprising, at different levels, the court of Israel and the court of the priests. Here, again, at the entrance, was a lofty, richly ornamented gate, which some, as said, prefer to regard as the Gate of Nicanor or Beautiful Gate. Probably, however, the view above taken, which places this gate at the outer entrance, is correct. The Mishna gives the total dimensions of the inner court as 187 cubits long (East to West) and 135 cubits wide (Mid., ii.6; v.1). Originally the court was one, but disturbances in the time of Alexander Janneus (104-78 BC) led, as formerly told, to the greater part being railed off for the exclusive use of the priests (Josephus, Ant, XIII, xiii, 5). In the Mishna the name “court of the priests” is used in a restricted sense to denote the space — cubits — between the altar and “the court of Israel” (see the detailed measurements in Mid., v.1). The latter — “the court of Israel” — 2 1/2 cubits lower than “the court of the priests,” and separated from it by a pointed fence, was likewise a narrow strip of only 11 cubits (Mid., ii.6; v.1). Josephus, with more probability, carries the 11 cubits of the “court of Israel” round the whole of the temple-court (BJ, V, vi). Waterhouse (Sacred Sites, 112) thinks 11 cubits too small for a court of male Israelites, and supposes a much larger enclosure, but without warrant in the authorities (compare Kennedy, ut supra, 183; G. A. Smith, Jerusalem, II, 508 ff). (4) The Altar, etc.

In the priests’ court the principal object was the great altar of burnt offering, situated on the old site — the Sakhra — immediately in front of the porch of the temple (at 22 cubits distance — the space “between the temple and the altar” of Matthew 23:35). The altar, according to the Mishna (Mid., iii.1), was 32 cubits square, and, like Ezekiel’s, rose in stages, each diminishing by a cubit: one of 1 cubit in height, three of cubits, which, with deduction of another cubit for the priests to walk on, left a square of 24 cubits at the top. It had four horns. Josephus, on the other hand, gives 50 cubits for the length and breadth, and 15 cubits for the height of the altar (BJ, V, v, 6) — his reckoning perhaps including a platform (a cubit high?) from which the height is taken (see ALTAR ). The altar was built of unhewn stones, and had on the South a sloping ascent of like material, 32 cubits in length and 16 in width. Between temple and altar, toward the South, stood the “laver” for the priests. In the court, on the north side, were rings, hooks, and tables, for the slaughtering, flaying and suspending of the sacrificial victims. 3. The Temple Building: (1) House and Porch.

Yet another flight of 12 steps, occupying most of the space between the temple-porch and the altar, led up to the platform (6 cubits high) on which stood the temple itself. This magnificent structure, built, as said before, of blocks of white marble, richly ornamented with gold on front and sides, exceeded in dimensions and splendor all previous temples. The numbers in the Mishna and in Josephus are in parts discrepant, but the general proportions can readily be made out. The building with its platform rose to the height of 100 cubits (150 ft.; the 120 cubits in Josephus, Ant, XV, xi, 3, is a mistake), and was 60 cubits (90 ft.) wide. It was fronted by a porch of like height, but with wings extending 20 cubits (30 ft.) on each side of the temple, making the total breadth of the vestibule 100 cubits (150 ft.) also. The depth of the porch was 10 or 11 cubits; probably at the wings cubits (Jos). The entrance, without doors, was 70 cubits high and 25 cubits wide (Mid. makes 40 cubits high and 20 wide). Above it Herod placed a golden eagle, which the Jews afterward pulled down (Ant., XVII, vi, 3).

The porch was adorned with gold. (2) “Hekhal” and “Debhir”.

Internally, the temple was divided, as before, into a holy place ([hekhal]) and a most holy ([debhir]) — the former measuring, as in Solomon’s Temple,40 cubits (60 ft.) in length, and 20 cubits (30 ft.) in breadth; the height, however, was double that of the older Temple — 60 cubits (90 ft.; thus Keil, etc., following Josephus, BJ, V, v, 5). Mid., iv.6, makes the height only 40 cubits; A. R. S. Kennedy and G. A. Smith make the debhir a cube — 20 cubits in height only. In the space that remained above the holy places, upper rooms (40 cubits) were erected. The holy place was separated from the holiest by a partition one cubit in thickness, before which hung an embroidered curtain or “veil” — that which was rent at the death of Jesus ( Matthew 27:51 and parallel’s; Mid., iv.7, makes two veils, with a space of a cubit between them). The Holy of Holies was empty; only a stone stood, as in the temple of Zerubbabel, on which the high priest placed his censer on the Day of Atonement (Mishna, Yoma’, v.2). In the holy place were the altar of incense, the table of shewbread (North), and the seven-branched golden candlestick (South).

Representations of the two latter are seen in the carvings on the Arch of Titus (see SHEWBREAD, TABLE OF; CANDLESTICK, GOLDEN ). The spacious entrance to the holy place had folding doors, before which hung a richly variegated Babylonian curtain. Above the entrance was a golden vine with clusters as large as a man (Josephus, Ant, XV, xi, 3; BJ, V, v, 4). (3) The Side-Chambers.

The walls of the temple appear to have been 5 cubits thick, and against these, on the North, West, and South, were built, as in Solomon’s Temple, side-chambers in three stories,60 cubits in height, and 10 cubits in width (the figures, however, are uncertain), which, with the outer walls, made the entire breadth of the house 60 or 70 cubits. Mid., iv.3, gives the number of the chambers as 38 in all. The roof, which Keil speaks of as “sloping” (Bib.

Archaeology, I, 199), had gilded spikes to keep off the birds. A balustrade surrounded it 3 cubits high. Windows are not mentioned, but there would doubtless be openings for light into the holy place from above the sidechambers.

III. New Testament Associations of Herod’s Temple. 1. Earlier Incidents:

Herod’s temple figures so prominently in New Testament history that it is not necessary to do more than refer to some of the events of which it was the scene. It was here, before the incense altar, that the aged Zacharias had the vision which assured him that he should not die childless ( Luke 1:11 ff). Here, in the women’s court, or treasury, on the presentation by Mary, the infant Jesus was greeted by Simeon and Anna ( Luke 2:27 ff). In His 12th year the boy Jesus amazed the temple rabbis by His understanding and answers ( Luke 2:46 ff). 2. Jesus in the Temple:

The chronological sequence of the Fourth Gospel depends very much upon the visits of Jesus to the temple at the great festivals (see JESUS CHRIST ).

At the first of these occurred the cleansing of the temple-court — the court of the Gentiles — from the dealers that profaned it (John 2:13 ff), an incident repeated at the close of the ministry ( Matthew 21:12 ff and parallel’s). When the Jews, on the first occasion, demanded a sign, Jesus spoke of the temple of His body as being destroyed and raised up in three days (John 2:19), eliciting their retort, “Forty and six years was this temple in building,” etc. (John 2:20). This may date the occurrence about 27 AD.

At the second cleansing He not only drove out the buyers and sellers, but would not allow anyone to carry anything through this part of the temple ( Mark 11:15-17). In John His zeal flamed out because it was His Father’s house; in Mk, because it was a house of prayer for all nations (compare Isaiah 56:7). With this non-exclusiveness agrees the word of Jesus to the woman of Samaria: “The hour cometh, when neither in this mountain (in Samaria), nor in Jerusalem, shall ye worship the Father” (John 4:21). During the two years following His first visit, Jesus repeatedly, at festival times, walked in the temple-courts, and taught and disputed with the Jews. We find Him in John 5 at “a feast” (Passover or Purim?); in John 7; 8, at “the feast of tabernacles,” where the temple-police were sent to apprehend Him (7:32,45 ff), and where He taught “in the treasury” (8:20); in John 10:22 ff, at “the feast of the dedication” in winter, walking in “Solomon’s Porch.” His teaching on these occasions often started from some familiar temple scene — the libations of water carried by the priests to be poured upon the altar (John 7:37 ff), the proselytes (Greeks even) in the great portico (John 12:20 ff), etc. Of course Jesus, not being of the priestly order, never entered the sanctuary; His teaching took place in the several courts open to laymen, generally in the “treasury” (see John 8:20). 3. The Passion-Week:

The first days of the closing week of the life of Jesus — the week commencing with the Triumphal Entry — were spent largely in the temple.

Here He spoke many parables (Matthew 21; 22 and parallel’s); here He delivered His tremendous arraignment of the Pharisees (Matthew 23 and parallel’s); here, as He “sat down over against the treasury,” He beheld the people casting in their gifts, and praised the poor widow who cast in her two mites above all who cast in of their abundance ( Mark 12:41 ff and parallel’s). It was on the evening of His last day in the temple that His disciples drew His attention to “the goodly stones and offerings” (gifts for adornment) of the building ( Luke 21:5 and parallel’s) and heard from His lips the astonishing announcement that the days were coming — even in that generation — in which there should not be left one stone upon another ( Luke 21:6 and parallel’s). The prediction was fulfilled to the letter in the destruction of the temple by the Romans in 70 AD. 4. Apostolic Church:

Seven weeks after the crucifixion the Pentecost of Acts 2 was observed.

The only place that fulfils the topographical conditions of the great gatherings is Solomon’s Porch. The healing of the lame man ( Acts 3:1 ff) took place at the “door .... called Beautiful” of the temple, and the multitude after the healing ran together into “Solomon’s Porch” or portico ( Acts 3:11). Where also were the words of Luke 24:53, they “were continually in the temple, blessing God,” and after Pentecost ( Acts 2:46), “day by day, continuing stedfastly .... in the temple,” etc., so likely to be fulfilled? For long the apostles continued the methods of their Master in daily teaching in the temple ( Acts 4:1 ff). Many years later, when Paul visited Jerusalem for the last time, he was put in danger of his life from the myriads of Jewish converts “all zealous for the law” ( Acts 21:20), who accused him of profaning the temple by bringing Greeks into its precincts, i.e. within the [coregh] ( Acts 21:28-30). But Christianity had now begun to look farther afield than the temple. Stephen, and after him Saul, who became Paul, preached that “the Most High dwelleth not in houses made with hands” ( Acts 7:48; 17:24), though Paul himself attended the temple for ceremonial and other purposes ( Acts 21:26). 5. The Temple in Christian Thought:

From the time that the temple ceased to exist, the Talmud took its place in Jewish estimation; but it is in Christianity rather than in Judaism that the temple has a perpetual existence. The New Testament writers make no distinction between one temple and another. It is the idea rather than the building which is perpetuated in Christian teaching. The interweaving of temple associations with Christian thought and life runs through the whole New Testament. Jesus Himself supplied the germ for this development in the word He spoke concerning the temple of His body (John 2:19,21).

Paul, notwithstanding all he had suffered from Jews and Jewish Christians, remained saturated with Jewish ideas and modes of thought. In one of his earliest Epistles he recognizes the “Jerus that is above” as “the mother of us all” ( Galatians 4:26 the King James Version). In another, the “man of sin” is sitting “in the temple of God” ( 2 Thessalonians 2:4). The collective church (1 Corinthians 3:16,17), but also the individual believer (1 Corinthians 6:19), is a temple. One notable passage shows how deep was the impression made upon Paul’s mind by the incident connected with Trophimus the Ephesian ( Acts 21:29). That “middle wall of partition” which so nearly proved fatal to him then was no longer to be looked for in the Christian church ( Ephesians 2:14), which was “a holy temple” in the Lord ( Ephesians 2:21). It is naturally in the Epistle to the Hebrews that we have the fullest exposition of ideas connected with the temple, although here the form of allusion is to the tabernacle rather than the temple (see TABERNACLE ; compare Westcott on Hebrews, 233 ff). The sanctuary and all it included were but representations of heavenly things. Finally, in Revelation, the vision is that of the heavenly temple itself (11:19). But the church — professing Christendom? — is a temple measured by God’s command (11:1,2 ff). The climax is reached in 21:22-23: “I saw no temple therein (i.e. in the holy city): for the Lord God the Almighty, and the Lamb, are the temple thereof .... and the lamp thereof is the Lamb.” Special ordinances are altogether superseded. LITERATURE.

In general on the temples see Keil, Biblical Archaeology, I, in which the older literature is mentioned; Fergusson, Temples of the Jews; Comms. on K, Chronicles, Ezr, Neh, and Ezk; articles in the dicts. and encs (DB, HDB, EB); G. A. Smith, Jerusalem and similar works. On Solomon’s Temple, compare Benzinger, Heb. Archaologie. On Ezekiel’s temple, see Skinner’s “Book of Ezekiel” in Expositor’s Bible. On Zerubbabel’s temple, compare W. Shaw Caldecott, The Second Temple in Jerusalem. The original authorities on Herod’s temple are chiefly Josephus, Ant, XV, xi, and BJ, V, v; and the Mishna, Middoth, ii (this section of the Middoth, from Barclay’s Talmud, may be seen in App. I of Fergusson’s work above named). The German literature is very fully given in Schurer, HJP, I, 1, ff (GJV4, I, 392 f). See also the articles of A. R. S. Kennedy in Expository Times, XX, referred to above, and P. Waterhouse, in Sanday, Sacred Sites of the Gospels, 106 ff. On symbolism, compare Westcott, Hebrews, 233 ff.

See also articles in this Encyclopedia on parts, furniture, and utensils of the temple, under their several headings. W. Shaw Caldecott James Orr B. IN CRITICISM Modern criticism does not challenge the existence of a Solomonic Temple on Mt. Moriah, as it does that of a Mosaic tabernacle in the wilderness.

Only it maintains that historic value belongs exclusively to the narrative in Kings, while the statements in Chronicles are pure ornamentation or ecclesiastical trimming dating from post-exilic times. All that is true about the Temple, says criticism, is (1) that David originally, i.e. on coming to the throne of all Israel, contemplated erecting such a structure upon Araunah’s threshing-floor, but was prohibited from doing so by Nathan, who at first approved of his design but was afterward directed by Yahweh to stay the king’s hand, and to inform the king that the work of building a house for Yahweh to dwell in was not to be his (the king’s) task and privilege but his son’s, and that as a solatium for his disappointment Yahweh would build him a house, by establishing the throne of his kingdom forever ( 2 Samuel 7:4-17); (2) that after David’s death Solomon called to mind the pious purpose of his father of which he had been informed and the express promise of Yahweh that David’s successor on the throne should execute that purpose, and accordingly resolved to “build a house for the name of Yahweh his God” ( 1 Kings 5:3-5); and (3) that 7 1/2 years were employed in the work of construction, after which the finished Temple was dedicated in the presence of the congregation of Israel, with their princes, priests and Levites, in a speech which rehearsed the fact that David had intended to build the house but was prevented, and with a prayer which once more connected the Temple with the pious intention of David ( 1 Kings 8:18-20).

All the rest is simply embellishment (Wellhausen, GI, 181-92; article “Temple” in EB): (1) that David’s purpose to build the Temple was interdicted because he had been a man of war and had shed blood ( 1 Chronicles 28:3), which in Wellhausen’s judgment should rather have been a qualification for the business; (2) that David in his old and feeble age made elaborate preparations for the construction of the house he was not to see — which, again writes Wellhausen, was like “making the bread so far ready that his son only required to shove it into the oven”; (3) that David gave to his son Solomon the pattern of the house in all its details as the Lord had caused him to understand in writing (“black upon white,” as Wellhansen expresses it) by His (the Lord’s) hand upon him — which was different from the way in which Moses received instruction about the tabernacle, namely, by a pattern shown to him in the Mount, and carried in his recollection; (4) that David before his death arranged all the musical service for the Temple, invented musical instruments, appointed all the officers to be associated with the Temple priests, Levites, porters and singers, distributing them in classes and assigning them their duties by lot ( Chronicles 23:2-26; 2 Chronicles 8:12-16) — exactly as these things were afterward arranged in the second or post-exilic temple and were now carried back to David as the legislation of the Priestly Code was assigned to Moses; and (5) that David’s son Solomon assures Hiram (the Revised Version (British and American) “Huram”) that the Temple will be used as a central sanctuary “to burn before him (Yahweh) incense of sweet spices, and for the continual showbread, and for the burnt-offerings morning and evening, on the sabbaths, and on the new moons, and on the set feasts of Yahweh our God” ( 2 Chronicles 2:3 ff), i.e. for divine service, which, according to criticism, was of post-exilic origin.

The questions that now fall to be considered are: (1) whether the statements of the Chronicler are inconsistent with those in the Books of Samuel and Kings; and (2) if not, whether they are in themselves such as to be incredible. I. Alleged Want of Harmony between Earlier (K) and Later (Ch) Versions of Temple Building. 1. Second Version Not a Facsimile of First It does not seem reasonable to hold that this has been established. The circumstance that the second account is not a facsimile of the first does not warrant the conclusion that the first alone is fact and the second fiction. It is quite conceivable that both might be true. David might have had it in his mind, as the first account states and the second acknowledges, to build a house for Yahweh, and yet not have been able to carry his purpose into effect, and have been obliged to hand over its execution to his son. David, moreover, might have been hindered by Yahweh (through His prophet Nathan) from building the Temple for more reasons than one — because the proposal was premature, God having it in His mind to build a house for David, i.e. to establish his dynasty, before requiring a permanent habitation for Himself; and also because the time was unpropitious, David having still much to do in the subjugation of his country’s enemies; and because it was more fitting that a temple for the God of Peace should not be erected by one who had been a man of war from his youth. The first of these reasons is stated in Samuel, the second and third are recorded in Chronicles. 2. The Two Versions Differ as to the Builder The earlier version does not say that David built the house; but that his son was to do it, and this the later version does not contradict; the later version does not claim that the idea originated with Solomon, but ascribes it to David, precisely as the earlier version does. In this there is no disharmony, but rather underlying harmony. Both versions assert that David purposed and that Solomon performed, in which surely there is perfect agreement. 3. The Earlier Version Silent about Things Recorded in Later Version The silence of the earlier version about the things recorded in the later version, such as the preparation of material and the organization of the Temple-service, does not prove that these things were not known to the author of the earlier version, or had not taken place when he wrote. No writer is obliged to cram into his pages all he knows, but only to insert as much of his information as will subserve his aim in writing. Nor does his omission to set down in his narrative this or that particular fact or incident amount to a demonstration that the unrecorded fact or incident had not then occurred or was not within his cognizance. Least of all is it expected that a writer of civil history shall fill his pages with details that are purely or chiefly ecclesiastical. In short, if the omission from Kings of David’s preparations and arrangement for the Temple testifies that no such preparations or arrangements were made, the omission from Chronicles of David’s sin with Bath-sheba and of Nathan’s parable of the Ewe Lamb should certify that either these things never happened or they were not known after the exile. It is usual to say they were purposely left out because it was the Chronicler’s intention to encircle David with a nimbus of glory (Wellhausen), but this is simply critical hypothesis, the truth of which is disputed. On critical principles either these incidents in David’s life were not true or the Chronicler was not aware of them. But the Chronicler had as one main source for his composition “the earlier historical books from Genesis to Kings” (Driver), and “the tradition of the older source only has historical value” (Wellhausen). II. Detailed Objections against Chronicler’s Account. 1. Reason for Interdicting David’s Purpose to Build a Temple Examining now in detail the abovestated objections, we readily see that they are by no means so formidable as at first sight they look, and certainly do not prove the Chronicler’s account to be incredible. That David’s purpose to build a temple should have been interdicted because he had been a man of war and had shed blood appears to Wellhausen to be a watermark of non-historicity. Benzinger in Encyclopedia Biblica (art. “Temple”) goes beyond this and says “There is no historical probablity David had thoughts of building a temple.” But if David never thought of building a temple, then not only was the Chronicler mistaken in making Solomon say ( 2 Chronicles 6:7) that it was in the heart of his father so to do, but he was chargeable with something worse in making the Lord say to David, “Whereas it was in thy heart to build a house for my name, thou didst well in that it was in thy heart” ( 2 Chronicles 6:8), unless he was absolutely certain that the statement was true — which it was not if Benzinger may be relied on.

Nor is it merely the Chronicler whose character for intelligence and piety suffers, if David never thought of building a temple; the reputation of the author or authors of Samuel and Kings must also go, since they both declare that David did entertain the purpose which Benzinger denies ( Samuel 7:2; 1 Kings 5:3); and an impartial reasoner will hesitate before he sacrifices the good name even of two unknown ancient writers at the ipse dixit of any modern scholar.

We may therefore limit our remarks to Wellhausen’s objection and reply that the reason assigned by Chronicles for prohibiting David from carrying out his purpose, namely, that he had been a man of war, might have been an argument for permitting him to do so, or at least for his seeking to do so, had his object been to erect a monument to his own glory or a thank offering to God for the victories he had won; but not if the Temple was designed to be a habitation wherein God might dwell among His people to receive their worship and bless them with His grace. Strange as it may seem (Winer) that David should have been debarred from carrying out his purpose for the reason assigned, yet there was reason in the interdict, for not only was it fitting that peaceful works should be carried out by peaceful hands (Merz in PRE2), but David’s vocation was not temple-building but empire-building (to use a modern phrase); and many campaigns lay before him ere the leisure could be found or the land could be ready for the execution of his sacred design. 2. Impossibility of David in His Old Age Collecting Materials Enumerated by the Chronicler That David in his old and feeble age could not possibly have collected all the materials enumerated by 1 Chronicles 29 might possibly have been true, had David been an impecunious chieftain and had he only in the last years of his life commenced to amass treasure. But David was a powerful and wealthy eastern potentate and a valiant warrior besides, who had conquered numerous tribes, Philistines, Moabites, Syrians, Edomites and Ammonites, and had acquired from his victories large spoil, which from an early stage in his career he had been accustomed to dedicate to the Lord ( 2 Samuel 8:11). Hence, it is little better than trifling to put forward as an inherent mark of incredibility the statement that David in his old age could not have made extensive and costly preparations for the building of the Temple — all the more that according to the narrative he was assisted by “the princes of the fathers’ houses, and the princes of the tribes of Israel, and the captains of thousands and of hundreds, with the rulers over the king’s work,” and “the people” generally, who all “offered willingly for the service of the house of God.”

No doubt the value in sterling money of these preparations is enormous — the gold and silver alone being variously reckoned at 8 (Keil), (Bertheau), 81 (Michaelis), 450 (Kautzsch), 1,400 (Rawlinson) millions of pounds — and might reasonably suggest either that the text has become corrupt, or the numbers were originally used loosely to express the idea of an extraordinary amount, or were of set purpose exaggerated. The first of these explanations is adopted by Rawlinson; the second by Berthcan; the third by Wellhausen, who sees in the whole section (1 Chronicles through 29) “‘a frightful example of the statistical fantasy of the Jews, which delights itself in immense sums of gold upon paper.” But even conceding that in each of these explanations a measure of truth may lie, it does not seem justifiable to wipe out as unhistorical and imaginary the main statement of the Chronicler, that David’s preparations were both extensive and costly, all the less that 1 Kings 10:14,15 bears witness to the extraordinary wealth of Solomon. whose income is stated to have been talents of gold, or about 3 millions sterling, a year, besides that he had of the merchantmen, and of the traffic of the spice merchants, and of all the kings of Arabia and of the governors of the country. If David’s annual income was anything like this, and if he had command of all the treasures accumulated in previous years, it does not look so impossible as criticism would make out that David could have prepared for the future Temple as the Chronicler reports. 3. Supernaturally Received Pattern of the Temple Said to Have Been Given by David to Solomon That David gave to Solomon the pattern of the Temple in a writing which had been prepared by him under direct supernatural guidance can be objected to only by those who deny the possibility of such divine communications being made by God to man. If criticism admits, as it sometimes does, the possibility of both revelation and inspiration, the objection under consideration must fall to the ground. That the method of making David acquainted with the pattern of the Temple was not in all respects the same as that adopted for showing Moses the model of the tabernacle, only proves that the resources of infinite wisdom are not usually exhausted by one effort, and that God is not necessarily tied down to one particular way of uttering His thoughts.

But criticism mostly rejects the idea of the supernatural and accordingly dismisses this statement about the God-given pattern as altogether fanciful — pointing (1) to the fact that similar temples already existed among the Canaanites, as e.g. at Shechem ( Judges 9:46) and at Gaza ( Judges 16:29), which showed there was no special need for a divinely-prepared plan; and (2) to the circumstance that Solomon fetched Hiram, a Tyrian worker in brass, to assist in the erection of the Temple, which again, it is urged, renders probable the conclusion that at least Phoenician ideas entered into its structure (Duncker, Benzinger). Suppose, however, it were true that the Temple was fashioned on a Phoenician, Canaanite or Egyptian model, that would not disprove the statement that David was guided by divine inspiration in drawing up the outline of the building. 4. Alleged Organization of the Temple-Service by David That David’s organization of the Temple-service, both as to officers and instruments as to ritual and music, corresponded exactly (or nearly so) with what afterward existed in the second temple can hardly be adduced as a proof of non-historicity, except on the supposition that Chronicles deliberately “transformed the old history into church history” by ascribing to David the holy music and the arrangement of the Temple personals” which belonged to the post-exilic age, precisely as the author or authors of the Priestly Code, which dated from the same age (according to criticism), attributed this to Moses (Wellhausen, GI, 187) — in other words, by stating what was not true in either case, by representing that as having happened which had not happened. Whether this was originally intended to deceive and was a willful fraud, as some hold, and whether it was legitimate then “to do evil that good might come,” to persuade men that David organized the musical service which was performed in the second temple in order to secure for it popular acceptance, it may be left to each reader to determine; it must always be wrong to ascribe doubtful practices to good men like the authors of the Priestly Code (P) and of Chronicles unless one is absolutely sure that they were guilty of such practices.

Undoubtedly the fair and reasonable thing is to hold that the Chronicler wrote the truth until it is proved that he did not; and for his statement it may be claimed that at least it has this in its favor, that in the earlier sources David is distinctly stated to have been a musician ( 1 Samuel 16:23), to have composed a song, Psalm 18 ( 2 Samuel 22:1), and to have been designated “the sweet psalmist of Israel.” No doubt on the critical hypothesis this might explain why the thought occurred to the Chronicler to credit David with the organization of the Temple-service; but without the critical hypothesis it equally accounts for the interest David took in preparing “the music and the personals” for the Temple which his son was to, build. “The tradition that David intended to build a temple and that he reorganized public worship, not forgetting the musical side thereof (compare 2 Samuel 6:5 with Am 6:5),” says Kittel (The Scientific Study of the Old Testament, 136, English translation), “is not altogether without foundation.” 5. Assertion by Solomon That the Temple Would Be Used as a Central Sanctuary That the Temple-service was carried out in accordance with the regulations of the Priestly Code does not prove that the Chronicles account is unreliable, unless it is certain that the postexilic Priestly Code was an entirely new ritual which had never existed before, which some modern critics do not admit. But, if it was merely, as some maintain, a codification of a cult that existed before, then no sufficient reason exists for holding that Solomon’s Temple was designed to be a private chapel for the king (Benzinger), erected partly out of piety but partly also out of love of splendor and statecraft (Reuss), rather than a central sanctuary for the people. A study of Solomon’s letter to Hiram ( 2 Chronicles 2:4) shows that the Temple was intended for the concentration of the nation’s sacrificial worship which had up till then been frequently offered at local shrines, though originally meant for celebration at the Mosaic tabernacle — for the burning of sweet incense ( Exodus 30:1), the offering day by day continually of the burnt offering ( Exodus 29:39). And though, it is admitted, the letter to Hiram as reported in 1 Kings makes no mention of this intention, yet it is clear from 1 Kings 8:62-65, that Solomon, after dedicating the Temple by prayer, used it for this purpose. Wherefore, if Chronicles simply transferred to the consecration of the Temple a ritual that had no existence until after the exile, the author of Kings did the same, which again would destroy Wellhausen’s admission that historical validity attaches to the earlier source. A much more likely supposition is that the ritual reported by both historians was not that of a Priestly Code manufactured for the second temple, but that which had been published by Moses for the tabernacle, in place of which it had come. That local shrines for many years existed alongside of the Temple only proves that Solomon’s original idea was not perfectly carried out either by himself or his people. LITERATURE.

The Commentaries of Bertheau and Keil on Chronicles; Reuss. Geschichte der heiligen Schriften des Alten Testaments; articles on “Temple” in Sch- Herz; Riehm. Handworterbuch; HDB; EB; Wellhausen. Prolegomena schichte Israels. T. Whitelaw TEMPLE KEEPERS (SERVANTS) After the conquest of Midian, “Moses took one drawn out of every fifty, both of man and of beast, and gave them unto the Levites, that kept the charge of the tabernacle of Yahweh” ( Numbers 31:47; compare 31:30).

Similarly, after the deception of Joshua by the Gibeonites, “Joshua made them that day hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation, and for the altar of Yahweh, unto this day” ( Joshua 9:27). The object of these notices, evidently, is to explain how a non-Israelitish class of sanctuary servants had taken their origin. Their existence at the time of Ezekiel, however, is the object of one of the latter’s severest denunciations: “Ye have brought in foreigners, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary, to profane it. .... And ye have not kept the charge of my holy things; but ye have set keepers of my charge in my sanctuary for yourselves” ( Ezekiel 44:7 f). In place of these servants or “keepers” Ezekiel directs that such Levites are to be employed as have been degraded from priestly privileges for participating in idolatrous worship. On them shall devolve all the various duties of the temple except the actual offering of sacrifices, which is reserved for “the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok” (44:10-15). For the use of this deposed class, “the priests, the keepers of the charge of the house,” is reserved a special room in the inner court of the temple (40:44 f). See, further, NETHINIM.

Burton Scott Easton TEMPLES <tem’-p’lz > ( hQ;r’ [raqqah], “thinness,” “upper cheeks”): The original signifies the thinnest part of the skull ( Judges 4:21,22; 5:26). In Song of Solomon 4:3; 6:7, the bride’s cheeks are likened to pomegranates because of the rich coloring of a slice of this fruit.

TEMPLES, ROBBERS OF ([iJero>suloi, hierosuloi ]; the King James Version “robbers of churches,” Acts 19:37): To explain this as “sacrilegious persons” is irreconcilable with the contrast in Romans 2:22. In Deuteronomy 7:25, the Jews were commanded entirely to destroy the gold and silver idols, ornaments of the heathen temples. The sin reproved is that of making that a matter of gain which, without regard to its value, they should have destroyed. “Dost thou, who regardest the mere touch of an idol as a horrible defilement, presume to rob their temples?” There is abundant evidence to show that this crime was not unusual. When the town-clerk of Ephesus declares the companions of Paul innocent of such charge, his words imply that the fact that they were Jews rendered them liable to such suspicion. So Josephus goes out of his way (Ant., IV, viii, 10) to deny that Jews ever committed the crime. H. E. Jacobs TEMPT, TEMPTATION <temt > , <tem-ta’-shun > ( hs;n: [nacah], “to prove” “try,” “tempt” hS;m” [maccah], “a trial,” “temptation”; [peira>zw, peirazo ], “to try” “prove” [peirasmo>v, peirasmos ] “a trial,” “proof”): The words have a sinister connotation in present-day usage which has not always attached to them.

Originally the words were of neutral content, with the sense of “putting to the proof,” the testing of character or quality. Thus, God is “tempted” by Israel’s distrust of Him, as if the people were actually challenging Him to show His perfections ( Exodus 17:2; Psalm 78:18; Acts 15:10; Hebrews 3:9, and often); Abraham is “tempted,” being called upon to offer up Isaac ( Genesis 22:1); and Jesus is “tempted” to a spectacular Messiahship (Matthew 4 and parallel passages (see TEMPTATION OF CHRIST )). No evil is implied in the subject of these temptations.

Temptation therefore in the Scripture sense has possibilities of holiness as well as of sin. For as all experience witnesses, it is one thing to be tempted, another thing to fall. To be tempted — one may rejoice in that ( James 1:2), since in temptation, by conquering it, one may achieve a higher and nobler manhood. “Why comes temptation but for man to meet And master and make crouch beneath his foot, And so be pedestaled in triumph?” Holiness in its best estate is possible only under conditions which make it necessary to meet, resist and triumph over temptation. Thus, Jesus Himself became our Great High Priest in that, being tempted in all points like as we are, He never once yielded, but fought and triumphed ( Hebrews 4:15).

One must not deceive one’s self, however, in thinking that, because by the grace of God one may have profit of virtue through temptation as an instrument, all temptation is equally innocent and virtuous. It is noticeable in the case of Jesus that His temptation was under the direction of the Spirit ( Mark 1:12); He Himself did not seek it, nor did He fear it.

Temptations encountered in this way, the way of duty, the way of the Spirit, alone constitute the true challenge of saintship ( James 1:12); but it is the mark of an ignoble nature to be perpetually the center of vicious fancies and tempers which are not of God but of the devil ( James 1:13-15). One may not escape entirely such buffetings of faith, but by any sound nature they are easily disposed of. Not so easily disposed of are the trials (temptations) to faith through adversity, affliction, trouble ( Luke 22:28; Acts 20:19; James 1:2; 1 Peter 1:6); and yet there is no lack of evidence to the consoling fact that God does not suffer His own to be tempted above what they are able to bear (1 Corinthians 10:13) and that for every crisis His grace will be sufficient (2 Corinthians 12:8,9). Charles M. Stuart TEMPTATION OF CHRIST 1. THE SOURCES:

The sources for this event are Mark 1:12,13; Matthew 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13; compare Hebrews 2:18; 4:15,16, and see GETHSEMANE . Mark is probably a condensation; Matthew and Luke have the same source, probably the discourses of Jesus. Matthew is usually regarded as nearest the original, and its order is here followed. 2. TIME AND PLACE:

The Temptation is put immediately after the Baptism by all the synoptists, and this is psychologically necessary, as, we shall see. The place was the wilderness; it was “up” from the Jordan valley (Matthew), and was on the way back to Galilee (Luke). The traditional site, Mt. Quarantana, is probably a good guess. 3. SIGNIFICANCE:

At His baptism, Jesus received from heaven the final confirmation of His thought that He was the Messiah. It was the greatest conception which ever entered a human mind and left it sane. Under the irresistible influence of the Spirit, He turned aside to seek out in silence and alone the principles which should govern Him in His Messianic work. This was absolutely necessary to any wise prosecution of it. Without the slightest precedent Jesus must determine what a Messiah would do, how He would act.

Radical critics agree that, if such a period of meditation and conflict were not recorded, it would have to be assumed. By this conflict, Jesus came to that clearness and decision which characterized His ministry throughout. It is easy to see how this determination of guiding principles involved the severest temptation, and it is noteworthy that all the temptation is represented as coming from without, and none from within. Here too He must take His stand with reference to all the current ideas about the Messiah and His work. 4. THE REPORTER:

Jesus alone can be the original reporter. To this Holtzmann and J. Weiss agree. The report was given for the sake of the disciples, for the principles wrought out in this conflict are the guiding principles in the whole work of the kingdom of God on earth. 5. EXPOSITION: (1) Fasting.

Jesus was so intensely absorbed that He forgot to eat. There was nothing ascetic or ritualistic about it, and so this is no example for ascetic fasting for us. It is doubtful whether the text demands absolute abstinence from food; rather, long periods of fasting, and insufficient food when He had it.

At the end of the forty days, He woke to the realization that He was a starving man. (2) The First Temptation.

The first temptation is not a temptation to doubt His Messiahship, nor is the second either. “If thou art the Son of God,” i.e. “the Messiah,” means, simply, “since thou art the Son of God” (see Burton, Moods and Tenses, sections 244, 245; Robertson, Short Grammar, 161). There was not the slightest doubt on this point in Jesus’ mind after the baptism, and Satan knew it. There is no temptation to prove Himself the Messiah, nor any hint of such a thing in Jesus’ replies. The very point of it all is, How are you going to act, since you are Messiah? ( Matthew 4:3 parallel Luke 4:3).

The temptation has these elements: (a) The perfectly innocent craving for food is imperious in the starving man. (b) Why should He not satisfy His hunger, since He is the Son of God and has the power? Jesus replies from Deuteronomy 8:3, that God can and will provide Him bread in His own way and in His own time.

He is not referring to spiritual food, which is not in question either here or in Deuteronomy (see Broadus’ just and severe remark here). He does not understand how God will provide, but He will wait and trust.

Divinely-assured of Messiahship, He knows that God will not let Him perish. Here emerges the principle of His ministry; He will never use His supernatural power to help Himself. Objections based on Luke 4:30 and John 10:39 are worthless, as nothing miraculous is there implied. The walking on the water was to help the apostles’ faith. But why would it have been wrong to have used His supernatural power for Himself? Because by so doing He would have refused to share the human lot, and virtually have denied His incarnation. If He is to save others, Himself He cannot save ( Matthew 27:42). In passing, it is well to notice that “the temptations all turn on the conflict which arises, when one, who is conscious of supernatural power, feels that there are occasions, when it would not be right to exercise it.” So the miraculous is here most deeply imbedded in the first principles of Messianic action. (3) The Second Temptation.

The pinnacle of the temple was probably the southeast corner of the roof of the Royal Cloister, 326 ft. above the bottom of the Kidron valley. The proposition was not to leap from this height into the crowd below in the temple courts, as is usually said, for (a) there is no hint of the people in the narrative; (b) Jesus reply does not fit such an idea; it meets another temptation entirely; (c) this explanation confuses the narrative, making the second temptation a short road to glory like the third; (d) it seems a fantastic temptation, when it is seriously visualized.

Rather Satan bids Jesus leap into the abyss outside the temple. Why then the temple at all, and not some mountain precipice? asks Meyer.

Because it was the sheerest depth well known to the Jews, who had all shuddered as they had looked down into it ( Matthew 4:5-7 parallel Luke 4:5-8).

The first temptation proved Jesus a man of faith, and the second is addressed to Him as such, asking Him to prove His faith by putting God’s promise to the test. It is the temptation to fanaticism, which has been the destruction of many a useful servant of God Jesus refuses to yield, for yielding would have been sin. It would have been (a) wicked presumption, as though God must yield to every unreasonable whim of the man, of faith, and so would have been a real “tempting” of God; (b) it would have denied His incarnation in principle, like the first temptation; (c) such fanaticism. would have destroyed His ministry. So the principle was evolved: Jesus will not, of self-will, run into dangers, but will avoid them except in the clear path of duty. He will be no fanatic, running before the Spirit, but will be led by Him in paths of holy sanity and heavenly wisdom. Jesus waited on God. (4) The Third Temptation.

The former tests have proved Jesus a man of faith and of common sense.

Surely such a man will take the short and easy road to that universal dominion which right-fully belongs to the Messiah. Satan offers it, as the prince of this world. The lure here is the desire for power, in itself a right instinct, and the natural and proper wish to avoid difficulty and pain. That the final object is to set up a universal kingdom of God in righteousness adds to the subtlety of the temptation. But as a condition Satan demands that Jesus shall worship him. This must be symbolically interpreted. Such worship as is offered God cannot be meant, for every pious soul would shrink from that in horror, and for Jesus it could constitute no temptation at all. Rather a compromise with Satan must be meant — such a compromise as would essentially be a submission to him. Recalling the views of the times and the course of Jesus ministry, we can think this compromise nothing else than the adoption by Jesus of the program of political Messiahship, with its worldly means of war, intrigue, etc. Jesus repudiates the offer. He sees in it only evil, for (a) war, especially aggressive war, is to His mind a vast crime against love, (b) it changes the basis of His kingdom from the spiritual to the external, (c) the means would defeat the end, and involve Him in disaster. He will serve God only, and God is served in righteousness. Only means which God approves can be used ( Matthew 4:8-11 parallel Luke 4:9-13). Here then is the third great principle of the kingdom: Only moral and spiritual means to moral and spiritual ends. He turns away from worldly methods to the slow and difficult way of truth-preaching, which can end only with the cross. Jesus must have come from His temptation with the conviction that His ministry meant a life-and-death struggle with all the forces of darkness. 6. THE CHARACTER OF THE NARRATIVE:

As we should expect of Jesus, He throws the story of the inner conflict of His soul into story form. So only could it be understood by all classes of men in all ages. It was a real struggle, but pictorially, symbolically described. This seems to be proved by various elements in the story, namely, the devil can hardly be conceived as literally taking Jesus from place to place. There is no mountain from which all the kingdoms of the world can be seen. This view of the matter relieves all the difficulties. 7. HOW COULD A SINLESS CHRIST BE TEMPTED?:

The difficulty is that there can be no drawing toward an object unless the object seems desirable. But the very fact that a sinful object seems desirable is itself sin. How then can a sinless person really be tempted at all? Possibly an analysis of each temptation will furnish the answer. In each ease the appeal was a real appeal to a perfectly innocent natural instinct or appetite. In the first temptation, it was to hunger; in the second, to faith; in the third, to power as a means of establishing righteousness. In each ease, Jesus felt the tug and pull of the natural instinct; how insistent is the demand of hunger, for instance! Yet, when He perceived that the satisfaction of these desires was sinful under the conditions, He immediately refused their clamorous appeal. It was a glorious moral victory. It was not that He was metaphysically not able to sin, but that He was so pure that He was able not to sin. He did not prove in the wilderness that He could not be tempted, but that He could overcome the tempter. If it is then said that Jesus, never having sinned, can have no real sympathy with sinners, the answer is twofold: (1) Not he who falls at the first assault feels the full force of temptation, but he who, like Jesus, resists it through long years to the end. (2) Only the victor can help the vanquished; only he, who has felt the most dreadful assaults and yet has stood firm, can give the help needed by the fallen.

LITERATURE.

Broadus on Matthew in the place cited.; Rhees, Life of Jesus of Nazareth, secs. 91-96; Sanday, Outlines of the Life of Christ, section 13; Holtzmann, Hand-Commentar, I, 67 f; J. Weiss, Die Schriften des New Testament, I, 227 f; Weiss, Life of Christ, I, 337-54; Dods, article “Temptation,” in DCG; Carvie, Expository Times, X (1898-99). F. L. Anderson TEN ( rc,[, [`eser]; [de>ka, deka ]). See NUMBER.

TEN COMMANDMENTS, THE In the Old Testament the Decalogue is uniformly referred to as “the ten words” ( Exodus 34:28 margin; Deuteronomy 4:13 margin; 10:4 margin), or simply as “the words” spoken by Yahweh ( Exodus 20:1; 34:27; Deuteronomy 5:22; 10:2), or as “the words of the covenant” ( Exodus 34:28). In the New Testament they are called “commandments” ( Matthew 19:17; Ephesians 6:2), as with us in most Christian lands.

I. THE TEN COMMANDMENTS AN ISRAELITE CODE.

The “ten words” were spoken by Yahweh to the people whom He had but recently delivered from Egyptian bondage, and then led out into the wilderness, that He might teach them His laws. It was to Israel that the Decalogue was primarily addressed, and not to all mankind. Thus, the reason assigned for keeping the 5th commandment applies to the people who were on their way to the land which had been given to Abraham and his descendants ( Exodus 20:12); and the 4th commandment is enforced by reference to the servitude in Egypt ( Deuteronomy 5:15). It is possible, then, that even in the Ten Commandments there are elements peculiar to the Mosaic system and which our Lord and His apostles may not make a part of faith and duty for Christians. See SABBATH.

Of the “ten words,” seven were perhaps binding on the consciences of enlightened men prior to the days of Moses: murder, adultery, theft and false witness were already treated as crimes among the Babylonians and the Egyptians; and intelligent men knew that it was wrong to dishonor God by improper use of His name, or to show lack of respect to parents, or to covet the property of another. No doubt the sharp, ringing words in which these evils are forbidden in the Ten Commandments gave to Israel a clearer apprehension of the sins referred to than they had ever had before; and the manner in which they were grouped by the divine speaker brought into bold relief the chief elements of the moral law. But the first two prohibitions were novelties in the religious life of the world; for men worshipped many gods, and bowed down to images of every conceivable kind. The 2nd commandment was too high even for Israel to grasp at that early day; a few weeks later the people were dancing about the golden calf at the foot of Sinai. The observance of the Sabbath was probably unknown to other nations, though it may have been already known in the family of Abraham.

II. THE PROMULGATION OF THE DECALOGUE.

The “ten words” were spoken by Yahweh Himself from the top of the mount under circumstances the most awe-inspiring. In the early morning there were thunders and lightnings and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of a trumpet exceeding loud. It is no wonder that the people trembled as they faced the smoking and quaking mount, and listened to the high demands of a holy God. Their request that all future revelations should be made through Moses as the prophet mediator was quite natural.

The promulgation of the Ten Commandments stands out as the most notable event in all the wilderness sojourn of Israel. There was no greater day in history before the coming of the Son of God into the world.

After a sojourn of 40 days in the mount, Moses came down with “the two tables of the testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.” At the foot of the mount, when Moses saw the golden calf and the dancing throng about it, he cast the tables out of his hands and broke them in pieces ( Exodus 31:18; 39:15-20). Through the intercession of Moses, the wrath of Yahweh was averted from Israel; and Yahweh invited Moses to ascend the mount with two new tablets, on which He would write the words that were on the first tables, which were broken. Moses was commanded to write the special precepts given by God during this interview; but the. Ten Commandments were written on the stone tablets by Yahweh Himself ( Exodus 34:1-4,27-29; Deuteronomy 10:1-5).

These precious tablets were later deposited in the ark of the covenant ( Exodus 40:20). Thus in every way possible the Ten Commandments are exalted as the most precious and directly divine of all the precepts of the Mosaic revelation.

III. ANALYSIS OF THE DECALOGUE WITH BRIEF EXEGETICAL NOTES.

That there were “ten words” is expressly stated ( Exodus 34:28; Deuteronomy 4:13; 10:4); but just how to delimit them one from another is a task which has not been found easy. For a full discussion of the various theories, see Dillmann, Exodus, 201-5, to whom we are indebted for much that is here set forth. 1. How Numbered: (1) Josephus is the first witness for the division now common among Protestants (except Lutherans), namely, (a) foreign gods, (b) images, (c) name of God, (d) Sabbath, (e) parents, (f) murder, (g) adultery, (h) theft, (i) false witness, (j) coveting. Before him, Philo made the same arrangement, except that he followed the Septuagint in putting adultery before murder. This mode of counting was current with many of the church Fathers, and is now in use in the Greek Catholic church and with most Protestants. (2) Augustine combined foreign gods and images ( Exodus 20:2-6) into one commandment and following the order of Deuteronomy 5:21 (Hebrew 18) made the 9th commandment a prohibition of the coveting of a neighbor’s wife, while the 10th prohibits the coveting of his house and other property. Roman Catholics and Lutherans accept Augustine’s mode of reckoning, except that they follow the order in Exodus 20:17, so that the 9th commandment forbids the coveting of a neighbor’s house, while the 10th includes his wife and all other property. (3) A third mode of counting is that adopted by the Jews in the early Christian centuries, which became universal among them in the Middle Ages and so down to the present time. According to this scheme, the opening statement in Exodus 20:2 is the “first word,” Exodus 20:3-6 the second (combining foreign gods with images), while the following eight commandments are as in the common Protestant arrangement.

The division of the prohibition of coveting into two commandments is fatal to the Augustinian scheme; and the reckoning of the initial statement in Exodus 20:2 as one of the “ten words” seems equally fatal to the modern Jewish method of counting. The prohibition of images, which is introduced by the solemn formula, “Thou shalt not,” is surely a different “word” from the command to worship no god other than Yahweh.

Moreover, if nine of the “ten words” are commandments, it would seem reasonable to make the remaining “word” a commandment, if this can be done without violence to the subjectmatter. See Eerdmaus, The Expositor, July, 1909, 21 ff. 2. How Grouped: (1) The Jews, from Philo to the present, divide the “ten words” into two groups of five each. As there were two tables, it would be natural to suppose that five commandments were recorded on each tablet, though the fact that the tablets had writing on both their sides ( Exodus 32:15) would seem to weaken the force of the argument for an equal division.

Moreover, the first pentad, in the present text of Exodus and Deuteronomy, is more than four times as long as the second. (2) Augustine supposed that there were three commandments on the first table and seven on the second. According to his method of numbering the commandments, this would put the command to honor parents at the head of the second table, as in the third method of grouping the ten words. (3) Calvin and many moderns assign four commandments to the first table and six to the second. This has the advantage of assigning all duties to God to the first table and all duties to men to the second. It also accords with our Lord’s reduction of the commandments to two ( Matthew 22:34-40). 3. Original Form: A comparison of the text of the Decalogue in Deuteronomy 5 with that in Exodus 20 reveals a goodly number of differences, especially in the reasons assigned for the observance of the 4th and 5th commandments, and in the text of the 10th commandment. A natural explanation of these differences is the fact that Deuteronomy employs the free-and-easy style of public discourse. The Ten Commandments are substantially the same in the two passages.

From the days of Ewald to the present, some of the leading Old Testament scholars have held that originally all the commandments were brief and without the addition of any special reasons for their observance. According to this hypothesis, the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and the 10th commandments were probably as follows: “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image”; “Thou shalt not take the name of Yahweh thy God in vain”; “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy”; “Honor thy father and thy mother”; “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house.” This early critical theory would account for the differences in the two recensions by supposing that the motives for keeping the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th commandments, as well as the expansion of the 10th, were additions made through the influence of the prophetic teaching. If accompanied by a full recognition of the divine origin of the ten words in the Mosaic era, this hypothesis might be acceptable to a thorough believer in revelation. Before acquiescing in the more radical theories of some recent scholars, such a believer will demand more cogent arguments than the critics have been able to bring forward. Thus when we are told that the Decalogue contains prohibitions that could not have been incorporated into a code before the days of Manasseh, we demand better proofs than the failure of Israel to live up to the high demands of the 2nd and the 10th commandments, or a certain theory of the evolution of the history that may commend itself to the mind of naturalistic critics. Yahweh was at work in the early history of Israel; and the great prophets of the 8th century, far from creating ethical monotheism, were reformers sent to demand that Israel should embody in daily life the teachings of the Torah.

Goethe advanced the view that Exodus 34:10-28 originally contained a second decalogue.

Wellhausen (Code of Hammurabi, 331 f) reconstructs this so-called decalogue as follows: (1) Thou shalt worship no other god ( Exodus 34:14). (2) Thou shalt make thee no molten gods ( Exodus 34:17). (3) The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep ( Exodus 34:18a). (4) Every firstling is mine ( Exodus 34:19a). (5) Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks ( Exodus 34:22a). (6) And the feast of ingathering at the year’s end ( Exodus 34:22c). (7) Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread ( Exodus 34:25a). (8) The fat of my feast shall not remain all night until the morning (23:18b; compare 34:25b). (9) The best of the first-fruits of thy ground shalt thou bring to the house of Yahweh thy God ( Exodus 34:26a). (10) Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother’s milk ( Exodus 34:26b).

Addis agrees with Wellhausen that even this simpler decalogue must be put long after the time of Moses (EB, 1051).

Now, it is evident that the narrative in Exodus 34:27 f, in its present form, means to affirm that Moses was commanded to write the precepts contained in the section immediately preceding. The Ten Commandments, as the foundation of the covenant, were written by Yahweh Himself on the two tablets of stone ( Exodus 31:18; 32:15 f; 34:28). It is only by free critical handling of the narrative that it can be made to appear that Moses wrote on the two tables the supposed decalogue of Exodus 34:14-26.

Moreover, the law of the Sabbath (34:21), which is certainly appropriate amid the ritual ordinances of Exodus 34, must be omitted altogether, in order to reduce the precepts to ten; also the command in 34:23 has to be deleted. It is interesting to observe that the prohibition of molten gods (34:17), even according to radical critics, is found in the earliest body of Israelite laws. There is no sufficient reason for denying that the 2nd commandment was promulgated in the days of Moses. Yahweh’s requirements have always been in advance of the practice of His people. 4. Brief Exegetical Notes: (1) The 1st commandment prohibits the worship of any god other than Yahweh. If it be said that this precept inculcates monolatry and not monotheism, the reply is ready to hand that a consistent worship of only one God is, for a people surrounded by idolaters, the best possible approach to the conclusion that there is only one true God. The organs of revelation, whatever may have been the notions and practices of the mass of the Israelite people, always speak in words that harmonize with a strict monotheism. (2) The 2nd commandment forbids the use of images in worship; even an image of Yahweh is not to be tolerated (compare Exodus 32:5).

Yahweh’s mercy is greater than His wrath; while the iniquity of the fathers descends to the third and the fourth generation for those who hate Yahweh, His mercy overflows to thousands who love Him. It is doubtful whether the rendering `showing mercy to the thousandth generation’ ( Exodus 20:6) can be successfully defended. (3) Yahweh’s name is sacred, as standing for His person; therefore it must be employed in no vain or false way. The commandment, no doubt, includes more than false swearing. Cursing, blasphemy and every profane use of Yahweh’s name are forbidden. (4) As the 1st commandment inculcates the unity of God and the 2nd His spirituality, so also the 3rd commandment guards His name against irreverent use and the 4th sets apart the seventh day as peculiarly His day, reserved for a Sabbath. Exodus 20:11 emphasizes the religious aspect of the Sabbath, while Deuteronomy 5:14 lays stress on its humane aspect, and Deuteronomy 5:15 links it with the deliverance from bondage in Egypt. (5) The transition from duties to God to duties to men is made naturally in the 5th commandment, which inculcates reverence for parents, to whom their children should look up with gratitude, as all men should toward the Divine Father. (6) Human life is so precious and sacred that no man should dare to take it away by violence. (7) The family life is safeguarded by the 7th commandment. (8) The 8th commandment forbids theft in all its forms. It recognizes the right of personal ownership of property. (9) The 9th commandment safeguards honor and good name among men.

Slander, defamation, false testimony in court and kindred sins are included. (10) The 10th commandment is the most searching of them all, for it forbids the inward longing, the covetous desire for what belongs to another. The presence of such a deeply spiritual command among the “ten words” shows that we have before us no mere code of laws defining crimes, but a body of ethical and spiritual precepts for the moral education of the people of Yahweh.

IV. JESUS AND THE TEN COMMANDMENTS.

Our Lord, in the interview with the rich young ruler, gave a recapitulation of the commandments treating of duties to men ( Mark 10:19; Matthew 19:18 f; Luke 18:20). He quotes the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th commandments. The minor variations in the reports in the three Synoptic Gospels remind the student of the similar variations in Exodus and Deuteronomy 5. Already in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus had quoted the 6th and 7th commandments, and then had gone on to show that anger is incipient murder, and that lust is adultery in the heart ( Matthew 5:27-32). He takes the words of the Decalogue and extends them into the realm of thought and feeling. He may have had in mind the 3rd commandment in His sharp prohibition of the Jewish habit of swearing by various things ( Matthew 5:33-37). As to the Sabbath, His teaching and example tended to lighten the onerous restrictions of the rabbis ( Mark 2:23-28). Duty to parents He elevated above all supposed claims of vows and offerings ( Matthew 15:4-6). In further extension of the 8th commandment, Jesus said, “Do not defraud” ( Mark 10:19); and in treating of the ethics of speech, Jesus not only condemns false witness, but also includes railing, blasphemy, and even an idle word ( Matthew 15:19; 12:31,36 f). In His affirmation that God is spirit (John 4:24), Jesus made the manufacture of images nothing but folly. All his ethical teaching might be said to be founded on the 10th commandment, which tracks sin to its lair in the mind and soul of man.

Our Lord embraced the whole range of human obligation in two, or at most three, commands: (1) “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind”; (2) “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” ( Matthew 22:37-40; compare Deuteronomy 6:5; Leviticus 19:18). With love such as is here described in the heart, man cannot trespass against God or his fellow-men. At the close of His ministry, on the night of the betrayal, Jesus gave to His followers a third commandment, not different from the two on which the whole Law hangs, but an extension of the second great commandment upward into a higher realm of self-sacrifice (John 13:34 f; 15:12 f,17; compare Ephesians 5:2; Galatians 6:10; John 3:14-18). “Thou shalt love” is the first word and the last in the teaching of our Lord. His teaching is positive rather than negative, and so simple that a child can understand it. For the Christian, the Decalogue is no longer the highest summary of human duty. He must ever read it with sincere respect as one of the great monuments of the love of God in the moral and religious education of mankind; but it has given place to the higher teaching of the Son of God, all that was permanently valuable in the Ten Commandments having been taken up into the teaching of our Lord and His apostles.

LITERATURE.

Oehler, Old Testament Theology, I, 267 ff; Dillmann, Exodus-Leviticus, 200-219; Kuenen, Origin and Composition of the Hexateuch, 244; Wellhausen, Code of Hammurabi, 331 f; Rothstein, Das Bundesbuch; Baenstch, Das Bundesbuch; Meissaner, Der Dekalog; Driver, “Deuteronomy,” ICC; Addis, Documents of the Hexateuch, I, 136 ff; R.

W. Dale, The Ten Commandments; G. D. Boardman, University Lectures on the Ten Commandments (Philadelphia, 1889). John Richard Sampey TEN STRINGS ( rwOc[; [`asor]). See MUSIC, I, 1, (2), (c).

TENDER <ten’-der > : The usua1 (11 out of 16 times) translation of _]r” [rakh], “soft,” “delicate,” with the noun _]ro [rokh], in Deuteronomy 28:56 and the verb _]k”r; [rakhakh], in 2 Kings 22:19 parallel 2 Chronicles 34:27. Attention need be called only to the following cases: In Genesis 29:17, “Leah’s eyes were tender,” a physical defect is described (“weakeyed”; see BLINDNESS ). “Tender-hearted” in 2 Chronicles 13:7 means “faint-hearted,” while in 2 Kings 22:19 parallel 2 Chronicles 34:27 (“because thy heart was tender”), it means “penitent.” Contrast the modern use in Ephesians 4:32.

Throughout Psalms (10 times) and Proverbs (12:10), but not elsewhere (the King James Version has “tender love” in Daniel 1:9, the Revised Version (British and American) “compassion”), English Versions of the Bible translate µymij\r’ [rachamim], “bowels,” by “tender mercies,” and this translation has been carried into the New Testament as “tender mercy” (the Revised Version margin “heart of mercy”) for the corresponding Greek phrase splagchna eleous (“bowels of mercy”) in Luke 1:78; compare “tenderhearted” for eusplagchnos (“right boweled”) in Ephesians 4:32, based upon the idea of psychology widely spread among Semitic people, which considers the “bowels” ([qerebh]) as the seat of all tender emotions of kindness and mercy: See BOWELS . the King James Version also has “of tender mercy” in James 5:11 without justification in the Greek (oiktirmon , the Revised Version (British and American) “merciful”).

Other special phrases: “tender grape” in the King James Version, Song of Solomon 2:13,15; 7:12, for rd”m;s] [cemadhar]. The meaning of the word is not quite certain, but Revised Margin’s “blossom” (except 7:12 margin) is probably right. “Tender grass” in 2 Samuel 23:4; Proverbs 27:25; the Revised Version (British and American) Deuteronomy 32:2 (the King James Version “tender herb”); Isaiah 15:6; 66:14 for av,D, [deshe’] “grass” (Aramaic at,D, [dethe’], Daniel 4:15,23). The context in these passages and the meaning of the cognates of [deshe’] in other Semitic languages make this translation probable, but Revised Version’s usage is not consistent (compare Genesis 1:11,12; Job 6:5; Psalm 23:2, etc.). Isa, 53:2 has “tender plant” for qnEwOy [yoneq], “a sapling,” while Job 14:7 has “tender branch” for the allied word tq,nJob 8:16, etc.). Finally, “tender” in Mark 13:28 parallel Matthew 24:32 is for [aJpalo>v, hapalos ], “soft.” The running sap of springtime softens the branches that were stiff during the winter.

The verb “tender” occurs in 2 Macc 4:2, the King James Version “(he had) tendered his own nation,” in the modern sense of “tend.” The translation is a paraphrase of the noun [khdemw>n, kedemon ], “a protector,” the Revised Version (British and American) “the guardian of his fellow-countrymen.” Burton Scott Easton TENON <ten’-un > ( dy; [yadh]): This word, occurring in Exodus 26 and 36, is used in the account of the tabernacle to describe the “hand” or yadh by which its 48 boards were kept in place. Each board had two tenons which were mortised into it ( Exodus 36:22 margin). These tenons would be made of harder wood than the acacia, so as better to stand the strain of wind and weather. When in use the tenons were sunk into the “sockets” (which see), and allowed of a speedy reerection of the tabernacle at its every remove.

Sockets are also mentioned as in use for the standards of the tabernacle court ( Exodus 27:10 ff), but there is no mention of tenons. It may be that the base of each standard was let into its socket, without the use of any tenon. This would give it sufficient stability, as the height of each standard was but 5 cubits (7 1/2 ft.) ( Exodus 27:18).

For Professor A. R. S. Kennedy’s different theory of “tenons,” see TABERNACLE , and his own article on the “Tabernacle” in HDB, IV. W. Shaw Caldecott TENT <tent > ( lh,ao [’ohel]; [skhnh>, skene ]; ‘ohel is a derivative of lh”a; [’ahal], “to be clear,” “to shine”; hence, ‘ohel, “to be conspicuous from a distance”): In the great stretches of uncultivated lands in the interior of Syria or Arabia, which probably have much the same aspect today as in Abraham’s time, it is an easy matter to espy an encampment of roving Bedouin, “a nation .... that dwelleth without care .... that have neither gates nor bars” ( Jeremiah 49:31). The peaks of their black (compare Song of Solomon 1:5) goats’ hair tents stand out in contrast against the lighter colors of the soil.

There seems to be little doubt about the antiquity of the Arab tent, and one can rightly believe that-the dwelling-places of Abraham, Sarah, Jacob, and their descendants were made on the same pattern and of the same materials ( Genesis 4:20; 9:27; 12:8; 13:3; 18:6; 31:25,30; Psalm 78:55; Hebrews 11:9, etc.). Long after the children of Israel had given up their tents for houses they continued to worship in tents ( 2 Samuel 7:1-6; 2 Chronicles 1:3,4) (for the use of tents in connection with religious observances see TABERNACLE ).

The Arab tents (called bait sha`r, “house of hair”) are made of strips of black goats’ hair cloth, sewed together into one large piece (see GOATS’ HAIR; WEAVING ). Poles are placed under this covering at intervals to hold it from the ground, and it is stretched over these poles by ropes of goats hair or hemp (compare Job 4:21; Isaiah 54:2; Jeremiah 10:20) “fastened to hard-wood pins driven into the ground ( Isaiah 54:2; Judges 4:21; 5:26). A large wooden mallet for driving the pegs is part of the regular camp equipment ( Judges 4:21; 5:26). The sides (curtains) of the tent ( Isaiah 54:2) are made of strips of goats hair cloth or from mats woven from split cane or rushes (see Illustration, p. 2948). Where more than one family occupies the same tent or the animals are provided with shelter under the same roof (compare 2 Chronicles 14:15), curtains of the same materials mentioned above form the dividing walls. A corner of the matting where two ends meet is turned back to form the door of the tent ( Genesis 18:1). In the summer time the walls are mostly removed.

New tents are not water-proof, and the condition of the interior after a heavy rain is not far from squalid. The tent material becomes matted by use, especially if wool has been woven into the fabric, and is then a better protection against the rain. It is the women’s duty to pitch the tents.

The poorer Arabs have no mats to cover the ground under their tents.

Straw mats, goats’ hair or woolen rugs (compare Judges 4:18), more or less elaborate as the taste and means of the family allow, are the usual coverings for the tent floor. The food supplies are usually kept in goats’ hair bags, the liquids, as oil or milk products, in skins. One or two tinned copper cooking-vessels, a shallow tray of the same material, a coffee set consisting of roasting pan, mortar and pestle, boiling-pot and cups, make up the usual camp furniture. The more thrifty include bedding in their equipment, but this increases the difficulties of moving, since it might require more than the one animal, sometimes only a donkey, which carries all the earthly belongings of the family. A sheikh or chief has several tents, one for himself and guests, separate ones for his wives and female servants, and still others for his animals (compare Genesis 31:33).

Other Hebrew words translated “tent” are forms of hn:j; [chanah] ( Numbers 13:19; 1 Samuel 17:53; 2 Kings 7:16; 2 Chronicles 31:2; Zec 14:15); hK;su [cukkah] ( 2 Samuel 11:11; 22:12); twOnK]v]mi [mishkenoth] ( Song of Solomon 1:8).

Figurative: “Neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there” typified utter desolation ( Isaiah 13:20). “Enlarge the place of thy tent .... stretch forth the curtains .... lengthen thy cords .... strengthen thy stakes” prophesied an increase in numbers and prosperity of God’s people ( Isaiah 54:2; compare 33:20; Luke 16:9; 2 Corinthians 5:4). Tent cords plucked up denoted death. ( Job 4:21). Jeremiah 10:20 is a picture of a destroyed household as applied to Judah. Hezekiah in his sickness bewails that his dwelling (life) had been carried away as easily as a shepherd’s tent is plucked up ( Isaiah 38:12). Isaiah compared the heavens to a tent spread out ( Isaiah 40:22). “They shall pitch their tents against her” i.e. they shall make war ( Jeremiah 6:3). James A. Patch TENTH See TITHE.

TENTH DEAL <del > ( ˆwOrC;[I , ˆroC;[i [`issaron)]: The tenth part of an ephah, and so rendered in the Revised Version (British and American) (Numbers 28; 29).

It was used in connection with the sacrifices for measuring flour.

TENT-MAKER <tent’-mak-er > (skhnopoio>v, skenopoios ): Mentioned only once ( Acts 18:3). Paul’s native province of Cilicia was noted for its goats’ hair cloth which was exported under the name of cilicium and was used largely for tentmaking. We are told in the passage mentioned that Paul dwelt with Aquila and Priscilla, and worked with them at tent-making (compare Acts 20:34). See also CRAFTS, II, 18.

TEPHON <te’-fon > ([hJ Tefw>, he Tepho ]): In 1 Macc 9:50, a city of Judea fortified by Bacchides, probably the “Beth-tappuah” of Joshua 15:53, near Hebron. Josephus (Ant., XII, i, 3) calls it “Tochoa.”

TERAH (1) <te’-ra > ( jr’T, [terach]; Septuagint [ Qa>rra, Tharra ], or (with New Testament) [ Qa>ra, Thara ]; on the name see especially HDB, under the word): The son of Nahor and father of Abraham, Nahor and Haran ( Genesis 11:24 f). At Abraham’s birth Terah was 70 years old ( Genesis 11:26), and after Abraham’s marriage, Terah, Abraham, Sarah and Lot emigrated from Ur of the Chaldees on the road into the land of Canaan, but stopped in Haran ( Genesis 11:31). When Abraham was years old he and his nephew resumed their journey, leaving Terah in Haran, where 60 years later he died ( Genesis 11:32). Stephen, however, states ( Acts 7:4) that Terah was dead when Abraham left Haran, an impression that is easily gained from Genesis 11 through 12 if the dates are not computed. As there is no reason to suppose that Stephen was granted inspiration that would preserve him from such a purely formal error, the contradiction is of no significance and attempts at “reconciliation” are needless. In particular, the attempt of Blass (Stud. u. Krit., 1896, 460 ff) to alter the text of Acts is quite without foundation. For further discussion see especially Knowling, The Expositor’s Greek Testament, at the place It is worth noting that Philo makes the same error (Migr. Abr. 177 (section 32)), perhaps indicating some special Jewish tradition of New Testament times. In Joshua 24:2 Terah is said to have been an idolater. In Jubilees 12 this is softened into explaining that through fear of his life Terah was forced to yield outward conformity to the idolatrous worship of his neighbors. On the other hand certain Jewish legends (e.g. Ber. Rab. 17) represent Terah as actually a maker of idols. Otherwise in the Bible Terah is mentioned only by name in 1 Chronicles 1:26; Luke 3:34. Burton Scott Easton TERAH (2) (Codex Vaticanus [ Ta>raq, Tarath ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ Qa>raq, Tharath ]): A wilderness camp of the Israelites between Tahath and Mithkah ( Numbers 33:27,28). See WANDERINGS OF ISRAEL.

TERAPHIM <ter’-a-fim > . See ASTROLOGY; DIVINATION; IMAGES.

TEREBINTH <ter’-e-binth > : (1) hl;ae [’elah] ( Isaiah 6:13, the King James Version “teil tree”; Hosea 4:13, the King James Version “elms”); in Genesis 35:4 (the King James Version “oak”); Judges 6:11,19; 9:6 (the King James Version “plain”); 2 Samuel 18:9,10,14; 1 Kings 13:14; 1 Chronicles 10:12; Isaiah 1:30; Ezekiel 6:13, translated “oak,” and in margin “terebinth”; “vale of Elah,” margin “the terebinth” in 1 Samuel 17:2,19; 21:9. (2) myliae [’elim] ( Isaiah 1:29, “oaks,” margin “terebinths”). (3) hL;a” [’allah] ( Joshua 24:26, English Versions of the Bible have “oak,” but the Septuagint [tere>binqov, terebinthos ]). (4) ˆwOlae [’elon], “oak (margin, “terebinth”) of Zaanannim” ( Joshua 19:33; Judges 4:11); “oak (the Revised Version margin “terebinth,” the King James Version “plain”) of Tabor” ( 1 Samuel 10:3); also Genesis 12:6; 13:18; 14:13; 1 Samuel 10:3; Deuteronomy 11:30; Judges 6:19 all translated “oak” or “oaks,” with margin “terebinth” or “terebinths.” (5) In Genesis 14:6 Septuagint has [tere>binqov, terebinthos ], as the translation of the [el] of El-paran. (6) In Ecclesiasticus 24:16 [tere>m(b)inqov, terem(b)inthos ], the King James Version turpentine tree,” the Revised Version (British and American) “terebinth.”

It is clear that the translators are uncertain which translation is correct, and it would seem not improbable that then there was no clear distinction between oak and terebinth in the minds of the Old Testament. writers; yet the two are very different trees to any but the most superficial observation.

The terebinth — Pistacia terebinthus (Natural Order, Anacardiaceae), Arabic Butm] — is a tree allied to the P. vera, which produces the pistachio nut, and to the familiar “pepper tree” (Schinus molle) so extensively cultivated in modern Palestine. Like the latter the terebinth has red berries, like small immature grapes. The leaves are pinnate, four to six pairs, and they change color and fall in autumn, leaving the trunk bare (compare Isaiah 1:30). The terebinth is liable to be infected by many showy galls, some varieties looking like pieces of red coral. In Palestine, this tree assumes noble proportions, especially in situations when, from its association with some sacred tomb, it is allowed to flourish undisturbed. It is in such situations not infrequently as much as 40 ft. high and spreads its branches, with their thick, dark-green foliage, over a wide area (compare 2 Samuel 18:9 f,14; Ecclesiasticus 24:16). Dwarfed trees occur among the brushwood all over the land.

From this tree a kind of turpentine is obtained, hence, the alternative name “turpentine tree” (Ecclesiasticus 24:16 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) “terebinth”). E. W. G. Masterman TERESH <te’-resh > ( vr,T, [teresh] ( Esther 2:21; 6:2); Codex Vaticanus, Codex Alexandrinus, and Codex Sinaiticus omit it; but Codex Sinaiticus’ margin has [ Qa>rav, Tharas ] and [ Qa>rrav, Tharras ]): A chamberlain of King Ahasuerus. Oppert compares the name with Tiri-dates, the name of the governor of Persepolis in the time of Alexander. Another explanation identifies it with the Persian word turs “firm”; Scheft links it with the Persian tarsha, “desire.”

TERRACE <ter’-as > ( hL;sim] [mecillah]): Solomon is said, in 2 Chronicles 9:11, to have made of the algum trees brought him from Ophir “terraces,” or raised walks, for the house of Yahweh. In the parallel 1 Kings 10:12, the word used is rendered “pillars,” margin “`a railing’; Hebrew `a prop.’” TERRIBLE, TERROR <ter’-i-b’l > , <ter’-er > ( arey; [yare’], “to be feared,” “reverenced,” ÅyrI[; [arits], “powerful,” “tyrannical,” µyOa; [’ayom], “aweinspiring,” tyTiji [chittith] “terror,” hh;L;B” [ballahah], “a worn-out or wasted thing,” hm;ae [’emah], “fright”; [fobero>v, phoberos ], “dreadful,” [fo>bov, phobos ], “fear”): The above terms, and many others which employed, denote whatever, by horrible aspect, or by greatness, power, or cruelty, affrights men ( Deuteronomy 1:19; 26:8; Daniel 2:31). God is terrible by reason of His awful greatness, His infinite power, His inscrutable dealings, His perfect holiness, His covenant faithfulness, His strict justice and fearful judgments ( Exodus 34:10; Deuteronomy 7:21; Nehemiah 9:32; Job 6:4; 37:22; Psalm 65:5; 88:15 f; Joel 2:11; Zephaniah 2:11; Hebrews 12:21). The term is also applied to the enemies of God and of His people ( Isaiah 13:11; 25:3 ff; 49:25; Daniel 7:7; 1 Peter 3:14). “The terror (the Revised Version (British and American) “fear”) of the Lord” (2 Corinthians 5:11) denotes the reverence or fear inspired by the thought that Christ is judge (2 Corinthians 5:10). M. O. Evans TERTIUS <tur’-shi-us > ([ Te>rtiov, Tertios ]): The amanuensis of Paul who wrote at his dictation the Epistle to the Romans. In the midst of Paul’s greetings to the Christians in Rome he interpolated his own, “I Tertius, who write the epistle, salute you in the Lord” ( Romans 16:22). “It is as a Christian, not in virtue of any other relation he has to the Romans, that Tertius salutes them” (Denney). Some identify him with Silas, owing to the fact that [shalish] is the Hebrew for “third (officer),” as tertius is the Latin Others think he was a Roman Christian residing in Corinth. This is, however, merely conjecture. Paul seems to have dictated his letters to an amanuensis, adding by his own hand merely the concluding sentences as “the token in every epistle” ( 2 Thessalonians 3:17; Colossians 4:18; 1 Corinthians 16:21). How far this may have influenced the style of his letters is discussed in Sanday-Headlam, Romans, Introduction, LX. S. F. Hunter TERTULLUS <ter-tul’-us > , <ter- > ([ Te>rtullov, Tertullos ], diminutive of Latin tertius, “third”):, An orator who descended with Ananias the high priest and elders from Jerusalem to Caesarea to accuse Paul before Felix the Roman governor ( Acts 24:1). Tertullus was a hired pleader whose services were necessary that the case for the Jews might be stated in proper form.

Although he bore a Roman name, he was not necessarily a Roman; Roman names were common both among Greeks and Jews, and most orators were at this time of eastern extraction. Nor is it definitely to be concluded from the manner of his speech ( Acts 24:2-8) that he was a Jew; it has always been customary for lawyers to identify themselves in their pleading with their clients. His speech before Felix is marked by considerable ingenuity. It begins with an adulation of the governorship of Felix that was little in accord with history (see FELIX ); and the subsequent argument is an example of how a strong case may apparently be made out by the skillful manipulation of half-truths. Thus the riot at Jerusalem was ascribed to the sedition-mongering of Paul, who thereby proved himself an enemy of Roman rule and Jewish religion, both of which Felix was pledged to uphold. Again, the arrest of Paul was not an act of mob violence, but was legally carried out by the high priests and elders in the interests of peace; and but for the unwarranted interference of Lysias (see LYSIAS ), they would have dealt with the prisoner in their own courts and thus have avoided trespassing on the time of Felix. They were, however, perfectly willing to submit the whole case to his jurisdiction. It is interesting to compare this speech of Tertullus with the true account, as given in Acts 21:27-35, and also with the letter of Lysias ( Acts 23:26-30). C. M. Kerr TESTAMENT <tes’-ta-ment > : The word [diaqh>kh, diatheke ], almost invariably rendered “covenant,” was rendered in the King James Version “testament” in Hebrews 9:16,17, in the sense of a will to dispose of property after the maker’s death. It is not easy to find justification for the retention of this translation in the Revised Version (British and American), “especially in a book which is so impregnated with the language of the Septuagint as the Epistle to the Hebrews” (Hatch). See COVENANT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.

TESTAMENT, NEW, CANON OF THE See CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

TESTAMENT, NEW, TEXT AND MANUSCRIPTS OF THE. See TEXT AND MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

TESTAMENT OF ISAAC See APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE IV, 3.

TESTAMENT, OLD, CANON OF THE See CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

TESTAMENT, OLD, TEXT OF THE See TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

TESTAMENTS, BETWEEN THE See BETWEEN THE TESTAMENTS.

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

TESTIMONY, ARK OF THE <tes’-ti-mo-ni > ( Exodus 25:21 f). See ARK OF THE COVENANT.

TETA <te’-ta > . See ATETA .

TETH <teth > (T): The 9th letter of the Hebrew alphabet; transliterated in this Encyclopedia as “T” (a more intense “t”). It came also to be used for the number 9; and with waw (“w”) for 15, with zayin (“z”) for 16 (i.e. 9 plus and 9 plus 7) to avoid forming regular series with the abbreviation for Yahweh. For name, etc., see ALPHABET .

TETRARCH <te’-trark > , <tet’-rark > [tetra>rchv, tetrarches ]): As the name indicates it signifies a prince, who governs one-fourth of a domain or kingdom. The Greeks first used the word. Thus Philip of Macedon divided Thessaly into four “tetrarchies.” Later on the Romans adopted the term and applied it to any ruler of a small principality. It is not synonymous with “ethnarch” at least the Romans made a distinction between Herod “tetrarch” of Galilee, Philip “tetrarch” of Trachonitis, Lysanias “tetrarch” of Abilene, and Archelaius “ethnarch” of Judea (BJ, II, vi, 3; Ant, XVII, xi, 4). The title was often conferred on Herodian princes by the Romans, and sometimes it was used courteously as a synonym for king ( Matthew 14:9; Mark 6:14). In the same way a “tetrarchy” was sometimes called a kingdom. Henry E. Dosker TETTER <tet’-er > ( qh”Bo [bohaq]; [a[lfov, alphos ]): The term “freckled spot” in the King James Version is thus rendered in the Revised Version (British and American). The eruption referred to in Leviticus 13:39 is a pale white spot on the skin. This is described by Gorraeus as an eruption arising from a diseased state of the system without roughness of skin, scales or ulceration. It did not render the sufferer unclean, although it is difficult of cure. The disease is commonly known by its Latin name vitiligo. Pliny recommended the use of capers and lupins to remove it. See FRECKLED SPOT; LEPROSY.

TEXT AND MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT The literary evidence to the text of the New Testament is vastly more abundant than that to any other series of writings of like compass in the entire range of ancient letters. Of the sacred books of the Hebrew Bible there is no known copy antedating the 10th century AD. Of Homer there is no complete copy earlier than the 13th century. Of Herodotus there is no manuscript earlier than the 10th century. Of Vergil but one copy is earlier than the 4th century, and but a fragment of all Cicero’s writings is even as old as this. Of the New Testament, however, we have two splendid manuscripts of the 4th century, at least ten of the 5th, twentyfive of the 6th and in all a total of more than four thousand copies in whole or in part of the Greek New Testament. To these copies of the text itself may be added the very important and even more ancient evidence of the versions of the New Testament in the Latin, Syriac, and Egyptian tongues, and the quotations and clear references to the New Testament readings found in the works of the early Church Fathers, as well as the inscriptions and monumental data in Syria, Asia Minor, Africa, Italy, and Greece, dating from the very age of the apostles and their immediate successors. It thus appears that the documents of the Christian faith are both so many and so widely scattered that these very facts more than any others have embarrassed the final determination of the text. Now however, the science of textual criticism has so far advanced and the textual problems of the Greek Testament have been so well traversed that one may read the Christian writings with an assurance approximating certainty.

Professor Eberhard Nestle speaks of the Greek text of the New Testament issued by Westcott and Hort as the “nearest in its approach to the goal.”

Professor Alexander Souter’s student’s edition of the Revisers’ Greek New Testament, Oxford, 1910, no doubt attains even a higher watermark. It is the purpose of the present article to trace, as far as it can be done in a clear and untechnical manner, the process of connection between the original writings and this, one of the latest of the editions of the Greek New Testament.

I. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE FOR THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 1. Autographs of the New Testament Writers: Until very recent times it has not been customary to take up with any degree of confidence, if at all, the subject of New Testament autographs, but since the researches in particular of Dalman, Deissmann, Moulton (W.

F.) and Milligan (George), the task is not only appropriate but incumbent upon the careful student. The whole tendency of recent investigation is to give less place to the oral tradition of Christ’s life and teaching and to press back the date of the writing of the Synoptic Gospels into the period falling between Pentecost and the destruction of Jerusalem. Sir William M.

Ramsay goes so far as to claim that “antecedent probability founded on the general character of personal and contemporary Greek of Gr-Asiatic society” would indicate that the first Christian account of the circumstances connected with the death of Jesus must be presumed to have been written in the year when Jesus died” (Letters to the Seven Churches,7). W. M. Flinders Petrie argues to the same end and says: “Some generally accepted Gospels must have been in circulation before 60 AD.

The mass of briefer records and Logia which the habits and culture of that age would produce must have been welded together within 10 or 20 years by the external necessities” (The Growth of the Gospels, 7).

The autographs of the New Testament writers have long been lost, but the discovery during the last few years of contemporary documents enables us to form fairly clear notions as to their general literary character and condition. In the first place papyrus was probably the material employed by all the New Testament writers, even the original Gospel of Matthew and the general Epistle of James, the only books written within Palestine, not being excepted, for the reason that they were not originally written with a view to their liturgical use, in which case vellum might possibly have been employed. Again the evidence of the writings themselves witnesses to the various literary processes followed during the 1st century. Dictation was largely followed by Paul, the names of at least four of his secretaries, Tertius, Sosthenes, Timothy, and Sylvanus, being given, while the master himself, as in many of the Egyptian papyri, appended his own signature, sometimes with a sentence or two at the end. The method of personal research was pursued, as well as compilation of diverse data including folklore and genealogies, together with the grouping of cognate matters in artistic forms and abundant quotation in writings held in high esteem by the readers, as in the First and Third Gospels and the Book of Acts. The presentation copy of one’s works must have been written with unusual pains in case of their dedication to a patrician patron, as Luke to “most excellent Theophilus.” For speculation as to the probable dimensions of the original papyrus rolls of New Testament books, one will find Professor J.

Rendel Harris and Sir F. G. Kenyon extremely suggestive, and from opposite viewpoints; compare Kenyon, Handbook of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament; Harris, New Testament Autographs.

Comparatively few papyrus fragments of the New Testament are now known to be extant, and no complete book of the New Testament has as yet been found, though the successes in the field of contemporary Greek writings inspire confidence that ere long the rubbish heaps of Egypt will reward the diligent explorer. Of the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) somewhat more has come to light than the New Testament, while the papyrus copies and fragments of Homer are almost daily increasing.

The list below is condensed from that of Sir Frederick G. Kenyon’s Handbook of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, 2nd edition, 1912, 41 ff, using Dr. Gregory’s method of notation. 2. Papyrus Fragments of the Greek New Testament: P1 Matthew 1:1-9,12,14-20. 3rd century. Found at Oxyrhynchus in 1896, now in the University of Pennsylvania. See illustration under PAPYRUS.

P2 John 12:12-15 in Greek on the verso, with Luke 7:18 ff in Sahidic on the recto. 5th or 6th century. In book form, at the Museo Archeologico, Florence.

P3 Luke 7:36-43; 10:38-42. 6th century. In book form. In the Rainer Collection, Vienna.

P4 Luke 1:74-80; 5:3-8,30 through 6:4. 4th century. In book form.

Found in Egypt joined to a manuscript of Philo; now in the Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris.

P5 John 1:23-31,33-41; 20:11-17,19-25. 3rd century. An outer sheet of a single-quire book. Found at Oxyrhynchus and now in the British Museum.

P6 John 11:45. University of Strassburg.

P7 Luke 4:1,2. Archaeological Museum at Kieff.

P8 Acts 4:31-37; 5:2-9; 6:1-6,8-15. 4th century. In the Berlin Museum.

P9 1 John 4:11-13,15-17. 4th or 5th century. In book form. Found at Oxyrhynchus; now in Harvard University Library.

P10 Romans 1:1-7. 4th century. Found at Oxyrhynchus; now in Harvard University Library.

P11 1 Corinthians 1:17-20; 6:13-18; 7:3,4,10-14. 5th century. In the Imperial Library at Petersburg.

P12 Hebrews 1:1. 3d or 4th century. In the Amherst Library.

P13 Hebrews 2:14 through 5:5; 10:8 through 11:13; 11:28 through 12:17. 3rd or 4th century. Found at Oxyrhynchus; now in the British Museum.

P14 :1 Corinthians 1:25-27; 2:3-8; 3:8-10,20. 5th century. In book form; at Catherine’s Monastery, Mt. Sinai.

P15 :1 Corinthians 7:18 through 8:4; Philippians 3:9-17; 4:2-8. 4th century. Found at Oxyrhynchus.

P16 Romans 12:3-8. 6th or 7th century. Ryland’s Library, Manchester.

P17 Titus 1:11-15; 2:3-8. 3rd century. Ryland’s Library, Manchester.

P18 Hebrews 9:12-19. 4th century. Found at Oxyrhynchus.

P19 Revelation 1:4-7. 3rd or 4th century. Found at Oxyrhynchus. 3. Greek Copies or Manuscripts of the New Testament Text: Greek copies or manuscripts of the New Testament text have hitherto been and probably will continue to be the chief source of data in this great field.

For determining the existence of the text in its most ancient form the autographs are of supreme value. For determining the content or extent of the text the versions are of highest worth. For estimating the meaning and at the same time for gaining additional data, both as to existence and extent of usage of the New Testament, the quotations of its text by the Church Fathers, whether as apologists, preachers, or historians, in Assyria, Greece, Africa, Italy or Gaul, are of exceeding importance. But for determining the readings of the text itself the Greek manuscripts or copies of the original autographs are still the principal evidence of criticism. About 4,000 manuscripts, in whole or in part, of the Greek New Testament are now known. These manuscripts furnish abundant evidence for determining the reading of practically the entire New Testament, while for the Gospels and most important Epistles the evidence is unprecedented for quantity and for clearness. They are usually divided into two classes: Uncial, or large hand, and Minuscule, or small hand, often called Cursive. The term “cursive” is not satisfactory, since it does not coordinate with the term “uncial,” nor are so-called cursive features such as ligatures and oval forms confined to minuscule manuscripts. The uncials comprise about 140 copies extending from the 4th to the 10th centuries. The minuscules include the remaining manuscripts and fall between the 9th century and the invention of printing.

Herewith is given a brief description of a few of the chief manuscripts, both uncial and minuscule, of the New Testament. 4. List of Manuscripts of the Greek New Testament: (1) Uncials.

Codex Sinaiticus found by Tischendorf at Catherine’s Monastery on Mt.

Sinai and now in the Imperial Library at Petersburg; 4th century. This is the only uncial which contains the New Testament entire. It also has the Epistle of Barnabas and part of the Shepherd of Hermas and possibly originally the Didache. The marks of many correctors are found in the text.

It is written on 147 1/2 leaves of very thin vellum in four narrow columns of 48 lines each. The pages measure 15 X 13 1/2 in., and the leaves are arranged in quaternions of four sheets. The open sheet exposing eight columns resembles greatly an open papyrus roll. There is but rudimentary punctuation and no use of accent or initial letters, but the Eusebian section numbers are found on the margin of the Gospels.

Codex Alexandrinus (A), so named since it was supposed to have come from Alexandria, being the gift of Cyril Lucar, at one time Patriarch of that Province, though later of Constantinople, to Charles I, through the English ambassador at the Turkish court in 1627, and in 1757 presented to the Royal Library and now in the British Museum. It doubtless belongs to the 5th century, and contained the entire New Testament, lacking now only portions of Matthew, John, and 1 Corinthians, as well as the two Epistles of Clement of Rome and the Psalm of Solomon. It is written on thin vellum in two columns of 41 lines to the page, which is 12 5/8 X 10 3/8 in.; employs frequent initial capitals, and is divided into paragraphs, but has no marginal signs except in the Gospels. Several different hands are discovered in the present state of the MS.

Codex Vaticanus (B), since 1481, at least, the chief treasure of the Vatican Library, and universally esteemed to be the oldest and best manuscript of the Greek New Testament; 4th century. Written on very fine vellum, the leaves nearly square in shape, 10 X 10 1/2 in., with three narrow columns of 40-44 lines per column and five sheets making the quire. A part of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Pastorals, Philemon and Revelation are lacking. It is without accents, breathings or punctuation, though corrected and retraced by later hands. In the Gospels the divisions are of an earlier date than in Codex Sinaiticus. The theory of Tischendorf that Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus were in part prepared by the same hand and that they were both among the 50 manuscripts made under the direction of Eusebius at Caesarea in 331 for use in the emperor Constantine’s new capital, is not now generally accepted.

Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C). This is the great palimpsest (twice written) manuscript of the uncial group, and originally contained the whole New Testament. Now, however, a part — approximately half — of every book is lacking, and 2 Thessalonians and 2 John are entirely gone. It belongs to the 5th century, is written on good vellum 9 X 12 1/2 in. to the page of 41 lines, and of one column in the original text, though the superimposed writings of Ephraem are in two. Enlarged initials and the Eusebian marginal sections are used and several hands have corrected the MS. See Fig. 2. Brought to Italy from the East in the 16th century, it came to France with Catherine de’ Medici and is now in the Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris.

Codex Bezae (D). This is the early known manuscript which Theodore Beza obtained in 1562 from the monastery of Irenaeus at Lyons and which he gave in 1581 to the University of Cambridge, where it now is. It is a Greek-Latin text, the Greek holding the chief place on the left-hand page, measuring 8 X 10 in., and dates probably from the end of the 5th century.

Both Greek and Latin are written in large uncials and divided into short clauses, corresponding line for line. The hands of no less than nine correctors have been traced, and the critical questions arising from the character of the readings are among the most interesting in the whole range of Biblical criticism and are still unsettled. It contains only the Gospels and Acts with a fragment of 3 John.

Codex Washingtoniensis (W). The United States has now in the National Library (Smithsonian) at the capital one of the foremost uncial manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. It is a complete codex of the Gospels, in a slightly sloping but very ancient hand, written upon good vellum, in one column of 30 lines to the page, and 6 X 9 in. in size. By all the tests ordinarily given, it belongs to the period of the earliest codices, possibly of the 4th century. Like Codex Bezae (D), it has the order of the Gospels:

Matthew, John, Luke, Mark, and contains an apocryphal interpolation within the longer ending of Mark for which no other Greek authority is known, though it is probably referred to by Jerome. It has been published in facsimile by Mr. C. L. Freer of Detroit, who obtained the manuscript in Egypt in 1906, and is edited by Professor H. A. Sanders for the University of Michigan Press, 1911. (2) Minuscules.

Out of the thousands of minuscule manuscripts now known only the four used by Erasmus, together with one now found in the United States, will be enumerated. 1. This is an 11th-century codex at Basel. It must have been copied from a good uncial, since its text often agrees with Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. 1R. Of the 12th century, and now at Mayhingen, Bayaria: This is the only manuscript Erasmus had for Revelation in his editio princeps, and being defective at the end, 22:16-21, he supplied the Greek text by retranslating from the Latin; compare Textus Receptus of the New Testament and the King James Version. Generally speaking, this manuscript is of high quality. 2. This is a 15th-century manuscript at Basel, and was that on which Erasmus most depended for his 1st edition, 1516. It reflects a good quality of text. 2AP. Some have assigned this manuscript to the 12th century, though it was probably later. It is at Basel, and was the principal text used by Erasmus in the Acts and Epistles. 667. An illustration of a good type of minuscule of the Gospels is taken from Evangelistaria 667, which came from an island of the Sea of Marmorn; purchased in Constantinople by Dr. Albert L. Long in 1892 and now in the Drew Seminary Library at Madison, N.J. 5. Vernacular Versions: Vernacular VSS, or translations of the Scriptures into the tongues of western Christendom, were, some of them, made as early as the 2nd century, and thus antedate by several generations our best-known Greek text. It is considered by many as providential that the Bible was early translated into different tongues, so that its corruption to any large extent became almost if not altogether an impossibility, since the versions of necessity belonged to parts of the church widely removed from one another and with very diverse doctrinal and institutional tendencies. The testimony of translations to the exact form of words used either in an autograph or a Greek copy of an author is at best not beyond dispute, but as evidence for the presence or absence of whole sections or clauses of the original, their standing is of prime importance. Such extreme literalness frequently prevails that the vernacular idiom is entirely set aside and the order and construction of words in the original sources are slavishly followed and even transliterated, so that their bearing on many questions at issue is direct and convincing. Although the Greek New Testament has now been translated into all the principal tongues of the earth, comparative criticism is confined to those versions made during the first eight centuries. 6. Patristic Quotations: Patristic quotations afford a unique basis of evidence for determining readings of the New Testament. So able and energetic were the Church Fathers of the early centuries that it is entirely probable that the whole text of the Greek New Testament could be recovered from this source alone, if the writings of apologists, homilists and commentators were carefully collated. It is also true that the earliest heretics as well as the defenders of the faith recognized the importance of accurately determining the original text, so that their remains also comprise no mean source for critical research. It is evident that the value of patristic quotations will vary according to such factors as the reliability of the reading, as quoted, the personal equation or habit of accuracy or looseness of the particular writer, and the purity or corruption of the text he employs. One of the marked advantages of this sort of evidence arises from the fact that it affords additional ground for localizing and dating the various classes of texts found both in original copies and in versions. For general study the more prominent Church Fathers of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries are sufficient, though profitable investigation may be made of a much wider period. By the beginning of the 5th century, however, the type of text quoted almost universally was closely akin to that now known as the Textus Receptus. 7. Lectionaries and Service-Books: Lectionaries and service-books of the early Christian period afford a source of considerable value in determining the general type of texts, together with the order and contents and distribution of the several books of the Canon. As the lectionary systems both of the eastern and western churches reach back to post-apostolic times and all are marked by great verbal conservatism, they present data of real worth for determining certain problems of textual criticism. From the very nature of the case, being compiled for a liturgical use, the readings are often introduced and ended by set formulas, but these are easily separated from the text itself, which generally follows copy faithfully. Even the systems of chapter headings and divisions furnish clues for classifying and comparing texts, for there is high probability that texts with the same chapter divisions come from the same country. Probably the earliest system of chapter divisions is preserved in Codex Vaticanus, coming down to us from Alexandria probably by way of Caesarea. That it antedates the codex in which it appears is seen from the fact that the Pauline Epistles are numbered as comprising a continuous book with a break between Galatians and Ephesians and the dislocated section numbers attached to Hebrews which follows 2 Thessalonians here, though the numbers indicate its earlier position after Galatians. Another system of chapter divisions, at least as old as the 5th century, found in Codex Alexandrinus, cuts the text into much larger sections, known as Cephalia Majora. In all cases the enumeration begins with the 2nd section, the 1st being considered introductory. Bishop Eusebius developed a system of text division of the Gospels based upon an earlier method attributed to Ammonius, adding a series of tables or Canons. The first table contained sections giving events common to all four evangelists, and its number was written beneath the section number on the margin in each Gospel, so that their parallels could readily be found. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th Canons contain lists of sections in which three of the Gospels have passages in common (the combination Mark, Luke, John, does not occur). The 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th contain lists in which two combine (the combination Mark, John, does not occur). Canon 10 contains those peculiar to some one of the Gospels.

II. NECESSITY OF SIFTING AND CRITICIZING THE EVIDENCE.

Criticism from its very nature concerns itself entirely with the problems suggested by the errors of various kinds which it brings to light. In the writings of the New Testament the resources of textual evidence are so vast, exceeding, as we have seen, those of any other ancient literature, sacred or secular, that the area of actual error is relatively quite appreciable, though it must be remembered that this very abundance of textual variety ultimately makes for the integrity and doctrinal unity of the teaching of the New Testament books. Conjectural emendation which has played so large a part in the restoration of other writings has but slight place in the textual criticism of the New Testament, whose materials are so abundant that the difficulty is rather to select right renderings than to invent them. We have catalogued the principal sources of right readings, but on the most casual investigation of them discover large numbers of wrong readings mingled with the true, and must proceed to consider the sources of error or various readings, as they are called, of which approximately some 200,000 are known to exist in the various manuscripts, VSS, patristic citations and other data for the text. “Not,” as Dr. Warfield says, “that there are 200,000 places in the New Testament where various readings occur, but that there are nearly 200,000 readings all told, and in many cases the documents so differ among themselves that many various readings are counted on a single word, for each document is compared in turn with one standard and the number of its divergences ascertained, then these sums are themselves added together and the result given as the number of actually observed variations.” Dr.

Ezra Abbott was accustomed to remark that “about nineteen-twentieths of the variations have so little support that, although there are various readings, no one would think of them as rival readings, and nineteentwentieths of the remainder are of so little importance that their adoption or rejection would cause no appreciable difference in the sense of the passages in which they occur.” Dr. Hort’s view was that “upon about one word in eight, various readings exist supported by sufficient evidence to bid us pause and look at it; about one word in sixty has various readings upon it supported by such evidence as to render our decision nice and difficult, but that so many variations are trivial that only about one word in every thousand has upon it substantial variation supported by such evidence as to call out the efforts of the critic in deciding between the readings.” The oft-repeated dictum of Bentley is still valid that “the real text of the sacred writings is competently exact, nor is one article of faith or moral precept either perverted or lost, choose as awkwardly as you will, choose the worst by design, out of the whole lump of readings.” Despite all this, the true scholar must be furnished rightly to discriminate in the matter of diverse readings.

From the very nature of the case it is probable that errors should be frequent in the New Testament; indeed, even printed works are not free from them, as is seen in the most carefully edited editions of the English Bible, but in manuscripts the difficulty is increased in direct proportion to the number of various copies still extant. There are two classes of errors giving rise to various readings, unconscious or unintentional and conscious or intentional. 1. First Class: Of the first class, that of unconscious errors, there are five sorts: (1) Errors of the Eye.

Errors of the eye, where the sight of the copyist confuses letters or endings that are similar, writing e.g. E for S; O for Q; A for L or D; P for TI; PAN for TIAN; M for LL. Here should be named homoeoteleuton, which arises when two successive lines in a copy end in the same word or syllable and the eye catches the second line instead of the first and the copyist omits the intervening words as in Codex Ephraemi of John 6:39. (2) Errors of the Pen.

Here is classed all that body of variation due to the miswriting by the penman of what is correctly enough in his mind but through carelessness he fails rightly to transfer to the new copy. Transposition of similar letters has evidently occurred in Codices E, M, and H of Mark 14:65, also in H2 L2 of Acts 13:23. (3) Errors of Speech.

Here are included those variations which have sprung from the habitual forms of speech to which the scribe in the particular case was accustomed and which he therefore was inclined to write. Under this head comes “itacism,” arising from the confusion of vowels and diphthongs, especially in dictation. Thus, i is constantly written as ei and vice versa; ai for e ; h and i for ei ; h and oi for u ; o for w and e for h . It is observed that in Codex Sinaiticus we have scribal preference for i alone, while in Codex Vaticanus ei is preferred. (4) Errors of Memory.

These are explained as having arisen from the “copyist holding a clause or sequence of letters in his somewhat treacherous memory between the glance at the manuscript to be copied and his writing down what he saw there.” Here are classed the numerous petty changes in the order of words and the substitution of synonyms, as [ei+pen, eipen ] for [e[fh, ephee ], [ejk, ek ] for [ejpo>, apo ], and vice versa. (5) Errors of Judgment.

Under this class Dr. Warfield cites “many misreadings of abbreviations, as also the adoption of marginal glosses into the text by which much of the most striking corruption which has entered the text has been produced.”

Notable instances of this type of error are found in John 5:1-4, explaining how it happened that the waters of Bethesda were healing; and in John 7:53 through 8:12, the passage concerning the adulteress, and the last twelve verses of Mark. 2. Second Class: Turning to the second class, that of conscious or intentional errors, we may tabulate: (1) Linguistic or Rhetorical Corrections.

Linguistic or rhetorical corrections, no doubt often made in entire good faith under the impression that an error had previously crept into the text and needed correcting. Thus, second aorist terminations in a are changed to o and the like. (2) Historical Corrections.

Under this head is placed all that group of changes similar to the case in Mark 1:2, where the phrase “Isaiah the prophet” is changed into “the prophets.” (3) Harmonistic Corrections.

These are quite frequent in the Gospels, e.g. the attempted assimilation of the Lord’s Prayer in Luke to the fuller form in Matthew, and quite possibly the addition of the words “of sin” to the phrase in John 8:34, “Every one that doeth sin is a slave.” A certain group of harmonistic corruptions where scribes allow the memory, perhaps unconsciously, to affect the writing may rightly be classed under (4) above. (4) Doctrinal Corrections.

Of these it is difficult to assert any unquestioned cases unless it be the celebrated Trinitarian passage (King James Version, 1 John 5:7,8a) or the several passages in which fasting is coupled with prayer, as in Matthew 17:21; Mark 9:29; Acts 10:30; 1 Corinthians 7:5. (5) Liturgical Corrections.

These are very common, especially in the lectionaries, as in the beginning of lessons, and are even found in early uncials, e.g. Luke 8:31; 10:23, etc.

III. METHODS OF CRITICAL PROCEDURE.

Here as in other human disciplines necessity is the mother of invention, and the principles of critical procedure rest almost entirely on the data connected with the errors and discrepancies which have consciously or unconsciously crept into the text. The dictum of Dr. George Salmon that “God has at no time given His church a text absolutely free from ambiguity” is true warrant for a free and continued inquiry into this attractive field of study. The process of textual criticism has gradually evolved certain rules based upon judgments formed after patiently classifying and taking into account all the documentary evidence available, both internal and external. (1) An older reading is preferable to one later, since it is presumed to be nearer the original. However, mere age is no sure proof of purity, as it is now clear that very many of the corruptions of the text became current at an early date, so that in some cases it is found that later copies really represent a more ancient reading. (2) A more difficult reading, if well supported, is preferable to one that is easier, since it is the tendency of copyists to substitute an easy, well-known and smooth reading for one that is harsh, unusual and ungrammatical. This was commonly done with the best of intentions, the scribe supposing he was rendering a real service to truth. (3) A shorter is preferable to a longer reading, since here again the common tendency of scribes is toward additions and insertions rather than omissions. Hence arose, in the first place, the marginal glosses and insertions between the lines which later transcribers incorporated into the text. Although this rule has been widely accepted, it must be applied with discrimination, a longer reading being in some cases clearly more in harmony with the style of the original, or the shorter having arisen from a case of homoeoteleuton. (4) A reading is preferable, other things being equal, from which the origin of all alternative readings can most clearly be derived. This principle is at once of the utmost importance and at the same time demands the most careful application. It is a sharp two-edged-sword, dangerous alike to the user and to his opponents. (5) A reading is preferable, says Scrivener, “which best suits the peculiar style, manner and habits of thought of an author, it being the tendency of copyists to overlook the idiosyncrasies of the writer. Yet habit or the love of critical correction may sometimes lead the scribe to change the text to his author’s more usual style as well as to depart from it through inadvertence, so that we may securely. apply the rule only where the external evidence is not unequally balanced.” (6) A reading is preferable which reflects no doctrinal bias, whether orthodox on the one side or heretical on the other. This principle is so obvious that it is accepted on all sides, but in practice wide divergence arises, owing to the doctrinal bias of the critic himself.

These are the main Canons of internal evidence. On the side of external evidence may be summarized what has already been implied: (1) A more ancient reading is usually one that is supported by the most ancient manuscripts. (2) A reading which has the undoubted support of the earliest manuscripts, versions and patristic writers is unquestionably original. (3) A disagreement of early authorities usually indicates the existence of corruption prior to them all. (4) Mere numerical preponderance of witnesses (to a reading) of any one class, locality or time, is of comparative insignificance. (5) Great significance must be granted to the testimony of witnesses from localities or times widely apart, and it can only be satisfactorily met by a balancing agreement of witnesses also from different times and localities.

These rules, though they are all excellent and each has been employed by different critics with good results, are now somewhat displaced, or rather supplemented, by the application of a principle very widely used, though not discovered, by Westcott and Hort, known as the principle of the genealogy of manuscripts. The inspection of a very broad range of witnesses to the New Testament text has led to their classification into groups and families according to their prevailing errors, it being obvious that the greater the community of errors the closer the relationship of witnesses. Although some of the terms used by Westcott and Hort, as well as their content, have given rise to well-placed criticism, yet their grouping of manuscripts is so self-convincing that it bids fair, with but slight modification, to hold, as it has thus far done, first place in the field. Sir Frederick G. Kenyon has so admirably stated the method that the gist of his account will be given, largely using his identical words (Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, 2nd edition, London, 1912). As in all scientific criticism, four steps are followed by Westcott and Hort: (a) The individual readings and the authorities for them are studied; (b) an estimate is formed of the character of the several authorities; (c) an effort is made to group these authorities as descendants of a common ancestor, and (d) the individual readings are again taken up and the first provisional estimate of their comparative probability revised in the light of the knowledge gained as to the value and interrelation of the several authorities.

Applying these methods, four groups of texts emerge from the mass of early witnesses: (a) The Antiochian or Syrian, the most popular of all and at the base of the Greek Textus Receptus and the English King James Version; in the Gospels the great uncials Alexandrinus and Ephraemi (C) support it as well as Codex N, S and F, most of the later uncials and almost all minuscules, the Peshitta-Syriac version and the bulk of the Church Fathers from Chrysostom; (b) the Neutral, a term giving rise to criticism on all sides and by some displaced by the term Egyptian; this group is small but of high antiquity, including S B L T Z, A and C, save in the Gospels, the Coptic versions (especially the Bohairic) and some of the minuscules, notably 33 and 81; (c) the Alexandrian, closely akin to the Neutral group, not found wholly in any one manuscript but traceable in such manuscripts as S C L X, 33, and the Bohairic version, when they differ from the other members headed by B; (d) the Western, another term considered ambiguous, since it includes some important manuscripts and Fathers very ancient and very Eastern; here belong D D2 E2 F2 G2 among the uncials, 28, 235, 383, 565, 614, 700, and 876 among the minuscules, the Old Syriac and Old Latin and sometimes the Sahidic versions.

Of these groups by far the most superior is the Neutral, though Westcott and Hort have made it so exclusively to coincide with Codex Vaticanus that they appear at times to have broken one of the great commandments of a philologist, as quoted by Dr. Nestle from a German professor, “Thou shalt worship no codices. Now, the only serious dispute centers on the apparent slight which this system may have put upon the so-called Western type of text in group four. The variants of this family are extensive and important and appear due to an extremely free handling of the text at some early date when scribes felt themselves at liberty to vary the language of the sacred books and even to insert additional passages of considerable length.

Although this type of text is of very early origin and though prevalent in the East was very early carried to the West, and being widely known there has been called Western, yet, because of the liberties above referred to, its critical value is not high, save in the one field of omissions. In Egypt, however, and especially Alexandria, just as in the case of the Old Testament, the text of the New Testament was critically considered and conserved, and doubtless the family called Neutral, as well as the so-called Alexandrian, springs up here and through close association with Caesarea becomes prevalent in Palestine and is destined to prevail everywhere. The Westcott-Hort contention. that the Antiochian text arose as a formal attempt at repeated revision of the original text in Antioch is not so convincing, but for want of a better theory still holds its place. Their objections, however, to its characteristic readings are well taken and everywhere accepted, even von Soden practically agreeing here, though naming it the Koine text. It is also interesting to find that von Soden’s Hesychian text so closely parallels the Neutral-Alexandrian above, and his Jerusalem family the Western. And thus we arrive at the present consensus of opinion as to the genealogical source of the text of the New Testament.

IV. HISTORY OF THE PROCESS.

Abundant evidence exists and is constantly growing to show that critical opinion and methods were known at least from the very days of the formation of the New Testament Canon, but in such a sketch as the present the history can only be traced in modern times. The era of printing necessarily marks a new epoch here. Among available manuscripts choice must be made and a standard set, and in view of the material at hand it is remarkable how ably the work was done. It began in Spain under Cardinal Ximenes of Toledo, who printed at Alcala (Complutum) in 1514 the New Testament volume of his great Polyglot, though it was not actually issued until 1522. Meanwhile the great Erasmus, under patronage of Froben the printer of Basel, had been preparing a Greek New Testament, and it was published early in 1516 in a single volume and at low cost, and had reached its 3rd edition by 1522. His 4th edition in 1537 contains Erasmus’ definitive text, and, besides using Cardinal Ximenes’ text, had the advantage of minuscule manuscripts already named. The next important step was taken by Robert Estienne (Stephanus), whose 3rd edition, “Regia,” a folio published in Paris in 1550, was a distinct advance, and, though based directly upon the work of Ximenes and Erasmus, had marginal readings from 15 new manuscripts, one of which was Codex Bezae (D). The learned Theodore Beza himself worked with Stephanus’ son Henri, and brought out no less than nine editions of the New Testament, but no great critical advance was made in them. The same may be said of the Seven Elzevir editions brought out at Leyden and Amsterdam between 1624 and 1678, the second, that of 1633, in the preface of which occurs the phrase, “Textum ergo habes nunc ab omnibus receptum,” becoming the continental standard, as the 1550 edition of Stephanus has for England. Thus, we arrive at the Textus Receptus, and the period of preparation is closed.

The second period, or that of discovery and research, was ushered in by the great London Polyglot of 1657, edited by Brian Walton (later Bishop of Chester) with collations by Archbishop Ussher of 15 fresh manuscripts, including Codex Alexandrinus and Codex 59. But Dr. John Mill of Oxford was the Erasmus of this period, and in 1707 after 30 years of labor brought out the Greek Textus Receptus with fresh collations of 78 manuscripts, many versions and quotations from the early Fathers. His manuscripts included A B D E K, 28, 33, 59, 69, 71, the Peshito, Old Latin and Vulgate, and his Prolegomena set a new standard for textual criticism. This apparatus was rightly appreciated by Richard Bentley of Cambridge and a revised text of the Greek and of the Vulgate New Testament was projected along lines which have prevailed to this day. The work and wide correspondence of Bentley had stirred up continental scholars, and J. A.

Bengel published in 1734 at Tubingen a Greek New Testament with the first suggestion as to genealogical classification of manuscripts. J. J.

Wetstein of Basel and Amsterdam, though a very great collector of data and the author of the system of manuscript notation which has continued ever since, made little critical advance. J. S. Semler, taking Wetstein’s material, began rightly to interpret it, and his pupil J. J. Griesbach carried the work still farther, clearly distinguishing for the first time a Western, an Alexandrian and a Constantinopolitan recension.

With Carl Lachmann began the last epoch in New Testament criticism which has succeeded in going behind the Textus Receptus and establishing an authentic text based on the most ancient sources. He applied the critical methods with which he was familiar in editing the classics, and with the help of P. Buttmann produced an edition in 1842-50 which led the way directly toward the goal; but they were limited in materials and Tischendorf soon furnished these. Constantine Tischendorf, both as collector and editor, is the foremost man thus far in the field. His 8th edition, 1872, of the Greek New Testament, together with his Prolegomena, completed and published, 1884-1894, by C. R. Gregory, set a new standard. Dr.

Gregory’s German edition of the Prolegomena, 1900-1909, supplemented by his Die griechischen Handschriften des New Testament, 1908, marks the further advance of the master through his master pupil. Meanwhile, S.

P. Tregelles was doing almost as prodigious and valuable a work in England, and was thus preparing for the final advances at Cambridge. F. H.

A. Scrivener also ranks high and did extremely valuable, though somewhat conservative, work in the same direction. In 1881 “the greatest edition ever published,” according to Professor Souter, was brought out in England coincident with the Revised Version of the English New Testament. This, together with the introduction, which the same writer characterizes as “an achievement never surpassed in the scholarship of any country,” was the joint product of B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, friends and co-workers for many years in the University of Cambridge. Thus with the end of the 19th century the history of the process may be said to close, though both process and progress still advance with everincreasing triumph.

Von Soden’s edition of the New Testament appeared during the summer of 1913 and is of first importance. It differs from all others in the extreme weight laid on Tatian’s Diatessaron as the source of the bulk of the errors in the Gospels. This theory is not likely to command the assent of scholars and the text (which does not differ greatly from Tischendorf’s) is consequently of doubtful value. Nevertheless, for fullness of material, clearness of arrangement, and beauty of printing, von Soden’s edition must inevitably supersede all others, even where the text is dissented from. Dr.

Gregory promises a new edition at some day not too far in the future which, in turn, will probably supersede von Soden’s.

LITERATURE.

C. R. Gregory, Prolegomena to Tischendorf’s New Testament, Leipzig, 1884-94, Textkritik des New Testament, Leipzig, 1900-1909, Die griechischen Handschriften des New Testament, Leipzig, 1908, Einleitung in das New Testament, Leipzig, 1909, Vorschlage fur eine kritische Ausgabe des griechischen New Testament, Leipzig, 1911; F. G. Kenyon, Paleography of Greek Papyri, Oxford, 1899, Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, London2, 1912; K. Lake, The Text of the New Testament, 4th edition, London, 1910; G. Milligan, Selections from the Greek Papyri, Cambridge, 1910, The New Testament Documents, 1913; Eb. Nestle, Einfuhrung in das New Testament, Gottingen3, 1909; F.

H. A. Scrivener, Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 4th edition, London, 1894; Souter, Text and Canon of the New Testament, 1913; E. M. Thompson, Handbook of Greek and Latin Paleography, 2nd edition, London, 1894; H. von Soden, Die Schriften des New Testament, I.

Tell, Untersuchungen, Berlin, 1902-10; II, Tell, 1913; B. F. Westcott, and F. J. A. Hort, The New Testament in Greek with Introduction, Cambridge and London, 1896; Th. Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament, English translation, Edinburgh, 1910. Charles Fremont Sitterly TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT I. EARLIEST FORM OF WRITING IN ISRAEL.

The art of writing is not referred to in the Book of Genesis, even where we might expect a reference to it, e.g. in Genesis 23, nor anywhere in the Old Testament before the time of Moses (compare however, Genesis 38:18,25; 41:44, which speak of “sealing” devices). See SEAL; WRITING. 1. Invention of Alphabet: About the year 1500 BC alphabetic writing was practiced by the Phoenicians, but in Palestine the syllabic Babylonian cuneiform was in use (see ALPHABET ). The Israelites probably did not employ any form of writing in their nomadic state, and when they entered Canaan the only script they seem ever to have used was the Phoenicia. This is not disproved by the discovery there of two cuneiform contracts of the 7th century, as these probably belonged to strangers. There is only one alphabet in the world, which has taken many forms to suit the languages for which it was employed. This original alphabet was the invention of the Semites, for it has letters peculiar to the Semitic languages, and probably of the Phoenicians (so Lucan, Pharsalia iii.220; compare Herodotus v.58), who evolved it from the Egyptian hieroglyphics. 2. The Cuneiform: Of the literature of Canaan before the Israelites entered it the remains consist of a number of cuneiform tablets found since 1892 at Lachish, Gezer, Taanach and Megiddo, but especially of the famous the Tell el- Amarna Letters, discovered in Egypt in 1887. Although this non-alphabetic script was in use in Canaan when the Israelites entered it, they do not seem to have adopted it. 3. References to Writing in the Old Testament: The earliest reference to writing in the Old Testament is Exodus 17:14.

The next is Exodus 24:7, mentioning the Book of the Covenant (Exodus 20 through 23). The Book of the Wars of Yahweh is named in Numbers 21:14. Other early references are Judges 5:14 margin; 8:14 margin. By the time of the monarchy the king and nobles could write ( Samuel 11:14; 8:17), but not the common people, until the time of Amos and Hosea, when writing seems to have been common. 4. Inscriptions after Settlement in Canaan: The Phoenician script prevailed in Palestine after the conquest as well as in the countries bordering on it. This is shown by the inscriptions which have been discovered. The chief of these are: the Baal Lebanon inscription found in Cyprus (beginning of the 9th century); the manuscript of about the year 896 of the ordinary chronology; a Hebrew agricultural calendar of the 8th century; fifteen lion-weights from Nineveh of about the year 700; the Siloam Inscription of the time of Hezekiah; about a score of seals; and, in 1911, a large number of ostraca of the time of Ahab. 5. Orthography of the Period: In this oldest writing the vowels are rarely expressed, not even final vowels being indicated. The only mark besides the letters is a point separating the words. There are no special forms for final letters. Words are often divided at the ends of lines. The writing is from right to left. The characters of the Siloam Inscription and the ostraca show some attempt at elegant writing.

II. THE TWO HEBREW SCRIPTS. 1. The Old Hebrew Alphabet: Two distinct scripts were used by the Hebrews, an earlier and a later. The Old Hebrew alphabet contained 22 letters, all consonants. The order of these letters is known from that of the Greek, taken in order of their numerical values, and later by the alphabetic psalms, etc., and by the figure called [’at-bash] (see SHESHACH ). In the acrostic passages, however, the order is not always the same; this may be due to corruption of the text. In the alphabet, letters standing together bear similar names. These are ancient, being the same in Greek as in Semitic. They were probably given from some fancied resemblance which the Phoenicians saw in the original Egyptian sign to some object. 2. Aramean Alphabets: The development of the Phoenician alphabet called Aramaic begins about the 7th century BC. It is found inscribed as dockets on the cuneiform clay tablets of Nineveh, as the Phoenician letters were upon the lion-weights; on coins of the Persian satraps to the time of Alexander; on Egyptian inscriptions and papyri; and on the Palmyrene inscriptions. The features of this script are the following: The loops of the Hebrew letters beth (b), daleth (d), Teth (T), qoph (q) and resh (r), which are closed in the Phoenician and Old Hebrew, are open, the bars of the Hebrew letters he (h), waw (w), zayin (z), cheth (ch) and taw (t) are lost, and the tails of kaph (k), lamedh (l), mem (m), pe (p) and tsadhe (ts), which are vertical in the old Aramaic, begin in the Egyptian Aramaic to curve toward the left; words are divided, except in Palmyrene, by a space instead of a point; vowel-letters are freely used; and the use of ligatures involves a distinction of initial, medial and final forms. There are of course no vowel-marks. 3. The New Hebrew Scripture: After the Jews returned from the exile, the Aramaic language was the lingua franca of the Seleucid empire, displacing Assyrian, Old Hebrew and Phoenician. The Phoenician script also had given place to the Aramaic in Mesopotamia, Syria and Egypt. In Syria it divided into two branches, a northern which grew into Syriac, and a southern, or Jewish, from which the New Hebrew character was produced. 4. New Hebrew Inscriptions: What is believed to be the oldest inscription in the modern Hebrew character is that in a cave at `Araq al-`Amir near Heshbon, which was used as a place of retreat in the year 176 BC (Ant., XII, iv, 11; CIH, number 1).

Others are: four boundary stones found at Gezer; the inscriptions over the “Tomb of James” really of the Beni Hezir ( 1 Chronicles 24:15; Nehemiah 10:20); that of Kefr Birim, assigned to the year 300 AD (CIH, number 17), in which the transition to the New Hebrew script may be said to be accomplished; and others have been found all over the Roman empire and beyond. See ARCHAEOLOGY. 5. Summary: The inscriptions show that the familiar Hebrew character is a branch of the Aramaic. In the 3rd century BC the latter script was in general use in those countries where Assyrio-Babylonian, Old Hebrew and Phoenician had been used before. The Jews, however, continued to employ the Old Hebrew for religious purposes especially, and the Samaritans still retain a form of it in their Bible (the Pentateuch).

III. THE CHANGE OF SCRIPT.

It is now almost universally agreed that the script in which the Old Testament was written was at some time changed from the Phoenician to the Aramaic. But in the past many opinions have been held on the a subject. 1. Various Theories: Rabbi Eleazar of Modin (died 135 AD), from the mention of the hooks ([waws]) in Exodus 27:10 and from Esther 8:9, denied any change at all. Rabbi Jehuda (died circa 210) maintained that the Law was given in the New Hebrew, which was later changed to the Old as a punishment, and then back to the New, on the people repenting in the time of Ezra. Texts bearing on the matter are 2 Kings 5:7; 18:26; Isaiah 8:1, from which various deductions have been drawn. There may have been two scripts in use at the same time, as in Egypt (Herod. ii.36). 2. The Change in the Law: In regard to the change in the Law, the oldest authority, Eleazar ben Jacob (latter part of the 1st century AD), declared that a Prophet at the time of the Return commanded to write the Torah in the new or square character.

Next Rabbi Jose (a century later) states (after Ezr 4:7) that Ezra introduced a new script and language. But the locus classicus is a passage in the Talmud (Sanhedhrin 21b): “Originally the Law was given to Israel in the Hebrew character and in the Holy Tongue; it was given again to them in the days of Ezra in the Assyrian characters and in the Aramaic tongue.

Israel chose for herself the Assyrian character and the Holy Tongue, and left the Hebrew character and the Aramaic tongue to the [hedhyoToth].”

Here Hebrew = Old Hebrew; Assyrian = the new square character, and [hedhyoToth] is the Greek idiotai = the Hebrew [`am ha-’arets], the illiterate multitude. From the 2nd century on (but not before), the Talmudic tradition is unanimous in ascribing the change of script in the Law to Ezra.

The testimony of Josephus points to the Law at least being in the square character in his day (Ant., XII, ii, 1, 4). The Samaritan Pentateuch was almost certainly drawn up in the time of Nehemiah (compare 13:28; also Ant, XI, vii, 2), and points to the Old Hebrew being then in use. So [Rabbi Chasda] (died 309) refers the word [hedhyoToth] above to the Samaritans.

On the other hand, the Samaritan Pentateuch may have been the original Law, common to both Israel and Judah. In any case it is written in a form of the Old Hebrew character. 3. In the Other Books: In regard to the other books, the old script was used after Ezra’s time. Esther 8:9 and Daniel 5:8 ff must refer to the unfamiliar Old Hebrew. So the Massoretic Text of 5:18 implies the New Hebrew, but only in the Law. 4. Evidence of the Septuagint: The Greek translation known as the Septuagint was made in Alexandria, and is hardly evidence for Palestine. The Law was probably translated under Ptolemy II (284-247 BC), and the other books by the end of the 2nd century BC (compare Ecclesiasticus, Prologue). The variations of the Septuagint from the Massoretic Text point to an early form of the square character as being in use; but the Jews of Egypt had used Aramaic for some centuries before that. 5. Evidence of the Text Itself: The variations between parallel passages in the Massoretic Text itself, such as Joshua 21 and 1 Chronicles 6; 2 Samuel 23 and 1 Chronicles 11, etc., show that the letters most frequently confused are “d” and “r”, which are similar in both the Old and New Hebrew; “b” and “d”, which are more alike in the Old Hebrew; “w” and “y” and several others, which are more alike in the New Hebrew. Such errors evidently arose from the use of the square character, and they arose subsequent to the Septuagint, for they are not, except rarely, found in it. The square character is, then, later than the Septuagint. 6. Conclusion: The square character was ascribed to Ezra as the last person who could have made so great a change, the text after his time being considered sacred. This is disproved by the fact of the coins of the Maccabees and of Bar Cochba being in the old character. The Talmud permits Jews resident outside Palestine to possess copies of the Law in Coptic, Median, Hebrew, etc. Here Hebrew can only mean the Old Hebrew script.

IV. PRESERVATION OF THE TEXT. 1. Internal Conditions: Judaism has always been a book religion: it stands or falls with the Old Testament, especially with the Pentateuch. Although no manuscript of the Hebrew Old Testament is older than the 10th century AD, save for one minute papyrus, we know, from citations, translations, etc., that the consonantal text of the Old Testament was in the 1st century AD practically what it is today. The Jews transliterated as well as translated their Bible. All the most important translations — the Septuagint, Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus — were made by Jews and aimed at a more literal rendering of the Hebrew — that of Aquila being hardly Greek. The Syriac (Peshitta) seems to be also by Jews or Jewish Christians. Great care was taken of the text itself, and the slightest variant readings of manuscripts were noted. One manuscript belonging to Rabbi Meir (2nd century) is said to have omitted the references to “Admah and Zeboiim” in Deuteronomy 29:23 and to Bethlehem in Genesis 48:7, and to have had other lesser variations, some of which were found also in the manuscript which, among other treasures, decked the triumph of Vespasian (BJ, VII, v, 7). 2. External Circumstances: Religious persecution makes for the purity of the Scriptures by reducing the number of copies and increasing the care bestowed on those saved. The chief moments in which the existence of the Jewish Scriptures was threatened were the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple under Nebuchadnezzar in 587 BC, in which the Book of Jashar and that of the Wars of the Lord may have been lost; the persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes, during which the possession of the sacred books was a capital offense (1 Macc 1:56,57; Ant, XII, v), in which the sources used by the Chronicler may have perished; and the capture of Jerusalem by Titus in AD. By this time, however, the Law at least was known by heart. Josephus says Titus made him a gift of the sacred books (Vita, 75). It is also said that at one time only three copies of the Law were left, and that a text was obtained by taking the readings of two against one. However that may be, it is a fact that there are no variant readings in the Massoretic Text, such as there are in the New Testament. 3. The Septuagint Version: The only ancient version which can come into competition with the Massoretic Text is the Septuagint, and that on two grounds. First, the manuscripts of the Septuagint are of the 4th century AD, those of the Massoretic Text of the 10th. Secondly, the Septuagint translation was made before a uniform Hebrew text, such as our Massoretic Text, existed.

The quotations in the New Testament are mainly from the Septuagint. Only in the Book of Jeremiah, however, are the variations striking, and there they do not greatly affect the sense of individual passages. The Greek has also the Apocrypha. The Septuagint is an invaluable aid to restoring the Hebrew where the latter is corrupt.

V. THE TEXT IN THE 1ST CENTURY AD.

The Massoretic Text of the 1st Christian century consisted solely of consonants of an early form of the square character. There was no division into chapters or, probably, verses, but words were separated by an interstice, as well as indicated by the final letters. The four vowel-letters were used most freely in the later books. A few words were marked by the scribes with dots placed over them. 1. Word Separation: The Samaritan Pentateuch still employs the point found on the Moabite Stone to separate words. This point was probably dropped when the books came to be written in the square character. Wrong division of words was not uncommon.

Tradition mentions 15 passages noted on the margin of the Hebrew Bible ( Genesis 30:11, etc.) in which two words are written as one. One word is written as two in Judges 16:25; 1 Samuel 9:1, etc. Other passages in which tradition and text differ as to the word-division are 2 Samuel 5:2; Ezekiel 42:9; Job 38:12; Ezr 4:12. The Septuagint frequently groups the letters differently from the Massoretic Text, e.g. (see the commentaries) Hosea 11:2; 1 Chronicles 17:10; Psalm 73:4; 106:7. 2. Other Breaks in the Text: The verse-division was not shown in the prose books. The present division is frequently wrong and the Septuagint different from the Hebrew: e.g. Genesis 49:19,20; Psalm 42:6,7; Jeremiah 9:5,6; Psalm 90:2,3. Neither was there any division into chapters, or even books. Hence, the number of the psalms is doubtful. The Greek counts Psalms 9 and 10 as one, and also Psalms 114 and 115, at the same time splitting Psalms and 147 each into two. The Syriac follows the Greek with regard to Psalms 114 and 147. Some manuscripts make one psalm of 42 and 43. In Acts 13:33, Codex Bezae, Psalm 2 appears as Psalm 1. 3. Final Forms of Letters: Final forms of letters are a result of the employment of ligatures. In the Old Hebrew they do not occur, nor apparently in the text used by the Septuagint. Ligatures begin to make their appearance in Egyptian, Aramaic, and Palmyrene. Final forms for the letters k, margin, n, p, ts, were accepted by the 1st century, and all other final forms were apparently rejected. 4. Their Origin: The first rabbi to mention the final forms is Mathiah ben Harash (a pupil of Rabbi Eleazar who died in 117 AD), who refers them to Moses. They are often referred to in the Talmud and by Jerome. The Samaritan Chronicle (11th century) refers them to Ezra. In point of fact, they are not so old as the Septuagint translation, as is proved by its variations in such passages as 1 Samuel 1:1; 20:40; Psalm 16:3; 44:5; Jeremiah 16:19; 23:14,23,33; Hosea 6:5; Nahum 1:12; Zec 11:11; Ecclesiasticus 3:7.