FROMTHELIBRARYOFTRINITYCOLLEGE TORONTO

FROM

ENCYCLOPEDIA BIBLICAA DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLEVOLUMEI

J^)^

'

ENCYCLOPEDIABIBLICAA CRITICAL DICTIONARY OF THE LITERARY POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS HISTORY

THE ARCHAEOLOGY GEOGRAPHY AND NATURAL HISTORY OF THE BIBLE

EDITED BY

The

Rev. T.

K.

CHEYNE,

M.A., D.D.

ORIEL PROFESSOR OF THE INTERPRETATION OF HOLY SCRIPTL:RE AT OXFORD AND FORMKKI.Y FELLOW OF BALI.IOL COLLEGE

CANON OF ROCHESTER

J.

SUTHERLAND BLACK,FORMERLY ASSISTANT EDITOR OF THE'

M.A., LL.D.'

ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA

VOLUMEAto

I

D

TORONTO

GEORGE

N.

MORANG & COMPANY,1899

Limited

(3S

Copyright,

1899,

By

the macmillan company.

NortDooU iPtfSBJ. 8.

CuBhing

fc

Co.

- Berwick & Smith

Norwood Mai. U.S.A.

TO THE

MEMORY

WILLIAM ROBERTSON SMITH

PREFACETheidea of preparing a

new Dictionary

of the Bible

on

critical

lines

for

the

benefit of all serious studencs, both professional and lay, was prominent in the mind of the many-sided scholar to whose beloved memory the , , Genesis of the ^ -u j t^ ^u It is more than twelve years since , ,. present volume is inscribed., >.

i

p

Robertson Smith began to take steps towards realising this idea. As an academical teacher he had from the first been fully aware of the importance of what is known as Biblical Encyclopaedia, and his own earliest contributions to the subject in the EncyclopcBdia Britannica carry us as far back If for a very brief period certain untoward events arrested as to the year 1875. his activity in this direction, the loss of time was speedily made up, for seldom perhaps has there been a greater display of intellectual energy than is given in the series of biblical articles signed W. R. S.' which appeared in the E^icyclopcedia The reader who is interested in Bible Britaiinica between 1875 and 1888. study should not fail to examine the Hst, which includes among the longer articlesProf.'

Chronicles, David, Hebrew Language, Rosea, JeruJoel, Judges, Kings, Levites, Malachi, Messiah, Micah, Philistines, Priest, Prophet, Psalms, Sacrifice, Temple, Tithes, Zephaniah and among the shorter. Angel, Ark, Baal, Decalogue, Eli, Eve, Haggai,Bible,

Canticles,

salem,

:

veh, Obadiah, Paradise, Ruth, Sabbath, Sadducees,

Lamentations, Melchizedek, Moloch, Nabat^ans, Nahum, Nazarite, NineSamuel, Tabernacle,of our

Vow. Nor should the students

day overlook the service which

this

far-

seeing scholar and editor rendered to the nascent conception of an international biblical criticism by inviting the co-operation of foreign as well as English contributors. That names Hke those of Noldeke, Tiele, Welhausen, Harnack, Schiirer,

Gutschmid, Geldner, appeared side by side with those of well-known and honoured British scholars in the list of contributors to the Encyclopcedia was a guarantee of freedom from dangerous eccentricity, of comprehensiveness of view, of thoroughness and accuracy of investigation.

Such a large amount of material illustrative of the Bible, marked by unity aim and consistency of purpose, was thus brought together that the EncyclopcBdia Britannica became, inclusively, something not unlike an Encyclopedia Biblica. The idea then occurred to the editor and his publishers to republish, for the guidance of students, all that might be found to have stood the test of time, the lacunae being filled up, and the whole brought up, as far as possible, to the high level of the most recent scholarship. but It was not unnatural to wish for this there were three main opposing considerations. In the first place, there were other important duties which made pressing demands on the time and energy ofof;

viii

PREFACEless

the editor.

Next, the growing maturity of his biblical scholarship made him less And lastly, such condisposed to acquiesce in provisional conclusions. stant progress was being made by students in the power of assimilating critical results that it seemed prudent to wait till biblical articles, thoroughly revised and

and

recast, should

have a good chance of still more deeply influencing the student world. waiting-time was filled up, so far as other occupations allowed, by pioneering researches in biblical archaeology, some of the results of which are admirably summed up in that fruitful volume entitled The Religion of the Semites

The

More and more, Robertson Smith, like other contemporary scholars, (1889). saw the necessity of revising old work on the basis of a more critical, and, in a First of all, archaeological certain sense, more philosophical treatment of details.be a large share of this scholar's a subject which had been brought prominently into notice by the zeal of English explorers, but seemed to need the collaboration of English critics. long visit to Palestine was planned for thedetails

had

their share

and

it

was bound

to

attention.

Then came

biblical

geography

A

direct investigation of details of biblical geography, and though this could not be carried out, not a little time was devoted to the examination of a few of the more

perplexing geographical problems and of the solutions already proposed (see e.g. Aphek, below, col. 191/.). This care for accuracy of detail as a necessary preliminary to a revision of theories is also the cause of our friend's persistent refusal to sanction the republication of the masterly but inevitably provisional article

Bible

in the Encyclopcedia Britannica, to

which we

shall return later.

The

reader

understand the motive of that refusal if he will compare what is said on the Psalter in that article (1875) with the statements in the first edition of The Old Testament in the Jeiuish Chnrch{iS^o), in the Encyclopcsdia Britatmica,will still better

article

Psalmsonly

(1885),

and

in

the second edition of The

Old Testament

in the

Jeiuish Chnrch (1892).just, however, to the true 'begetter' of this work to emphasise the though he felt the adequate realisation of his idea to be some way off, he lost no time in pondering and working out a variety of practical details a task in which he was seconded by his assistant editor and intimate friend, Mr. J. S. Black. Many hours were given, as occasion offered, to the distribution of Some hundreds of these were subjects and the preparation of minor articles. drafted, and many were the discussions that arose as to the various difficult practical points, which have not been without fruit for the present work. In September, 1892, however, it became only too clear to Prof. Smith that he was suffering from a malady which might terminate fatally after no very distant term. The last hope of active participation in his long-cherished scheme of a Bible Dictionary had well-nigh disappeared, when one of the present editors, who had no definite knowledge of Prof. Smith's plan, communicated to this friend of many years' standing his ideas of what a critical Bible Dictionary ought to be, Prof. and inquired whether he thought that such a project could be realised. Smith was still intellectually able to consider and pronounce upon these ideas, and gladly recognised their close affinity to his own. Unwilling that all the labour already bestowed by him on planning and drafting articles should be lost, he requested Prof. Cheyne to take up the work which he himself was compelled to drop, in conjunction with the older and more intimate friend already mentioned. Hence the combination of names on the title-page. The work is undertaken by the editors as a charge from one whose parting message had the force of a command.

It is

fact that,

PREFACE

ix

Such is the history of the genesis of the Eiicyc lopesdia Biblica, which is the a fusion desired by result primarily of a fusion of two distinct but similar plans Prof. Robertson Smith himself, as the only remaining means of ^ , , ,..

^,p,

,.

With regard to realising adequately his own fundamental ideas. details, he left the editors entirely free, not from decline of physical

strength, but from a well-grounded confidence that religion and the Bible were not less dear to them than to himself, and that they fully shared his own uncompromisingly progressive spirit. The Bible Dictionary which he contemplated was

no mere collection of useful miscellanea, but a survey of the contents of the Bible, a criticism which identifies the cause of religion as illuminated by criticism with that of historical truth, and, without neglecting the historical and archaeo-

growth of high conceptions, and the development of noble personalities, under local and temporal conditions that may often be, to human eyes, most adverse. The importance of the newer view of the Bible to the Christian community, and the fundamental principles of the newer biblical criticism, have been so ably and so persuasively set forth by Prof. Robertson Smith in his Lectures that his fellow-workers may be dispensed from repeating here what he has said so 'There remaineth yet very much land to be possessed.' Let us well already. assume, then, that the readers of this EncyclopcBdia, whatever be their grade of knowledge or sphere of work, are willing to make an effort to take this widelylogical

setting of religion, loves best to trace the

the flashing forth of

new

intuitions,

extended land in possession. Every year, in fact, expands the narrow horizons which not so long ago It is time, as Prof. Robertson limited the aspirations of the biblical scholar. Smith thought, to help students to realise this, and to bring the standard books on which they rely more up to date. It may seem hopeless to attempt this with an alphabetically arranged encyclopaedia, which necessarily involves the treatment of points in an isolated way. By an elaborate system of cross references,(such

however, and by interspersing a considerable number of comprehensive articles Part I, Apocalyptic Literature, Cainites, Dragon), it has as, in been sought to avoid the danger of treating minute details without regard to their wider bearings. Many of the minor articles, too, have been so constructedas to suggest the relation of the details to the larger wholes. Altogether the minor articles have, one ventures to hope, brought many direct gains to biblical Often the received view of the subject of a minor article proved to be study.''

Every endeavour has extremely doubtful, and a better view suggested itself. been used to put this view forward in a brief and yet convincing manner, without occupying too much space and becoming too academic in style. The more comprehensive articles may here and there be found to clash with the shorter articles. Efforts, however, have been made to mitigate this by editorial notes in bothclasses of articles.It will also doubtless be found that on large questions different writers have sometimes proposed different theories and hypotheses. The sympathies of the editors are, upon the whc^le, with what is commonly known as 'advanced criticism, not simply because it is advanced, but because such criticism, in the hands of a circumspect and experienced scholar, takes account of facts and phenomena which'

the criticism of a former generation overlooked or treated superficially.

They

have no

desire,in

who, either

however, to boycott moderate criticism, when applied by a critic the form or in the substance of his criticism, has something original''

a2

Xto say.'

PREFACEAn*

critic cannot possibly feel any arrogance towards his colleague, for probably he himself held, not very long ago, views resembling those which the moderate critic holds now, and the latter may find his precautionary investigations end in his supporting, with greater fulness and

advanced'

'

more moderate

'

'

Prof. as sound the views that now seem to him rash. Robertson Smith's views of ten years ago, or more, may, at the present day, appear but when he formulated them he was in the vanguard to be moderate criticism of critics, and there is no reason to think that, if he had lived, and devoted much of his time to biblical criticism, his ardour would have waned, and his precedence

more complete arguments,''

;

passed to others. There are, no doubt, some critical theories which could not consistently have been represented in the present work and that, it may be remarked, suggests one of the reasons why Prof. Robertson Smith's early EncyclopcBdia Britajinica When he wrote article, Bible, could not have been republished, even by himself. it he was still not absolutely sure about the chronological place of P (Priestly He was also still under the influence of the traditional view as to the Code). Nor had he faced barrenness and unoriginality of the whole post-exilic period.;

The fundathe question of the post-exilic redaction of the prophetic writings. mental principles of biblical criticism, however, are assumed throughout that finearticle,

though

for a statement of these

we must turn

to a

more mature production:

of his pen. See, for example. The Old Testament in the JewisJi ChurcJi^-\ pp. i6 and notice especially the following paragraph on p. 17 ff. (cp 1st ed. pp. 24. ff.),

Ancient books coming doivn to us from a period many centuries before the invention of Some of them are preserved only in printing have necessarily undergone many vicissitudes. Others have been disfigured by imperfect copies made by an ignorant scribe of the dark ages. editors, 7vho mixed up foreign matter with the original text. Very often an important book a long time, and when it came to light again all knowledge of its fell altogether out of sight for*

origin

such a nafneless roll

was gone ; for old books did not generally have title-pages and prefaces. And, when was again brought into notice, some half-informed trader or transcriber 7vas not unlikely to give it a new title of his own devising, which was handed down thereafter Or again, the true meaning and purpose of a book often became as if it had been original. obscure in the lapse of centuries, and led to false interpretations. Once more, antiquity has handed down to us many writings 7vhich are sheer forgeries, like some of the Apocryphal books, or the Sibylline oracles, or those famous Epistles of Phalaris, which formed the subject ofBentlefs great critical essay. In all such cases the historical critic must destroy the received He must review doubtful titles, purge out interpolations, view, in order to establish the truth. expose forgeries ; but he does so only to manifest the truth, and exhibit the genuine remains ofantiquity in their real character.

A

book that

is reallyits

old

and really

valuable has nothinglight,

to

fear from the critic, whose labours can only put authority on a surer basis.''

worth in a clearer

and

establish its

has, with

The freedom which Prof. Robertson Smith generously left much reluctance, yet without hesitation, on the part of

to his successors

the editors, been

exercised in dealing with the articles which he wrote for the Ejicyclopcedia Britaniiica. The editors are well assured that he would have approved their

conduct

Few scholars, indeed, would refrain from rewriting, to a in this respect. large extent, the critical articles which they had produced some years previously and this, indeed, is what has been done by several contributors who wrote biblical The procedure of those who have revised articles for the former Encyclopaedia. our friend's articles has in fact been as gentle and considerate as possible. Where;

these articles seemed to have been destined by himself for some degree of per-

PREFACE

xi

manencc, they have been retained, and carefully revised and brought up to date. Some condensation has sometimes been found necessary. The original articles were written for a public very imperfectly imbued with critical principles, whereas now, thanks to his own works and to those of other progressive scholars, liible students are much more prepared than formerly to benefit by advanced teaching. There is also a certain amount of a new material from Prof. Smith's pen (in two or three cases consisting of quotations from the MS of the second and third courses of Burnett Lectures), but much less, unfortunately, than had been expected. Freedom has also been used in taking some fresh departures, especially in two directions viz., in that of textual criticism of the Old Testament, and in that

The object of the editors has been, with the assistance of biblical archaeology. of their contributors, not only to bring the work up to the level of the bestpublished writings, but, wherever possible, to carry the subjects a little beyond Without the constant necessity of investithe point hitherto reached in print. gating the details of the text of the Old Testament, it would be hard for any oneto realise the precarious character of many details of the current biblical archaeology, geography, and natural history, and even of some not unimportant points in the current Old Testament theology. Entirely new methods have not indeed

but the methods already known have perhaps been applied with somewhat more consistency than before. With regard to archaeology, such a More progress perhaps has been claim can be advanced only to a slight extent.

been applied

;

madecism.to

of late years in the field of critical archaeology than in that of texual critiAll, therefore, that was generally necessary was to make a strong effort

keep abreast of recent archaeological research both in Old Testament and in Testament study. The fulness of detail with which the data of the Versions have been given may provoke some comment. Experience has been the guide of the editors, and they believe that, though in the future it will be possible to give these data in a more correct, more critical, and more condensed form, the student is best served

New

It at present by being supplied as fully as possible with the available material. may also be doubted by some whether there is not too much philology. Here,

In the present transiagain, experience has directed the course to be pursued. tional stage of lexicography, it would have been undesirable to rest content with simply referring to the valuable new lexicons which are now appearing, or havealready appeared. With regard to biblical theology, the editors are not without hope that they have helped to pave the way for a more satisfactory treatment of that important subject which is rapidly becoming the hi.story of the movement of religious life and

thought within the Jewish and the Christian church (the phrase may be inaccurate, but it is convenient). Systems of Prophetic, Pauline, Petrine, Johannine theology have had their day it is perhaps time that the Bible should cease to be regarded;

more or less competing systems of abstract thought. Unfortunately the literary and historical criticism of the New Testament is by no means as far advanced as that of the Old Testament. It may not be long before a real history of the movement of religious life and thought in the earlier period will be possible. For such a history for the later period we shall have to wait longer, ifas a storehouse of

we may

infer anything

handbook of mann. The

from the doubtless inevitable defects of the best existing Testament theology, that of the able veteran critic, H. J. Holtzeditors of the present work are keenly interested in the subject at

New

xii'

PREFACE';

but, instead of attempting what is at present present called Biblical Theology impossible, they have thought it better to leave some deficiencies which future editors will probably find it not difficult to supply. They cannot, however, conclude this section without a hearty attestation of the ever-increasing love for the

Scriptures which critical and historical study, when pursued in a sufficiently comprehensive sense, appears to them to produce. The minutest details of biblical research assume a brightness not their own when viewed in the light of the great truths in which the movement of biblical religion culminates. May the reader find This would certainly have been the prayerful aspiracause to agree with them tion of the beloved and lamented scholar who originated this Encyclopcsdia. To the contributors of signed articles, and to those who have revised and brought up to date the articles of Prof. Robertson Smith, it may seem almost superfluous to render thanks for the indispensable help they have so ^" It constitutes a fresh bond courteously and generously given.!

between scholars of different countries and several religious com-

But the special services of the munities which the editors can never forget. various members of the editorial staff require specific acknowledgment, which theeditors have

much

pleasure in making.

Mr.

Hope W. Hogg became

a contributor

to the Eiicyclopcedia Biblica in 1894, and in 1895 became a regular member of the To his zeal, energy, and scholarship the work has been greatly editorial staff.

In particular, Mr. Hogg has had the entire responsiindebted in every direction. for the proofs as they passed in their various stages through the hands of the bility printer, and it is he who has seen to the due carrying out of the arrangements

many

of

them

of his

own

devising

that have been specified in the subjoined

for saving space and facilitating reference Practical Hints to the Reader.' Mr.'

Stanley A. Cook joined the staff in 1896, and not only has contributed various signed articles, which to the editors appear to give promise of fine work in the future, but also has had a large share in many of those that are of composite

authorship and unsigned. Finally, Mr. Maurice A. Canney joined the staff in 1898; he also has contributed signed articles, and has been eminently helpful in every way, especially in the reading of the proofs. Further, the editors desire to acknowledge their very special obligations to the Rev. Henry A. Redpath, M.A.,editor of the Concordance to the Septnagint, who placed his unrivalled experience at their disposal by controlling all the proofs at a certain stage with special

reference to the

LXX

readings.

He

also verified the biblical references.

T. K. Cheyne.J.

Sutherland Black.

20th September 1899.

PRACTICAL HINTS TO THE READERThe labour that has been bestowed on even minor matters in the Further Explanations. preparation of this Eucvciflpccdia has seemed to be warranted by the hope that it may be found useful as a students' handbook. Its value from this point of view will be facilitated byattention to the following points The following notes will give a general idea of what the reader 1. Classes of Articles.: :

may

expect to find and where to look for it i. Proper A'U/ncs. Every proper name in the Old and the New Testament canons and the OT Apocrypha (Authorised Version or Revised Version, text or margin) is represented by an article-heading in Clarendon type, the substantive article being usually given under the name as

found in the AV text. Aiioraim, on the .same line as Adora (col. 71). and Adidlamite, three lines below Adullam (col. 73), are examples of space-.saving contrivances. ii. Books. Every book in the OT and the NT canons and the OT Apocrypha is discussed The 'Song of Solomon' is dealt with in a special article e.i^. Acts, Chronicles, Deuteronomy. under the title Canticles, and the last book in the NT under Apocalvpse. With the view, amongst other things, of securing the greatest posiii. General Articles. sible brevity, many matters have been treated in general articles, the minor headings being dealt with concisely with the help of cross-references. Such general articles are Abi and Ahi,:

names in Agriculture, Apocalyptic Literature, Apocrypha, Army, Bakemeats, Bread, Canon. Cattle, Chronology, Clean and Unclean, Colours, Conduits, Cuttings of theFlesh, Dispersion, Divination, Dress. iv. Other Subjects. The following are examples of important headings: Ada.m and Eve, Angels, Antichrist, Blessings and Cursings, Christian, Na.me of. Circumcision, Community OF Goods, Council of Jerusalem. Creation, Deluge, De.mons, Dragon. V. Things. The Encyclopcedia Biblica is professedly a dictionary of things, not words, and a great effort has been made to adhere rigidly to this principle. Even where at first sight it seems to have been neglected, it will generally be found that this is not really the case. The only way to tell the English reader what has to be told about {e.g.') Chain is to distinguish the various things that are called, or should have been called, chain in the English Version, and refer him to the articles where they are dealt with. vi. Mere Cross-references (see above, 1, i. and below, 2). A very great deal of care has been bestowed on the 2. Method of Cross-Ref erences.';

cross-references, because only by their systematic use could the necessary matter be adequately dealt with within the limits of one volume. They have made possible a conciseness that is not

attained at the expense of incompleteness, repetition of the same matter under different headings being reduced to a minimum. For this reason the articles have been prepared, not in alphabetical order, but simultaneously in all parts of the alphabet, and have been worked up together con-

and kept up to date. The student may be assured, therefore, that the cross-references have not been inserted at random If any be found to be they have always been verified. unwarranted (no such is known), it must be because it has been found necessary, after the The reference was made, to remove something from the article referred to to another article. removed matter will no doubt be repre.sented by a cross-reference (cp, ly a tendency to individualistic religion, the Israelites also who, as far as our evidence goes, were

We

advanced in all kinds of culture than the early had a similar tendency, and gave expresin their names. It is, therefore, wise to use these Babylonian and S. Arabian names, not as suggestless

much

Babyloniansit

the fugitives the holy loaves from the sanctuary. One of the royal couriers, however (see i S. 21 7 [8], with Dr. 's saw the act, and betrayed Ahimelech to Saul, note), who forthwith put the priests to death. No less than ^ fell by Doeg's hands, eighty-five (according to MT) and of the whole number Abiathar alone escaped.It

sion to

may be

inferred from

i

S.

22

15

that

David

ing a theory to be followed in interpreting Israelitish names, but as monuments of early attainments of Semitic races which foreshadow those of the choicest part of the Jewish people at a much more recent period. The value of these names for explaining the formation of Hebrew proper names may be comparatively slight but they suggest the idea that it was only the want of the higher spiritual prophecy as a (as known in;

Israel),

teaching and purifying agent, and of somewhat different historical circumstances, which prevented the Babylonians from rivalling the attainments in spiritual religion of the later Jewish church. T. K. C.

ABIA (n3N), RVsee .Ahij.-^h,i;

Abijah.

For6.

i

Ch.3io Mt.

1 7

for

Lk. 1 sf, ibid.,

ABIAH, anofto the

English variant of Abijah [q.v.) in I.Sam. 82 iCh. 224 628[i3] 78, corrected in more usual form, except in i Ch. 224628f 13].the Arbathite ('na-iyn

AV RV4.

and alliance with the house of Eli, and we can readily believe that, just as Samuel marked out Saul as the destined leader of Israel, so the priests at Nob, noting the tendency of the king to melancholy madness, and his inability to cope with the difficulties of his position, selected David as the future king and gave a religious sanction to his prospective claims (cp David, 3). Certain it is that the massacre of the priests at Nob told The odium of sacrilegious strongly in David's favour. slaughter clung to Saul, while David won the prestige of close friendship with a great priestly house. Henceforth David was the patron of Abiathar, and Abiathar was bound fast to the interests of David Abide thou with nie,' said the warrior to the priest, 'for he that seeketh Moreover, my life seeketh thy life' (i S. 2223). Abiathar carried the ephod or sacred image into the camp of David it was in the presence of this image that the lot was cast and answers were obtained fromthis contracted friendship' :

had before

ABIALBON,1

pSSinaK,

Barton, Kinship of god.s and men among the ancient Semites,' /A'Z, xv. 168^, especially 179^ ('96).

Cp

'

it need much imagination to understand the strength infused into David's band by the confidence that they enjoyed supernatural direction in 1 See David, fan.

Yahw6

:

nor does

ABIBtheirperplexities.

ABIGAILfaithfulIt

Abiathar wassacred

to

David'

ABIDA, and (AVthe (divine)father

in

through every change of fortune.sanctionof the

was with the

Gen.) Abidah (jn'3K, 44. knoweth ? c]) llliada, Bccliada,'

oracle that David settled at Hebron and became king of Judah {2 S. 21-3). and it was Abiathar who carried the ark. that palladium of Israel, which David used to consecrate Jerusalem, the capital ofhis united

kingdomlater

(

i

K.

'226).

Abiathar maintained his

sacerdotalcourt,

dignity amidst

the

splendour of the new

j

Jehoiada; &B[e]lAA [BAL], aBira [AZ^], aBia [E]. aBierhapsrrps

ad

loc.)

832 (ajiifaSpi [B],

b. Abiathar, and Pesh. the whole passage. reasonable to suppose that this confusion is due to an early corruption of the text, and that in 2 S. 817 we should read with the Pesh. Abiathar b. Ahimelech

the phraseIt is

'

'

'

o^iefpet [A], Trarpds a. [L]). 2. Of Anathoth, one of David's heroes (2 S. 23 27, 11 (a) i. i Ch. 11 28 27. 2!). see David, a^eiftfp [B];

T PrtesterIhum, 195 Baudissin, (so The Chronicler, however, must have had Dr. ad loc. ). In 2 S. 817 before him in its present corrupt form. Mk. 226, by a similar confusion. David is said to have into the house of God and received the shewgone In reporting bread 'when Abiathar was high-priest.'The.

ad

loc.

;

A

ABIGAILAbigal]?''33N ininI

(usually ^'J'^K, butin;

^^JUK

in

i

S.25i8

;

Kt.,and^r3K1725S.

S.2532. 2 S.33Kt.. and [so RV * and, perhaps with and i transposed,i;

25336

possibly.

we should

point /'^DS,;

our Lord's words the evangelist has confused Abiathar with Ahimelech, a mistake into which he was led by the constant association of David's name with that of Abiathar. Suggestions made to evade thedifficulty e.g. that father and son each bore the same double name, or that Abiathar officiated during his father's lifetime and.

45

cp M^q^J in i S.253 AB[e]irOo*ecting the war between Abijah and Rehoboam seems to be derived from 2 Ch. 13 2, where alone it is in point.

According to Klo.

From

'

'

a large temple on the precipitous heights to the E. of this village, with ancient aqueducts and a Roman road,1

all

'

It is

defended, however,

by Jastrow,

/BL

xiii.

114

("94).

2 I.e. '"I'^N, see 3

Abihu.son *0^i>r) (Ant.viii. 11).

Josephus

calls this

16

ABIMABLbut inscriptions have been discovered, one of which records the making of the road by a freedman of Lysanias the at the expense of the tetrarch,' and another its repair Abilenians." Moreover, a Moslem legend places on the temple height the tomb of Abel or Nebi Habil, doubtless a confused memory of the ancient name of Abila, whichIxDth sides of the river,' '

ABINBRother, a prophecy which a short time (three years,

tombs and other ruins on

was signallyJ'.

22),

fulfilled. After the Shecliemitcs rose

Of the way in which this came against Abimelech. about, and of Abimelech's vengeance, the chaptercontains two accounts.(jT. 23-25, 42-45),

meant 'meadow' (cp Abici,, Ahkl-HkthMaacicau). The place was in fact, still called Abil esArabic geographers (Yakut, 1 57 Mardsi' 1 4). by The site is, therefore, certain (cp. Rob. LHh' 478^ and 261 ff., where there Porter, Five Years in Damascus,probablySiik;,

i.

is a plan of the gorge). Abilene, see Lysanias.

On

the political relations ofg. a.s.

ABIMAELMt'l.;I;

(i'S0'3N.

"God

is

a

father,*

cp Sab.

According to the first of these an evil spirit froni Vahwe sows discord between the Shechemites and Abimelech, who takes the city by a stratagem and totally destroys it. According to the other account (i/7'. 26-41), the insurrection is fomented by a certain Gaal b. Obed (sec Gaal, ), who shrewdly appeals to the pride of the old Shechemite aristocracy against the Israelite half-breed, Abimelech.' Abimelech, appri.sed of tlie situation by Zebul, his lieutenant in the city, marches against it Gaal, at the head of the Shechemites, gotJS out to meet him, but is beaten and driven back into the city, from which he,i;

name -innj?D3S, '^i ZDMii, xx.wii.;

ABiMenA [AL] JoKTAN (Gen. IO28;-AAeeiA[I'])-

father is 'Attar' [inC'y], Hal. 18 ['83], and see JKKAHMKKI,, in. B om. or wanting), a descendant of

ABiMeAeHAconnection

[K]:

iCh. l22t.but see

Tribalii.

uncertain,

(jlaser, Skizze,

426.

divine

&B[]iMeAex [BAL], -AeK most proliably, Melech (Milk), the Al)imilki and Ahimilki occur as kin.ij, names of princes of Arvad in the Annals of Asurbanipal (A'/? ii. 172 /. ); the former name, which is e\idently(^l^O^as; '

ABIMELECHJudf,'.is

with his partizans, is expelled by Zebul (on this episode, Abimelech, carrying the war against other C[) G.\AL). the revolt, destroys places'^ which had taken part While Migdal-Shechem {vr. 46-49, .swjuel of ft'. 42-451. leading the assault upon Theliez he is niortally hurt a mill-stone which a woman throws from the wall. by To save himself from the disgrace of dying by a

m

[B*

928], i.e.,

father."

woman's hand, he calls on his armour-bearer despatch him {in). 50-55 cp i S. 31 4). Many recent scholars gather from the story;

to

of

C'anaanitish, also belongs to the Egyptian governor of Tyre in the Aniarna tablets.1. A Philistine, king of Gerar (see below), Gen. I 7-1116, who, according to a folk-story in J, took Ri'bckah to be Isaac's sister, and reproved Isaac for having caused this mistake, and so very nearly brought

Abimelech that Israel was already feeling its way towards a stronger and more stable form of government. Jerubbaal, it is said, was really king at Ophrah, as appears from Judg. 92;* his son Abimelech reij;ned not only over the Canaanites of Shechem, but overIsraelites

26

also

(v. 55).

A

short-lived

Manassite

guilt

The same tradition is uix)n the Philistines. preserved in !: (Cien. 20), but without the anachronistic reference to the Philistines. The persons concerned are The .\bimelech, king of Gerar, Abraham, and Sarah. details are here much fuller, and the differences from J's are striking. narrative There is reason, however, to think that the narrative of E in its original form made no mention of Gerar. In this case the principality of Abimelech was described by E simply as being between Kadesh and Shur (omitting the following words). In J's account (Gen. 26) there are traces of a confusion between two Gerars, the more southerly of which (the true seat of Abimelech's principality) was probably in the N. .Arabian land of Musri (for particulars on this''

the Benjamite kingdom of Saul (We., St., Ki.). This theory rests, however, on That Jerubbaal's power very insecure foundations. descended, if Abimelech's representation is true, to his seventy sons (92), not to one chosen successor among them, does not prove that he was king, but rather the

kingdom thus preceded

Abimelech was king of Shechem, to whose Canaanite people the city-kingdom was a familiar form of government that he ruled in that name over Israelite towns or clans is not intimated in the narrative, and is by no means a necessary inference from the fact that he had Israelites at his back in his effort to suppress the revolt of the Canaanite cities (9 55)Cpopposite.;

to disputes between the

2 [^]). region see Mizraim, J's account also refers herdsmen of .Abimelech and those of Isaac about wells, which were terminated by a covenant between Isaac and Abimelech at Beersheba (Gen. 26 17 The Elohistic form of this tradition passes lightly 19-33). over the disputes, and lays the chief stress on the deference shown to Abraham by Abimelech when the oaths of The scene of the treaty is, friendship were exchanged.

GiDKON. A 3. iCh. I816. See .Xhiathar (end).

G. V. M.

scribe's

error

for

Ahimklech.

ABINADABN.XMKS,is5;

(3nj^3K,'

'my;

father apportions,' see(i.e.,

44, 46, or

the father

god of the

clan)

numitKcnl,' cp Jehonadab[E])1.

amLcJinaAaB [BNA],;

aBin.1713.

as in J, Beersheba (Gen. 21 22-323). see AcmsH.2.

On

Ps. 34, title, T. K. c.

Son of Jerubbaal (Gideon).isit

related in Judg. 9,

as of very great value for the light

His history,

i S. 168 David's second brother, son of Jesse i (a). See David, also iCh. 2 13 {ifi-'-v. [L]). 2. Son of Saul, slain upon Mt. Gilboa, according to The name .Abinadab, however, is not iS. 3I2. There may have been a given in the list in i S. 11 49. So mistake Jesse's second son was named Abinadab.;

Marq. Fund. 25 (twva5a/3 [B]

/.hal materials stillfor

:

books, or though it makes no direct citations either from The language of our four Cjospels (even of fronv NT. the Apixjndi-v to Mk. ). of the Pauline Kpistles including the Pastoral Epp. of 1 I'e. Acts, .\poc. and alxjve all and even 2 Pe. seems of J:is. is adopted by the writerbetrays

a close acquaintance with

many

NT

OT

There is, however, surviving under that debignation. no satisfactory evidence that he used any ajxxryphal Gospel (unless perhaps a Protevangel or Gospel of He refers directly to the Apocalypse as the Infancy). written by the apostle John (Tryf>h. 81), and shows acquaintance with most of the Pauline lipistles.' '

,

,

,

From

Justin),. . '

.

;

160 A.u.

who

to have lieen used.

Hefore

we comeand\

Martyr

P "toIx:

to the fuller testimonies of Justin subseciuent writers it is necessary to examine the evidence to Ix; derived from His date and the interpretation Papias.

pass to his pupil Tatian [circa 150helps to confirm our conclusions as to Justin himself by his use of our four Gospels and no other in his Dialessaron.

we

on his fragnientary remains have been the subject of much criticism (see esp. Lightfoot, Essays on He was the hearer Supernatural Religion, 142-216). of at least two {personal disciples of Jesus, and his It was great work may V)e i)laced circa 130-140.[)laced

Xoyluv KvpiaKdv i^yjyi^afit, Expositions of the As \6yia is Oracles of (or 'concerning') the Lord.' of the a term used in the writings, the title of the book naturally suggests some kind of commentary on the writings relating to Jesus i.e., on written Gospels which held a recognised position of sacredness in the Christian Church. It is probable that similar conmientaries on one or more of the Gosix;ls had already tjcen composed by Gnostic writers thusentitled

'

NT

OT

This remarkable lx)ok, which for a long period must have Ixien the only (j(>s(x;l of many .Syrian churches, is known to us mainly through a Comnientary upon it written by Ephraim, and preserved to us in an Armenian and also through an Arabic version of the translation Dialessaron itself made, however, after the later text of the Peshitta Syriac had been substituted for Tatian's own text, which had many interesting variants of an The two sources of evidence suiJplement early type. each other, and make it certain that Tatian's Gos(x.'ls were There is some reason for none other than our own. thinking that Tatian also introduced into Syria a col;

lection of the Pauline Epistles.3.

Although Tatian adopted heretical opinions

after

:

is said to have written twenty-four books on the Gospel [circa 1 1 7- 1 38 ). Such books are disparaged by Papias as wordy and misleading he prefers to fall l)ack on the testimonies of the living disciples of those

Basilides'

'

;

who hadfrombe

seen the Lord. of the diflicultics,readily

gives accounts, not free composition of Gosfx-ls by

He

On the whole, the facts seem to accounted for if we suppose that books expounded and illustrated by traditional stories the four Gospels as we at present know them. Euscbius further expressly informs us that There can be little Papias used i Jn. and i Pe. doubt that his chiliastic views were based on theMatthew and Mark.mostPapiasin his five

the death of his master, his great work on the Gosjx:ls appears to be quite indejjendent of these and was accepted without question by the , ortnociox < j^^^^.^ .^,.^^ ..iU be well, however, to Basilides, notice at this pomt the evidence to Ix: derived etc. from other heretical leaders in regard to the estimation in which various books of the were held by those who were dissatisfied with the teaching of the main body of the Church. It will suffice to take three writers of whom we have a considerable amount of information preserved to us. Basilides of Alexandria flourished in the reign of Hadrian. His Expositions

_

:

NT

Apocalypse.Justin Martyr (circa 152), when mentioning the words of the institution of the Eucharist, says So the a[)ostIes handed down in the Memoirs y^^ 67. Justin. made by them, which are called Gospels In descrit)ing the Sunday worship, too, he (Afi. 166). refers to 'The Memoirs of the Ajxistlcs' {A/>. 1 67 see Lise of them, here and in his Dialogue with the Jew Trypho, is conditioned In tliemsclves they by the necessities of his argument. would have no weight w ith heathen or Jewish o|)ponents. The prophecies, however, could l)e freely appealed to in either case, as the argument rested on their fulfilment rather than on their sacredness. Justin accordingly uses 'The Memoirs of the Apostles' as historical documents in proof of the fulfilment of Messianic predictions in the recorded events of the life of Jesus. Twelve times he refers to them directly in the Dialogue all the instances being in connection with his exposition of Ps. '22. In every case, both here and in the Apologv, the reference is fully accounted for by the supposition that these Memoirs were our four (iospels, the phraseology of each of which can be traced in his writings. Where he most carefully describes them, after referring to an event recordetl only by Lk.

OT

and retained of the NT only Lk. in a nmtilated form, and ten I'pislles of Paul the Pastoral Epistles and the I-'pistle to the Hebrews not being included in his canon. There is no indication that he applied any other;

garded as the only true apostle.

He

rejected the

OT

that of correspondence with his own dogmatic position, in making what must be considered the earliest attempt at the conscious definition of a NT

standard than

'

'

,

he says that they were compiled by Christ's apostles and those who companied with them." This exactly'

agrees with the traditional authorship of our Gospels, as written two by apostles (Mt., Jn. ), and two by followers of apostles (Mk., Lk.). Justin likewise refers

canon. Heracleon (circa 170, or earlier), a disciple of Valentinus. wrote a Commentary on Jn. of which conHis siderable fragments are preserved by Origen. system of interpretation shows that he held the exact words of the Evangelist in the highest veneration, as He also commented instinct with spiritual meaning. on Lk. and shows acquaintance with Mt. Heb. and the Pauline Epistles including 2 Tim. Thus the first certain citations of writings with the formula familiarly used of the OT, the first attempt at defining a canon, and the first commentary on a book, come to us not from within but from without These are striking evidences of the the Church. in writings authority generally accorded to the, ,

,

,

NT

NT

NT

NT

;

677

678

CANON'So strong is the position the words of Irenreus (iii. 2?) of our Gospels, that the heretics themselves bear witness to them, and each must start from these to prove his:

CANONfour private letters Philemon and Two other epistles are dethe Pastoral epistles. viz. those to the Laodiceans and to clared forgeries,

Rom.

Then come

own

doctrine.'

4. early history of the Old Latin and the Old but there is Syriac versions is wrapt in obscurity . reason for believing that the translation of .^^ ^ parts at least of both these versions must versions. pieced not much later than the middle;

The

^

of the second century (see Tkxt, Latin version seems to have been

20, 32).

The Old

N. Africa, and to have included, probably before the time of TertuUian, all the books of the later canon, excepting When the Scillitan 2 Pe. and possibly Heb. Jas. Martyrs (N. Africa, 180 A. n. were examined as to what was contained in their book-chest, their brief recorded reply was Rooks and Epistles of Paul, a just man.' Such was their description of the writings which, It is doubtless, were used by them in their services. conditioned by the circumstance of its utterance before be wrong to conclude from it would heathen judges it that the Pauline Epistles were placed by them on a The Old different level from the other sacred writings. Syriac of the Gospels has till lately been known only but the palimpsest from Cureton's imperfect MS recently found at Mt. Sinai enables us to reconstructin, ,

made

)

'

;

Then we have Jude, two epistles the Alexandrians. of John (i Jn. has been quoted from at an earlier point, so that these may perhaps be 2 and 3 Jn. ), and the Wisdom of Solomon, 'written in his honour.' Then the apocalypses of John and Peter alone we some among us will not have receive, which (sirtg. The Shepherd of Hermas ought read in the church. to be read,' but not reckoned either with the prophets After a few more lines as to or with the apostles. rejected books, the text being very corrupt, the fragment closes. The omissions are deserving of notice suddenly nothing is said of i and 2 Peter, James, and Hebrews but the omitted epistles were undoubtedly (if we e.xccjit It 2 Peter) known at this time in the Roman church. to draw conclusions from their is difficult, therefore, omission in a fragment of whose history so little can Ijc The ascertained and whose text is so obviously corrupt. Muratorian canon is fully discussed by Zahn, Hist, of the Canon ('90) 21-43: quite recently Dom Amelli of Monte Cassino has published fragments of it from other'

)

'

'

I

!

MSS5.

'

;

this version for the

most part with approximate

certainty.

1

A

comments by Ephraim on the Acts of the Apostles, and his Commentary on the Pauline Epistles, preserved in Armenian translations, point to an Oldselection of

I

[Misc. Cassin., 1897). inclusion (though with an expression of variance of opinion) of the Apocalypse of P , .. Peter in the 'Muratorian Fragment' leads temporarily ^^ ^^ ^^^. something of books which for a time claimed a place in the canon, but

The

*

,

The older MSS of Syriac version of these books also. the rexised Syriac version (the Peshitta) do not contain 2 and 3 Jn., 2 Pe. Jude, and Apoc. have been concerned hitherto with tracing the canon, without growth of the conception of a considering, except incidentally, the,

[

I

We

XT

71.

General

influence of the main body of the literature upon the writers of the period with which we have been dealing cannot be at all fully appreciated

traces of NT.

range of writings included

in

it.

The

NT

were ultimately excluded. The Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, and the Homily, miscalled his 'Second Epistle,' are contained, after the Apocalypse, in Cod. A (the great Greek BiVjle The Epistle of of the 5th cent, in the Rrit. Mus. ). Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas hold a similar The two place in the Sinaitic Bible (X, 4th cent. are occasionally cited as Scripture in latter books writings, and this is the case also with the patristic).

Teaching of the Apostles.

Of apocryphal

(iospelsto

two deserve specialthe

notice.

from our scanty selves be studiedphraseology, In that ageworld,it

Their writings analysis. line by line, if we are to

must themunderstand

The

Gospel accorditig

Hebrcivs

is

known only

the debt xshich they owed, as regards both ideas and to the documents of the apostolic age. new conceptions had been given to the

and a new terminology had been formed

for

but This is seen, for instance, in boldest of the Gnostic the technical terms of even the Whatever may have been men's conscious speculations. attitude towards the XT writings, it is clear that they are dominated by them from the very first. Graduallytheir expression.

The

next age reproduced these

;

was not

itself creative.

by a few fragments, which show that it bore a close Clement of Alexandria relation to our First Gospel. and Origen quote from it, although they insist on the The Gospel accordsole authority of our four Gospels. ing to Peter, a considerable fragment of which was in 1892 from a MS found in Egypt, is known published to have been used in the church of Rhossus near Antioch. Serapion, Bishop of Antioch (190-203), atfirst

permitted

its

use, but subsequently disallowed

it

on

they come to recognise them more and more as their masters and then, both within the Church and outside we find them definitely declaring the limits of the it,;

The extant portion the ground of Docetic errors. embodies the language of all our four Gospels, though There is no trace of it often perverts their statements. the use of any other Gospel in its composition, though certain phrases may possibly be borrowed from someearlier

canon

which they owe this allegiance. Marcion's list of sacred books has already been noticed. The next list of which we have any knowledge is unfortunately a fragment, and tells us 72. Muratorian neither its date nor its author's nameto

apocryphal book.

Its

composition

may

with

Its testimony to probability be assigned to circa 165. the canon is thus somewhat parallel in date and extent to that of Tatian's Diatessaron. The Apocalypse of Peter, of which a fragment was

or locality.

It

was published

in

1740

by Lodovico

Hence

it

is

.-\ntonio Muratori, the librarian at Milan. known as the Muratorian canon. It is in;

barbarous Latin, in a seventh or eighth century MS but its original must have been Greek, and it is generally agreed that it was written in the West (perhaps at Rome) towards the close of the second century. LightVerses foot conjectured that it was a portion of the'

recovered at the same time, was an early book which powerfully influenced subsequent literature of a similar It seems to be kind e.g., the Apocalypse of Paul. responsible for much of the mediaeval conception of curious coincidences with It presents heaven and hell.

Alexandria6.

It is 2 Peter. c|uoted as Scripture by Clement of and as late as the fifth century it was read on Good Friday in certain churches of Palestine.;

The the Scriptures' assigned to Hippolytus. fragment commences with the end of a description of Mark it goes on to speak of Luke and John, and refers to the different beginnings of the four books of the the .After .-\cts come the Epistles of Paul Gospel.onall; ;

inquiry has revealed to us that towards the close of the second century, by the time of Irenneus,writers whose _ . TertuUian, and Clement ^ testimonies are so abundant that we need not dwell upon them here the Church had attained to a conscious recognition of a canon of the New TestaThree classes of books have come into view : ment. books, as to which no (i) the main bulk of the

Our

]

seven churches to which he wrote being paralleled with the seven of the Apocalvpse, and enumerated in the following order Cor. Eph. Phil. Col. Gal. Thess.,,

i

1

,

,

,

,

NT

679

680

CANOPYdoubt at all is expressed by writers within the Church (2) books whose |)iration, a careful and sympathetic account of the present position of:

whether he is serious when he proceetls to allegorise. Though Luther was moving in this direction, noscholar before Sebastian Castellio (i:;44) ventured to maintain the purely secular character of the poem, and all that medi.tval mysticism could do was to exercise its right of selection from the two allegoricCJhristian

NT

;

:

views.

The

idea that the bride:

was the Christian soulit

;

became the favourite mote edification, anditself

partly becausepartly

seemetl to proit

because

conunendcd

controversy; 'VVeiss's Introd. to the (1886; ET, 1887), aclear exposition of the early history; Zahn's Gesch. d. A'rtJ^'wi (1888-92), together with his Forschungcn (in five parts 1881-83), by far the most exhaustive treatise that has appeared ; Harnack's examination of vol. i. pt. i of this work in Das N'T um das Jcthr 200 ('89), a severe criticism his own position is stated Dositively in his Dogmengesch. (1885; 2nd ed. 1888, pp. 304-328) Jiilicher's h'.inl. in das A"/' ('94), an able statement of a position intermediate between Weiss and Harn.-ick. Harpreface to his Chronologie der altchr. Litteratur ('97) pack's is a noteworthy utterance, indicating the abandonment of the Tiibingcn positions in regard to the dating of N I" documents. [Holtzniann may also be mentioned as an eminently fairminded guide, and abundant in literary references (AY/. in das A'7'Pi, 1894). Among older books, see Credner, /.ur Gesch. des Kanons ("47), and his Gesch. des A' 7" Nations; edited by Volkmar ('60), important for the historv of the study of the canon also Hilgenfeld's Einl. in das N'T, 1875.] j. a. R. SS 1-59. 75. K- B. 60-74, 76, J. A. K.: ;

NT

NT

romantic spirit of the young western nations. Thus, Dante surprises us when [Cffii'iiio. 2 15, end) he identities the bride with Heavenly Wisdom.* Even in the time of the Reformation we find the evangelical Horace of the cloister,' Fray Luis de Leon,to

the

'

ottava rima'; and Alexander, though a Hebraist, has made an earnest poetic protest in favour of a mystic and against a dramatic theory (Am-wj, 1886, pp. 26-51). Grammatical exegesis, however, destroys the basis oftranslating the .Song mystically in'

in our

own d.iy Bishop

the old verse-by-verse allegorical interpretation. The only question possible is, whether a general ,, allegory of subject may have been intended legory. ^^. ^j^^ whether he considered the poet earthly love that he descrilx.'d to have a true symbolic resemblance to the sjjiritual love.* The answer is, that.

CANOPYTknt,4.

(HSn),

Is.

45

RV.

AV

'defence';

see

1

On

Salomds hei denjiid.

have before us a book which has siii;i;(stod as many problems as Shakespeare's ^"""*^'s^he name which we give to 1 Problems it, therefore, should not be a questionWe will call it in this article neither liegging name.'Canticles* nor 'Song of Solomon." but, following the best interpretation of 1 1, the 'Song of Songs'

CANTICLES.

We

the Jewish

the Jewish interpreters see S. Salfcid, Das Hohelied Erkliirertt des .Mtttelalters ('79) on both and the Christian, W. Riegel, Die Auslegung des;

Hohenliedes inderjtid. Gemeinde u. dergriech. KirrMe ('qi). 2 See Salfeld, 52; Gratz, Schir ha-.Schirim, ug/"., and cp M.-xthews, Abraham Ibn Ezra's Commentary on the Canticles('74),

Preface.' '

Jewish friend, Immanuel ben Sh'lomoh, identified material intellect (Salfeld, 91). The the biblical point of contact is Prov. 8. * Lowth is one of the chief defenders of a andthe bride with

3 Dante's

Hp.

gener.-il

allegorical sense.

He

secondary appeals not only to the most'

681

68a

CANTICLESsuch a symbolic resemblance is inconsistent with the It is true that the relation between spirit of Hebraism.

CANTICLESdone with the S>ong, which tradition already ascribed to Consecrate it by Solomon ? The answer was ready:

Yahw6 and;

described in the prophets by Ezek. the symtx)lism of wedlock (Hos. 1-3 Jer. 22 3 to It is true, also, that the phrase Is. 50 1 5456). 16 love (anw) Yahwe' occurs frequently in Deuteronomy and (less often) in the Psalter, and that the word nii (used in the Song) is applied once by Isaiah (5 1) to Yahw6. Still, the notion implied by the prophetic to allegory of wedlock, as well as by the phrase love God,' is not that of free inclination on Israel's towards the All-beautiful One, but rather of an part obedience which is in the first instance the condition of divine protection, though, as favours multiply and the essential goodness of the divine commands appears, In Deuteronomy, it becomes a habit and a passion. therefore, the love of Yahwfe is prescribed as a duty and even in the Psalter, not invited or presupposed where devotional feeling finds the freest expression, there are only three passages in which the phrase 'to love Yahwe' occurs (Ps. 3I23 97 io(?) HSzo), and in the first of these it occurs in the imperative It is in harmony with this that three other mood. passages (Ps. on 6936 119132) contain the fuller phrasehis peopleis; ; ' ;

allegorical interpretation. to the change which had

This course corresponded passed upon the national The enthusiastic element in Jewish piety character. was becoming, in adversity, more intense. This element needed the expression which it found in the Song of Songs (see Berachoth 57^, where nn'on is ascribed to the Megilla of the Song of Songs as well as to the Book of Psalms). It should te added, however, that even after 70 A. i). the natural interpretation found somesupporters.

I

At the synod of Jamnia (90 A.D.still

)

K.

'Akiba had

to defend the sacredness of the

Song

of

a, Songs (Mishna, Yadayim, 35), we find a solemn anathema on those who treat the Shir The grounds on ha-Shirim as a secular song (icj J'cd)which this secular character was asserted may be guessed from \\\& Aboth de R. A'afan, chap. 1, which states that 'formerly' some counted the Song 'apocryphal' (ii),

and

in

Sanhedrin, loi

quoting

in support of this, not 7 1-9, but 7 It is about, or soon after, 90 A.D. that we find the first traces of the allegorical view (see 4 Esdras 52426 726, and R. Simeon ben Gamliel's allegorical interpretation Before that time Jewish of Song 3 II in TaanithAZ).

u/

Yahwe's name,' which appears to mean (see performance of religious duties with a Such a conception of the love of certain fervour. God we find in the Koran (Sur. 829; cp I996). It was one of the Jewish elements in Mohammed's'

to love

Is.

566)

the

teaching,

generations satisfy In Syria and in Egypt, and still more in a mystic type of devotion, which sought by contemplation to lift the veil between man and God. The mystic love-songs of the Cairo dervishes, and the fine love-poems of the SQfi-poet Hafiz, have been compared by Orientalists with the Song of Songs but it has been forgotten that, fervid as the love of God became among the later Jews, it never divested itself of the chastening restraints of legalism, and that, in Persia at least, mystic poetry is one of the fruits of a national It is still stranger reaction against the aridity of Islam.

and

failed

to

later

of

teachers seem to have shrunk from quoting the Song Nor is any use made of it (or of even Philo neglects it. Eph. 527 alludes perhaps to Ps. Koh^leth) in the NT. 45 13, but certainly not to Song 4? and the parallelism between Rev. 320 and Song 52-6 (Trench, Snrn This silence on the Churches, 225 /. ) is incomplete.;

;

Moslems.

Persia, arose

part of early Jewish and Christian writers shows the weakness of the argument from tradition adduced by

the allegorists.Is the Song of Songs a drama or II. Poetical form. a bundle of loosely connected songs? The earliest . advocate of a definite dramatic theory -J 5. Foetical Cornelius a ^^,^g ^j^g learned Jesuit, form history L,^pj^jg (t 1637), who, like Ewald,,

;

.

:

compared

William Jones and Sir Edwin Arnold have the Gitago\inda of the admired Indian poet Jayadeva (14th cent. A. D. ), in which it would appear (but may we not suspect an afterthought of the poet?), 'from the few stanzas scattered through the poem where the author speaks in his own person, that he means his verses to be taken in a mystic sense Krishna symbolising the human soul, the shepherdesses the allurements of sense, and Radha the knowledge of, or meditation on, divine things. Surely the pantheistic atmosphere in which Jayadeva lived, and thethatSir'

Our divided the poem into five acts. He takes up a middle position. finds no trace of a regular plot, and only one thing in which the Song closely resembles the Greek dramatic He allows, however, that the models the chorus.

of views.

own Bishop Lowth

Song may be

such as the Eclogues of

classed with imperfect dramatic poems, of \'irgil and some of the Idylls;

The first scholar to adopt the second Theocritus. but the solution of the problem was Richard Simon Influenced partly first to make it plausible was Herder.^ the disintegrating tendency of the newer criticism, by but still more by an irresistible impulse to search for traces of old popular poetry, he boldly denied the conpoem, dividing it into about twenty-one independent songs (with a fragmentary conversation for an appendix), threaded like so many pearls on a neckbut lace. These songs are sometimes very short nor brevity. Herder thinks, is the soul of a love-song is it important to determine the exact numl)er of songs. Herder does not deny a certain pleasing appearance of who wished to unity, but ascribes this to the collector,tinuity of the; ;

excessive imaginative fervour of the Indian genius, are altogether unlike the conditions under which the Song

of Songs must have been penned. How came it, then, it may be asked, that the Jews of a later time, in their exegesis of the Song, adopted a theorv which is, strictlv, contrary to -. ,..

j,^g gj-j|.;^ ^f Hebraism ? 'Probably thus. allegorical y^r^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^ Mishna ( Taanith, interpretation, ^g^ ^^,^^ ^^^^^ j,^^ destruction of the temple, passages from the Song were sung at certain festivals. know, too, that after the popular yearly great catastrophe all expression of exuberant joy was what in those gloomy days was to be forbidden. Now, ancient authority,' but also to the analogy of P.s. 45 and (more Such a position, however, safely) to pas.sages in the prophets. was tenable only provisionally. The Rishop expressly rejects the most poetic form of the allegorical theory, for which alone most was defended by Bossuet that it Christians have cared which explains the Song of the lovin? intercourse between Christ and the soul. Surely the election of a Gentile Church ('dark but comely') might have been foreshadowed at a less.

4.

Ungin

01

We

the gradual growth of true love in its various nuances and stages, till it finds its consummation in In its present form the .Song may be taken wedlock. but the critic apologises for to consist of six scenes the term, and insists that the poem was intended to be read, and, as it stands, is neither a theatrical piece ^ Herder's nor a cantata. exquisite little treatise It gained the could not fail to make an impression. approval of Eichhorn and Goethe but, without a more

show

'

'

;

'

*

;

1

'Lieder der Liche.

Die altestrn und schdnstcn aus dem

and the acute Bp. Warburton criticise Lowth for not going further. Lowth answered th.it without allegory the place of the Song in the canon could not be justified. All his literary taste could not dissolve his narrow notion of the authority of the

expenditure of poetry.

Rightly, therefore, did J. D. Michaelis

Morgenlande (1778). See Herder's W'erke by Suphan, Bd. 8, and cp Havm's Herder^ i 175, where it is shown that it was really Bishop Percy's Keliques which opened Herder's eyes to the element of folk-song in the OT. Herder, however, came to recognise that this element was somewhat modified in the Bible by a certain inherent and distinctive sanctity. 2 We have borrowed this and a few other characteristic phrases from the EH article Canticles by Robertson Smith for the pleasure of quoting from such a fine piece of critical exposi:ion.''

683

684

CANTICLESthorough justification than Kichhorn gave, it could not Apart from its permanently subvert the rival theory.cKxiuent defence of the literal interpretation, its chief contribution to biblical study is perhaps this that it has unintentionally proved the im|)ossibility of recoverthere were) and of ing the original songs (if songs retracing the plan (if plan he had) of the hypotheticalcollector.

CANTICLESexpect a drama among a Semitic people, we might excuse this divergence as an unfortunate consetjuence of the absence of stage directions.

Goethe

apix,'ars to'

have

felt this.

Tempted

select

himself, as he tells us in the Westostlicher Divan, to and arrange some of these few leaves,' he took

any plot? The dramatists (as the defenders of this theop.[-\='-]) Dt. 223t (.W Caphtorims, KAnnAAoKCC [MAFL]) the land and properly the |x>ople whence came the Philistines.;

common

in

for 'villa,' 'steading,' 'hamlet,' etc. Lat. mansio, Gr. from which it is said to be derived (Gildemeister, fjiOiH)

=

Kgypt and Spain

synonym

y.DPJ'

ii^^ff.).

eleventh

In any case, a place lay here in the century called Munyat Hisham (Kazwini's

Gen. IO14 (see lielow)iand Dt. 223 Caphtorim is a for Philistines. Caphtor is now generally an important island of which the mention is perhaps to be expected see Gkogkai'HV.Inidentified with Crete,;

Lexicon), and in 1430 El-Munja, a village so large that the whole lake was called after it. (Tristram gives the

t

The words,' whence came the Philistines,' in Gen.

10 14 should(incorrect)

follow 'Caphtorim.' Probably they are gloss from the margin.

a misplaced

697

698

CAPHTOR15(7). In Jer. 47 4 't is expressly called an 'k ('island'?), and the Philistines (?) are sometimes called Cherethites.' '

CAPPADOCIAas early as the fourteenth century the name Keftd had As a name for Cilicia it passed out of general use. was superseded by Hilakku (see Cii.K :IA, Hence 2). the false tradition, identifying Caphtor with Cappadocia, could easily arise, just as another incorrect tradition identifying the Cherethites with the Cretans See (on the other side see Chkrethites) arose. As. u. Eur. 337, 390, to whom this (probably) That the final right explanation of Caphtor is due. r in Caphtor still needs to be accounted for is admitted.

The Zeus Cretagenes

in Gaza may also suggest a conThese are Dillnection of the Philistines with Crete. Mut ( i ) Crete does not appear to be mann's arguments. mentioned in the Assyrian or the Egyptian monuments is not to be limited to island (BDH, (2) the sense of; '"

'coast, border, region');'

and

(3) in Jer.'

I.e.

, and Pontus {ij irpbi t. cit. 255). The capital, Mazaca (Ma^.,

those visible from Babylonia in Zech. 1 8, and must have been ai well known as these to Zechariah's hearers or readers. They were no tloubt the hills out of which thou inayest dig copper'

would seem to imply that a fishery was in the case,^ and, if two of our best critics may be followed, the nobles ofJerusalem are described in Lam. 4? as purer than snow, whiter than milk, more ruddy than branches oi pitiinim'

'

'

(Ut. Hg) /.'2.

much

less frequently S.

and

E. of Suez.

'corals'

(Lam.

'fsearls'2.

(Job28i8 Prov.

;?i5

'red coral,' and 811 2O15 31 10) are suggested47),' '

yctker {^10 stretch), both used of cords or ropes for drawing, hauling (cp 2 S. 17 13 EV rope '),8 of tent-ropes (Is. 33 20 Job Vether ( see Ship, Tent, 4 2i),6 and of ship's tackle 3. in Judg. vfvpa.), which seems to denote rather 'gut,' and its derivative TTI'D, are used also specially of bowstrings (Ps. II2;

perhapsing.'

rubies as renderings alternative to P6nliilin for c'r:3 pUninim. i) (see RUBV, coral. renderCertainly rubies is not a good The words, the catching' EV, improbably,''

21 12

[13]).

Less frequent terms are

:

tjin

hftt (v^to sew),

'

(7iir,p

;

price1

)

of

wisdom

is

above that of

rubies,' in

Job 28

18,

This interpretation is due to GratzC/''^'- Zt. 1885, pp. 549/) ; has been overlooked by even the most recent commentators. For other views, on the whole very improbable ones, see Wright, Zcchariali, 124 /. ; Now. and G.VSm. decline to offer anyit

a singular term. -jk'O We might emend to ,inrm% '(wi.sdom) is esteemed (Che.). 2 The common rendering is . more ruddy in body than ptninim' (cp EV). But 'in body' (csj;) appears superfluous here whereas if we transpose the preposition, and read "lij-o does not instead of 'd csVi we get a good sense (see above). See Bu. and Bickell, ad loc. either '^y or Qsy. represent ^ In P of the Hexateuch it is the comprehensive term for all see also Ezek. offerings presented to God, bloody or bloodless ;1

The

text

may, however, be corrupt' . .

;

is

'

;

'

'

opinion. Bickellart wise." 3

'20'

28 40 43.4

:

If thou hold thy peacefor

(niS'i])

before a fool, thou

Targ. Theophr., etc., of arsenic). It not be intended here (indication, however, of colour). 4 With Aq., Pesh., some Heb. MSS, and virtually !rous = cnK)' Sym. and Theod. support MT.

Job 28 16

niONn. n3Si:D = o-i'*iP''"7 of has, viz., native realgar, or ruby .sulphur (disulphide is used to a limited extent as a pigment, but can(ai^p2T\ Josh,lilg, pi. inl's.

On

r.ahylon

Ui6l5J). the 'cords' ('ia) worn by the unchaste (l'.ar. 43), see I'ritzsclic ad loc.

women

ofi.

CORE (Kope .\V, RV KokAii CORIANDERarea,

[l^^^A Ti.[q.v.).

\VH). Kcclus. 45iS Judei:x.

(1^;

korion [BAFL];^,

I631

Nu. llyt) is a plant indigenous to the Mediterranean The Coriandrum sativum, L. as all agree. Hebrew name, which Lagarde (f/'.-i 57) believes to be of lndo-l".uropean origin, seems identical with the 7ot5-' which the sclioliast on Uioscorides (864) aflirms to be and the identity of the the Punic equivalent of Kopiov The mamia which is likened to plant is thus assured. its seed is also said to be small, Haky,* small as hoarfrost upon the ground,' and is elsewhere said to resemble These characters suit the so-called seed bdellium. (really fruit) of the coriander, which is about the size of N. M. w. T. T.-i). a pcpijcrcorn.;'

expansion, the arts also awakened in Corinth to a new life, especially those of metal-work and pottery, heirlooms PI. //A'. ?>4 3). of Ph(x-nician influence (cp Paus. ii. 83 Trade became wholesale. The establishment of the Isthmian games in the sanctuary of Poseidon, near the wooded gorge of the the bay of Scha-nus, in isthmus' (Pind.; Str. 380), elevated Corinth into a So from the distinct centre of Hellenic life (.Str. 378). earliest times the epithet wealthy was especially reCorinth {u(pyecial stress upon his claim to be regarded as sole founder of the Corinthian church (iCor. 36 4 15). This claim is not contradicted by 2 Cor. 1 19 ( who was reached by me and Silvanus and Timothy '), for; '

(Strabo, 378).

juxtaposition of the two Corinthian harbours (Lech;eum on the Corinthian Gulf, and Cenchr&t?, with Schtjenus, on the Saronic) made it easy to tranship and, as the voyage round Cape Malea was cargoes' ;

The

1'-'

The Greek name, according to Fluck. and Hanb. (293), is due to the offensive odour it e.xhales when handled, and which reminds one of hugs in Greek, (copiv.' The I'unic yoi5 appears .igain in \^t. git or gitk, which is black cummin, Xigelia sati7'a, L. See FncH, i. 4 This, rather than round,' seems to be the meaning of CSCnp (Di. on Exod. IC 14).'

Similarly a-xotviov

and

(riraprioi'.

'

.

I

.

.

29

897

898

CORINTHIANS, EPISTLES TO THEaddressed to the Christians of Achai.i generally as well as to the Corinthians, wliile I Cor. is written more especially to the church of Corinth. The apostle sjjent eighteen months in Corinth on this On his ne.xt recorded visit he occasion (.\ctsl8ii). On a supposed interstayed three months (.\cts 20 3). mediate visit to Ct)rinth and on the correspondence that On the took place, see CoRiNriii.\NS, ij 9/., 13. character of Paul's teaching see below, and cp Paul,2 Cor.is

anxiety that he took pen in hand to write our First At the s.ame time he rejjlied to a series of Epistle. questions put to him in a letter which he had received

(perhaps through Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus These two I Cor. 10 17) from the church at Corinth. the tidings which he had heard of disorders in things:

the church, and certain definite in(]uiries put to account satisfactorily for the contents of the

himFirst

Apollos. As to the effect of Paul's letters and presence the NT but the letter of Clement, written, gives no information perhaps, about 97 .\. i). shows that the moral tone of;

,

So far all is clear, except 14-16). Epistle (see below, perhaps as to the exact date at which the epistle was Ix; it sent, though placed provisionally about may There is also no d said lx;low The subject 16). .\ bad ca.se of immoral living covers 1 io--l2i. (ii. which too much reflected a general laxity in the church 'J (iii.) Litigiousness, which did not scruple (. 612-20). to have recourse to he.athen law-courts (61-11). (iv. ) .\n indecorous freedom in worshijj, exemplified by the disuse of the female headdress (11 2-16). Still (v.) worse disorders at the ngapt or love-feast, which was .\nd we may followed by the eucharist (1117-34). perhaps include under this head (vi. the tlenial by some of the resurrection, dealt with in chap. \{>. The last three points may have been raised by the:

We

(

)

;

:

)

(

)

)

.\ssuming that there between i and 2 Cor. it''*'""''''

wasis''

an intermediate letter probable that Titus was the'^*^'"''

This certainly contained questions about marriage (answered in ch. 7); probably also about relations to heathen practices, such as the eating of meats offered to idols (ch. 8 continued in 9 i-ll i) and possiblyofficial letter.;

someChap.tion,

12. Of Titus also the bearer of our Second Epistle (2 Cor. 816-24). .\ small group of scholars, including Hausrath and Schmiedel, would assign to Titus yet another earlier visit, on the businessof the collection, .soon after the writing of the First Kpistle; but the hypothesis is invented to suit tlie theory that 2 Cor.l2 is not an integr.al part of our Second Kpistle, and necessitates the invention of a number of other purely hypothetical occurrences (among them a fifth, or third lost letter), nearly all of them duplicates of others that are better attested. It may be rejected without hesitation.

'^^

''^'*'

^''

^^'^

'"'"^

inquir}' as to the relative value of spiritual gifts. 1 1-9 is introductory, and ch. 16 an epilogue of

j)ersonal matter containing instructions as to the collecand details as to Paul him.self and his companions.

The onlyparticularly1 10-4 21

points th.at need perhaps to be more drawn out are the connection of chaps. and 81-11 1.tracks out the spirit of faction toits

The

first.a

origin in the

The sequence of events, as ' seems to have Ijeen this;

far as

we can

ascertain

it,

absent at Jerusalem 13. Sequence .\pollos arrives at Corinth, where he preaches with succe.ss (Acts 18 27). of e'VentS. (ii.) Paul takes up his abode at Ephe.sus in the summer of a.d. 52, remaining there until the summer of(i.)

While Paul

is

(iii.) Karly in this period .\pollos quits Corinth and certain Judaising teachers arrive there. The beginnings .are laid of oifferences which soon harden into parties. (iv.) .-Vbout, or somewhat after, the middle of the period Paul pays the church a brief disciplinary visit, iv Auinj (2 Cor. 2 i ;

^'?:.55-,

worldly-minded wisdom, which is contrasted with the simplicity of the Gospel a simplicity, how18. 1 Cor, ever, which does not exclude the higher wisdom lio-l2iand that comes from God (I 17-2 16). Then, in 3i-t5, the true position of human teachers is gj-j^i J stated. They are but stewards, whose duty is not to put forward anything of their own, but only to administer what is committed to them by God. The Christian has but one foundation and one judge, namely Christ. 4 6-21 applies these general truths to the circumstances of the case with biting irony, which, however, soon ch.anges to affectionate entreaty, and that again to sharp admonition. The sequence of the argument in 8 i-ll i should not be lost In ch. 8 is laid down the principle which should guide sight of. conduct in such matters as the eating of meat that might have come from heathen sacrifices. This principle is the subconceit of_

1

With the dates given here cp those903

in

Chronology,

g 71.

In ch. 9 ordination of personal impulse to the good of others. Paul points out the working of the principle in his own ca.se ; it is in deference to it that he waives his right to claim support from the Church, in deference to it that he exercises severe .self-

904

CORINTHIANS, EPISTLES TO THEThe history of Israel control, like that of runners in a race. xhowcil what an utter mistake it was for even the most hij;hlyof privilcuctl to stimjose themselves exempt from the necessitysuch self-coiiirol (10 1-13). Kui hari^t prcMjrilwtl care in This Ic.uls to some practical Of the subject nuitter16. p fartles..

The

very nature of the Christiani).

relation to heathen feasts (10 14-aa).

suKKeslions and advice (lOaj-ll

mostj,^^.

of the epistle the j)oints which invite discussion are the nature of

The spiritual gifts. lattt-r arc dealt with elsewhere (see CilKTS, Si'lRlTfAl.). As to the parties, we may remark ( i ) that the namesparties,

and the

The epistle would read continuously if we were to I. skip from 013 to 7 2, and the few con. luiiing word* I3ii-i4 would come as well at the end of ch.ip. as of chap. 13. may admit further that the subjci t matter of the first passage resembles, (hough it is not identical with, that of the missing letter referred lo in the First Kpistle ('not to ' keep company with fornicators was the keynote of the one, not to Iw of the other); and the unei|nally yoked with unljelievcrs vehenKiit iMjIemic of the last four chapters would lc not unlike what e should expri t to find in the letter which we are led lo the Second. postulate byat 10

We

'

'

'Paul.' '.\ix)llos.' 'Cephas.' and 'Christ' reijn-scnt real titles which the parties at Corinth gave themselves. When Paul says in 46 'These things, brethren, have I transferred by a fiction (to adopt Dr. F leld's elegant translation, Otiitni S'orfic. ad loc.) 'to myself and Apollos for your sakes,' the fiction consisted, not in usinji names which the Corinthians did not use. but in speakiii;; as if he and .\|k>IIi>s had lM;h;ivctl 'I'lic whole like |)arty-leaders. wlu-n tliL-y had not so Iwhavcd. movcmeiil came not from them but from thcjse w ho invoked their names against their will and without their consent.'

In spite of these favouring considerations, however, in spite of the a.ssent which it has met with from certain critics! Ptliiderer. Hausrath, Krenkel. .Snjany which

Jews of Palestinelettersfroni

Jerusalem (2 Cor.ill

of 'apostle,

(Kin/. 65), liecause the two passages really refer to different occasions; 824 is proof that the aorists which precede are epistolary and describe the circumstances connected with the sending of the present epistle, where.is in l'_' 18 the aorists are strict aorists and point back to a former visit of Titiis and his companion. The parallelism of expression, however, is so t'reat as to suii.nest strongly that both passages lielong lo the s;ime letter. There is a p.-irallelisin ec]ually marked l)etween the use of irAeofdCTfii' in I217 /and in 72(cp'2ii); the word occurs only once besides in N'f (i 1 bess. 4o).If the one hyi)othctical intrusion breaks down, the other slKJuld in all probability go with it. Not one of the analoyous c.iscs to w hicli Schmiedel appeals for the balance of argument is also a;;aiii>t really holds goxl;

:

Their teaching laid he had Kathereti around bim (iC'or. !!). such stress on Jesus' Jewish Messiabship (conceived a.s the Jews conceived it) as to amount to preacbinj; 'anotbcr Jesus' (2Cor. 11 4). Paul takes firm ijroiind in bis opposition to them. He he will not allow that will not bate one jot of his ( '.ospel (/V/V/.) he is behind the most ajxistolic of the ajiostles (aC'or. 11 5) ; be had 'seen the Lord' as truly as they had (i.t., on the road to Damascus, ;ind in ecstatic vision, i C"(ir. i l.')8 2 Cor. I'i i^) be had better prcxjf of his ajwsilcsbip in his miracles (2 Cor. 1 "J 12),; ;

detaching Rom. It) from the epistle lo the Romans (see the commentary on that epistle by the present writer and .Mr. .\. C.

text is so varied and so Headlam). The attestation of the early that a displacement of this magnitude could hardly fail to leave traces of itself. .At least, before it can \k assumed, the

NT

major premise that such a displacement more fully established.

is

pos>ible needs lo

lie

in

(2 Cor.

his iiisi>;ht into Christian triuh (2 Cor. 11 e Ix-lieved. that the world, including man. is the work not of God but of angels, that there is no resurrection of the Ixxly, that Christ has not come in the flesh, and that he was not born of Mary. Paul replies asserting the orthodo.x doctrine on each of:

these heads..Attention

was

first

Ussher

in 1644.

A complete text

called to these apocr>-pha by Archbishop u as published in the Armenian

oc6

CORMORANTBible of Zohrab in 1805 (incomplete translations earlier); also, with a mouosjraph by Ritick, in 1823. Just as interest in the sul)ject was being revived by TlieoJ. Zahn {Gesc/t. ,I

/^,

S. 17 17, etc.,liJ 5,

parched corn'

;

see'

Food,;

i.

11.

TOj^,

^dmali, Judg.7.

etc.,

standing corn'

see

Agri' ;

culture,12.

nia"!, riphoth,2.

2S. 17ig Prov. 27

22,

bruised corn

cp

Cooking,

monograph and commentary on 2 Cor. by Klopper ('69, '74), and of the discussions of special points in Krenkel's Beitrcige with parts ('90), and of the missing epistle and its identification of 2 Cor. in the l-:.xf>ositor (iZ()i h 231^ 285^, 1898 a 13 jf!).1

42 i, etc., perhaps 'broken (corn),' but 13. '^'yi',\eber, Gen. As a denom. T^c-.i, 'to sell corn '(Gen. 42 6 Am. uncertain. 857:, etc.).14.

On the apocryphal letters, besides the literature quoted above, a sumtnary will be found in Harnack's Gesch. d. altchr. Lift. 1 37-39, .-md Zahn's last words on the .subject in Theol. LiieratiirThe important discussion in Zahn's bhitt, 1894, col. i23i?i \v. S. Einleitung, 1 1S3-249, was too late for notice.

KOKKOs, Jn. 1224, 'a corn (RV grain).' criTOs, Mk. 428 etc., a general term like |3^ (above, 6). ra cTTTopi/ixa, cornfields, Mt. 12 i Mk. 223. 17. tio y Peter ; in .-//. Const, vii. 40 i Zucchaius is sviciecded !>. \v. S. by Cornelius.

Mimra

by

I'eter

bishop of

I I K. 1341.' It is only in the case of Joash that coronation is mentioned as accompanying intleed, it is mentioned as preceding the anointing (2 K.II12). 2 .S. 1 10 refers to an older custom of transPerha|)s

ferring to the successor the personal de.ad king see CuovvN'. Perhaps;

CORNERCi.KAN,I-'i.i:.sii,

(HNS). Lev. I9927 21;

5:

(i) of

a

field

:

cp

65,

(2) of the

beard

:

see;

CrTTiNGS(3):

Mourning Customs

oi- TiiK of a garment

('p,3

KRAcne^ON),R\'.

N'u. ir.38 KV'"*.'-

see Fkingf.s.

CORNER, ASCENT OF THE (n32nuSec ll.KlSAI.KM.(D'3Si^TI'L"),

nhl'), Xeh.

adornments of the too the anointing occurred near or on a particular via