sin-sodom and gomorrah

SIN, WILDERNESS OF

ing the Sinaitic Peninsula and the adjacent parts (see

1 a ' s reading Says (*.D) for 7'0 would furnish a good emendation, but is forbidden by the place being described as a fortress

There is nothing in the Hebrew corresponding X?,in l??.

SINAI AND HOREB

thus the universal order. When the division is by two, Mars and Saturn are eliminated ; the reckoning in that case is by the two solar phases from equinox to equinox (spring to autumn, or autumn to spring). The sun, 1 F~~ ,,,hat follows cp wi. AOF3 Is5fl, and in Dev ~~~~

etymology given in his time to the old name by Jewish I below), and it is, therefore, impossible to speak with scholars. It seems quite plausible that Ezekiel's Sin any definiteness as to the relative frequency of the two was a fortress similar to (perhaps not very far from) names or their connotations. On the other hand, we Pelusium, but of a somewhat ephemeral importance. In are able to arrive at a quite clear perception of the idea the critical sixth century R. c . , fortifications and garrisons i that was connected with their use in the circle of legend along the entrance to Egypt between the sea and the and of the facts which caused the change of usage. modern Balllh-lakes seem to have changed consider- In the thought of the ancient East every land that ably, and even before the great revolution caused by can be looked upon as a geographical or political unity the Persian conquest in 525 B.c., the withdrawal of the a. cosmological -and so also ' the promised land '-is large garrison to a better location may have reduced a regarded as a reflected image of the populous city to the position of an obscure village. 1 ezczed. earth and of the cosmos ( K A T(3) 176); This must have been the case with Ezekiel's Sin, as d : the points which fix the limits of the could no longer identify it.' ~ earth as a whole must, therefore, reappear also in the

[Cp Cri f . Bih. on Ezek. 29 IO 30 14-16, where an underlying 1 lesser cosmos, the country, and once more, again, in That Ezekiel's prophecies have been worked It is precisely by this that the land is

w. M. M.

P17d is supposed. the district. over by a redactor who changed the geographical setting, is pointed out in PROPHET $ 27. The 'Shunem' supposed t o be referred to would be tba; in the Negeb. See SHUNEM.]

See GEOGRAPHY, 7? and WANDERINGS.

SACRIFICE, 2 8 8

SIN, WILDERNESS OF (I'D 737p), Ex. 161, etc.

SIN OFFERING (RKpp), Lev.43, etc. See

SINAI AND HOREB Two names ($ I). Cosmological theorz,(s ?). Bearing on Horeh- mal (5 3). Babylon and Egypt (5 4). Musri (# 5). 16). Minkans and Sabieans (S 6). Magan and Meluha (f 7). Amarna period (5-8). Ma'in (( 9).

Sinai is the usual name for the mountain where, according to one tradition, Yahwb had his seat and where, accordingly, Moses received the divine com- mands. Sinai is, therefore, the mountain of the giving of the law.

Even the most superficial observation does not fail to note that the mountain where Yahwk dwells has also

In pre-critical days the explanation offered and accepted was either that Horeb was the name of

the whole range and Sinai that of the individual mountain, or, alternatively, that Horeb designated the northern part of the range and Sinai the southern, and more especially the highest point of this. Criticism shows that the various sources can be sharply dis-

Hebrew traditions (8 10s). Oldest Arab. civilisation (0 12). Moses story (5 13). Mount var~ously placed ($5 rq'

Early sacred places (0 17). SerbZl and J. Miis5 (S IS). Gal. 425 ($ 19). Various views (5 20).

1. The two another name-Horeb.

names*

shown to be a natural unity-Le., a unity determined and ordained by God. According as a twofold or a fourfold division is adopted, the earth is defined by two or fonr points : E. and W., or N. and S., or else ,E., S., W., and N. So also the year and the day are divided into two halves or four quarters in accordance with the corresponding points in the course of the sun. Any one of these two or four points can be taken as the beginning of the year or of the course of the sun ; the year can begin in spring as in Babylon, or in winter as with us (following Egyptian - Roman reckoning), in autumn as in the time before the rise of Babylon (end of the third millenium B.c.) in Hither Asia, and, therefore, with the Canaanites and the Israelites ; lastly, in summer. The beginning selected corresponds with the nature of the divinity who is principally worshipped. Because Marduk is the god of spring the year is held to begin with spring, and because in the W. the western ( L e . , the autumn) god prevails, an autumn new year prevails in western lands, including Canaan, as long as there is independence.

In this connection between the year-i.e., the course of the sun-and geographical conceptions we can already discern the essential character of all oriental religion and science, which is to regard all that is and all that happens as flowing from the activity of the deity. But the deity reveals himself primarily and before aught else in the heavenly bodies and their motions; for the deities of Babylon and of all Hither Asia-as the OT itse!f abundantly shows-without exception bear an astral character.l The heavenly bodies which most plainly reflect the deitv in its working, in

SINAI AND HOREB moreover, is regarded as the god of the underworld, for the stars as they approach the sun become invisible, in other words, have their ‘abode in the underworld. Now, this ‘ underworld ’ aspect of the sun corresponds to Saturn (Nergal), the winter sun or the god of the underworld (Pluto). T o the moon accordingly (since the full moon is in opposition to the sun) belongs the opposite pole of the universe and the opposite planet Mars (Ninib), which represents the summer sun. By a complete reversal of all our modern notions, the sun is the deity of winter or the underworld, the moon the deity of summer and the upper world.

Now when the sun takes up the position which properly belongs to it in the universe, that is, when it is a winter sun, it is at the most souther& point of its course in the zodiac ; and the corresponding full moon being in opposition is at the most northerly point. In other words, the sun is at the Saturn-sun point, the S. pole of the ecliptic, the moon at the Mars-moon point, the N. pole of the ecliptic.

The course of nature shows a similar cycle ; day is succeeded by night, summer by winter, and in the larger periods of time, the aeon, a similar procession is repeated. Everything that happens is divine ordering, the godhead is constantly manifesting itself anew in changed attitudes and changed activities. Thus Marduk becomes Nabu in autumn, and conversely. The same holds good of the N. and S. phase (summer and winter) of the sun or of the godhead in general ; they pass each into its opposite. Further, the four (or two) quarters of the world present themselves in various aspects according to the character of the worship exercised at each given place, and according to the different methods of reckoning there employed. The Babylonian view, with the Marduk (or spring-) cult, takes as its point of orientation (Mohammedan @Zu) the E. (=that which is before, n i p ) , and thus for it the N. is to the left, the S. to the right, and the W. behind. T o the older view, which faces westward, the N. is to the right and the S. to the left. Thus arises for a later time the possibility of an interchange of diametrically opposite points, according to the point of view assumed by each writer in his theory. Hence the phenomenon constantly observed in all forms of mythology, and therefore also of cosmology, that opposites pass into one another, that a given form bears also the marks of its antithesis.

The selection of the two names, Horeb and Sinai, and their cosmological meaning thus become clear. As

3. Bearing on Horeb and

Sinai.

soon as scholars discovered the importance of the moon worship in ancient Babylonia, and the name of the moon- goddess Sin, the explanation of the

name Sinai as Mountain of the Moon became natural. Proof, indeed, for this explanation of the word can be had only when the significance of this mountain in the cosmic scheme as a whole has been made out ; but this is accomplished precisely by means of the other name of the mountain of Yahwb-Horeb.

The earth-and so also on a smaller scale each land and each separate district-is imagined as a mountain with two summits,’ the ’ mountain of the countries ’ of the Babylonians and Assyrians (fad mktdfe, ursng Kur- Rurnz). According to the orientation in each case (and as regulated by this the time at which the year was held to begin, and so forth) these two points are conceived of as E. and W. (equinoctial), or as N. and S. (solstitial). The E. (or N. ) point is that of the light half of the day or year, the W. (or S.) that of the dark half. For when the sun is in the E. the day (or the year) begins, when it is at the northern point of its path it is midday or midsummer, and so on. This is the thought which lies at the bottom of the religious observances on Ebal and Gerizim2 (Dt.1129 27x18 Josh.830#);

1 Cp Hommel, Aufssiitzeu. A&zndlwqm, 3 4 4 8 ; Winckler

2 Bodare brought intoconnection with the goddess worshipped in MVG r g o ~ , 241, 283.

4631

SINAI AND HOREl3 Gerizim is the mount of blessing, Ebal that of cursing, that is, of the light and dark halves respectively, of good and evil omen (right and left are the lucky or unlucky sides according to the orientation) ; on each mountain stand six tribes, for each half of the year has six signs of the zodiac or six months.’

When the two summits of the Sad matbtc are the N. and S. points of the cosmos they belong respectively to the moon and to the sun. If Sinai takes its name from the moon-goddess Sin, Horeb is derived from the sun, for the name means Mountain of Glowing, Heat (x in and y,in), the sun at the most northerly part of its course (our sign of cancer, summer-solstice) is the glowing sun. Thus Sinai and Horeb both express like cosnio- logical conceptions.

Making the moon point the most northerly of the ecliptic belongs to the old Babylonian order of ideas, 4. Babylon and according to which the moon stands

at the head of the pantheon and the sun is regarded as god of the under- Egypt‘

world. The opposite is also equally admissible, the moon being regarded as the star of the night and the sun as the power that quickens nature, as the star of the upper world, and as supreme deity. In this last interpretation, and, indeed, as the sole expression of the godhead, Chuen-aten (Amen-hotep IV., see EGYPT, 4 56) sought to carry out a monotheistic worship of the sun. This would be of importance if it were held proven that it is Chuen-aten that is intended by the Pharaoh of Joseph.a It would seem, in any case, as if a like view underlay the designation of Sinai (as of Horeb), for the mountain upon which Yahwk reveals himself lies on the S. of the promised land. If, now, Yahwk has his dwelling on the moon-mountain situated in the S., clearly the underlying cosmic orientation is the Egyptian one which regards the S. as being above (corresponding to the course of the Nile), whilst the Babylonians had the conception (conesponding also to the course of the Euphrates) according to which it is the N. that is above -the N. pole of the cosmos, as also of the ecliptic (this last the moon-point). For the highest godhead dwells above on thesummit of the Sad mltkte. T o it, therefore, belongs the highest part of the ecliptic (the path of the sun) as of the sky ; the portion which lies t o the N. of the zodiac and thus around the N. pole. The Egyptian view presupposes the opposite conception, and, therefore, looks for all these things in the S.

The assumption, accordingly, which should look for the seat of the highest godhead in the S. of the country, would rest more upon Egyptian conceptions. though at the same time for the present we must hold fast that the Egyptian doctrine and the Babylonian alike are daughters of a common view of the universe, and that their relation to this is somewhat the same as that of the political doctrine of two modern European civilised states to European culture and conception of the universe ; diverse in details, the views of the two are on the .whole identical. It is in agreement with this that the rise of the nation of Israel is carried back by legend to Egypt ; and that the region where the nation found its god-i.i, the expression of its political unification and its political-religious nght to an independent existence as a people, in other words, to sovereignty-was still known to legend as MuSri (see MIZRAIM, MOSES). Egypt and Musri alike are also in the Babylonian con-

~

at Shechem. who is identical with Tammuz-ie., the god of the two halves of the year. Joseph and Joshua are the corresponding heroic figures : \Vi. GZ 2 7 5 8 . 9 6 8 Joseph is mentioned principally in connection with Shechem, Joshua’s life-work cul- minates in Shechem (Josh. 24). For Joshua the attainment of Shechem is what the arrival at Mt. Nebo was for Moses; Marduk (Moseq) dies when the sun reaches the western point where the kingdom of Nahu (winter half of the year) begins.

1 The number twelve always symbolises the twelve signs of the zodiac.

2 The deduction would be that the doctrine of Yahwism con- sciously links itself on to this monotheism as Its predecessor: see K A T(31211.

4632

SINAI AND HOREB ception the land of the sun, representing as they do the S. so far as the earth is concerned ; but the S. of the sky is the celestial underworld where the snn has his place during winter, and thus in the Babylonian conception in the case of arevelation of the deity in Musri a reference to the Egyptian doctrine of the sun is presupposed.

Fresh light would certainly be shed on this side of the question should we ever come into possession of

6. Musri. fuller information as to the state of civilisation and the religious and political con-

ditions of the region in question (Musri) in early times. In the present state of our knowledge all that can be affirmed is that, the higher the antiquity we reach, the higher also the civilisation so far as the ancient orient is concerned. The Amarna period-that which comes under consideration in the present discussion-already seems to presuppose a retrogression so far as Palestine is concerned, and this would imply like conditions for the S. also. I t is quite a mistake to picture to oneself the Sinaitic peninsula and the adjoining parts of Arabia as having then been under the same conditions as prevail to-day. We already know enough to justify us in affirming that these parts in ancient times were not wholly given up to nomads, and that the country possessed ordered institutions and seats of advanced civilisation. The Nabatzean state about the time of the Christian era, and that of the Ghassanids at a later period had their earlier predecessors (see KA 2Y3) 1368). All of them were states in touch with the civilisation of their respective periods- pre-eminently with that of Egypt and Assyria-Babylonia-just as much as that Nabatzean kingdom with which we are in some measure acquainted through the monuments that have come down to our day and through the notices in classical authors. It is by no means impossible that we may yet come into possession of monumental evidence with regard to the region of ancient Musri dating from times which we at present ordinarily think of as completely without either history or civilisation. This, at least, is even already clear, that long before the period assumed for the sojourn of the Israelites oriental civilisation had been at work in these parts in a higher degree than was at a later date shown by Islam.‘

Above all, it has to be pointed out that we are in no position to decide definitely as to the state of civilisation

~ 6. of those -regions during the times in

and sabaaans. question, as long as the countless records of s. Arabia, the inscriptions of

the Minreans and the Sabaeans, have not been made accessible and investigated. The commercial states of S . Arabia exercised political ascendency also in these regions at the time when they flourished ; they extended their civilising influence as far as to the havens of the Philistines and the gates of Damascus,2 and even left behind them in those parts a civilisation that can be directly traced to thema Very specially it is from the Minrean-Sabrean inscriptions that, after what the cuneiform inscriptions and Egyptian documents have yielded or may yet yield, we may hope for glimpses alike into the political relations of the Sinaitic peninsula and adjacent regions, and still more into their civiliszition-in other words into the spiritual development of the peoples and times by which the occurrences of the period of Israel‘s sojourn in Sinai were determined. I t is chiefly on these inscriptions that we must depend for any knowledge as to the civilisation and manner of thinking- the ’ genius ’ (g&t. ghie)-of the Semitic peoples in that quarter, where they received their purest development, and from which, in a certain sense, the tribes of Israel also took their origin ( K A 7Y3) 8).

1 Against the notion of Arabia and the ‘Arabian spirit’ as being the sole haiis of ‘Semitism’ see Winckler, ‘Arabisch- Semitisch-Orientalisch’ in MVG, 1p1, 4-5.

2 The ‘ Harra’ inscriptions are in an alphabet which shows a prevailingly S. Arabian influence.

Cp the ‘Lihyin’ inscriptions (ed. D. H. Miiller, Bpi- grajhische Denkttziiler arcs Ardien, 1889).

4633

SINAI AND HOREB All that we as yet have come to know in the way of

actual historical fact regarding the Sinaitic peninsula and adjacent regions, is still in the highest degree jn- adequate. The oldest nionuments are the Egyptian inscriptions in Wsdy Magh5ra and those of Sarbiit el- Kh2dem (EGYPT, § 45). The Pharaohs designate the people whom they have SulJjugated there by the name of Mentu. The still estant mines show how it was that the much prized mofkat (malachite, or ‘ kupfergriin ’) was obtained. The oldest known Pharaohs exploited the country for this : Snefre (first king of the Fourth Dynasty), Chufu (Cheops, the builder of the Great Pyramid), various kings of the Fifth and the Sixth Dynasty, Usertesen 11. and Amenemhe‘t of the twelfth ; the last whose name is recorded in any inscription is Rameses 11.

Babylonian references can be adduced only in a general way in so far as already in the earliest times we

have evidence of a lively coninierce between Babylonia and the whole of and Arabia ; the information in our possession

does not enable us to go into details. The Babylonian designation for Arabia is ‘ Magan and Meluba ’ and the two expressions are used distinctively, the one ( Magan) to denote the eastern and southern part-that situated nearest to Babylonia, the other (Meluha) to denote the N. and W. The district of Sinai would thus form part of Meluba. I t need hardly be said that in the many centuries of Babylonian- Assyrian history the relations with the two countries waxed and waned in importance with the fluctuations in political power and in the developments of trade; so also did the degree of knowledge regarding the regions of w-hich we are speaking vary and the connotation of the names grow or shrink. Thus at certain times what was spoken of as Meluha will have been not much more than the northern fringe and the road to Egypt. The derivation of the name of the characteristic product of the Sinaitic peninsula-malachite-from Melnba seems obvious.

The ideas of antiquity as to the form of the earth are very far removed from the actual facts. Thus it is an essential element in the Babylonian conception that the whole of the southern part of the earth is regarded as a continuous territory stretching from utmost Nubia (Ethiopia) through South Arabia to India. The Red Sea and the Persian Gulf have nothing like their true importance assigned to them. Thus if e Magan and Meluba’ in the widest sense covers the whole of what lies to the S. we must include in Magan India and in Meluba Ethiopia (Ka4 T(3) 137). This will explain how it is that Cush, the name of the upper valley of the Nile-thus the land to the S. of Mnsri=Egypt- designates also those lands which in Arabia are situated to the S. of Musri.

I t is often possible, therefore, in cases where there are no special indications to guide us, for us to be in doubt as to what special regions ought to be understood by the names Magan, Meluha, KuS, Musri-precisely as we are when we hear ‘ America ’ or ‘ Africa ’ vaguely mentioned. It is thus beyond our power to determine with precision whence it was that Gudea prince of LagaS derived the material for his buildings which was brought (we are told) from ‘ Magan ’ and from ‘ Meluba. ’ We cannot be sure whether the usual opinion, which takes Sinai with its malachite to be meant by Meluha as the mountain of the samtu stone (11. R. 51a 6 17), is correct, for we are not in a position to say what the samtu stone really is.

The Amarna Letters seem to show that, essentially, the Egyptian sovereignty did not extend beyond the borders

This is in agreement with the supposition that it was precisely in these times that the newly

immigrating tribes of the ‘ Hebrews ’ from North Arabia, to which also the Israelites. belonged, pressed forward h t o the regions of civilisation. We may take it,

’’ Magan

s. Am-a of southern Palestine.

period.

4631

SINAI AND HOREB accordingly, that this period was marked by a retrogression from the prosperity of a somewhat earlier time. I t is impossible to tell with any certainty who were the ' Melu&t-peopl-' whom Rib-Addi, prince of Gebal, summoned to his aid along with the Egyptians ; it is, however, likely, in the known circumstances, that the Egyptian troops did not consist in the main of hands of Bedouins from Sinai and Midian; more probably Nubians are intended.

With the single exception of the inscription of Rameses 11. in WHdi Maghsra we have no information 9. writ'ra. from these times relating to the regions at

present under consideration; but this is precisely the period which covers the time of Israel's sojourn in Sinai. It is what usually and naturally happens ; of times during which great states have not dominated the border lands we hear nothing. So far as our present light carries us, however, it would seem that to this period also belongs the development of the power of the S. Arabian kingdom of Ma'fn (Minaeans). For this kingdom was annihilated sometime in the eighth or seventh century B.c., and its beginnings must therefore be carried back at least as far as to the thirteenth century.' A period of weakness in the great civilised states has also always been favourable to the rise of petty states and to the development of separate kingdoms on the borders of the region of civitisation ; and a period of prosperity in the trading states of S. Arabia so far as we are able to trace their history also occurred precisely at such a time. W e may venture, therefore, to hope some time or other to obtain some information regarding the regions of Sinai from the inscriptions of the Minzeans just as we are indebted to a Minzean inscription of about the ninth century for an illustration of the conditions prevailing on the S. Palestinian borders (Halevy, 535=Glaser, 1155).* W e must, accordingly, figure to ourselves the Minzean rule in those parts as having been after the manner of that of the Nabataeans. Just as these bore rule in the Sinaitic peninsula and left settlements and inscriptions behind them, so we may be certain that the rule of the Minaeans had a deter- mining influence on the civilisation and therefore also on the religion of those parts. As the Minzean rule in el-'Ula in N. Arabia has left its traces in numerous inscriptions, so we must suppose Minaean settlements to have existed all along the caravan routes to Palestine and to Egypt.

We must conceive of the relations between the regions of Sinai and S. Arabia in those days, then, somewhat after the analogy supplied by Islam ; they were not a mere El Dorado of Bedouin tribes who had remained stationary in some primitive phase of development and had remained wholly untouched by the civilisation of the orient and its knowledge (which is identical with its religion). Of course we are to believe that Bedouin tribes also did live there, and these were doubtless not genuine representatives of old oriental civilisation exactly asthe peasant of to-day does not represent modern science and philosophy ; but they were just as far from remaining untouched by it as any section of a population can be from remaining altogether outside of the influences of an enveloping civilisation. And the higher the oldest civilisation, the more lasting must have been its effect upon all sections of the population. True, the Bedouin is never anything but a bad Moslem ; still he is one : his religious and other conceptions are influenced by Islam, and if anywhere among the Bedouins of Arabia any intellectual or political movement, any impulse towards higher forms of development arises, it must in these days associate itself with Islam, just as in those days any similar movement was inevitably associated

1 KATP) I I 2 See wincher

0; Weber in AIVC, 1901: 1. ~Iu.ri-'lclu:ia-?rla'in in MVG, 1898 1 .

Hommel, A ~ f i a t k u. AbhndZr q o f i (Hommel would k i d the inscription an earlier date).

4635

SINAI AND HOREB with the doctrines which then dominated the East and Arabia with it.

Tradition itself brings this out very clearly in so far as it has not been artificially shaped with the design of lo. Hebrew representing the nation of Israel as a tradition. purely religious community, but still

proceeds upon the ordinary presupposi- tions as to the national conditions of national life; the older tradition does so. To the sphere of Mnsri belongs the region of Midian and this last comes within the sphere of influence of the S. Arabian states. The Elohist' here also exhibits the original and natural view. He presupposes that Israel was heathen before MosesZ and that Yahwh first revealed himself to Moses during his sojourn at Horeb before the Exodus (Ex. 39-14). In E JETHRO the father-in-law of Moses-whom, however, the author never calls priest of Midian 3-still appears quite clearly in a r61e which connects him with the worship of the god of the place-the Yahwh of Horeb (Ex. 18). When the Yahwist proceeds to make him priest of Midian he is giving true expression to the dependence of Mosaism on the civilisation prevailing there (writing of course from the standpoint of his own tiiiie-the eighth century-when MuSri actually was a state ; see KA T'") although in turn he suppresses the old representation, made by the Elohist. of a connection between Yahw-& and the older culture of these regions in favour of a more spiritualised doctrine thrown into stronger contrast with the ancient religions.

Every historical delineation, however, can only depict past conditions in terms of the conceptions of the ll. Value of historian's own time. Our oldest source traditions. can indeed conceive and set forth the

subjects it deals with in the lively colours of its own age ; but the question as to the value of the historical contents of its narrative is to be carefully distinguished from that as to the correctness of its apprehension and representation of the milieu. The historical value of the accounts themselves is to be judged of solely by the autiquity of the date-Le., by the possibility of a genuine historical tradition. The date at which the sources E and J were finally fixed in writing is to be sought somewhere in the eighth century ; how far these in turn rest on written authorities-the only ones possessing historical validity-we do not know ; but in no case can they be supposed to go so far back as to the days before the monarchy. An oral or popular tradition about earlier times possesses no direct historical value ; no people preserves definite recollec- tions of its career going more than two or three gener- ations back. What any Israelitic or Judahite source hands down to us from the tradition of its own people must always be judged therefore by reference to the possibility of historical-i. e . , written -sources having been used (KAT(3) z04$). What does not rest upon these possesses no other value than that of the purely theoretical doctrine of an ancient writer upon a subject of which he knew nothing. And such theories are of course of less value, not more, than those of modern science.

A Judahite-Israelite historical tradition in the sense just indicated is excluded for the times of the sojourn in Sinai ; even were we to regard these as historical we could not carry the tradition back to the Sinaitic time. On the other hand. in the present case, as with the whole body of tradition relating to the patriarchal period

1 According to the present writer's view the oldest source;

2 Stade GVI 1131. Gen. 35 ; Josh. 24. 3 Whether his name% was Jethro in E, or whether he was not

rather callcd Hobab the Kenite may be left an open question. On Hobab see Nu. l0zq udg. 116 4 11. For our present inquiry it is indifferent whicl! name belongs to E and which to J. The view which speaksof him as a Kenite appears to be the older and in that case would belong to E. This however would imply that Horeb was thought of as being'not in th; Sinaitic peninsula but much nearer the Israelite territory, in the region of the tribe of Kain (cp 0 15).

see K A T(3).

4636

SINAI AND HOREB (Zf24Tl3) as above), we have always to apply the distinction drawn bemeen ‘nation’ in the ethnological sense and the same word in its Rulturgeschidtlich and therefore also its religious sense. In the view of antiquity and therefore of Judah there was no such distinction, and hitherto the tradition has always been followed. The nation is alone the bearer of religion, of truth, of civilisation, and thus of the right that alone is divine, and all tradition as all thought is valid for this people alone, alongside of which no others possess any right in any truth. In reality every nation, like every individual, belongs to the world around it in all its ideas and in the treasures of its material and spiritual possessions. The nation of Israel is therefore in an ethnological sense to be distinguished from that spiritual movement -or religion-of which it is represented by tradition as having been the bearer, but in which in its purity neither a complete nor an exclusive part can be claimed by the nation as an ethnological whole. The religious idea in its punty was grasped only by the spiritual leaders in Israel, and these, as we now know, and as indeed is in itself self-evident and in accordance with the nature of things, stood in spiritual connection with those of the great civilised nations. I t is therefore possible that for the Sinai-period, as well as for the rest of the body of patriarchal legend, the historical tradition a t bottom has a connection with older extraneous sources, a connection, the object of which is to set forth the relations between the religion of Yahwk in its principles and the religious and spiritual movements of the leading lands of civilisation : Abraham comes from Babylon ; Joseph goes to Egypt : the revelation of religion. the close of the development, takes place in the region of a third civilisation, and is brought into clearly expressed connection therewith in the oldest tradition 12, Oldest by means of the figure of Jethro. Thus

for the special question as to how we are civilisation. to picture to ourselves the life of the

tribes of Israel before the immigration we are again led back to investigation of the history of the oldest Arabian civilisation. Whether we may venture to hope for a satisfactory answer to this question, whether we shall ever find in that quarter the definite starting-point for those movements of a combined religious and political nature which are presupposed in the figure and the activity of a Moses, may perhaps seem doubtful when it is considered how far we still are even in the case of the Babylonians, notwithstanding the much greater fulness of the information we actually possess or may still hope for, from having reached any indication as to the historical facts of which perhaps tradition is taking account in what it hands down to us respecting Abraham and Jacob. Possibly we are somewhat better off in the case of Joseph (see JOSEPH,

Thus, for any conception as to the general lie of things, the conditions under which this great movement (to assume its historicity) may possibly have been bronght about, we must be content to fall back upon historical parallels ; and these are very numerous. The first rise of Islam, and many of the religious political n~ovements within Islam, enable us to form a conception of the manner in which also the national unification of Israel mnst have come about. The nation must have a god, and therefore also a worship; in this manner only does it come to possess a claim to an independent existence as a political unity. The law according to which it lives and without which a nation cannot exist is in all oriental antiquity revealed by God and in every case rests upon (divinely imparted) knowledge. All knowledge and all law is thus of divine origin, -is religion. Hence political movements generally assume a prevailingly religious character, the secular demands being based upon divine right. So it was with Mohammed and many other prophets in Islam ; so also in our own Middle Ages down to the Reformation.

Asabian

COl. 2591).

4637

SINAI AND HOREB The activity of Moses-or, if you will, the

political developments which form the groundwork of 13. The lvIoses the Moses legend-must be regarded

as having been a movement of this story’ sort. The Sinai-period would in that

case represent in some sense the &owning of the work, the giving of the charter, in a word the political organisation of the movement. As such it is represented even in the legend, and there can be no doubt about the matter. For the theophany, etc., see MOSES,

The attempt at a historical criticism of the Exodus legend and its culminating point the legislation at Sinai, proceeds on the assumption that the Bedouin manner of life with its forms of organisation must supply also the key to any historical contents this episode may have as also to those of the whole legend of the early history of Israel. The Semitic peoples ’ are regarded as ‘ nomads ’ who develop their distinctive views and so also their religion from the midst of their primitive surroundings. The essence of their forms of organisation is held to find its clearest expression in the Arab Bedouin life as this is disclosed to us in Arabian poetry and in the tradition of Islam based upon this.

On this view the form of organisation that lies at the root of the Israelite national consciousness is the tribal. I t is indisputable that this is the view presented also in the OT, and that Israel also in actual fact, exactly like other peoples of the East in a similar comparatively low stage of culture, is not unacquainted with this view and this form of organisation. This being so, the god who was to be the God of Israel, had of necessity to be the god of the leading tribe which laid hold on the hegemony, and thus made its tribal god into a national god in the same way as its chief or sheik raised himself to the position of king of the nation. Stade (GVZ 1 1 3 1 ) supposes Kain to have been such a tribe, because the father-in-law of Moses (see above) the priest is brought into connection with Kain. Carrying this further, we should then have to snppose that the sanctuary of the god, and thus the tribal centre of worship, must be thought of as being at the place which the corresponding legend thinks of as Sinai (Wi. G I

rhis. however, would give only the one side of the legend, that which corresponds to the ethnological character of the entire conception, and looks upon the nation of Israel through the eyes of antiquity. All that follows from this is that in Judah-Israel, that is to say in the historical period or period of the monarchy, a tribe, royal house, and worship was in the ascendant which traced its home to the Sinai-region. The religious or KuZturgeschichtZz’ch side of the question will have to be kept quite separate. Whence did the worship, which is that of the nation of Israel in the kuZturgeschichfZich sense, receive its real contents, its doctrine ? Legend answers the question with the word revelation ; but if the matter is looked at from the historical and genetic point of view, it is necessary to assume a doctrine which had grown up on the soil of the ancient civilisations. For it is peoples of civilisation, not nomads and peasants, that develop new and higher ideas in the struggle with those of a lower and now no longer sufficient view of the world-Religion, ;.e., ethic and law.

The question which arises out of the possibility that Sinai or Horeb had been the centre of worship of a

clan or tribe that had the predominance ’::;::- in Judah-Israel leads us to consideration rarionsly of the position of this mountain. For

even though we are able to prove that cosmological ideas are here involved,

many analogous phenomena show that the localities so viewed need not necessarily be pure figments of theory, that, on the contrary, a localisation of these theoretical ideas is the general rule. As is usually the case,

§ 13.

1 2 9 8 ).

4638

SINAI AND HOREB however, so also in the present instance,.a comparison of the different sources shows that relative objects of worship, or the earthly copies of heavenly places, are located by the various sources or traditions in very diverse situations. This holds good of the mountain upon which Yahwi: dwells, exactly as it holds good of any other seat of deity. Every nation, or every tribe, must necessarily point to it within its own domain; but, as in every nation and state various strata of culture and population are represented, and in the course of time also various doctrines arise, so, in like manner, different localisations can be handed down in the various strata of the tradition. A classical example of this is presented by Mts. Ebal and Gerizim (see above, 3) . The tradition (5) which places them beside Shechem has held its ground victoriously. In their cosmic meaning, however, as the two summits of the Mountain of the World, they can be shown to have been held in reverence also in other seats of worship, in the territory of other gods as well as at Shechem (Ephraim). So, for example, in the domain of worship of the once more extensive tribe (Winckler, GZ2) of Benjamin, in the region of Bethel. This is the meaning of the gloss in Dt. 11 30 (cp GERIZIM, 2): they are situated near the Gilgal, the political centre of Benjamin which stands in connection with the sanctuary of Bethel. Ebal and Gerizim are other names for Jachin and Boaz in so far as these stand for definite cosmological ideas (N. and S., or E. and W. point) precisely as Sinai and Horeb do. Thus no difficulty ought to .be felt if the mountain of Yahwi: also is placed in various 15. Pre- localities. The view which brings it into

exilic. connection with the Kenite tribe and which we must regard as the oldest, doubtless has

in mind not the Sinaitic peninsula, but the region to the S. of Judah, that is to say Edom. This still finds clear expression in the Song of Deborah (Judg. 5 4 ) : Yahwi:, when thou goest forth from Se'ir and comest down from the mountain (ni i~=Ass. Jadd; see FIELD, I ) of Edom ' ; similarly also in Dt. 33z1 (see PARAN, and cp We. PToZ.(~) 359, and Di. ad Zoc. ). In like manner I K. 198 originally placed Horeb (thus belonging to E, the oldest source on which Dt. rests) in the region of Edom, that is, of Ken, for Elijah cannot have under- taken any remote desert journey when he is already at the point of fainting at the close of a single day.2 The forty days were first introduced in order to establish a parallelism with the Moses-legend.3 The words of the Song of Deborah (Judg. 5 5 ) indicate that even the tradition which used the name Sinai was influenced by the same view with regard to its situation. This would go to show that the Yahwistic tradition also-for Dt. follows E (cp. 1)-1ooked at matters in the same light. J and E, however, comprise the whole tradition which comes from the times of Judah's national existence. This would be in entire agreement with all that we have to presuppose for a period, the conceptions of which must have confined themselves within the limits of the 16. Post- actual and possible. The free play of fancy,

as well as the enlargement of the claims of Judah to territory outside of its proper

limits, could first come to their rights only after the nation had been torn away from its native soil, when Judah had come to be no longer a nation but only a religious community, the sphere of whose activity was

1 [Cp Dt. 33 16, where Renan, Wellhausen, and Steuernagel

2 Wi. GI 1 2 3 ; Smend, A TZich ReZ.-gesclL.(2) 35. [See also Kittel (HK, Kan. 150) still supposes the

exilic.

read .?'D '!?V, 'he who dwells in Sinai.']

PROPHET $5 7 9. Horeh oflthe narrative to be in the yon Gall, AZtisraeZ. Kultstztten, 15 viii. 1, Abschn. 1, p. 576). A some the text, however, is adverse to this view (see Crif. Bid. on I K.198). Cp the remark on col. 1272. lines @-T. K. c.]

The forty days of absence in the wilderness (cp the temptation of Je5.s). On the significance of the number see Wi. W 2 83 aj (cp NUMBER, g 8).

8 Ex. 24 18 [ 91.

4639

SINAI AND HOREB limited only by the bounds of the civilisation of Hither Asia.

The writing which arose ont of such ideas as these is what is now known as P ; we could, almost, therefore, have guessed beforehand that the transference of the cosmic idea of Sinai as the seat of Yahwi: to the Sinaitic peninsula proceeds from this source or from the view upon which this source is based. I t finally became the basis for a conception of Israel-of its proper significance and of its past-which could never have arisen in the times in which Judah had a national existence. All those alterations and trans- positions of geographical ideas which extend Israel's power far beyond its historical frontiers' are post- exilic. With this it would agree that the list of stages, the precise itinerary of Israel's journey to Sinai and from Sinai to Canaan, is peculiar to P.

The localisation of the Mt. of God in the Sinai peninsula must thus at the earliest belong to a late- that is, post-exilic-date. Thus we cannot assign to it a historical value, nor can it prove anything for the knowledge of the older views of Israel. or of the religious and cosmographical conceptions of Judah before the exile. For the intellectual contents of the Judaism codified by P, however, the inquiry as to the site assumed for the mountain by P would be unimportant ; the essential thing to notice is that it has been transferred from regions which the national consciousness had regarded as adjoining (in the S. ) to regions more remote.

Yet in this case we must also leave it open as a possibility that the transposition was not made in a wholly arbitrary manner. The old orientals knew their world, and even the waste mountain massif of Sinai was not for them a mere land of fairy tales in which all things &e possible. J u t as little as the localisation of Ebal and Gerizim beside Shechem or beside the Gilgal (Bethel) was possible without some definite point of attachment in the adjacent cults, would it have been possible for the mountain of Yahwb to be transferred to the Sinaitic peninsula without a similar reference.

On this point, also, history fails us as well as the data of archaeology ; we possess no fact from the older time which would enable us to prove the existence of a centre of worship in the Eeninsula of Sinai. About this time, in all likelihood, Kedar (KAT(3)) ruled in the then Musri and Meluba as predecessors of the Nabataexns. In view of the likeness of all oriental worships in their fundamental thought, it is very easily possible that in pre-Christian times also the same spots which Judaism pointed to as its Sinai, and Christianity afterwards took over were already holy. What we can learn of the cults of those regions shows the same forms of worship and secret doctrine as Christianity has taken over from the ancient East. The worship of the morning-star (Lucifer-ie., the 'Athtar of the southern - .

l,. Early Arabs) is to be supposed to have existed there from the earliest Minaean

.sacred places. times, and all subsequent conquerors successively took it over in its essential features. 'Athtar, however, is, alike in substance and in form, essentially identical with the Marduk of Babylon. Marduk is the spring sun and the morning sun, which is also represented by the kindred body which is the morning star, according as the sun is regarded-as in Babylon-as a masculine divinity, and the morning planet IStar as the feminine, or 'Athtar is regarded as masculine and the sun as feminine-as with the Arabs (see KA T[3)). The worship of the morning star is borne witness to by St. Nilus about 400 A.D. as being that of the Saracens of the Sinaitic peninsula, and the Naba%ean DuSara merely gave to the primeval deity a Nabatzean name. The mystic d5ctrines of his worship are exactly the same as those of the vernal god at all his seats and the same as were taken over by Christianity. Thus Isidore

1 The conce tion of Aram as Damascus, of 'eber ha-nahar as Syria, and so grth. See Wi. GI 2.

4640 .

SINAI A.ND HOREB Charncenus (see Hesychius. S.V. Aouuapp) knows him as 'Dionysus,' that is, the son of the virgin Semele, who as summer and winter deity is the Tammuz of the Canaanites-Le., the Marduk (and Nebo) of the Babylonians, the Horus of the Egyptians (MVG, 1901, p. 278). This is not, as might perhaps be thought, a copying of Christian doctrine; on the contrary, both alike spring from the same root, the primeval oriental one. So too, we hear in the regions of the Sinai periinsula down to the time of Mohammed, at Elusa ( = Halasa) of the worship of the ahone God w-ho is worshipped as dhu-'l-&alaju and whose designation ultimately means, as indicated, the only God.' Here, also, the assumption of ' Christian influence ' is merely a distortion of the question ; we are dealing with ancient oriental doctrines and seats of worship which, with new masters, changed only their names, not their forms or the fundamental thoughts underlying them. If, accordingly, that writing and body of doctrine of Judaism which sets forth monotheism in its strictest and most abstract presentation, namely P, removed the seat of Yahwb to the peninsula of Sinai, it may very well have connected it with actual seats of worship which in their worship set forth doctrines similar to those of Elusa.

Thus arises, finally, the question as to the value to be attached to the identification of the mountain in the Is. 8erbBl Sinaitic peninsula for which the claim is

and J. made that it was the mountain of revela- ~ ~ s B . tion. If what has already been said be

accepted, the only possible question is as t o an identification of the doctrine of late exilic Judaism with localities that had already, a t an earlier date, been rendered sacred by a worship that was analogous so far as outward form was concerned.

By tradition two mountains have from the first been put forward, each as having been the mountain of revelation, and the question between them has continued under discussion down to the present d a y ; these are Mt. Serb21 in the W. and Jebel MDsZ in the heart of the niountain massifof the peninsula.

If we are to attach any value to the tradition at all, then unquestionably Mt. Serb21 has most to be said in its favour. The oldest witnesses, from Eusebius down to Cosmas Indopleustes, testify to it, and the numerous Zuuras or monastic settlements show that the first centuries of Christianity paid honour to the holy sites in Serb21 and in W2dy Flrin near the episcopal town of Pheirin situated there (which is mentioned by Ptolemy in the second century). Jebel MnsH was first declared to be a holy place by Justinian (527-565). who there founded a church in honour of St. Mary the Virgin. There is no earlier tradition in its favour. On the other hand, the reasons are transparently clear why, from henceforth, the dignity thus conferred upon the new site should remain with it.

The monastic settlements on Serbs1 were exposed to the attacks of the Saracens and were more than once devastated by them (so, for example, in 373 and again in 395 or 411, of which latter incident Ammonius and Nilus have given us accounts as eye-witnesses). Justinian supplied to his argument in favour of the sacred site the necessarysupport by erecting a fort also which gave the monks the protection they needed against the Bedouins so that they gradually withdrew from Mt. SerbZl to the safe: neighhourhood of Jebel MBsl. The true reason for the abandonment of Serbal and the transference of its associations elsewhere, however i3 most likely to he sought in the fact that in the fifth century ;he monks of Pharan were threatened by the orthodox synods as Monothelete and Monophysite heretics. Justinian's measure was therefore dictated by policy and was siinply a confirmation of the decisions of the councils.

Even if we choose to assume a connection of the post-exilic but pre-Justinian identification with the institutions of an older cultus. the sole witnesses that we have, the Nabakan , testify decidedly for Serb21.

278 on the meaning of dhd'l-hala- in the same sense as Mofimmbd's ahlas (Sur. 112). ElusaZHalasa according to Tuch (cp WRS, Rei.' Sem.12)). On Hal&a s;e Palmer, Deserl of the Exodus, 423 [also BERED, ~ ~ E G E B , s 7,

1 See MVG, I ~ I ,

Z I K L A G ] .

4641

SINAI AND HOREB Many Sinaitic inscriptions,l which essentially contain merely the names of passing pilgrims and date from Nabataean times onwards, are found in by far the greatest numbers in the WHdy Mokatteb (Valley of 'Inscriptions) of the Serb21 group; the Mus2 group comes far behind it in this. The inscriptions cannot, however, be regarded as the idle scribblings of passing trade caravans ; without a doubt they are connected with the sanctity of the spot, and for the most part are the work of pilgrims.

If in these circumstances the question as to what mountain was thought of in later times is, in itself considered, one of little profit, we have the additional difficulty which stands in the way of the identification of the other sites which might be supposed to be made certain by the narrative of Exodus (Rephidim, etc. ). It is doubtless true, indeed, that Judaism, like the ancient East in general, had a definite conception regarding the lands of which it spoke. If, accordingly, any one wanted to describe a definite route as that of the Exodus, he was quite able to do so. But the Exodus- legend, like all O T narratives, is full of mythological allusions, and in order to bring in these there is never any aversion to that arbitrariness which is so irreconcilable with our modern ideas of geographical fidelity. If Sinai was thought of as the earthly image of a definite cosmical idea then must also the legend-which also lay before P-indicate on the way to Sinai the corresponding phenomena of the heavenly path to the culminating point of the universe; but it may well be questioned whether, when this was being done in a representation so condensed and so excerpt-like as that of P, sufficient points of attachment would be given to render possible a comparison between the writer's representation and the actual geographical facts.

For the partisans of Jebel hIusR there still remains the secondary question whether the actual Jebel Mas%. itself was the mountain of the giving of the law, or whether (so Robinson) this is not rather to be sought in the R2s es-Saf@f, NW of Jebel MBs2.

From the point ofview of historical criticism the Sinai question has, in common with so many other questions of biblical archzeology and geography, received but little attention. That the separate particulars regarding the occurrences and dates of the Sinai episode have but a limited attestation lies in the nature of the legends themselves, and in the form of their development. It is, however, upon an uncritical faith in these that all those researches and constructions rest, of which the most important are those of Lepsius (Re& won Thte6en Mach de^ Hailinsel des Sinar], and the works of travel by Burckhardt, Riippell Fraas Robinson, Palmer. The geographical details are p:esente$ clearly but uncritically in Ebers (Durch Gosen Z U M Sinai). As the Sinai-peninsula is pretty frequently visited by tourists, the handbooks also (see, e.g., Baed. PaZ.,l5) I ~ X ) give the needful particulars as to the topography of the region. An attempt to apply the principles of geographical and hi4torical possibility to the explanation of the biblical narratives was made by Greene, The €fedre70 Migration from ( 2 ed. London 1883). The stay in Egypt is, as usual, taken to be historical, ahd then it i$ conclusively shown that a 40-years stay in the desert and the march through the Sinaitic peninsula are impossible that therefore an exodus from Egypt to Palestine cannot havl been achieved otherwise than by the ordinary caravan-route (Greene proves his point ; only, the real historical impossibility lies rather in what he assumes : the stay in Egypt). Although he takes no account of variety of source? (cp B IO) Charles Beke (Uiscm,eries of Sinai im A r d h and of Midian, London, 1878) is led so far by his sound sense on the right track in his attempts at identification as to find Sinai in the territory of Midian. Only, here LOO all the data of the legend are treated as available for geographii cal definition.

The allegorical interpretation of Sinai as Hagar by Paul in Gal. 429 rests doubtless upon the same astro- 19. 425, logical and cosmological identifications

as does the double name of the mountain. For if there is also a play upon the name of Hagar. that in the writer's mind cannot be the Arab. eagav ( ' stone ')-for this does not mean rock-but the

1 The Sinaitic inscriptions are discussed by M. A. Levy in ZDMG 14 (1860), 363-480 after the copies of Lepsius in Den& r n k 7 e ~ aus A'gypfem a<. Athiopie-n etc 6 Blatt 14-21 (Inscrip- tions of WPdy Mokatteb). The in;crip;jons have been collected by Euting, Sinaitische Inschriften, Berlin, 1891.

4642

SINIM, THE LAND OF SINITE Arab. hagr, 'midday,' i.e., culmination point.' Thus it becwnes synonymous with Horeb. The culmination point-i.e., the N. point of the ecliptic-corresponds, however, in the old cosmology to the N. point of the Universe (the N. pole), and this is represented upon earth by the terrestrial Jerusalem, of which the heavenly antitype is the heavenly Jerusalem ( U U Y U T O L X E ~ 6P 7fi POP

[Von Gall (AZtisr. KuZtstutten, 15) regards the identification of Horeb and Sinai as a post-exilic confusion

'IepowaX+p). H. W.

ao. vhous (see Mal. 322 Ps. 106 19). Originally they were distinct. Horeb lay in the Sinaitic peninsula, Sinai in Midian, on views*

the W. coast of Arabia (cp We. f r ~ Z . ( ~ ) 359 ; Moore, Iudges, 140, 179 ; Stade, Entst. des VoZkes Israel, 12). But see remarks above on 1 K. 198, and cp MOSES, 5 5. Not all critics, however, admit that the prevalent opinion is free from serious objections. Holzinger (KHC, E x . , p. 66) remarks that there are difficulties attending all attempts to locate the mountain of legislation. If we had only Judg. 5 4 before us, we should naturally seek for the mountain near Kadesh ; at any rate, 1 K. 198 does not favour a site in the Sinaitic peninsula. Captain A. E. Haynes, R.E. (of the Palmer Search Expedition) placed Mt. Sinai in the desert of Et-Tih, on the way from Egypt to Kadesh (PEFQ. 1896, p. 1758). Sayce (Cn't. Mon. 2638) considers a site in the Sinaitic peninsula to be excluded by the presence of an Egyptian garrison in charge of the mines, and places Sinai in the eastern mountains of S i r . Cheyne (E . Bib., col. 3208) prefers some mountain-group near Kndesh on text-critical grounds, which favour the supposition that the Moses-clan was admitted to the jus connubii and to religious communion by a tribe of Misrites (not Midianites) or Kenites which dwelt near Kadesh.2

As to the names 'Sinai' and 'Horeb ' the most different theories have been offered. Gesenius (Thes. 948a) suggests ' muddy ' as opposed to > l n ' dry.' The usual critical theory connects *YD with p, 'Sin,' the moon-god ; the plausibility of this is manifest (see 3), even without referring to the fact that as late as the end of the sixth century A.D. moon-worship was practised by heathen Arabs in the Sinai peninsula (Bathg. Beitr. 105 : Z D U G 3 z o z f l ) . The article ZIN, however, suggests another explanation ; both 1's and iyy may be corruptions of $xyaw (parallel corruptions are frequent) ; consequently *JT may be a corruption of hpt~,.~ This would correspond to >?fi, regarded as a corruption of Sprnns (see MOSES, 5 5) ; tradition knew no other name for the sacred mountain than ' Jerahmeelite,' ' Ishmaelite.' A more obvious explanation is ' drought ' (from J m n , * to be dry '), or as Wiuckler explains, glowing (heat ) ' ; see § 3, end. Lagarde, however (Uebers. 85), connects with Aram. >??, ' to plough.'-T. K. c . ] €I. w.

[BKAQ] ; terra austrazis; Pesh. vi.), Is. 4914. Formerly biblical geographers were inclined to see here a reference to China-the land of the Sinae or Thinae of the geographer Ptolemy (Ar. and Syr. sin). It was not supposed that the writer knew of Jewish exiles in China, but that he wished to express the idea that from the very farthest possible point the children of Zion should return. The theory, first suggested by Arias Montanus (16th cent.), has been both defended and opposed with

1 [On the reading of Gal. 425 and on the bearing of the text- critical prohlem oil the question'here discussed, see HAGAR, P, 3.1

2 The theory is that this is the view of things out of which the representation in our Hebrew text has arisen. It is based on a new criticism of the form of the hfoses-narrative.

3 The alternative would he to connect 35~ynu with the name of the Bahylonian Moon-god. The same connexion would then have to be supposed for the other meK5ers of the group of (proh. ably) related names-hinw, h i 3 w 5na 5ixw (cp S A w . SHOBAL, SHEMUEL). On the groiind'of num:rous phenomenal not all of which are indicated in the present work, the write; hesitates to suppose this connection.

SINIM, THE LAND OF (nyD p y ; r H nfpcwN

4643

much learning (see Strauss - Torney in Del. fes. P) 6 8 8 3 , cp (4) 4 8 8 8 ; Che., Projh. Is.@) 2 2 0 3 ; Terrien de Lacouperie,l B O R l [1886-71, 4 5 8 1 8 3 8 ) , but the philological and historical difficulties have decided recent critics against it (see Di1lm.-Kittel, Duhm, Che. in SBOT, Marti). China became known too late, and we should expect c y y . In accordance with his theory of the place of composition, Duhm thinks of the ' Phmnician Sinites ' mentioned in Gen. 1017 ; Kloster- mann, Cheyne (in SBOT), and Marti would read pji.q,

and see a reference to SYENE [g .v . ] - ie . , Assouan on the Nile.

If however ( I ) the view expressed elsewhere (PROPHET, 5 43) is correct, and the Prophecy of Restoration relates to the return of the Jews from a N. Arabian captivity, and if (2) the geographical horizon of Gen. 10 has been expanded, so that only a keen observer can discern its original limitation to the Negeb and Arabia, the problem of ' Shim ' is solved, and the remark of Skinner and Marti that it is a hopeless enigma is refuted.

Critically investigated, the ethnic names of Gen. 10 15-18a (which have been transformed by the redactor) are probahly as follows :-

Kenaz (or Kain) Missur Rehohoth Ishmaelite Arammite Geshurite, H&ite,'Jerahrn;elite, Sinit:, Aradite (0; Arpadite?): Migrite, Maacathite.

That the name ' Sin ' was firmly rooted in the Negeb is shown by the occurrence of ' Sin' for a wilderness (Ex. 161) and of 'Sinai ' (in MuFri ; see MOSES, 5 14, SINAI, 8s 4, IS) for a mountain. From this point of view, Duhm's theory was a step towards the true solution. Whether, however, Sin, Sini, Sinim are original, and connected with Sin the Babylonian moon- god, may be questioned. Analogy favours the view that Sin like Zin (p) is a corruption of s ~ y n a . (Ishmael) ; see SINAI,

Filling up one obvious lacuna, the passage now becomes-

20, and cp SHEM.

Lo, these come from Jerahmeel (jxnnvn), And lo, these from Zaphon,2 And [lo, these] from Arabia (o*pyn), And these from the land of Sinim (or, Ishmael?).

T. K. C. SINITE (*?*Pg-i.e., the Sinite: ACBNNAION [AEL],

c e l ~ ~ l o y [Jos. Ant. i. 621 ; S I N ~ U M ) , a Canaanite (Phoenician) tribe, Gen. 1017=1 Ch. l r j (om. B, ACEN- ~ € 1 [L]). In Ass. inscr. (Siannu), as well as in OT, the name is grouped with Arka (ARKITE), and Simirra (ZEMARITE). in the former sometimes also with Usnu (e.g., KB i. 172 ii. 27 26) which Fried. Del. (Par. 282) proposes to find in Kal'at eZ-&'osn NE. of 'Tripoli and W. of gem!. In spite of the different sibilant it is no doubt the same as the land of Si -a - i~a-a i ,~ mentioned in the monolith of Shalmaneser II., im- mediately after Irkanat (ARKITE, n. I ) , Arvad, and Usanat (cp Usnu); the king bears the characteristic name Adunuba'li (cp $ y x i x CZSi. no. 138, etc.). I t is less certain whether Sin is to be found in the list of N. Syrian cities visited by Thotmes IIL4

Apart from such help as the above evidence yields, the site of ' Sin ' is uncertain. The identification with Syn near the Nahr'Arka (see GEOGRAPHY, § 16 [ z ] ! finds some support in the Targ. rendering ' Orthosia,

1 This clever and much-regretted scholar thought of the tribes of the Sina on the slopes of the Hindu-cush. 'They are enumer- ated in the laws of Manu, in the hlahabhsrata, the great epos of India, in the Lulifu ~k?uru , in the Ramayana, the Puranas, and elsewhere, a body of evidence which goes back to the times before the Christian era. They are now, it is added, five in number, and still live in the same or nearly the same region.

2 Duhm and hlarti (cp also SBOT) omit p9$'?, as an inter- polation from Ps. 107 3. This arises from their not rightly understanding iigs (see ZAPHON), and involves inserting a new stichus, y l ~ n nypn hi.

3 So Craig, KB 1 172 1 94 ; the older reading is Si.zu-na-ui, cp KAT(? 196.

4 Viz. : S+i'-nu-r-Ku-y (207) and Spi-'no-ru-g-n-na ( z , I ) : the former may mean ' Sin the hinder ' (cp Ass. arks: ' behind ') : see WMM, As. u. Eur. 289.

See Cnf. Bib.

4644

SION the ruins of which town are probably situated a little to the S. of the N a h r ‘ A r k a (see OKTHOSIA). This, however, seems too close to ‘Ar+u, and it might be better to look further N. and find a trace of the name in the Nnhr es-Stn (or Nahr-eZ-J4eleelek) about two hours N. from BiniyBs on the road to eZ-la‘dikiyeh (Laodicea) ; so 411. But the Ass. siannu ( =sidnu) presupposes the form ’go (cp Fr. Del. Z.C.), which is certainly older and presumably more correct than the M T (with which d Vg. agree), and the dificulty of reconciling the two forms is a grave objection to the identifications hitherto proposed. The same applies also to the suggested connection with the fortress of Sinna (Strabo, xvi. 11 18 ; Di. ; BDB).

I. fa9@; CHWN[BAF], CIWN[L]; Dt.448.

S. A. C.

SION.

2. (TIWY, I Macc. 4 37, etc. See ZION. See SIRION.

SIPHMOTH (ningy [Gi.], nine@ [sa.]), one of the places where David, when in Ziklag, had allies, I S. 3028) ( C ~ @ E I [B], but also, in a doublet [see v. 291 c a @ € ~ ; C A @ & M ~ C [AI, c E @ e i M w e [L]). The idea that the name may be connected with n!? (Nu 34 IO/ ) is rejected by Wellhausen as impossible. But there is reason to think that the geographical references both of Nu. 3 4 2 . 1 ~ and of I S. 3027-31 have been mis- understood and consequently misrepresented by the editor ; originally both passages referred probably to the Negeb (cp RIBLAH).

In Nu. 34 II Shepham and Rihlah (Le., probably Jerahmeel) are mentioned together. So too in I S. 3029 (6B) Ua@, which corresponds with Siphmoth is mentioned after Ksrpo.8 (= Maacath, a reqion in the Neieb), and in E). 28 MT and 6 agree in combining Siphmoth (ma+) with Eshtemoa ( cde r r [u. 281, BctpaB [v. 291) and Racal (Kapp?hoc)-i.e., Jerahmeel. We also find a gentilic SHIPHMITE [q .~ . ] , which certainly belongs to the far S. This view may require us to substitute ‘ Rehoboth’ for ‘ Hebron’ as David’s first centre after leaving ‘Ziklag,’ and to suppose ‘ Eshtemoa’ to be identical with SHEMA [q.~).]. I t is at any rate plausible.

SIPPAI (’BD), a Rephaite slain by Sibbechai the Hushathite: I Ch. 2 0 4 ( c a @ o y ~ [ B ] , c e @ @ i [A], carr@t [L]). In 2 S. 21 18 he appears as Saph (ID ; oo+ [B], m + e [A]). The Pesh. in the superscription prefixed to Ps. 1 4 3 [144] has: ‘ T o David, when he slew Asaph [Saph] brother of Gulysd [Goliath] ’ (cp a). In z S. 21 18 dL reads P T ~ T ~ E . . . robs .?‘.rrruuuqypPuous TGU b a o y ~ u w u . . . which, as Klostermann has shown, presupposes the form y+ (a name analogous to the further abbreviated ASAPH), and this may be near the correct reading, N being easily dropped after the final * of 9 ~ 2 ~ .

The present article will deal with those portions of the Hebrew text of Ben-Sira that have been 1. Extent published since the completion of the article of ECCLESIASTICUS (March 1900). T o the

material. list of new fragments given there (col. 1166. n. 4) we have up to this time (Jan. 1903)

toadd o n l y 1 8 3 1 - 3 3 1912 2 0 5 - 7 1 3 3 7 1 9 2 2 2 4 2 6 published, with facsimile, translation, and annotations, by M. Gaster in JQR for July 1900. The material now published includes 3 5 d - 1 6 2 6 1831-33 1912 205-7 13 2586 13 17-24 261 zu 3011-333 3 5 9 - 3 8 2 7 3 9 1 5 - 5 1 3 0 : about two- thirds of the whole book.

The new fragments agree in the main in character

T. K. C.

SIRACH.

SIRACH

a. New with those- previously known, but also differ from them in some interesting particulars.

( a ) Au‘Zer fragment. -The passage published by ;Idler, 7 2 9 - 1 2 1 ( AAdler), is written astichometrically, agreeing in this regard with MS A of Schechter and Taylor (ASch.). The text is corrupt ; but in most cases it is possible to emend it with considerable probability. It has one k&S ( 8 2 ) and one marginal note ( 1 0 1 3 ) and over several words (10 I, etc. ) are placed dots indicating

This suggests that Sin has derived its name from the moon- god (Sin).

4645

the necessity of correction. 9 3f. 10 2 11 6-8 are provided with vowel-points and accents, and a few other words are pointed in whole or in part.’ I t thus appears that the passage has been revised by a scribe who, unfortunately, did not possess the material or the ability to correct the more serious errors of the text. Doublets occur in 81 93 103oc,d-31 1 1 2 5 2 7 a , b 1 1 2 7 c , d - 2 8 ; in 8 I the second clause is corrupt in the first couplet, correct in the second, and, as the first clause of the second couplet is nearly identical with the Syriac (S)-employing the word nvp in a Syriac non-Hebrew sense-the verse may have been revised in accordance with the Syriac, or it may offer a variant reading which was followed by S ; 1030c,d is defective, v. 31 is complete and independent of @ and S; 1 1 25=S, n. 27a , 6 = d nearly (emend H i 3 y to iwy7yn); l l ~ 7 c , d = S , n. 2 8 = 6 nearly (6 renders n,lnN badly by ‘children’). The agreement of the two couplets of a doublet with d and S respectively may suggest imitation of these versions by H , and in some cases doubtless there has been

On the other hand, in a number of couplets, as 733 (unless in is error for in) 8 6 7 b 1 1 1 4 1 6 9 4 1 1 1 5 1 0 5 7 1 0 x 7 f. 22 1 1 2 8 , in spite of the occurrence of a couple of Syriasms, it is clear that the text of H is not dependent on d or S. The obvious cases of dependence are rare, and the impression made by the passage as a whole is that it represents a genuine, though corrupt, Hebrew text.

That the MS has passed through the hands of an Aramaic- speaking scribe is shown by the occurrence of Syriasms : (8 I), nim (8 II), my apparently (9 4 , and probably in’s i y Nvn (9 18, cp S anis $y 30323. There is no case of an Arabism in the present text ; but there is an indication that in the text from which our S was made the word p$n occurred in the sense of ‘create’: in 1018 H reads: ‘pride IS not becoming’(niN]), for which 6 has, ‘pride was not created’(N,XJ), whilst the 155 of S represents Heb. pin ; it would seem, therefore, that in some Heb. MS or MSS y k was employed in the sense of ~ 1 2 . 4 An example (8 I) of apparent translation from Syriac is given above, and a probable second example is found in 11 25c, which seems to be a corrupted douklet (n*nn for 1.1,). For quotations from this portion of Ben-Sira in Saadia and the Talmud, see below (5 3).

( a ) LPvifragment.-The fragment 3624.38 I (CL“i), edited by LBvi in RE/, Jan.-March 1900, with facsimile, translation, and annotations, offers a new recension of material already published (by Schechter and Taylor in their ‘ Ben-Sira,’ and G. Margoliouth in JQR, Oct. 1899). Unlike the latter it is written astichometrically ; this, however, is a difference to which no importance can be attached. I t abounds in scribal errors, has harsh constructions (as in 3 7 1 ) , and employs late Hebrew expressions (for example, 1 9 1 , 37 2 , in the sense of ‘ grief, m i s fo r t~ne ’ ) .~ In general, however, it is superior to the text of MS B of Schechter and G. Margoliouth. I t sometimes accounts for the errors of the versions ; for example, its ~ 2 s iiii in 3626 shows how the readings ~ b r & u y and & b t arose. In a couple of cases 1 Saadia remarks that the text of BS known to him was pro-

vided, like the biblical books, with vowel-points and accents. If the statement is to be taken literally it points to a MS written more carefully than those that have come down to us.

2 On the interpretation of doublets see the remarks of Noldeke in ZA TW 1900, p. I. D. S. Margoliouth in Ex#. T, April igor calls attenbon to a doublet in Ben-Zev’s translation of Ben-Sir; (40316), in which one couplet agrees with S, and the other with 6.

NBldeke(ZATW,I9oo,p. 1)and Houtsma (Th.T, 1900) hold that pin=‘create’ is a genuine Hebrew stem. The fundamental sense of the stem may be ‘divide, cut up’ (as Nnideke suggests), whence, on the one hand? ‘number arrange create ’ and on the other hand, ‘destroy. These Aeanings ’are v&ous(y distributed in the Semitic languages : but no Nofth-Semitic dialect, as far as our documents go, employs the stem in the sense 'create'-this particular sense is found only in Arabic, in which it is the usual one. Still the Kqssibility, of th’p sepse in Hebrew must be admitted. Cp

onig, Dre Ongrnahfnf d. hc6. Sivachtextes, 6 9 8 , and Ryssel in St. KY., 1901, p. 579.

5 1.1 here appears to he identical with Aram. p i ‘anxiety’ ; the writing 1’ may represent a local pronunciation, or

win (94) is probably scribal miswriting for loon. 4 SoLevi in/QR, Oct. 1900.

may be a scribal error for 111.

4646

SIRACH SIRaCH {3 i 26 28) L agrees with H against 6. The most interesting feature of this fragment is that in niany cases its text is identical with the marginal readings of MS B, whence i t appears that these readings are not the emendations of the scribe but are derived from another MS. This MS was not identical with CLtvi since it sometimes differs from this latter ; but the two are derived from one earlier text. It is probable (as LBvi points out) that the marginal readings in the rest of B (the Cowley-Neubauer fragment) come from the same or a similar source, and we thus have an indication of the existence of a third family of Pen-Sira manuscripts in addition to those represented by A and B.

( 6 ) Selech'ons.-Still a different type of text is presented by three fragments containing selections from Ben-Sira : one, containing 423b 30f: 54-7 9-13 36 ~ g a 25 17-19 22-24 26 I za and bits of 258 13 20 f: published, with annotations, by Schechter (in /QR, April 1900); a second, containing 6 18drg 28 35 7 I 4 6 17 zo f: 23-25, published, with translation and annotations, by LBvi (in RE/, Jan.-March 1900) ; and a third. containing 1831 (one word) 3 2 5 191J 205-7 3719222426 2013, published, with facsimile, translation, and annotations, by Gaster (in JQR, July 1900). Possibly a number of such selections existed ; this would be a natural result of the popularity of the book. Groups of couplets, taken from different parts of Ben-Sira, occur in the Talmud; for exaniple, in Sanhedrin, 1006. In such cases the object is to bring together the aphorisms relating to some one subject (women and the household in Sank 1006) ; these need not have been taken, and probably were not taken, from a book of extracts ; but they may have suggested the compilation of such books. In the fragments under consideration, whilst the couplets show a variety of subjects, a certain unity is observable; in that of Schechter the chief points are the desirableness of moral firmness and the wickedness of women ; in that of LCvi, the pursuit of wisdom and the cultivation of humility ; in that of Gaster, the characteristics of the wise man. For the sake of distinction these books of extracts may be designated by the letter E.

The Schechter fragment (ESch., =his C ) is in tolerably good form, having only two badly corrupted passages, 511 and 513 (1). ( = 3 6 1 g a ) . It accords now with the Greek, now with the Syriac, differing in this regard sometimes in the same coup1et.l Often it goes its own way, being sometimes (as in 5 1 2 ) of a curtness that suggests originality ; and its irregular oscillation between 6 and S indicates that it is not based on either, of these versions. I t is in general agreement with the Greek in several cases in which MS ASch. agrees with the Syriac.

'The LCvi fragment (E1-dvi, = his D)coincides in material with part of MS As*, and gives a better text than that of the latter. From 618 to 720 it is nearer to Qi than to S , and in the remaining couplets is nearer to S. It is carefully written; there are two or three scribal mis- writings of letters, and a word is omitted in 76 and probably also in 72s. It contains no Syriasms or Arabisms, and has the tone of an independent text.

The Gaster fragment (EGaster) resembles ESch. in agreeing sometimes with 6, sometimes with S. In several couplets ( l 8 3 2 f : 191 206) it serves to explain the errors of one or both of the versions ; clearly in some cases these last are free renderings of H. The Hebrew text is corrupt or defective in 1926 2 0 5 , and has apparently one Syriasm ( 3 i 19, O J ~ I for a w ) .

With the light got from the new fragments we may now speak more definitely than was possible two years 3.0eiuineness ago of the conclusions to be drawn

from the whole of the Ben-Sira Hebrew material. In the first place, we may of the Heb.

consider the facts that make for the genuineness of the

I In 2.5 17 it agrees with @KA~Z in,the exprescion 'like a bear,' while &5B and S read 'like sackcloth ; if &pmc is Gk. corruption of vcirmv, H here follows a Greek text.

4647

Hebrew text-that is to say, against the supposition that it is a translation from versions.

(a) TaZmud.-The question of the quotations from Ben-Sira in the Talmud is complicated by the corruptions of the Talmud text as well as by the peculiar habits of the Talmudic doctors : their frequent disregard of literalness, and their fondness for grouping clauses or couplets from different parts of the book and adding or interweaving passages from the canonical books. Their citations are not necessarily authority for the wording of the original, but may testify to a form or forms current in the Talmudic period, and may help to establish the original text.'

There are indications (though, for the reasons mentioned above, these are not clear) that the two Talniuds, the Jerusalem and the Babylonian, had, in some cases at least, different texts of Ben-Sira. Thus in 321 Talm. Jer. Hug. 77c, agrees with H in the first word (where Talm. Bab. and Saad. have a different word) and also in the last word, but in the rest of the couplet has a wholly different reading (perhaps based on Job 1 1 8 ) 2 ; in the same passage Bah. Talni. Hag. 13n (and so Midr. Rab., Gen. 8) has a doublet, in which the first couplet is identical with the form in @ and S, whilst the second, although diverging from Jer. Talm., 6, S , and H. agrees with H and Saad. in one peculiar expression (nai30) ; in this doublet we may have an indication of at least two forms of the Ben-Sira text in the fifth century, one of which is here represented by d and S, and the other byH (there being also in this latter scribal variants) ; possibly, however, both couplets are original, and H has taken one, and 6 the other. In 717 the.'hope' of H is supported by A-bJfh 47 (against d and S 'fate'), but A-bJLh and the versions agree in reading ' humble thyself' instead of H ' humble pride ' ; in both cases the readings of the versions are the better. A noteworthy group of selections from Ecclus.9 occurs in Talm. Bab. Sanh. 1006, Y8bim. 636, the order of lines being : 8a. 36, ga.6 (in part), 8c (to which is added Prov. 7266) ; 8 n = H (emended), @ (S being different) ; 3b (where H has a doublet) agrees in part with one form of H , in part with the other ; in g the text of Bab. Talni. seems to be in disorder, or to be very free ; it has ' beside her ' ( nkx ) instead of 'with a married woman' (6, S. and, by emendation, H n$iy,), and ' to mingle' instead of ' do not drink ' ; 8c is a slightly expanded form of emended H (=S). In 11 Ib q a 1325 the Talmudic text is substantially the Same as that of H and 6, S. It is in general more correctly written than H, which is full of scribal blunders; yet the tw-o are sufficiently alike to suggest that our H rests on a genuine Hebrew text. We cannot be surprised at scribal errors, doublets, omissions, and additions in a text of the tenth or the eleventh century when we find similar occurrences in the Talmud as well as in the versions.4

(6) Saadia-The resemblance between Saadia and H is very close, the differences between the two being little more than variations of diction, and the advantage lying sometimes with one, sometimes with the other ; in 5jf. ( H i ~ i , Saad. riy) and 66 ( H SVJ, Saad. 3 5 3 ) the wording of H is the better, but in 66a the order of words in Saadia is the more correct ; on !he other hand, in 67 1311 the Aramaic p i of H is probably to be emended into the ZDD and ?D>D of Saadia. He appears to have

1 On the quotations in the Talmud and Saadia, in addition to the authors mentioned above, col. 1172, n, 2, see Bacher (/QR, Jan. I~.o), Edersheim (in Wace), Levi (CO?H712. and RBI and [QR) and Ryssel (in Kautzsch's Ajokryphen and Sf. KY., I ~ O I . I ~ O Z ) : cp Schechter inJQR 3 and 4.

a Bacher suggests that' Jer. Talm. yin is an erroneous completion of the abbreviation 'in, which should be read wiin. 3 Rashi, &, S I P ( . The text of Bab. Talm. should perhaps

be emended after H and the versions. But in 78. 9, where H has mly 'strong drink' and @BNAC only 'wine' (S 'old wine'), Bab. Talm. has both terms, possibly accounting for the differences between H, @, and S.

4 On the Syriac of Ecclus. SEA see Levi, in/QR, Oct. 1900 P. sf:

4648

natural conclusion is that the book of Eleazar ben Irai (if this name really belongs to a separate author and is not a corruption of ' Eleazar ben Sira ' ) contained extracts from Ben-Sira or from some work based on Ben- Sira.

( c ) Relation of H to @ and S.-It is a common remark that the Hebrew MSS of BS fall into two divisions : those that more resemble the Greek, and those that are nearer the Syriac ; to the former division belongs the B-group, to the latter the A-group. This classification holds in a general way, but may easily be pressed too far. Even in the earlier A and B material there are a number of passages that are adverse to such .a classification, and many more appear in the new fragments. 'The division into these two classes has, however, been held to indicate that our Hebrew is a translation from the Greek or the Syriac. With the new material at our disposal it may be said that this supposition, as an explanation of the Hebrew as a whole, seems to be definitely excluded. It appears to be set aside by the irregularity of the accordance of H with d or S , by its not infrequent divergence from and correction of both the versions, by its relation to the quotations in the Talmud and Saadia, and by its tone, which in many places is free and independent and is charaeterised by an aphoristic curtness that a translator would not be likely to attain. W e must rather account for the general relation between H and the versions by supposing that H is the descendant of early texts, some of which were the basis of 6, others the basis of S. The omissions in S call for fuller treatment than they have yet received. They may be due in part to the frequent fondness of this version for clearness and condensation, in part to the defectiveness of the MS from which it was

SIRACH SIRACH had a text that was substantially identical with ours ; and B his citations may be considered to establish, as far as are "' greatly . disfigured. The blemishes testify mostly to they go, a text of the tenth century, though of its history the number of hands through which the MSS have we know nothing.' Its special similarity to that of our passed, not to the work of a translator. The aphoristic Hebrew MSS may be a result oi the proximity in time curtness of style of the fragments has been referred to of the two. Saadia also quotes as from the ' Wisdom of above. Eleazar ben Irai ' a passage that is found in our Ben-Sira On the other hand, whilst the fragments produce a (321f.), and the text quoted by him differs from that of , general impression of originality, the text appears in our Hebrew in only a couple of unimportant forms ( H 4. employ men^ some passages to have been translated nixk, Saad. &in>; H v iim. Saad. ~ w H z ) ; ~ the from or conformed to that of a Version

and or of the Talmud. Some instances of probable and apparent imitation of

e"* is relatively free from faults ; parts of

'

of versions

Versions are mentioned above (E~CLESIASTICUS, § s), and others have been pointed out by critics ; most of the examples cited relate to the Syriac, a few only to the Greek.l These cases, which are relatively not numerous, do not prove a general translation or imitation, but exhibit the procedures of particular scribes in the passages in which they occur. The same remark is to he made of cases in which H appears to follow the Talmud ; * such imitations by late scribes are natural. The corruptions of the BS text began early and continued a long time; there was little to restrain the fancies and the negligence of copyists. Taking into consideration the two sets of facts-the evidences of originality and the evidences of slavish imitation-the more reasonable conclusion seems to be that the text of the fragments is in general genuine, but full of corruptions.

It is hardly possible at present to make a helpful classification of the Heb. MSS of Ben-Sira : for such a 1. classiflca- classification we need more Heb.

of material. Aq obvious and simple principle of division would be the rela- ~ p L . tion of the fragments to the two main YIP-.

made. (d ) Diction. -The testimony of the new fragments

confirms the judgment of the language expressed under ECCLESIASTICUS. After allowance has been made for obvious scribal errors the diction of H does not differ materially from that of Koheleth. Aramaisms and New- Hebrew forms and expressions may well have been employed by Ben-Sira himself (such forms occur even in the Book of Proverbs), and, as regards the fragments, there was no time, from zoo B.C. to 1000 A.D. , when Jewish scribes would not be likely to insert familiar Aramaic words-the more that the text of Ben-Sira was not protected by canonical sanctity. The vocabulary of the fragmxits furnishes abundant material for lexicographical research. The limits of the ' New-Hebrew ' vocabulary are not sharply defined : at present it is hardly possible to draw the line distinctly between ' Neohebraisms' and ' Syriasms,' and there is a similar indistinctness (though a less clearly marked one) as to Arabisms. In respect of purity of style the fragments differ among themselves :

1 The question whether the ' Sefer ha-Galuy ' (in which the citations occur) is the work of Saadia is discussed by D. Mar- goliouth, Harkavy, and Bacher in JQR 12 (~89g-rgw). There seems to be no good reason to douht its genuineness. 1 Here, as elsewhere, Saadia is nearer than H to the classic

usage ; the scribes of H (except in CL6vi and AAdler) are fond of the short rel. pron. w. But this usage, though distinctive for a given MS, is not a mark of the date of a Ren-Sira text, since it is common in late OT writings and in the Talmud. 3 On this point cp the Comms. of Levi and Ryssel; the

articles of Noldeke and Houtsma (see above, col. 4632 n. 4) ; Schwalby, Idioticon d. ChristL;dal. Amwz. (1893) ; Fraenkel, in MGWJ, 1899; Jacob, in ZATlV, 1902; art. ARAMAIC LANGUAGE, above, col. &I,% ; and various discussions in 3QR and REJ.

4649

groups of Greek texts ( @ W C etc. and or to the two Greek and the Syriac. But, in addition to the fact that the relations of the versional texts to one another and to the original Hebrew are not clear, there is the difficulty that the fragments show a confusing variety of similarity and dissimilarity to the Versions and to one another. This is true of all the Heb. MSS so far published: in the same paragraph, and even in the same couplet, the text sometimes turns from one version to another, or, abandoning both, goes its own independent way. It is obvious that it has experienced a variety of fortunes, and that, whilst it sometimes corrects the Versions or is corrected by them, it in some cases goes baok to sources different from theirs. I t can be, therefore, only a rough classification that is based on resemblances to the Versions. The direct testimony to the Hebrew text is contained in the Talmud (about 700 years after the coinposition of Ben-Sira's book) and Saadia (about 400 years after the Talmud). The Talmudic readings differ a good deal from our H, but Saadia is substantially identical with the latter ; the differences between the citations in the Talmud and those in Sandia may be taken to represent roughly the changes undergone by the Heb. text in the interval between the two. The text of the Talmud is in general accord with the unglossed Greek (6"). but is free from the scribal variations that crept into the latter ; it may, thus, represent a Hebrew text (perhaps as early as the 2nd cent. of our era) which was in substantial accord with the Gk. text that underlay our two niain Gk. recensions. This Heb. text was probably the basis

1 On the acrostic 51 13-30, see Taylor, in Schechter and Taylor's IVisdom 2 Ben .Tim, p. Ixxvi Levi, in REI. 1899, gives a numher of cases of imitation. But 4ti 20 is not a case in point. H 171 is not a translation of corrupt S, but a variant of earlier H ~ T N , which was a scribe's corruption of original H n q n ~ . If H had translated S ( n m i ~ ) , it would have written "1~.

a A probable example is given by Professor Levi in JQR Oct. 1900, p. 15, and another by Professor h.largoliou;h, in E.&.T, April, igcz. Cp Bacher, in JQR, vol. 12 (1899-1gw), p. 2 8 6 8

See REJ 59 188.

4650

SIRAH, WELL OF SKIRT of our fragments. W e may suppose that the Heb. (handed down through Jewish circles) and the Gk. (made 132 B.c., and transmitted by Alexandrian Jews and by Christians) did not differ materially from each other in the second century A.D. After that time they went their separate ways: the Gk. (under what circumstances we know not) fell into two divisions, with one of which the Syriac stood in some close relation ;I the Heb. was not similarly divided into families, but was roughly treated by scribes, who obscured its readings, and in a few cases copied or imitated the Versions, especially the Syr.a Our Hebrew fragments, after they have been freed, as far as possible, from scribal errors, must be classified according to the degree of their purity or impurity, and according to their peculiarities of diction.3 Such a classification, however, yields no very striking or important results-the differences between the fragments in correctness and style are not great. They must be examined and judged every one for itself. So far, they have not contributed much to the restitution of the original text in passages in which the Versions are obscure. They often confirm one or more of the Versions, and sonietimes correct or explain words or lines ; but in general the text of Ben-Sira remains nearly as it was before the discovery of the fragments. These, however, apart from the emendation of the text, have called forth renewed study of the book. and have added to the vocabulary of the Hebrew language.

In addition to the works on Ben-Sira given above (col. 1178) the following may he mentioned tRaehiger Efhice ajocr.

(r838); Dauhanton, in Th& Stud. 4(1886); 6. Literature. Houtsm?, in Th.T 343 (.go.); Ryssel’s

Comm. In Sf . Kr. (1ym.02) (completion of his comm. on the Hebrew text); Grimme Me‘fres et s f r o j h s d. 1. fragntenfsheb. d. Manuscrif A. d. rEc& (Fr. trans.)(igor); Kartz, Die SchoZien d. GreK. AbuZJ Bar-Heb. z. Weisheifb. d. /osua b. Sira (1892); and various short arts. in JQR, RE], Z A TW, Rm. BibZ., Th. Rundschau. C. H. T.

SIRAH, WELL OF (n?’p;! lh, walled cistern ’ ? cp on l n D , PRISON, 5 z (g)), z S . 326, the name of the spot from which Abner was enticed back to Hebron, after he had concluded his interview with David (see ABNER), and had set out on his return journey northward. Josephus calls it ,@[p]qpa--i.e., me iFF-and says that it was 20 stadia from Hehron (Ant. vii. 15). Rosen has called attention (ZD”WG12486) to a spring and reservoir, situated about a mile out of Hebron, a few steps to the W. of the old northern road, and now called ‘Ain S2ra. Grove (DB,(2) S.V. ’ Sirah’) and Conder (Tentwork 286) agree that this may be the ancient well of (the) Sirah’ ; indeed, Conder goes so far as to say that ’ this may be considered one of the few genuine sites in the neighbowhood of Hebron.’ It is true, the original form of the name may have been ” T ~ D , Sehirah ( ; .e . , ‘ enclosed’?), for gives ( d a b TOO $p!aros) TOO ueeipap, where p may of course be disregarded (cp u+wp=Shiloh), bL . . . $p. ueeipa, Vg. a cistern2 Sira; Targ. unimi N X D ; Aq. d r b TOO X ~ K K O U r?js ~ T O U T ~ U ~ ~ S (,ng.). It is more probable, however, that ‘ Hassirah’ covers over some gentilic or ethnic, and if ‘ Hebron ’ is a corruption of I Rehoboth,’ and David‘s first kingdom was really in the Ne eb (as some recent articles in the present work asdme) , some gentilic or ethnic of the Negeb-such as i i n i N , Ashhur (cp m, Heres)-is to be expected.

T. K. C.

SIRION (liip, ]\”$; CANIWP [BAFL] in Dt. : 0 HrarrHMENoc [BKARTUI--i.e., )jlpt, in Ps.), a ‘ Sidnnian ’ or Phmnician designation of Hermon, Dt. 1 eor some illustrations of the diversities of Gk. readings se:

N . Peters, ‘Die sahidisch-koptische Uebersetz. d. B. Ecclus. 5 7 p in BibZ Stud. 3 3 (1898).

The acrostic, 51 13-30, seems to he the only example of copying on a large scale ; the other cases, not numerous, affect only single words or expressions.

3 On palamgraphic peculiarities see Schechter in Schechter and Taylor’s Ben Sira, and Gaster inJQR for Jdly, quo.

46.9

3 g Ps. 29 6. It is also recognised by Pesh. in Dt. 4 48 (I;@ for IN’V); and in Jer. 1 8 1 4 ~ by Gratz and Cornill, according to whom, to show the unnaturalness of Israel’s desertion of YahwB, Jeremiah asks, ‘ Does the snow of Lebanon melt away ( a r ; ~ ) from the rock of Sirion ’ (read )iqg i r ~ for 37? ’a, ‘ from the rock of the field’)? It is not clear, however, that ‘Sirion’ is the right form; it is hardly confirmed by the Ass. siraya (KA? 159, 184 ; cp Del. Par. 101, 1033).

I t IS probable that ‘ Hermon ’ was also a designation of the mountains of ‘ Jerahmeel. Dt. 3 8f., in its original form, seems to have described ‘the territoiy of Cusham, where Oc (p.~.) reigned; similarly Dt. 448. ‘Sirion’ can now be explained. Like ‘ Hermon,’ it represents an ethnic-perhaps \*yb, (Israel).

SISAMAI, RV SISMAI (’P,PQ, or ’DbD [see Gi.]; COCOMN PA] . CACIMEI ’[LI). a Jerahmeelite ; I Ch. 240t .

Baethgen (Beifr. 65) and Kittel on I Ch. 2.c. call attention to the Ph. name ~ D D in a bilingual where Gr. has ueupaos ; and Baethgen following Renan accepts ODD as a divine name. But in sphe of Kittel’s implied suggestinn (see SHALLUN, 3) it may well he questioied whether Sismai can he = D D D 73 ‘ servant of (the god) Sisam. Of all the other names in I t h . 234-41 there is hardly one which cannot he at once with some confidence pronounced to he a clan-name. The names which follow Sismai are Shallum, Jekamiah, and Elishama, names which may plausibly be regarded as related to Ishmael and Jerahmeel. DID and D-DiD have sometimes arisen by corruption out of WEI and D‘@D ; it is possible that ’CDD represents ‘at?, ‘one from Cusham ’ (=the N. Arabian Cush). Cp p i (Sheshan ??), o. 34 the name of a Misrite slave, which m y represent p (Cusian); see, however, SHESHAN.

SISERA (K?p’D, 5 51 ; on meaning, see below ; CEICAPI [B], C I C A ~ A [AL] ; in Judg. 520, IHA [A]).

I. The leader of the Canaanites opposed to Deborah and Barak (Judg. 4 f: ). The narrative, however, is inconsistent, and presents Sisera in a twofold aspect ; according to the poem ( 5 ) he is the greatest of the confederate Canaanite kings, whilst the prose account (4) represents him merely as the general1 of Jabin king of Hazor, and as having his abode in Kadesh (so Marq., see HAROSHETH). See further DEBORAH and SHAMGAR. In the latter article the difficult name Sisera is considered ; it has probably not a Hittite but a N. Arabian origin. If the Nethinim are really (see Che. Amer. J. of ThoZ., July 1901, pp. 433 8 ) Ethanites or N. Arabians, the explanation here offered will be confirmed (see, however, NETHINIM). See 2, below. The royal city of Sisera (or Jabin) is (ex hvp.) not the Hittite city Kadesh (see HAROSHErH) but the place known as Kadesh-barnea (Kadesh-jerahmeel).

2. The name of a family of (post-exilic) Nethinim : Ezra 2 53 (B om. uiuapa[al [ALI) ; Neh. 7 55 (crerupa0 [AI, ueua. tBN1, om. L]) ; I Esd. 5 32 (ucpap [BA], ASERER [AV], SERAR [RV]).

SISINNES (CICINNHC). ‘governor of Syria (Ccele- Syria) and Phcenicia,’ I Esd. 67 71. The name is also that of a faithful courtier of Darius, Arr. i. 253 vii. 64 (Xiutqs). On its possible origin, see TATNAI (the corresponding name in Ezra, Neh.).

T. K. C.

T. K . C.

S I S U (-pDD), I Ch. 2 4 0 t RV, AV SISAMAI.

SISTRA. SITNAH (n@ ; sxepla [ADL, om. E]), the name

of one of the contested wells in the story of Isaac and Abimelech, Gen. 2621. The name still lingers ; see REHOBOTH.

See MUSIC, 5 3 (3).

SITHRI (’?nu), Ex. 622 RV, AV ZITHRI.

SIVAN (ll’p ; Esth. 89 ; Bar. 18). See MONTH,

SKIRT. I. 2, 5 9 ~ (Ex. 2833 RV [AV ‘hem ‘I. Is. 61 RV‘W [EV train’]).z The word, like the cognate

1 This seems to he not original; cp JABIN and see JUDGES, 0 7.

2 In Is. ti I the Tg. and @ avoid the anthropomorphism of the

2.

4652

SKULL SLAVERY J&=Z ( b $ , Is. 47 z f , RV ‘ train ’ ) is derived from a root meaning ‘ t o hang down.’ I t is only the mantle that has a skirt or train, and in this lies the whole point of Is. 47 z ; the ’ tender and delicate ’ maidens remove the veil and flowing robe to perform the work of slaves.

2. hdnrifh, w, rather ‘corner’ or loose-flowing end. See FKINGES, and cp SACK.

3. peh, “5. See COLLAR, z (col. 858). I. A.

SKULL. See CALVARY, GOLGOTHA. SLAUGHTERMEN (Gen. 3736 AVmg., etc.). See

SLAVERY. The word does not occur in EV. ‘Slave’ is found only twice in AV (Jer. 2 q, and here only in italics as an explanation of n:g 13t [‘home-born slave ‘1 ; Rev. 18 13 for umpLrmv), and twice in R V (Dt. 21 14 247. + lQYn?, ’deal with as a slave [rnarg. chattel]’; AV ‘make merchandise of’). The Heb. i l y , ‘ebed, is rendered ‘ ssrvanc’ (I K. 2 39 etc.).

Among the Hebrews, as in the ancient world in general, there was no such thing as free labour in the

EXECUTIONER, I .

1. Hebrew modern sense; men-servants and maid-

meaning. servants were the property of their masters-in other words, were slaves.

We must carefully dissociate this word, however, from certain ideas inseparably connected with it in the modern Christian world. In the Hebrew conception there was no such profound difference between the slave’s relation to the head of the house, and that held by the other members of the family. Free-born wives and free-born children are legally all alike under the power of the master of the house. The father can sell his children as well as his slaves to another Israelite. The slaves are not regarded as beings of an inferior order, but are true members of the family, and, though destitute of civil rights, are nevertheless regarded as fellowmen, and, indeed, if of Israelite descent, are held in as high esteem as freemen who a t the same time are foreigners. Considered in itself, therefore, there is no degradation attaching to slavery. This is sufficiently shown by the one notorious fact that a man would not infrequently sell himself into slavery, and voluntarily remain in that condition.

In the legal and actual standing of the slave the point whether he was an Israelite or not was exceedinrrlv .. , a. : their jmportant. Thc bulk of the slaves

in ancient Israel would seem to have belonged to the non-Israelite cate- position, etc.

gory. In the main they had become slaves-as all ancient law sanctioned-through the fortune of war. There existed, indeed, also in Israel the barbarous custom of the @ern (see BAN). The war being regarded as a war of YahwA, the entire booty was often devoted ‘ to YahwL.’ ; that is to say, every living thing was put to death, and every lifeless thing destroyed (see, e.g., rS.15) . In the otherwise humane Dt. even, only the women and children of conquered towns are to be spared-ic., made slaves. Desire of gain doubtless often interposed as a practical corrective of this cruel precept, and it is probable that, as a rule, the custom was to turn to account as slaves the men as well as the women ( I S. 15 I K. 20395 etc. ). Israelites also, we may be sure, had frequent opportunities, if so minded, for buying slaves in foreign markets. Their Phoenician neighbours, with whom they always had active commercial relations, were famous throughout antiquity as slave-dealers (cp Am. 16). The ‘strangers within the gates ’ must also, occasionally at least, have found themselves compelled to sell themselves or their children. And, lastly, the slave population was constantly augmented by the birth of children to slaves in the home of their master-theyXid? adyith (n:? .+) of Gen. 14 14-children who, of course, were themselves also slaves.

The master’s right of property in his slaves of foreign

figure by rendering n*?p* 7.1 (‘the brilliancy of his glory’) and W a respectively.

4653

origin was unlimited. He could sell them, or give 3. Master and them away to Israelites or non-Israelites

slave. as he chose. Yet these slaves, too, were by no means left absolutely

defenceless to the capr<ce of their owner. The old consuetudinary law interposed energetically on their behalf. The master was not entitled to kill them ; the killing of a slave was a punishable offence-a provision which becomes all the more noticeable when it is remembered that in the case of children the father did possess a limited power of life and death (see LAW A N D JUSTICE, I O 14). With the Greeks and Romans this power was, as regards slaves, a matter of course. The master’s right of punishment was, in Israel, further restricted, and the slave protected from serious maltreatment, by the rule that the slave became entitled to his freedom if his master in chastising him had done him some lasting bodily injury, such as the loss of an eye or of a tooth (Ex.2126J). Even in such cases, indeed, the principle that the slave was the property of his master was not lost sight of. The law exempted the master from punishment if an interval of at least a day had elapsed between the maltreatment of the slave and his death. The presumption was that the death had not been intended, and it was held that the master had suffered penalty enough in the loss of his property, ‘ for he is his money’ (Ex. 21 20 [ z z ] ) . The killing or maiming of another man’s slave was also regarded only as injury done to property, for which compensation was required. Thus, if a slave were gored by a vicious ox the owner of the ox had to pay a compensation of thirty shekels to the owner of the dead slave for his negligence in not looking after an ox known to be dangerous. (The sun1 mentioned clearly represents the average value of a good slave at the time of the enactment. ) The owner of the ox was not liable to any further penalty, however, though when a free man was killed in like circumstances the case was one of murder and the owner of the ox was punished with death (Ex. 21 2 8 8 ). The runaway slave also enjoyed the protection of ancient custom. The prohibition of extradition indeed is not met with in express terms earlier than Dt. (23155); but we may safely take it that ancient custom, at least, did not require extradition as a matter of course. The decision in each case, as it arose, lay in the discretion of the city to which the fugitive had betaken himself. Shimei, for example, must in person come and fetch his slaves who had fled to Gath ( I K. 2395) . Lastly, the slave was protected against over-driving by the institution of the Sabbath, which, in the view of the ancient law-giver, aimed specially a t the benefit of slaves and the lower animals (Ex. 23 12 Dt. 5 12 8).

The legal position of the foreign female slave was still better. She was often her master’s concubine-as is shown by the loan-wordpiUgeS (ti:$?; Gr. TCAAUKLS), which the Hebrews doubtless got from the Phoenicians. Dt. (21 108) gives precise regulations for the case of an Israelite owner who seeks thus to appropriate a female captive. He is not allowed to take her a t once; she must after coming into his house shave her head and pare her nails and bewail her father and mother for a full month, after wrhich her master may espouse her. This regulation, also, we may safely assume to hare rested on ancient custom.

It must further be remembered that to ancient feeling there was nothing degrading in the idea of the master of a female slave being lord also of her body, any more than there now is in modern Ishm. As is shown elsewhere (see MARRIAGE B I), the freewoman also became a wife by purchase, and there’is no essential difference in the position of a secondary wife. The positjon of the concubine is superior to that of the ordinary slave in this, that her master is not at liherty to sell her again. As regards the foreign concubine indeed this is expressly laid down only in Deuteronomy : her master must free her if he desires to put her away. But this also certainly comes from ancient practice common to the Israelites with other Semitic peoples. Even now it is held among the Arabs to be a shameful thing for a master to sell a slave who has been his concubine, especially if she have borne children to him ; and this had the sanction of antiquity even in Mohammed‘s time (cp WRS, Kin. 73).

4654

SLAVERY SLAVERY Slaves of Israelite descent were in the minority.

Kidnapping of slaves within the tribes of Israel was severely prohibited both by law and by ancient usage (Ex. 2116), though this did not prevent its occasional occurrence (Gen. 37z6Jf), in which case, however, it was prudent to send the victims abroad. There were, however, other ways in which Israelites could become the property of Israelites. The Hebrew parent was at liberty to sell his children into slavery, only not to a foreigner; and doubtless there were many cases in which poor men availed themselves of this right (Ex. 21 7 J f ) . The insolvent debtor also was sold (z K. 41 Am. 26 86 Neh. 55 E) . So too the convicted thief, who was unable to make good his theft (Ex. 22zf.) ; according to Josephus (Ant . iv. 82) he was in this case given to the person he had robbed (cp a provision in the law of the twelve tables). Finally, in cases of great poverty, a last resort was for a man to declare himself and his farnily the property of some well-to-do person (Lev. 2539 47). What is related of the patriarch Jacob nray also have frequently occurred ; a suitor who was unable to pay the mFhar or purchase-money demanded for the bride would voluntarily hire himself as a slave for a fixed time to the father of the girl (Gen. 2918 ; cp MARRIAGE, 1 I).

The position of such Israelite slaves was considerably better than that of those of foreign origin. The main 4. lanumission. difference, so far as the law was con-

cerned, lay in this, that the foreign slave remained a slave all his life, whilst the Hebrew slave had a legal right to manumission, and within a definite time had to be released for nothing. According to the Book of the Covenant the slavery of an Israelite lasted six years; in the seventh year he again became free (Ex. 2 1 1 8 ) . The story of Jacob warrants the conjecture that in the original custom the Hebrew slave served for seven full years, and that later, under the influence of the Sabbatical idea, the beginning cf the seventh year was taken as fixing the date of the release (cp Stade, GV11378). By the seventh year of couTse is meant, not the Sabbatical year of a still later time, but a relative term reckoned from the date of the beginning of the bondage. If the slave had brought a wife along with him, she, and doubtless also their children, became free along with himself. If, however, he had entered into bondage alone and afterwards as a slave had received a wife from his master, she and also the children remained the property of the master (Ex. 2 1 7 8 ) . Manifestly, in the case of a wife being given to a slave, only a foreign woman could be intended ; for the Hebrew female slave the master had either to take to himself or give to his son (see below). A characteristic light on the whole position of the Hebrew slave is shed by another fact ; the law can presume that in many cases the slave will prefer not to use his legal right to his liberty, but will voluntarily elect to remain in bondage. The rule just mentioned, regulating the retention of wife and children, must ffequently have produced such cases ; another cause will be mentioned later. If the slave desired to remain with his master in perpetuity, his master was to bring him before ' 615him ' and there fix his ear with an awl to the door-post (Ex. 21 5f: ; cp Dt. 15 16f:). Interpreters are not agreed as to whether by ' 616him ' we are to understand the sanctuary, and that the declaration could only be duly made there. See col. 3224, note 2. Deuteronomy says nothing about the sanctuary, but doubtless assumes that the ceremony will be in the house of the master. This might be a result of the concentration of the cultus at Jerusalem ; but it might equally well be held to show that neither also did the ancient custom reflected in the Book of the Covenant prescribe a ceremony at the sanctuary, and that by ' %him ' are meant the household gods,l the Penates which in old times were found

1 [See Nowack, HA 177, and especially Eerdmans, Th.T, ' D e beteekenis van elohim in het Bondsboek,' ZS27zfi (1894).l

4655

in every ho&e (cp e.$, I S . 1913 ; see TERAPHIM). The ceremony can have had no other meaning than that the ear of the slave-that is, his obedience-is firmly nailed to this house and pledged to it for all time coming.

Elsewhere also boring the ears is met with as a sign of slavery : e.g., among the Mesopotamians (Juv. 1 zq), Arabs (Petr. Sat. IOZ), the Lydians (Xen. A w 6 . iii. 131), and others (see Di. on Ex. 21 SA).

Deuteronomy advances a step (15 13f.), and requires of the master that he shall not send his slave away empty but shall give him a liberal present from flock and threshing-floor and winepress. Here we catch sight of another motive which may have often induced the slave to remain in voluntary bondage : the emanci- pated slave, if quite destitute, was in worse case in a state of freedom than before-left to his own resources, exposed to every hardship and oppression. T o the man who had no land of his own the position of a free working man, or any other favourable opportunity of earning a livelihood, was hardly attainable at all, or, if attainable, only to a very limited degree. Many a man might therefore prefer slavery with comfort to freedom with destitution. The precepts of Deuteronomy are not complied with. The legislator himself feels that he is leaving much to the discretion of masters, and therefore exhorts them all the more earnestly (v. 18) : ' I t shall not seem hard to thee ; . . . for Yahwk thy God shall bless thee [therefore] in all that thou doest.' What we read in Jer. 3 4 8 8 is significant of much; in the time of a great distress, when Jerusalem was under siege, Zedekiah ordered the inhabitants of the city to free their Israelite bondmen and bondwomen, :md so to fulfil the commandm;nt that had been so neglected. But hardly had deliverance come and the siege been raised before the liberated slaves were again reduced to bondage.

P will not have any such thing as slavery for an Israelite. If an Israelite finds himself driven by 5. Year oi poverty to sell himself into slavery, he is

Jubilee. not in reality to be regarded as a slave, but as a free wage-earner orgt? (Lev. 25 35 39f. ).

For all Israelites together are the servants of Yahwe, who brought the nation up out of the land of Egypt ; they must not therefore treat one another as slaves (Lev. 2542). In the matter of emancipation, indeed, the law had to yield to the force of custom ; but the emancipation of the Hebrew slave was no longer TO occur in the seventh year of his slavery, but only in the year of Jubilee, every fiftieth year. In this year (see JUBILEE) all land reverts to its original owner ; the liberated slave thus has the means of subsistence secured for himself and his family.

The attempt (Oehler, PREP) 14 341J) to interpret this law as having in view only those slaves who, when the year of Jubilee came, had not yet been six years in bondage, and that thus the Jybilee release coexists as an institution wnh that of the seven- years' release, finds no support in the text itself; neither can we (so Di.) interpret the law as relating only to those slaves who, previously, at the seventh year's release, had voluntarily remained in bondage, and who now in any case have to go free in the year of Jubilee ; had this been meant, it would have been said.

It is only in the case of his having been compelled to sell himself to a gZr or foreigner in the land that the law offers the Israelite the possibility of an earlier release (in such a case he cannot reckon on the same brotherly treatment as with a brother Israelite). Here a redemption was possible, the right of which belonged not only to the nearest kinsman, the brother or uncle on the father's side, but also to the bondman himself if in the meanwhile he had come into possession of means. The price of redemption also was fixed by law, and in a sense very favourable to the slave or his redeemer. The purchase-money originally paid by his present owner was to be regarded as a sort of hire paid in advance for the years of service from the date of purchase till the next jubilee,' and above this a sum proportionate to the 1 An indirect confirmation of what has already been said-

4656

SLAVERY SLING time which may have been Spent up to the time of the ' to mske peace with David-quite against the will of the master

of the house-and she follows his advice (I S. 25 14 K). Eliezer Jubilee .year was to be paid as redemption-money, so much for each year (Lev. 2 5 4 7 8 ) . Such a regulation clearly presupposes post-exilic conditions. Before the exile the case of an Israelite being compelled to sell himself to a foreigner was hardly conceivable. The foreigners in the land were few, and were themselves in a position more closely approaching that of the slave than that of the freeman (see LAW AND JUTSTICE, 5 146). Since the exile, however, a large non-Jewish population had settled in Judaea, and, to the great niortification of the Jews, had attained a position of wealth and prosperity in marked contrast with that of the poor returning exiles.

In so far as these laws are bound up with the idea of a year of jubilee they of course were never carried into practical effect any more than the year itself was oh- served. But the idea underlying them nevertheless gained the upper hand ; the idea, namely, that for an Israelite to own his brother Israelite as a slave is irreconcilable with the essential nature of the theocracy. The poor who had sunk to such a degree of poverty realised the ignominy of such a position as they had never done before ; essentially they knew themselves the equals of their rich brethren and the possessors of equal privileges. When in Nehemiah's day the severe stress of the times had compelled numbers of the poorer people to pledge themselves and their children to their richer brethren to save themselves from starvation, the situation was shocking to them, and they turned to Nehemiah. Nehemiah took their part, censured the nobles and wealthier classes for their impiety, and succeeded in inducing them to free their poor brethren from their mortgages (Neh. 5 13). This fundamental principle-that no Jew can ever be a slave-was taken over by the later Talmudic law ; even the thief, who had been sold for his crime, was not to be regarded as a slave (see Winter, up. cit. IO$). And when themanifold wars of Seleucids and Ptolemies again and again reduced multitudes of Jews to slavery under heathen masters, their redemption was regarded as a sacred duty and a nieritorious service ( I Macc. 341 z Macc. 811).

The same legal principles apply substantially to the Israelite female slave ; but in the older period the release at the end of the sevenyearscould notapply, thewoman being hermaster'scon- cubine. If an Israelite girl was sold b her father to a master- which of course happened only when ge w a s unable to sell her tn a husband-the purchaser was bound to treat her,as his wife in respect of 'food and raiment and duty of marriage. If he failed in any of these respects he had to set her at liberty for nothing. If the urchaser did no; desire to many her at all he could give her togis son as concubine. If, however, he did not wish this either, then he could sell her only to a purchaser who wished her for a concubine, not to a foreigner; but, holding this osition, she could not become a freewoman in the seventh year.

h o t till we reach the time of D do we find the privilege of relea-e in the seventh year claimed for her with the option of voluntarily remaining in slavery. It appears that in the time of D the ancient custom according to which the female slave had the position of concuhine no longer prevailed. According to 'l'almudic decisions a wife can never be sold as a slave : but the father had the right to sell his daughter as long as she was under marriageable age (cp Winter, o j . cit.).

From what has been said it will be manifest that the lot of slaves, in its legal aspects, was not specially

6. hard, and custom, even if in various respects often coming short of the law,

in other important respects demanded more. From everything that we read about slaves we gather that they were treated as members of the family, and that the head cared for their well-being a s for that of his own children. The whole manner of their relations with their masters shows that they were treated, not as dumb, driven creatures, but as men with minds of their own which they were free to express.

Saul is indebted to his slave for his information about Samuel the seer and his importance and it is his slave who lends him the prophet's fee (I S. 963): I t is J. slave who advises Abigail

that the law knows nothing of a xelease in the seventh year. Otherwise the reckoning would have to refer to the seventh year RISO, and not merely to the year of Jubilee.

4657

in the patriarchal legend figures as the comptroll&"othe household, and is invested with a sort of guardianship over Isaac, the son of the house (Gen. 24 18). Compare also the relation of Ziba to Meribbaal, Jonathan's son (2 S. 9 18 16 18). The slavecould even marry the daughter of the house (I Ch. 2 34/:), and, failing a son, becoine the heir (Gen. 15 2 3 : ) .

In the last resort this favourable position of slaves arose from the fact that as members of the family they were admitted to the family worship. T o the ancient view this came as a matter of course. The slave could not have his own worship, his own god ; as housemate he must necessarily participate in the worship of the master of the house. So Eliezer prays to the God of his master Abraham' (Gen. 2412. etc.). The Priestly Code expressly demands the circumcision of slaves ( P n . 1712). This, too, must have been in ancient times a matter of course. Otherwise the alien slave would have been a continual source of religious pollution for the whole house. This also is the tacit presupposi- tion of Deuteronomy when in its humane concern for the slave it requires that he be allowed to participate in sacrifice and feast (1218 1611). The non-Israelite, the uncircumcised person, could not possihly be admittecl to a share in the sacrificial meal. The slave, being admitted to the family worship, becomes (in the earliest times when ancestor-worship comes in) capable of con- tinuing this worship and thus of inheriting (see above). I t is in this standing which the slave enjoys as a co-reli- gionist and fellow-worshipper that the most powerful possible motive is found for his master to treat him with kindness and fatherly care, just as to-day, in Islam, slaves as fellow-believers are treated with all humane- ness. The brotherhood in the faith in Islam now, as in Israel of old, is not, as unfortunately it has come to be in the Christian world, a mere empty phrase, but a very real force.

See, besides the handbooks of Hebrew archeology, Michaelis, 240s. Rcrht, 0 127J ; Saalschiitz, Das mosnische Rerht, 2 2 9 8 ;

the articles on slavery in Winer, Schenkel, 7. Bibliography. Riehm, Herzog-Plitt, Guthe : the mono-

graphs by Mielziner (Die VcrhziZtnisseder SKZamtl deei den alten NcbrEem ,859) Mandl (Das SkZanen- rechl des A 7' 1886) Griinfeld (hie ShZZung der SKZawen bet' den /u&n A h 6 id . n. taZmud. QueiZen 1886) Winter (Die S t e l l u ~ ~ dy SkZauen dei dm / d n ' in &htZichw u. geselisc flZzc/Ier Beziehunx nuch falin. QueiZen, 1886).

I. B. SLEEVE (DB), Gen. 37 3 8 2 S. 13 18 R V W See

SLIlU (pn, ACC$AATOC'; in Ex &cC$AATO- TUNIC, g I.

n l c c a ) . hCmdr, as distinguished from &fwcer, 'mortar, clay,' always denotes the raw material, RVmg. correctly ' bitumen ' (Gen. 11 3 14 IO [where Var. Bib. suggests ' naphtha '1, Ex. 23t [see PITCH]). On the philology of the two termssee Fraenkel, Auan. F~emdw. 161, andon the biblical passages cited, see BABEL [TOWER OF]. SODOM A N D GOMORRAH, and MOSES, § 3 (col. 3207), respectively, and cp generally BABYLONIA, 5 15 ; BITU- MEN ; CLAY ; DEAD SEA, $j 6 ; MORTER.

SLING. Two Hebrew words have been so rendered. I. v>?, kdki, u+v86y [mrp0,46Aor in Job41 zol,fu&; IS.

174050 25 29 2 Ch. 26 14 Job 41 10 Zech. 9 15 Ecclus. 474. 2. Xxp, maT2imih, u4ev66vq. Prov. 268t, AV and RVms

(RV 'heap of stones'; so Frankenberg). 'The least improbable translation is that of AV ' (Toy, ad lor.) ; but the sense of ' sling ' seems incapable of proof. Like n~ ] i in Ps. 68 28 the word is probably corrupt.

3. ~+evS6vq, r Macc. 651 ('instruments for casting fire and stones, and pieces to cast darts and slings 7. See SIEGE g 4.

[In I S. 14 146 the text of which in MT i s corrupt (as H reference to .4V an$ RV will suggest), 6 introduces a mention of 'pehhles,' apparently meaning sling stones. The words are ( v BaAiur K a i I& rrerpoS6Aorr rai ?VI r6~Aa&v mii ar6lav. For n?k?'mr @ seems to have read 'p??, 'and with flints (of the plain).' But this does not at all suit. 'We must look further. There are many parallels for this correction of ;na 'Inx (RV 'in

~~

1 Derivation unknown. Possibly Semitic, though the sng- gested connection with the root found in the Heb. f+hl, 'be- smear,' does not commend itself.

4658

SLING SMYRNA an acre of land’; cp ACRE), into 2 9 : , ‘the garrison’ (see D. 15). The scribe first wrote 2x13, and then, having omitted the article, wrote it again more correctly ~ m n . Out of >xn,i 2fi13, by transposition and corruption, n iw iny arose: ‘ Pebbles’ (KdxAaf) also appears in I Macc. 10 73 ; slingers, It is implied, would find a lack of sling-stones in the Philistian plain (cp FLINT).-T. K. c.]

From its simplicity, it might have been inferred that the sling (ysp), an improvement upon the simple act of throwing stones,’ was one of the earliest forms of weapon. It is not surprising, therefore, to find that it was employed in quite remote times by shepherds as a protection against wild animals, by agriculturists to drive away birds (Wilk. Anc. Eg . 1381). and also by hunters (Dennis, Cities and Cemeteries of Btrui-ia, 1 312 [ 1 8 7 8 ] ) , and by the light-armed soldier in warfare (z’bid. 1210; for the Arabians cp Doughty, A r . Des. 2176). In Palestine the shepherd carried a sling, in addition to his staff, and a bag to hold his smooth stone bullets (I S. 1740) ; and the Benjamite warriors are supposed to have been renowned for their effective use of this weapon, employing it as well with the left hand as with the right (cp Judg. 2016 I Ch. 122). In Judith 97 it is mentioned as one of the weapons in which the Assyrians trusted.

We possess illustrations of the sling from Egypt, from Assyria (Layard. Nineveh [1852], 332) , and from Rome. The Egyptian slinger is in the act of throwing (Wilk. 1210). The sling is made of a plaited thong,2 the centre being broad enough to form a receptacle (12, kaph, I S. 2529) for the s t o ~ e . ~ One end seems to be attached to the hand, the other being simply held ; the part of the sling in which the stone is lodged is loosely supported by the other hand. The sling is swung over the head (cp Ecclus. 474), apparently with some such motion as in bowling, the loose end flying into the air. The stones are carried in a bag which hangs from the shoulder. In the illustration from Rome the sling ( funda) seems to be of the same kind (see Rich, Dirt. under ‘ funda ’ ) ; but only one hand is employed, whilst the stones are held in a fold of the slinger’s mantle by the other.4 The slingers seem to have worn, as a rule,5 no armour, and to have carried no other weapons (Erman, Anc. Eg. 524 ; cp Rich, under ‘ Funditores ’). -4. Lang (Homer and the Epic, 3 7 5 J ) explains why there are so few references to the sling in Homer (see ZZ. 13599 716) by the remark that Homer ‘ scarcely ever speaks at all of the equipment of the light-armed crowd’ ; the sling ‘ was the weapon of the unarmed masses, as of David in Israel.’

You may still come upon young Syrian shepherds practising with their slings (see e.g. Harper, In Scriptere Lands, 140); Doughty speaks of brad boys ‘armed as it were against some savage beast with slings in their hands’ (Ar. Des. 1432). hut Thomson (Land and Book [r8g4], 572) only saw it used at Hzsheiya, on Mount Hermon, by boys In ‘mimic warfare.’

It was long in use among Europeans too even the simplest form of it (see above) surviving. T h k i; was used by the Anglo-Saxons, though ‘whether for warfare or the chase alone, it is not easy to determine’ (Hewitt, Ancient A m o u r in Europe, 158J, fig. on p. 59). Hewitt also gives later instances (1 156; see the interesting plates, xxvii. 1. 11.); it was used in battle as late as the sixteenth century (3605).

The sling is still used in Syria, in Egypt, and in Arabia.

M. A. c.

1 Still skilfully exercised by the Arabs (Doughty A r . Des. 2 238402) as it was amongst the N. American Indians (School- craft, as huoted in Keller, Luke Dwellings [ET], 1141 ; ‘ there is evidence to show that, as an amusement, it was “very common amongst the ancient races”’). The practice seems to have continued, even among the Romans, in addition to the other ; the accensi, as distinguished from the fundifores threw the stones with their hands (see Rich, Dict. under ‘)Fundi- tores ’).

2 Slings were also made of ‘twisted hair, sometimes human hair‘ (Schliemann Zlios, 437 [r880]). 3 Cp Keller, LLke DweZZings [ET] 1141, ‘broader in the

middle in order to keep the projectile ds in a hood or cap.’ 4 ‘ Like the bow, the sling gained its real importance after th:

Carthaginian wars, owing to the skill of the Balearic allies (F. Haeffer, The Lzye of the Greeks and Romam [ET], 574s).

5 There were, no donbt, exceptions. Cp F. Haeffer, The LzYe of the GreeRs and Romans [ET], 574f:

4659

SLUICE (lgy), Is. 1910 AV, after Tg. Most moderns render, ‘ all those who work f o r hire (la@) will be grieved ( m ~ , cp POOL, I ) in soul.’ So virtually RV.

SMITH. I. ~ T Q ; see HANDICRAFTS, 5 I ; cp CHARASHIM.

2. l p , mas@; z K. 24 I 16 Jer. 24 I 29 Z , everywhere il dln (I. aboGe).

SMYRNA ( C M Y P N ~ W H , ZM. Ti, Rev. 1 1 1 ; k Z p b p v g , Rev. 2 8).1 Smyrna is avery ancient town ; i ts

history falls into two distinct periods, Old

Smyrna (3 IraXard Z p G p v a , Strabo, 646 ; cp Paus. vii. 51) stood at the NE. corner of the bay under Mt. Sipylos above the alluvial plain of the mod. Bu~na6ut . It was said to have been built by the Amazons (Strabo, 550). in whom we may trace a tradition of the Hittite occupation of Lydia. T o them also was ascribed the foundation of Ephesus, Cyme, and Myrina.a

The Amazons were primarily the priestesses of that Asiatic nature-goddess whose worship the Hittites introduced into western Asia Minor (see EPHESUS DIANA). Upon the arrival of the Greeks in Asia Minor thk town was occupied by the northern section, who are called the A3olians ; but the Colo- phonians seized it by treachery, and thenceforth it ranked as an Ionic city (Herod. 1150). Its position gave it the command of the trade of the valley of the Hermus which flows into its gulf, and made it the most powerful rival of the Lydian capital, Sardis, which lay on the middle Hermus, about 54 R. m. to the East. Hence a primary object of the policy of the Lydian dynasty of the Mermnadae was to make themselves masters of Smyrna and the other Greek towns on the coast (see LYDIA).

Smyrna successfully resisted the attack of Gyges (Paus. iv. 215 ix. 2 9 z ) , but succumbed to that of Alyattes (about 580 B.C. ; Herod. 116). Smyrna was destroyed, and its inhabitants dispersed in villages ; ‘ it was organised on the native Anatolian village system, not as a Greek sbhrs ’ (Rams. Hist. Geog. A M 6 2 , n. ; cp Strabo, 646, AuSGv S.? K a r a u a a u d v r o v r+v Z p d p v a u

The trade of Smyrna was taken over by Phocaea, which, like the other Greek towns, was absorbed in the Lydian empire ; when Phocaea in its turn was destroyed hy the Persians, Epliesus became the chief commercial city in this region. Some of the extant early electrum or gold coins with the lion type, usually classed as issued by Sardis, may really be mementoes of the early commercial greatness of Smyrna (so Rams. op. cit. 62).

Alexander the Great, warned, it is said, by a vision (Paus. vii. S I ) , conceived the design of restoring Smyrna

2. The new city. as a,city. This design was actually carried into effect by his successors

Antigonus and Lysimachus ; the earliest undoubtedly Smyrnzan coins are in fact tetradrachnis of Lysimachus, bearing the turreted head of Cybele with whose worship Smyrna was always prominently associated. New Smyrna thus arose, nearly three hundred years after its destruction. The new site, about three miles (Strabo, 634, m p l E ~ K O U I u r a 6 i o u r ) S. ot the old site. was on the shore of the gulf, at the foot of Mount Pagos, the last western member of that chain of hills which, under various names (Olympus, Tmolus), divides the valley of the Hermus from that of the Cayster. The natural beauty of the mountain-girt plain was remarked by the ancients3

The architecture of the city was worthy of its setting. The streets were laid out in straight lines at right angles

1 2pJpvav is read in the ‘western ’ text for Mdppa in Acts 27 5 in D. The more ancient form of the name, down to the end of Trajan, was Zpdpva or ‘ Ipdpva; later it was written in the familiar form 2pdpva (Cfidpva). See the coins, and cp Furneaux,

1. of old city. associated with two distinct sites.

HEpi TffpaKbura &Lr?] &ET&cJEV O l K O U ~ V L r ? ] KWpLr?]66V).

note on Tac. Ann. 363. 2 The part of Ephesus which owed its foundation to the

Amazons was called Samoma or Smyrna (Strabo, 633J) . And Myrina is evidently the same word, initial Z being lost, as in prxpds for u p ~ x p d s (Sayce on Herod. 1 13). 3 Pliny, HN5 31 ‘montes Ask nobllissimi in hoc tractqfere

esplicant se’ ; Strabo, 646, r d h h q T&V rrau&v, p k p o ~ pw TL i p v u a irr’ ; )pa ~rrer,ytupdvov, x.T.A.

4660

SMYRNA SNAIL to one another, after the system of Hippodamus of Miletus who had so laid out Thurii (443 B.C.) and the P i r d for Pericles (for the ‘ I rrnoSapros rpinas see Aristot. Poi. 4 (7) II = 1330 6, Extending from the temple of Cyhele, the ‘Golden Street’ ran right across thF city to the opposite temple of ‘Zeus upon the Heights. The only drawback was that, being unprovided with drains, the streets were sometimes flooded by storm-water (Strabo, 646). Many temples (those of Cybele Zeus the Nemeses Apollo Asklepios and Aphrodite Stratonjkis ;ere the chiif) a dadium a; Odeum, a Public Library an Homeriunz dedkated to H:mer a Theatre (one of the ]&est in Asia Minor), and several two! storied Stoai (Strabo, I.c. uroal peya’har rc.rplywvor, &irrcSoi re ~ i i 8mpi )oc ) made Smyrna one of the most magnificent cities of the Eat.’

Smyrna also possessed a good harbour, which could be closed (Strxbo, I.c. A L ~ + K A P L V T ~ F ) . Apart from the prosperity arising from the fact that the hulk of the trade of the Hermus valley passed through its port, the territory of Smyrna was very fertile and produced much -:le.

The people of New Smyrna were gifted with political sagacity which stood them in good stead in dealing with the Seleucids and afterwards with the Romans. The decree is still extant (243 B.C.) in which mention is made of the temple of Aphrodite Stratonikis. which was (by a sort of false etymology or play upon words) associated with the honour paid by the Smyrnzeans to Stratonice, wife of Xntiochus I. (see CZG 3137=Hicks. M~znrral. no. 176). In return, Seleucus 11. declared both the temple and the city to have rights of asylum. By this pronouncement the city was removed from his jurisdiction and probably exempted from the necessity of providing troops or of receiving his garrisons (see Holm, Gt. Hist., ET, 4449). During the war with Antiochus the Great the Sniyrnsans embraced the Roman cause and were, upon its conclusion, granted the privileges of a civitas (sinefedere) libera et immunis for their loyalty (cp Polyb. 2148 and CZG 3202, 3204f. ).

When the Romans finally occupied Asia, Smyrna became the centre of a conventusjuridicus which embraced the region from Myrina to Teos and the skirts of Mount Sipylos as far as Magnesia (Pliny, “531 ; Cic. Pro Fhcc. 29). In the war with Mithridates it retained its loyal attitude (cp Tac. Ann. 4 56). The sole exception to the course of rosperity arose when Trebonius, one of Cresar’s murderers, toof refuge within its walls and was besieged by Dolabella, who finally captured the city and put Trebonius to death (Strabo, 646; Dio Cas. 4729 Cic. Phil. 11 2) .

According to Tacitus (Ann. 456), the Smyrnaeans had, as early as the consulship of Marcus Porcius Cato (195 B.c.), erected a temple dedicated to Roma. On the ground of their constant loyalty, and this display of it, they made claim before Tiberius in 26 A.D. to the privilege of erecting a temple to the emperor. Out of the list of the contending Asiatic cities Sardis and Smyrna were preferred, and Smyrna won the day (see N ~ o c o ~ o s ) . There is estant a Smyrnzean coin bearing on the obverse a figure of Tiberius in the centre of a temple, with the inscription X e ~ a u r b s T+?&pros (Eckh.

I t is not surprising to find, therefore, that, Asia Minor being under the Empire the paradise of municipal vanity’ (Mommsen, RG 5302). Smyrna vied with its neighbours in the accumulation and assertion of empty titles. Like Sardis, Pergamos, and other cities (see Momms.-Marq. R6m. Stuutsve~w. 1343), she held the title of metropolis.

Her great rival in this respect was Ephesos, who enjoyed the high-sounding titles rrp6,q rrau2v K a i p y l u q , and cqrp6mA~s n j s ’Aulas. What exactly the possession of the title rrpJn) implied that the mutual strife for this ‘primacy’ (rrporr2a) should have been so keen (cp Aristides, Or. 1771, Dind. ; Dio Chrys. Or. 2 148 R.) is not certainly known ; but probably it was connected with the question of precedence at the games of the r o t & ’Aulas (see ASIAPCH). The strife between Smyrna and Ephesus continued until the emperor Antoninus settled the dispute (Philostr. Op., ed. Kayser, p. 23124, cal drrrjh0fv + ++va r i rrpwrrza vrxiua).

Thc coinage of Smyrna richly illustrates the above points. From the time of its ruin by Alyattes to that of its restoration, there wa4 of course no issue of coins. The usual silver coins of Roman Asia, the Cisfo&wi, in the case of Smyrna bear the legend ZMVP, with the head of Cyhele as a symhol. The im- perial coins bear the honorary titles N C W K ~ ~ W V ; npJrou ’Aulas, or r r p i ~ w v ’Aslas y’ vcwdpwv r& ue@aur&w & M e r rai peyL08rr (the third Neocorate here asserted begins towar65 the end of Sept. Severus). Certain coins bearing a figure of Homer seated

21 A).

Few remains of this ancient splendour survive.

2547) .

149 4661

were called ‘OpjpeLa (Strabo, 646) and perhaps reproduced some statue in the Honterium. 1: addition to the worship of the Sipylene Mother (Cybele) to which the epithet ZmvAvvrj on certain coins reiers, the cult of the Nemeses was largely practised in Smyrna, and on some coins are seen figures of two Nemeses appearing in a vision to Alexander and charging him to restore the city (Paus. vit 5 .A). The Griffin, a frequent Smyrnaean type, symholises this worship, Just a5 the Lion symholises that of Cybele.

Points of contact between the above and the address in Rev. 28f: are not very obvious, though not entirely

3. NT refer- wanting. Probably many phrases would fall upon the ears of those for whom the message \vas intended, with a force which

is now quite lost. Especially may this have been the case at Smyrna, where much importance was attached to a method of divination from chance phrases (Pans. ix. 1 1 7 , ‘ divination by means of voices . . . is, to my knowledge, more employed by the people of Smyrna than by any other such people’). Outside the walls there was a ‘ sanctuary of voices.‘ It has been suggested, therefore, that the words with which the message opens would come with peculiar force to those who perhaps had heard similar phrases in the pagan mysteries. Similarly, the phrase ‘crown of life’ (a. IO, T ~ V ar t!~avov 79s {w+) must inevitably have suggested or have been suggested by a prominent feature of life at Smyrna- the public Games (cp Paus. vi. 143J for a striking incident occurring at one of the celebrations held at Smyrna, in 68 A.D.) . I t was on such an occasion that the Asiarch Philippus was forced by popular clamour to doom the aged Polycarp to death (155 A. D. ). The Games were characteristic of pagan life, and socially, though not politically, they would serve as an effective touchstone of sentiment. The fact that on the occasion of Polycarp’s martyrdom the Jews also took part in accusing him of enmity to the state religion, is strikingly in accord with the words of Rev.29, where the Jews of Smyrna are called ‘ a synagogue of Satan.’ ‘ H e that ovrrcometh’ must also be used with reference to the gymnastic and other contests familiar to the Smyr- nreans. I t would, however, probably be a mistake to confine the suggestiveness of the phraseology too narrowly.

The ‘crown of life,’ for example, may also have associations connected with the complimentary crown bestowed upon municipal and other officials for good service. It is also noteworthy that many Smyrnrean coins show a wreath or crown within which is the Lion symbol, or a magistrate’s name or monogram (see illustration in Head, Hist. Numm. .jog). This emblem also might enter into the complex associations of the words, which it is the task of historical imagination to revivify.

Smyma, now Istnir, is the commercial capital of Turkey. Plan, with very full account of ancient remains and modern town, in Murray’s Handbook of Asia Minor, 7 0 3 Fur the older Smyma, see Curtius, Beitr. z. Gesch. und Topographi# Kleinasiens, Berl. 1872.

SNAIL occurs twice in the OT as the translation of two terms.

I. D<>h, &&#e; (Lev. 11 30), where, however, some kind of LIZARD (q.v.) is meant (RV ‘sand-lizard’).

2. %?@, fabbZIZiZ (Ps. 588 [g]), a word of uncertain etymology, which is found in the Targ. under the form N%YF The rendering ‘ snail ’ is probable and is supported by the Talm. Shabbath, 77b, where Rashi, in his commentary, explains it by Nmuce. Ewald, with less probability, follows 65 and Vg. ( q p b s . cera) and renders ‘melted was.’ Some land snail is probably referred to, and the allusion to its melting away may have reference to the trail of slime which the mollusc leaves behind it as it crawls, or may refer to the retire- ment of these animals into cracks and crevices, where they are no more seen, at the approach of the dry season. The land and freshwater mollusca of Syria are fairly numerous and varied, and it is interesting to note that the Dead Sea contains no molluscs, whilst the sea of Tiberias has a rich molluscan fauna. Bliss ( A MmmZ of Muny Cities, 110) found a quantity of snail shells ; ‘ snails had doubtless been used for food.’ [A

4662

W. J. W.

SNARE so passage records the slaying of two Jerahmeelites ($N~N, x+ In Maacath-‘arab-i.e., Arabian Maacath, on the day (*.e., famous battle) of Ishmael.

South of Hebron snow is rare, and along the sea- board of Philistia and Sharon, as well as in the Jordan valley, it is altogether unknown. In Jerusalem it is to be seen in the streets two winters in three ; but it soon disappears.

In the winter of 1857 the snow was 8 inches deep and covered the eastern plains for a fortnight. The results were disastrous1 Nearly a fourth of the houses of Damascus were injured and some of the flat-roofed bazaars and mosques were left in Leaps of ruins. The winter of 1879 was still more remarkable; 17 inches of snow, even where there was no drift, are recorded.2

T. K. c.

See Crit . Bib.

Very snowy winters. however, do occur.

SNUFFDISHES (ninnQ), Ex. 2538 etc. See CEN-

SNUFFERS. I. nhplp (JlDl , ‘ to pluck’?), m&ummZrdtk I K 7 50 2 K. 12 13[14] 25 14 Jer. 52 1s 2 Ch. 4zz t , c C A ~ D L E S T I C K , 5 2.

2. O;lJ&, meZka&kyim, Ex. 3’1 23. RV ‘ tongs.’ See TONGS, CANDLESTICK, $3 z ; COOKING, 9 4.

so (Hib ; cHrmp [B], CWA [A], on bL see below ; Vg. Sun). In 2 K . 174 we read a the king of Assyria found conspiracy in Hoshea, for he had sent messengers to So, king of Egypt.’ This happened in, or directly before, 725 B. c. Egyptologists formerly lookcd to the first two names of the Ethiopian or twenty-fifth dynasty of Egypt, Shabaka or his successor Shabataka. In accordance with an erroneous chronology, that dynasty was believed to have begun in 728, and the conquest of Egypt and Hoshea’s embassy seemed to coincide veryremarkably.s In the first place, however, the names of S/tubo(or bi)ku (Sabnku in cuneiform transcription, S a b a k h in Herod 2 137, and in Manetho) or Shnba (or 6i)tuku (Sebichos, Manetho) could not satisfactorily be compared with So, which would have been an unparalleled mutilation, not to mention the insuperable difficulty of Egyptian 6 as Semitic s. In the second place the chronology must now be considered impossible. W e know, as the only firm point for the chronology of the Ethiopian kings, that Tirhaka-Tah(a)rl:B died in 668/67 and that his successor (Tandamani) was expelled from Egypt during the following year. Manetho gives to the first three Ethiopian kings, 40 (Africanus) or 44 years (Syncellus), Herodotus 50 years to the only Ethiopian king whom he knows, Diodorus 36 years to all four kings. The monuments insure 12+26 (not more) + 3 f 3 (alleged, and not counted) years to the dynasty. The maximum for the beginning of the Ethiopian family in Egypt would thus be 712 ; probably it is rather to be assumed some years later (about 709 ?). Consequently, Samaria had been destroyed and Hoshea had perished before the Ethiopians conquered Egypt. As kings of Ethiopia alone, they could not come into consideration for Syrian politics. Winckler (MVA G, 1898, p. 29) has made it probable that Shabaka, the Ethiopian conqueror of Egypt, lived in peace with As- Syria, exchanging presents with Sennacherih. Further- more, we should expect the title ‘ king of Kush-Ethiopia’ in the case of the alleged .Ethiopian ruler, or Pharaoh in the case of a true Egyptian prince.

The cuneiform inscriptions of Sargon tell us of Sire , a turtanu-Le., general or viceroy-of Pir’u, king of Mugri, who vainly assisted the rebellion of Hanunu of Gaza against rZssyria and suffered a complete defeat at Raphia (Rnpiki) in 720 by Sargon. W e see from the cuneiform orthography that the biblical form So ought to be vocalised Scwe or, better still, that the w is a corruption for b and the original reading was Sib’e. Winckler’s first suggestion of the possibility that this Sibe was not a petty Egyptian prince hut a Musrite, a

SER, 2 ; CANDLESTICK. 5 2.

1 J L. Porter(Kitt0 Cyc. Bi6. Lit‘ S399). 9 Geikie The Holy Land and the Eibie 2 5s. 3 The piesent writer was still under this impressioii when pre-

Wiedemann (Gesck, Aeg-. 587) paring the article EGYPT ( 8 66 a). compared So with the fabulous Sethih of Herodotus.

4664

strong protest is raised against the prevalent view of the text of this passage by Cheyne, Ps.W.1

SNARE. For t&b, rncikt1; nB, pa&; $7, Fbhel; also fJp6xos (= nrb&G) and rayk (=ma@; and $a&), see FOWL, 5 9. For ”$lXp, mZpdZh, see NET, 4, and for mx?, @&zh (Job 18 s AV), see NET, 5. For nns, jLt&aU (Lam. 347 AV),

SNOW (2$@, Meg; Bib.-ham. I$?, Mug; Ass. Ad,,u; XIWN). Like rain and hail, the snow was tradi- tionally supposed to be kept in store-chambers in the sky (Job3822). It is at God‘s command that it falls (Job376 Ecclus.4313); it is he who ‘plucks out snow like wool’ (Ps. 14716, read pnh). Its sure effect in fertilising the ground supplies a figure for the certainty of prophecy (Is. 55 IO$) ; its brilliant whiteness, for the clear complexion of those exempt from agricultural toil (Lam. 47), for a conscience free from the sense of guilt (Ps. 517[9] Is. 1 IS), for the appearance of lepers (Ex. 46 Nn.12ro zK.527), for the shining raiment (Dan. 79) and hair (Rev. 114) of a heavenly or divine being. No less than five references to snow occur in the Book of Job. In describing the treachery of his friends, Job refers to the ice and snow which help to swell the streams from the mountains in spring (Job 6 16) ; and twice again he refers to the snow water (930 2419 [not in a]).

A. E. S.-S. A. C.

Cp PIT, 7.

The phrase ‘it snowed on Zalmon’ (so Driver, Par. Ps.) in Ps.G514[15]ispuzzEng; we should haveexpected‘onHermon.’ Appearances point strongly to the view that the passage is corrupt. See ZALMON.

A beautiful proverb (Prov. 25 13) reminds us how enduring Oriental customs are.

Like the cooling of snow [in a drink] in time of harvest, Is a trustworthy messenger to him who has sent him; He refreshes the soul of his lord.

One could think that this proverb had been written in Damascus; sherbet cooled with snow was hardly a summer drink at Jerusalem. Indeed, ‘snow’ and ‘ summer ’ to an ordinary citizen of Jerusalem suggested incongruous ideas (see Prov. 261, 6 6p6uor). Jeremiah refers to the eternal snows of Lebanon (Jer. 18 14 ; see SIRION). and in the eulogy of the pattern woman it is said (Prov. 31 21 2, that she needs not to be afraid even of ‘snow’ ( i e . , of the coldest days of winter) for her hoiisehold because ‘ they are clothed with scarlet ’ (or, ‘with double clothing’ ; see COLOURS, 5 14). In a famous passage ( z S. 2 3 2 0 ~ I Ch. 1122) Benaiah, the son of Jehoiada, is said to have slain, not only two lion-like men of Moab (so AV) and a ‘goodly’ Misrite (see MIZRAIM, 2 6, col. 3164), but also ‘ a lion in the midst of a pit in time of snow.’ Why the snow is referred to, however, is not clear. An old French Hebraist (Vatable in Cril. Sac. 22462) says it is because lions are strongest in the winter. The Hebrew, however, has not ‘ in time of snow,’ hut ’ in the

on some one day on which heavy snow had fallen.’3 Such a snowfall might be mentioned as something remarkable from its rarity. In I Macc. 1322 we read of ‘ a very great snow’ which hindered the movements of Trypho, the opponent of Jonathan and Simon the Maccabees. It is conceivable that a lion ‘had strayed up the Judzean hills from Jordan, and had been caught in a sudden snowstom.’ (GASm. HG65), and that Benaiah went down into the cistern into which the animal had fallen and killed it ; but the passage is full of textual errors.

lions near their lair;4 he also went down and slew t+ (paren3 lion in the midst of the pit on the day of the snow. More probably, however, the

Flostermann and Budde read thus (cp ARIEL)- The same (Benaiah) slew two youn

1 Cp Geikie, The Ho& L a n d and U e Bible, 1 124. 2 @B, however has no mention of snow. 3 H. P. Smith ’gives the very improbable sense, ‘He used to

go down (12) and smite the lions in the pit on snowy days.’ 4 oFiCG-5.5r! ’y; -:a (KIO., BU.).

4663

SOAP SODOM AND GOMORRAH representative of the king Pir'u (not Pharaoh) of Musri / [BL], EiuoYXw [A], Jos. Ant. vi. 9 I UWKOUP). Socoh -Le. , Northern Arabia-was in A O F 126 (cp GZ 1170) ; was fortified by Rehoboam ( z Ch. 11 7 Shoco AV, in MG'AG, 1898, pt. i., he finally treated it as certain 1 UOKXWO [BA], U O K X W [L], owxw [Jos. Ant. viii. 10 I]),

(see now KA TP) 146). The correctness of this view is but. according to the Chronicler. was taken bv the Philis- evident (cp HOSHEA, col. 2127). although the old, iiiipossible theory (see above) is still frequently found repeated.

Very remarkable is the form of 2 K. l f 4 in bL, which substitutes ior So, Adramelech, the Ethiopian, residing in Egypt ( ' A 8 p a p X q rbv A l e h a rbu KaroiKodvra ?v Aiydrry). Seductive as this piece of information looks --only the name Adramelech could never be treated as an Egyptian or Ethiopian name-it is shown by the data of the cuneiform inscriptions to be an exegetical addition, quite in harmony with the paraphrastic character of @ which presents such an analogy to the Targum. It is quite remarkable that the Jewish scholars who inserted this addition knew enough about the history of Egypt to think of that Ethiopian dynasty (the date of which they, like modern Egyptologists, put too high, see above) and to conclude that an Egyptian ally of Israel could have been only a governor under the king, residing in remote Napata. This imperfect (cp the &ate and the impossible name Adramelech) knowledge cannot be accepted, however, as historical evidence outweighing the direct testimony of the monu-

SOAP, or SOPE, in modern language, means a compound of certain fatty acids with soda or potash, the potash forming the 'soft,' the soda the ' hard' soaps of commerce. Soap is believed to have been in- vented by the Gauls, and became known to the Romans at a comparatively late date. Pliny s a y s j t en sebo et cinere, and that the best is prepared from goat-tallow and the ashes of the beech-tree. A soap-boiling estab- lishment with soap in a good state of preservation has been excavated at Pompeii.

The word ' soap ' is used in EV to translate the Heb. 65rith (n'?Z, a derivation of &TI, cp 12, ' cleanness ' ) in two passages (Jer. 2 2 2 Mal. 3 z t ) ' which allude to the cleansing of the person and of fabrics respectively. It is not possible to ascertain exactly what substance, or substances, are intended. As a rule the ancients cleansed themselves by oiling their bodies and scraping their skins, and by baths, and they cleaned their clothes by rubbing with wood ashes and natural earths, such as fuller's earth, carbonates of sodium, etc. They cleansed their wine and oil casks and their marble statues with potash lyes2 Natural carbonate of soda (see NITRE) was also used, as well as the juices of certain plants (see below) which, owing to the presence of saponin, form a soap-like lather with water.

Canon Tristram states that considerahle quantities of soft soap are, at the present day manufactured in Palestine by boiling olive oil with potash, prbcured by burning several species of SaZicorniu (glass wort) and Salsolu (salt wort) especially S. ityali, which abound in the neighhourhood of th'e Dead Sea and in the salt marshes which fringe the coast.

ments. [See further Crit. Bib.] W. M. M.

See LYE, NITRE.

Cp Lijw, 43. A. E. S.

SOCII0 (\>ib), I Ch. 4 1 8 AV, RV Soco, a name in the genealogy of the b'nE JUDAH, cp SOCuH, I.

SOCOH ( 3 3 8 in Josh. Kt. ; but Kr. \>\b as in Ch., where RV has Soco; in S. and K. njb [Kt.] \>b [Kr.] ; uoxo [BAL]).

I. A town i n the Shephelah of Judah. grouped with Jarmuth, Adullam, Azekah, etc. ; (Josh. 15 35 u a o x o 183). and mentioned with Azekah in the description of the encampment of the Philistines in IS. 17 I (cp EPHES-DAMMIM), where AV has Shochoh ([&I uoKxwB 1 In both passages @ has noia or rod, N* bya curious mistake

in Mal. 32 ~ A o i a ('grass ') ; Vg. in Je . has herbum doriyh, in Mal. hrrba fillmunz.

2 Fullers also used putrid urine, which was so offensive that they were compelled to live beyond the walls or in remote parts of the city of Rome. 3 The reading Por8wO represents a plur. form ; cp Eus. USP)

293 32 (POXXW rSpar r X 660. . . i p2v Ivorkppc, $ 8 1 ~a~ore'pa ~ O K X x O @ ~pqwar~<ovuar) and Jer. ib. 151 21 . . . unus in monte

4665

tines inthe regnof Ahaz (zCh. i 8 18[Shocho kV, U O K X & ~

[L]). The site intended is no doubt esh-Shuweikeh (as if a diminutive form of nji&1). The ruins which bear this name occupy a strong position (I 145 ft. above the sea level) on the S. side of the great valley of Elah (see ELAH, VALLEY OF), at the pointwhere the WEdyeS-SClr becomes theWZdyes-Sant(cpGASm. H G z 2 8 8 ; Che. Aids, 85). Perhaps this Socoh was the birthplace of the Antigonus who came after Simon the Righteous and preached dis- interested obedience (P i rg A-bGth, 13. i ~ r o W*N 011ru31). The gentilic is plausibly found in the ' Sucathites ' (Socathites) of I Ch. 255 ; see JABEL.

[The trend of the present writer's criticism, however, is to show that the geography of the OT narratives has often been mis- understood and consequently misrepresented by the redactors spoken of above. Saul's struggle with the archenemies of his people (the Zarephathites, miscalled the Philistines : see SAUL B 4c) was in the Negeh. The fight described in IS. 17 was i; the valley(?) of Jerahmeel (';me& hn'-'iZ*h, and 'e;dkes daamnziaz) near Maacah-' which belongs to Jemhmeel '-and Azekah. A Socoh or perhaps rather Maacah in the Negeb was probably mean; in the other passages refirred to above as they were originally read. The Suwthites too (I Ch. 255; should rather be designated the ' hfaacathites.

2. A second town of this name is grouped with Shamir, Jattir, etc., in the mountain district of Judah (Josh. 1 5 4 8 uwxa [B]). and is identified with another esh- Shuweikeh, situated IO m. SW. of Hebron and E. of the WEdy el-Khalil (BK2195) . According to the ordinary view of the sphere of action of Solomon's twelve prefects (see, however, SOLOMON, 6, note I) this is probably the Socoh which formed part of the prefecture of BENHESED [q.v.] ( I K. 410 RV, AV Sochoh, u o ~ h w [A], uopLqvXara [KAL] ? uapLqvXa [R],

See SHABBETHAI. T. K. C . ]

apLqxa [L ?I). The Egypt. sa-u-kci, Sir-o-kb in the list of SoSenk can hardly he

identified with either of the above. From its position in this list a more northerly situation seems necessary (cp WMM As. u. Bur. rbof: 166).

SODA (lna), Prov. 25~0 RVmg., E V NITRE ( q . ~ . ) .

SOD1 (?'ID ; coyA[e]~ [BAF'L]), father of Gaddiel,

cp S A P .

Zebulunite (Nu. 13 IO).

SODOY AND GOMORRAH Biblical references (8 I). New theory (5 7). Critical analysis (S 2). Stucken's ' dry' deluge (5 8). Lot-story not historical (f 3). Judg. 19 15-30 (I 9). Possible classification (8 4). Res+ (8 IO). Difficulties (B 5). Religious suggestions (f 11). Text of Gen. 19 24x, etc. (5 6). Literature (9 12).

(DiD ; COAOMA [RKADEQZI'],. plur.), COhOM[E]ITAl Gen. 1 9 4 , and GOMORRAH (~QDP, yo-

SoDon4

MOPPA [BAL], in 01' sing. and pl&. ; 'eferences* in NT (AV GOMORRHA) plur., except

in Mt. 10 15 according to Treg. [but not Ti. WH], wiih CDPL [DL rOMOpac, SO r O M O P A Jer. 2314K]), two cities represented in the traditional text of Gen. 1310-12 1925 as situated in the 'Circle (V?, AV 'plain,' RV ' Plain ' ) of Jordan,' and less distinctly in 1 4 3 as in the Vale of SIDDIM (9.v.). According to thesame text, the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah and their allies were de- feated by CHEDOR-LAOMER, king of Elam. andhis allies, who carried away both the people and the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah, but were forced to give these up by the rapid intervention of the warrior ' Abram the Hebrew ' (Gen. 14r-16) . In Gen. 1816-33 191-29 w-e have the account of ( I ) a dialogue between Abraham and, first of all, the ElZlhim who visited him, and then Yahwk alone, respecting the fate said to be impending over

et alter in campo situs, qui Sochoth nuncupantur. Both Euse. bius and erome strangely confuse Socoh with Succoth-benoth ( 2 K. 17 30j.

4666

SODOM AND GOMORRAH Sodom and Gomorrah ’ (virtually equivalent to

’ Sodom ’) ; (2) the circumstances leading up to the culminating act of wickedness committed in Sodom ; and (3) the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and other cities, and the escape of Lot and his two daughters. The sin of Sodom is oftcn referred to as typical of horrible and obstinate wickedness, Is. 1 IO 39 Jer. 23 14 Dt. 3232 ; and its destruction as a warning, Is. 179 1319 Jer. 4918 Zeph. 29 Dt. 2922 Am. 411 Lam. 46 (for EV’s ‘ iniquity’ and ‘ sin ’ read ‘ punishment ’). Sometimes, too, it is mentioned alone as the destroyed guilty city, Gen. 1913 (‘this place’=Sodom) Is. 1 7 39 Lam. 46 (cp Gen. 14178 [but in z. 17 bL inserts ~ai&u. yop.], where the king of Sodom figures alone); but Gonrorrah is often mentioned too, Gen. 1310 1820 192428 Is. 1 9 .f. 13 19 Jer. 2314 Am. 4 11 Zeph. 29 Dt. 3232. ‘ Nerghbour cities ’ are also referred to in Jer. 49 18 5040; cp Ezek. 1 6 4 6 8 (‘Sodom and her daughters’). In Hos. 11 8 Admah and Zeboim, and in Dt. 29 23 [zz] Sodom, Gomorrah, .4dmah, and Zeboim are given as the ruined cities ; cp Gen. 1019 and 142, where in like manner these four cities are mentioned together. In Wisd. 106 the inexact phrase ‘ Pentapolis’ is used (see RV). The description of the sin of Sodom in Ezek. 16496 5oa is evidently based on the legend known to us from Gen. 19, and similarly that of the punishment in Dt. 2923[22] agrees with that given in the traditional text of Gen. 1924.26. Allusions to the fate of Sodom appear to occur in Ps.116 [but see below] 14010[11] Job 1815 Is. 349 f: Jer. 2016 Ezek. 3822. Curiously enough, in a geographical passage (Gen. lO19), Sodom and Gomorrah and Admah and Zeboim are spoken of as if still in existence. These are the data relative to the history of Sodom and the other cities supplied by the traditional text.

The references to Sodom (Gomorrah is rarely added) in ;he Apocrypha and in the N T are as follows--a Esd. 2 8 5 7 t 36 Ecclus. 168 Wisd. 19 14 Mt. 10 15 (Mk. 6 I I [not in best texts] Lk. 10 12) Lk. 17 29 Kom. 9 29 (quotation) 2 Pet. 2 6 Jude 7 Rev. 11 8 (cp Ezek. 23 3, etc.).

Before proceeding further it is necessary to refer briefly to the critical analysis of the section in which

the Sodom-story is contained (Gen. 18- 1928). That v. 28 belongs to the Priestly Writer is admitted ; its true place is prob-

ably after 13ma (P) , which states that ‘Lot dwelt in the cities of 1333 ’ (rather hnni*, ‘ JerGmeel ’). With regard to the rest of the section, it is admitted that there has been a prolonged process of editorial manipulation. Only thus indeed can we account for the singular combination of passages which refer to Yahwe as the speaker and actor with other passages which indicate three men as charged with representative divine func- tions, and for the not less singular fact (I) that whereas Abraham’s hospitality is claimed by ‘ three men,’ Lot receives into his house only two men, who are called in the present text of 191 ‘ the two mal’rikim (EV ‘angels’),’ and (2) that in 1917, whereas the first verb is in the plural (‘when they had brought them forth‘), the second is in the singular ( ‘ h e said’; so again, v. 21). I t was long ago suggested (and the same idea has lately been worked out by Kraetzschmar 2, that there have been iniperfectlyfused together two versions of the story of ‘ Sodom,’ in one of which Yahwe was said to have appeared in a single human form, and in the other in a group of men; n-hether we regard these men as ‘Clbhim’ (cp Gen. 126 322 117) or divine heings, the chief of whom is YahwB, or as ‘ mal dkim ’ (commonly rendered ‘ angels ’), does not affect the critical inquiry. It is impossible, however, to work out this theory to a satisfactory result ; the original narrative may have been modified by editors, but we cannot to any large

1 Regretfully we abstain from drawing out the beauties of the story in chap. IS. For parallels to the divine visit see Grimm, Deutsrhe My~kologiie, pp. xuxiv-xxxvii, and 312 A; cp

’ also Hom. Od. 17 4 8 5 8 a ‘Der Mythos von Sodoms Ende,’ZATW17sr-92; cp .?-mu

World, 1236.

a. critical analysis.

4667

SODOM AND UOMORRAH extent admit the theory of independent literary strata. Fripp, therefore, was justified in attempting to show that in the earliest form of the story Yahwe himself was the only speaker and agent. Comparing this story, however, with analogous stories in Genesis and elsewhere, it is much more natural to suppose that in its original form three nien--i.e., three ‘ Clcihhim ’-were spoken of, and that the distinction between YahwB (who remained-see 18 zzb-to talk with Abraham) and the ‘ two ma2’6kim ’ who went to Sodom ’ was due to the same later writer who, as Wellhausen (CH27 J ) has rendered probable, introduced 18 17-19 and 2za-33n. a passage which reveals the existence in the writer’s mind of doubts as to the divine justice, such as we know to have been felt among the Jews in later times. There is also reason to think that the references to Lot’s wife (19 r5J 26 ; contrast v. 12) and the whole of the Zoar episode, together with the account of the birth of Moab and Ben-ammi (?), are later insertions, though by no means so late as the two insertions in ch. 18 mentioned above. a

Here, however, we are chiefly concerned with the contents of the Lot-story (ch. 19). We are told that as

a punishment for disregard of the sacred story not law of hospitality, and for a deadly sin historical. committed at least in intention, ’ Yahwe

rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from YahmP out of heaven, and overthrew those cities, and all the Plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground’ (1924 f. RV). Is it possible to explain the origin and meaning of this story, accepting provisionally the form in which it is given in the traditional text ? 3

That the story is historical (however laxly the word be interpreted) ought to be at once denied by those who have read the earlier legends of Genesis in the light of the comparative critical method. If the Deluge is not historical, and if Abraham and Lot are ultimately the creations of the popular imagination, how can the strange story in Gen.19, for which, as we shall see, there are so many parallels in folk-lore, be regarded as historical? It is surely no answer to appeal to the accordance of the phenomena of the catastrophe of Sodom with those which have happened elsewhere in ’ similar geological formations,’ or to the justification of the traditional description of that catastrophe by ‘ authorities in natural science’ (but not in historical criticism) and by some competent critics of the Or. For the narratives of the Hebrew Orz&nes must be accepted or rejected as wholes. Plausible as Danson’s view4 may he, that the description of the catastrophe of Sodom is that of ‘ a bitumen or petroleum eruption, similar to those which on a small scale have been so destructive in the region of Canada and the United States of America,’ and the more ambitious theory of Blanckenhorn. that the catastrophe, which was a real though not a historical event, began with an earthquake, continued with igneous eruptions, and ended with the covering of the sunken cities by the waters of the Dead Sea, it would require great laxity of literary interpretation to assert that this is what either the Yahwisti narrative, or the earliest references in the prophets, intend. As Lucien Gautier remarks (above, col. 1046), ‘ The text of Genesis speaks of a rain of fire and brimstone and a pillar of smoke rising to heaven, but neither

1 Combosition o f flre Book ofGenesis. 50-52 (18ozl. andZA T W

3. Lot-

,” --. 1 2 2 3 ~ . i18gz).

2 In an essay in the New Wodd, 1243, only the geological myth in z. 26 relative to the pillar of salt is regarded as an ac- cretion. Gunkel (HK, Gen. 188Y.) holds that Lot’s wife played no part in the original story, and that the Zoar episode is also a liter insertion, but he claims w. 306-38 for the original story.

3 Knohel has, at any rate, noticed that the Sodom catastrophe closes the second staee in the early narrative, corresponding to . - the Deluge.

486. 4 Expositm, 1886 (I), p. 74 ; Modern Science in Bi6le Lands,

5 Z D P V ( s e e end of article). 4668

SODOM AND GOMORRAH of an earthquake, nor of an igneous eruption, nor of an inundation.' Nor can we venture to pick and choose among the details of the story in Gen. 19.

It is of no more use to justify with some plausibility two or three expressions in a part of the Sodom-story by means of 'scientific' lore than to make it out to he, modestly put, not impossible that 'Chedorlaomer, king of Elam ' may have invaded Palestine at a time when Abraham may have)lived. If 'authorities in natural science' sometimes speak as if Gen. 19 were in part historicall (more plausibly, based on a tradition of a real occurrence), we must remember that historical criticism and natural science are both studies which require a special training and if critics of the OT even in the nineteenth century h a d

to-day has to throw off the weaknesses which it has inherited from the past.

The chief extra- biblical passage in which distinct reference is made to the destruction of the cities as historical is in Strabo (xvi. 244), where, after describing the rugged and burnt-hp rocks, exuding pitch, round about MoaudcYa ( i . e . , the stupendous rock-fortress Masada, near the SW. shore of the Dead Sea), the geographer mentions the native tradition that here thirteen cities once flourished. The ample circuit of Sodom their capital can, he says, still be traced. In consequence of an earthquake, and of an eruption of hot springs, charged with bitumen and sulphur, the lake advanced suddenly (+ Xlpvr) ~ p o ~ P u o r ) ; some of the cities were swallowed up, and others were deserted by as many of the inhabitants as could flee. Josephns (BJiv. 84). speaking of the lake Asphaltitis, npon which the country of Sodom borders, uses similar language :- ' There are still the remains of the divine fire, and the shadows ( U K L ~ P ) of five cities are visible as well as the ashes produced in their fruits.' I t is hardly possible to avoid taking these reports together, and assuming that Strabo's informant was of the Jewish race. If we reject the claim put forward by critics in behalf of the statement in Gen. 1924,f, we must still more certainly reject the statement of Strabo as historical evidence.3

1 E.g., besides the late Sir J. W. Dawson, Canon Tristram (The Land of Israei, 356). Describing a valley at the N. end of the salt-range of Usdum, he says 'The whole appearance points to a shower of hot sulphur, and an irruption of bitumen npon it, which would naturally be calcined and impregnated with its fumes : and this at a geological period quite subsequent to all the dilurial and alluvial action of which we have such abundant evidence. The catastrophe must have been since the formation of the valley, and while the water was at its present level-therefore probably during the historic period.' Blancken- horn, however, IS more in touch with biblical critics. In his second article he expresses his adhesion to the views (then just published) of Kraetzschmar, and says, ' This makes it plain that while it is certainly very probable that the account in Genesis points to a natural occurrence which was real hut not "historic," the Yahwistic form . . . is altogether different from the original tradition, which is rather to he songht in the references and figurative statements of the prophets' (ZDPY 21 6 9 [1898]). Whether this stress on the prophetic refereuces, only two of which can he at all early, is justifiable, need not here be discussed.

The reference may be (I) to the fruit of the 'osher-tree rzGar, Calotropis pmcera, of the family .4sclejiducee), which Hasselquist (Travels, 1766) calls &ma sodomitica, and found in abundance about Jericho and near the Dead Sea. He says that they are sometimes filled with dust, hut 'only when the fruit is attacked by an insect which turns all the inside into dust, leaving the skin only entire, and of a beautiful colour.' The tree, says Tristram (NHBqEq), grows to a height of from twelve to fifteen feet, and the fruit is ' as large as an apple of average size of a bright ye!low colour hanging three or four together close to the stem. It easil; bursts when ripe, and 'supports a very singular orthopterous insect, a very large black and yellow cricket, which y e found in some plenty on all the trees, but never elsewhere. But (2) Tristrani's suggestion that the fruit of the colocynth is meant deserves attention. See GOURDS [WILD]. The fruit, though fair of aspect, has a pulp which dries up into a bitter powder, used as medicine. But to suppose that the phrase 'the vine of Sodom (Dt. 32 32) has any reference either to the colocynth or to anv other botanical Dlant. is nlainlv a mistake (see the com-

a See also Tacitus, Hisf. 537.

L . . ~ mentators). 3 Still more ohviously worthless for critical purposes is the

statement of Trogus (Justin, xviii. 33) that the Phaenicians were forced to leave their home beside the Assyrium stagnum by an earthquake. Bunsen took this stagnum to he the Dead Sea.

4669

SODOM AND GOMORRAH From the point of view which is here recommended

it is all-important to bring the Sodom-story into the

4. Possible right class- of myths or semi-mythic I t is not necessary that

mythic stories of the same class should classification. legends.

all give the same particulars ; it is enough if they agree in some leading ' motive.' Lack of space prevents us from mentioning more than a few such stories. Let us refer first to the story of the punishment of the guilty city Gortyna. ' The people of this city led a lawless existence as robbers. The Thebans, being their neighbours, were afraid, but Amphion and Zethos, the sons of Zeus and Antiope, fortified Thebes by the magic influence of Amphion's lyre. Those of Gortyna came to a bad end through the divine Apollo.' ' The god utterly overthrew the Phlegyan race by continual thunderbolts and violent earthquakes ; and the survivors were wasted by a pestilence.' Usually, however, it pleases the creators of folk-lore to represent the punishment of wicked cities as consisting in their being submerged by water. Homer (1.l 1 6 3 8 4 8 ) speaks of the pernicious floods which Zeus brings by autumnal rain-storms on godless, unjust men. The well-known story of Philemon and Baucis (Ovid. Met. 861r-724) belongs to the same sub- division. Similarly a place on the Lake of Thun is popularly said to have been destroyed because a dwarf was refused hospitality during a storm by all the inhabitants except an aged couple who dwelt in a miserable cottage.3 A French journal of folk-lore contains a long series of folk- tales about these swallowed-up cities, most of which have a moral.4 It is true, the moral may be omitted. Thus, according to Prof. R h y ~ , ~ each of the Welsh meres is supposed to have been formed by the subsidence of a city, whose bells may even now sometimes be heard pealing merrily.

For further European examples see Tobler, Im neuen Rei&, 166 8 (1873); Grimm, Deutsche Mythdogie, 546 A, and cp Usener, Religionsgesckichti. Untersurhungen, 3 246. A story similar to that of Lot told by the Chinese Buddhist pilgrim, Hiouen Tbsang, who travelled in India (7th cent. A.D.), may be added. There was a city called Holaolokia, which was very rich but addicted to heresy. Once an Arahat (one made free 1,y insight) came there, and was treated inhospitably : earth and sand were thrown upon him. Only one man had pity on him, and gave him food. Then said the Arahat to him, 'Escape; in seven days a rain of earth and sand will fall upon the city, and no one will be left, because they threw earth upon me.' The man went into the city and told his relations; hut they mocked him. The storm came, and the man was the only one who, by an underground passage, escaped (Paulus Cassel, Mi.cchie SindAad, 7 [Berlin, 18881).

A similar story is also told in Syria. The well- known Birket RBm, tWo hours from BHniSts, which is evidently the crater of an extinct volcano, is said to cover with its waters a village, whose population, under aggravating circumstances, refused hospitality to a poor traveller. Usually, however, such villages or cities in Arabian legend are classified as mekZ&bit ' overturned ones,' which at any rate implies destruction by other means than a flood ; one thinks a t once of the technical term mnhpikuh ( ' overturning ') used in the O T for Sodom and Goniorrah, and of Job1528 where the wicked man is described as dwelling in desolate cities . . . which were destined to become heaps.' E. H. Palmer tells us6 how the Arabs of the neighbourhood account by a myth for the blocks of stone at the base and on the summit of Jebel Madara ; stones here take the place of the brimstone and fire in our present form of the Sodom-story. Nor is it only in et-Tih that stories of ruined cities are handed down among the Arabs, and that the desolation is accounted for by the

But, a5 A. von Gutschmid (Beitr. ZUT Gesch. des Orients, 26) ointed out the Assyrium stagnum is certainly not the Dead

8ea hut th; lake of Bambyke (Mabug or Hierapolis). 1 'So in effect Pherecydes (Fragnenta, 128). 2 Pausanias 9 36 (Frazer). 3 Tobler (0;. cit.). 4 R e y e des tradifioirs locales, ~Sgg-igoo, 'Les viller cn-

6 The Arfhurian Legend, 3608 5 Desert of the Exodus, 416.

gloutees.

4670

SODOM AND GOMORRAH infidelity and the abominable deeds of the former inhabitants.' Wetzstein (in Delitzsch's fob, Ger. ed. 197) gives a number of such stories ; one of them contains a detail illustrative of the pillar of salt ' which was once Lot's disobedient wife. At the source of the RakkiTd (in the Jauliln) this explorer saw some erect and singularly perforated jasper formations, called el-fan'da, ' the bridal procession.' Near them is its village, Ufina , which, in spite of repeated attempts, can be no more inhabited. It remains forsaken, according to the tradition, as an eternal witness that ingratitude, especially towards God, does not escape punishment.

To put aside such facts (of which only a selection has been given) as irrelevant, and to substitute for them me speculations of ' authorities in natural science' unversed in critical researches, would involve a serious lapse from sound critical method. The case of the Sodom-story is parallel to that of the Creation-story and still more of the Deluge-story, in the Hebrew Origines, t; explain which in any degree by taking account of the subtle theorisings of geologists would detract from the clearness and validity of the approximately correct solutions of the critical problems involved. It is now beyond gainsaying that naive races, in viewing certain striking phenomena of nature, sugges- tive of special divine interventions, are led, by a mental law to form mythic narratives respecting 'calamities which hav; happened to individuals or to populations under circumstances which in the most widely separated regions resemble each other. The Sodom-story in the traditional text can he in its main features explained as such a mythic narrative, and cannot otherwise he accounted for in any way that is not open to well-founded critical objection.

There are no doubt several difficulties which still remain to be dealt with. ( I ) There are some features 6. Difficulties. in the Sodom-narrative which remind

11s of the strange story in Judg. 19 ; the introduction of these features requires explanation. (2) There is one reference (Gen. 143) to the site of the ruined cities which suggests that they were swallowed up by the waters of the Dead Sea ; if the text is correct it appears to contradict the statement in 1924, which makes no reference to a flood. ( 3 ) The expression 'overthrew ' ($?m) in 1925 is, strictly speaking, inconsistent with the representation in v. 24. Blanckenhorn, it is true, has a speculative justification for the expression. But the fact that 'overturning' became the ' technical term ' in literature for the destruction of Sodom may well make us hesitate to follow this eminent geologist. (4) It is almost as difficult to localise Sodom and Gomorrah as to localise Paradise.

It is only on the last of these points that we are tempted at present to dilate; but here we prefer to adopt the clear and full statement (HG, 505-8) of Prof. G. A. Smith. ( I t should be mentioned. however, that the question is, for us, of importance only in so far as it opens up problems as to the successive phases of the Sodom-story. The historical character of the narrative could not be rescued even if the geographical difficulty referred to were removed.)

d There is a much-debated but insoluble question whether the narratives in Genesis intend to place the cities to the N. or to the S . of the Dead Sea. ' For the northernsite there are these arguments-that Abraham

and Lot looked upon the cities from near Bethel that the name Circle of Jordan is not applicahle to the S. end o i the Dead Sea that the presence of five cities there is impossible that th; expedition of the Four Kinxs, as it swept N. fro; Kadesh- Barnea, attacked Hazazon Tamar, which is probably Engedi, hefore it reached the Vale of Siddim and encountered the king of Sodom and his allies; that the name Gomorrah perhaps exists in Tuhk 'A~zr jyek , near =?in el-Feskkhak; and that the name of Zoar has been recovered in TPU ShrigGr.

'On the other hand. however, a t the S . end of the Dead Sea there lay throughout Roman and medieval times a city c d k d Zoara by the Greeks and Znghar by the Arabs, which was identified by all with the Zoar of 1.ot. Jebel Usdum is the uncontested representative of Sodom. Hazazon Tainar may be not Engedi, but the Tamar of Ezekiel, SW. of the Dead Sea. The name '' Kikkar '' may surely have been extended to the S . of the Dead Sea, just as to-day the Ghor is continued for

1 Cp Koran, Sur. 7 99f: 4671

SODOM AND GOMORRAH a few miles to the S . of Jebel Usdum ; Jewish and Arab traditions fix on the S. ; and, finally, the natural conditions are more suitable there than on the N. to the descriptions of the region both before and after the catastrophe, for there is still sufficient water and verdure on the eastern side of the Gh6r to suggest a gul-den of the Lord, while the shallow bay and long marshes may, better than the ground at the N. end of the sea, hide the secret of the overwhelmed cities.

'Such is the evidence for the rival sites. W e can only wonder at the confidence with which all writers dogmatically decide in favour of one or the other. '

It may be added that Grove (in Smith's DBW, art. ' Salt Sea ' ) has argued at length for a northern site as the real one. He is supported by Canon Tristram (Land of ZsrueZ, 360-363) and Prof. Hull (Mount Seir, 165). The latter writes thus, ' From the description in the Bible, I have always felt satisfied that these cities lay in some part of the fertile plain of the Jordan to the N. of the Salt Sea, and to the W. of that river ; and when visiting the ruins of Jericho, and beholding the copious springs and streams of that spot, how applicable to it would be the expression " that it was well- watered everywhere " (Gen. 13 IO), the thought occurred, May not the more modern city (ancient Jericho) have arisen from the ruins of the Cities of the Plain?' W e may add that the name ' Jericho ' most probably comes from nm? (Jeroham, Jarham) = s~~n.1. (JerGmeel).

U p to this point we have accepted the biblical texts in their present form. The gains of the criticism based

of upon these texts haye not been trifling or unimportant ; but the difficulties connected with the story of the de- 19, etc.

struction of Sodom have not all of them been overcome. The passages which have now to be criticised textually are Gen. 1019 1310 14 1917-25 1930 Am. 411 (Is. 1 7 ) Hos. 1 1 8 Zeph. 29 Ps. 116. (a) Gen. 1019 defines the territory of the Canaanite

as extending 'from Zidon in the territory of Gerar, as far as Gaza; in the direction of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim, as far as Lasha.' But can this be right? Zidon, Gerar, Gaza, Sodom, Lasha? That the rest of Gen. 10 has first of all become corrupt and then been manipulated by an ill-informed redactor is clear; can v. IO be an exception? Evidently ' Canaanite ' should be ' Kenizzite,' and most probably the names in v. 196 should be Ishmael, Jerahmeel, Shad.

(6) Gen. 13 IO. The awkwardness of the clause 'before YahwB destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah' has been noticed by critics ; how could Lot know anything of the impending catastrophe ? Other interpolations have also been noticed and yet neither the true limits of the passage, nor its meaning, have been fully understood. If we apply the right key, a full solution of the problem becomes possible. Read-' And Lot lifted up his eyes and beheld that Jer+meel was everywhere well- watered [before Yahwk, etc.], like the garden of Yahwe, [like the land of MiSrim in the direction of Missnr].'a The description derives its points from the circumstance that Paradise was localised by early tradition in the land of Jerahmeel. I t is a most interesting fact that (if our restoration of the text is accepted) Sodom and Gomorrah were, like the primzeval Paradise, placed by Israelitish writers in Jerahmeel.

(c) Gen. 14. The huge difficulties arising dut of this passage are well-known. Critical opinion leans for the most part to the view that it is a post-exilic Midrash in honour of Abraham, but that it contains some material drawn directly or indirectly from a Babylonian sriurce.3

were naturally added after the redactor had succeeded in producing ' Sodom' and 'Gomorrah.'

'2 The words within [ I are interpolated. ' Missur means the ca ita1 of Misrim.. 8 Moore, however, whilst not questioning the present text,

Cp PARADISE, 5 6.

'Admah' and 'Zeboim

4671

SODOM AND GOMORRAH Gunkel evm thinks that the scenes between Abraham and Melchizedek and the king of Sodom sound &e popular tradition. He also remarks that the old tradition speaks either of Sodom and Gomorrah, or of Admah and Seboim;' the combination of the four seems to him to rest on a later fusion of the current traditions. Winckler, too, deals with the question of the names. In D. IO we hear only of the two kings of Sodom and Goniorrah (6 and Sam., a i a y l i ~ i ; the verb is plural). This critic, however, thinks that, as in 18 20 and 19 24, both Sodom and Gomorrah are regarded as subject to the same ruler ; later editors, amplifying as usual, increased the number of kings. Far be it from us to deny the acuteness of previous critics, especially Winckler ; it appears to the present writer, however, that a keener textual criticism is urgently needed to bring out the real, as opposed to the imaginary, problems of the narrative. The true story seems to have stated that in the days of Abram war broke out between Jerahmeel king of Geshur (disguised as ' Shinar ') or Ashhur (disguised as ' Arioch') and Ishmael king of SPlHm (or Se 'u l i i~n?~) . For twelve years the latter had been Jerahmeel's vassal; after this he rebelled. A year passed, and then king Jeragmeel came and made a raid among the Jerahmeelites of Zarephath, Rehoboth, and Kadesh. The king of SdHm came out to oppose him ; but he and his army were put to flight; the city of S&ni was plundered, and Lot was one of the captives. News of this came to Abram the Hebrew, who lived at Rehoboth (miswritten ' Hebron ') and was in close alliance with the Jerahmeelites. At once he called together his Kenite and Jerahmeelite neighbours," pursued the spoilers as far as Rehob in Cushan. and brought back the captives and the property which the spoilers had taken. On his return two kings came ont to meet him. One was the king of ZIKLAG (Halusah?), a specially sacred city. whose king was also priest of the God of Jerahnieel,6 and solemnly blessed Abram-a blessing which Ahrarn acknowledged by the payment of tithes (cp Gen. 2522). The other was the king of SEIHm. who offered Abrani the whole of the recovered property. Abram, however, generously refused this, swearing by Yahw&, the God of Jernhmeel. that he would not commit such a sin against Jerahmeel's land,6 or receive anything that belonged to the king of SelHm, lest the king should thus be entitled to say that he (and not Yahwk) had enriched Abram. Only the clans which accompanied Abram-Eden [Aner], Heles [Eshcol], and Jerahmeel [Mamrel-reqiured their just share of the spoil.

The war was therefore between two branches cf the erah meelite race, and Abram the Hebrew, himself half a ferab: meelite,T interposed in the hour of need for his neighbours and relatives. Selam, generally miswritten D i D (MT Sedom), hut once (v. IS MT Salem), was not situated anywhere near the Dead Sea, but in Jerahmeel. Whether the earlier tradition really knew anything of a place called 'Gomorrah,' is already

thinks the assumption of a special source for the few details about the campaign superfluous (GENESIS, 8 8 ; col. 1677).

1 Admah and Zeboim, however, take the place of Sodom and Gomorrah only in a single passage (Hos. 11 8), which is not free from the suspicion of corruptness.

2 A O F l i o r f i : ; G1226-42. 3 Sa'ul beiug probably a name belonging to the Negeb.

Cp Semii'el, I-qma' 'el. Read in v. 14 t o h y n v ~ l hnni. n'xi ovp-nar wip.1.

'Three hundred and eighteen,' in which Hitzig sees Gematria, and Winckler ( C t 2 27) an astronomical number, is simply due to an editor's manipulation of corrupt repeated fragments of

' ji'jy, like oiiy in 21 33, comes from 5Hani.. 6 ' If from a thread to a shoe-latchet and if I would take

anything,' is impossible. B relieves the c&struction by omitting the second ON!. But the parallelistic arrangement is thus destroyed, and the improbability of the alleged proverb, 'Not a thread nor a shoe-latchet,' remains. Read vi& N P ~ ~ K - D N

7 HYDV'. 'Ishmaelites.'

, -~ ~

!WXIl*.

TENAH. 7 ' Abram'=Ab-raham=Ab.jjaahmeel ; see REKEM and cp

SODOM AND GOMORRAH doubtful. The Vale of Siddim, or rather had-Siddim which the traditional text (v. 3) identifies with a piece of water h i e d ' the Salt Sea,' together with the bitumen-pits also referred to in that text (v. IO) disappears, when the text has been closely examined in the light of results of textual criticism elsewhere.1 See Crit. Bib.

' Zoar, on the SE. edge of the Dead Sea, covered over now by the alluvium, once lay in a well-watered country with a tropical climate. The Israelite tradition is surprised that this little bit of land has escaped the ruin of Sodom, and explains this treatment by the intercession of Lot who desired Zoar as a place of refuge. Thus the legend of Zoar is a geological legend. At the same time it contains an etymological motive ; the city is called So'ar, because Lot said in his prayer, ( ' I t is only mi!'ar (something small)." ' So Gunkel (Gen. 192), according to whom the Zoar episode (including the incident about Lot's wife) is a later offshoot of the legend. We accept Gunkel's analysis (see 2, n. 4), but cannot venture to accept his interpretation of the legend. The stress laid on iyyrn in D. 20 suggests that the real name of the city was irxa, and thus agrees with the view that Sodom was neither N. nor S. of the Dead Sea, but in Jerahmeel. ' Zoar ' therefore, needs emendation into ' Missur. ' a The Zoar-episode has been retouched ; originally it was, not a geological, but an etymological myth.

Zoar-episode that underwent manipula- m enables us with much probability to

answer this question. There are several reasons for suspecting that the text of v. 24 is corrupt. (I) The verb 793 in v. 25, as many critics have remarked, does not accord with the description in our text of v. 24.3 ( 2 ) The reference to bitumen-pits in 1410 (see c) and to 'fire and brimstone' in Ps. 116 (see A) are due to corruption of the text. Taking our passage in connection with Ps. 11 6, we should not improbably emend it thus :-

'And Yahw.5 caused it to rain upon S€liim an$ upon 'Am6rah [and upon] Rehohoth seven days4 from heaven.

This is of importance with regard to the original form of the legend. Note that in v. 25 'those cities' is equivalent to '1333 $ 2 - i z . SNnni; 51, 'all Jerahmeel.' 'Sodom' is not the only cit; which is caught in the net of its own wicked deeds. We cannot but expect a reference to some other place besides Sodom and its appendage Goniorrah. That in the wiginal story the implied accusative to 'caused to rain was, not ' hrimstone and fire,' but 'rain,' is in accordance with D. 25, where 153, 'to overturn,' may be illustrated by Job1215, 'he rends them (the waters) out and they overturn the earth.' ' From Yahwh out of heaven '?as the traditional text reads) has lever yet been adequately justified.5 Tg. Jer. distinguishes letween the Word of the Loyd and the Lord. Similarly the -hristian Council of Sirmium, Pluit Dei filius a Deo patre.'

(e) Gen. 1930. The traditional text is so extraordinary :hat we quote it in full. 'And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him, for he feared to dwell in Zoar ; and he dwelt n a cave, he and his two daughters.' Kautzsch-Socin igree with EV, except that they render i;, 'Gebirge' 'mountain-country); they also remark in a note that M T has ' in the cave ' ( n p ? ) , ' perhaps with reference :o a definite locality whic'h was connected with Lot.' We are then told (D. 3.J ) that, in order to continue the gmily, the two daughters agreed to ' make their father

1 The gloss on n'ivn ? ~ y in n. 3 is so absurd that Winckler :ven identifies the ninn 09 with lake Hiileh in the N. His .heory is a monument of ingenuity, but will not stand. D* i ian surely Comes from o h m i , , and n'ion gay from n3ya i'wi3 (cp a more frequent transformatlon of the latter word- %mi). m n niim niim is simply hnnv 1 . ~ 3 ('by the city of Jerahmeel ').

2 The presumption is that i y r everywhere should he Y~YT,; :ach alleged occurrence, however, needs to be separately considered (see Crit. Bid.).

J According to Gunkel, the raining of hrimstone from heaven s analogous to the Assyrian custom of strewing salt on the site If a destroyed city (cp SALT). But surely when the rain of ximstone fell, Sodom had not been destroyed. Nor can the :ustom referred to (which is really a symbol of consecration, qee Elek. 43 24. and cp SALT, S 3) be illustrative of Yahwt's raining )rimstone.

( d ) Gen. 19 17-25.

Read o n * n y ~ w for mn- n m ~ N I . 5 Ewald (GP-12 223) quotes thls passage in support of the

He compares But it is the tautology that

heory that Yahwk was oriqina!ly a sky-god. Mic. 5 7 161, 'as dew from Yahwk. 5 startling.

4673 4 e 4

SODOM AND GOMORRAH drink wine,' and to 'lie with him.' Gunkel rightly points out that the original narrators of this story can have seen nothing wrong in the transaction ; the circumstances which they have described rendered law and custom inoperative (cp LOT). But the awkwardness of the passage is evident. How could Lot have been afraid to remain in the city which had been divinely granted him as a refuge? One can understand his taking refuge in a cave in the mountains, if he was unaware that Zoar had immunity from destruction : but the present form of narrative is intolerable. And whence was the wine spoken of obtained ? Gunkel proposes to assign v. 30u, together with the rest of the passage relative to Zoar, to a supplementer. But it is not plain why, if the original narrative brought Lot safely to a cave in the mountains, a supplementer should have complicated matters by the introduction of the ' Zoar-episode.' I t would be simpler to omit the cave-episode as an after- thought (to account for the names Moab and Ammon).

But this is not the true remedy, which is-to apply textual criticism. There is a good parallel in I K. 16 4 13, where,another strange story is told about an occurrence ' in the cave ; probably (PROPHET $ 7) iiyn there is a corruption of a place- name, and a b e h f u l donsistency is restored to the legends of Elijah if we emend niya into ngir, 'Zarephath'xboth Elijah and Elisha [see SHAPHAT] were connected with southern Zarephath). It is plausible, therefore, to emend niyn here, too into naiy, comparing Josh. 134, where (see MEARAH) the oriiinal text probably had 'Zarephath that belongs to the Misrim.' To do this, we must make the not improbable assumption that the city which in ZI. 20 the traditional text calls iym, and in vu. zz$, 30 iyy, but which the original text must have called iim (Missur), was more fully called i i x n ngis, ' Zarephath of Missur ' (cp Josh. 13 4, emended text). We shall have to return to this later ([i IO).

The alternative is to suppose that here, but not in the other passages referred to, niyn.is a corruption of Missur. The general sense of the passage IS the same.

These are the two earliest of the passages in which n3mn (cp n!?, Gen. 1925) occurs as a kind of technical term for the legendary destruction of ' Sodom.' In Is. 1 7 the phrase is n.11 nxnn3, but we must, with most critics since Ewald, read n i p 'm (cp Dt. 2922 rz3] Jer. 4918). In Am. 4 IT we find a longer and rather peculiar phrase, ' like Elijhim's overturning of Sodom and Gomorrah' (so also Jer. 5040). This is generally supposed to be due to a consciousness that the Sodom tradition was originally connected not with the religion of Yahwk, but with Canaanite ' heathenism ' ; cp Gen.19zg [PI, 'when Elohim overturned the cities,' etc.

The presumption is, however, that the Sodom-tradition is not of Canaanite but of Jerahmeelite origin. In this case it is not safe to insist that the s t o j was not originally Yahwistic, for it seems probable that Yabwl: was admitted by some of those who dwelt in the Negeb to be the god of the country. Some change in our critical theory is indispensable, and, having regard to what has been said elsewhere, it is not unreasonable to suppose that nmy-nn OTD-nN, wherever it occurs in the phrase referred to is a later insertion, and that the true 'technical phrase' is (;unni* nIgnn3, ' like the catastrophe of Jerahrnee1,'l with the possible alternative of 'n3, ' like the catastrophe of Sodom.'

I t is not probable ( I ) that ' Admah ' and Zeboim ' should be corrupt in Gen. 142 8 and correct in Hos. 11 8, and ( z ) that we should not be told to whom Yahwk (in his present mood) declines to yield up his people. There must be an error in the text ; and, with 1 0 6 before us (where 'Asshur' means the great N. Arabian power, and ' Jareb ' is a corruption of ArHb=Arabia) we can hardly be far wrong in restoring hnm- for nniu3, hynw' for inwu, and ~ n n u for D ~ N X Y ~ . ~ Thus the passage becomes, How shall I give thee up [to] Jeremeel? how shall I surrender thee [to] Ishmael ? '

( h ) Zeph. 29. This very questionable bit of Hebrew needs emendation. Read (after niny3, ' as Goniorrah ' )

1 @*n\u, like p,$y and nhy (see 5 6, n. a), is one of the current distortions of $unm..

2 1 was taken to be a fragment of r ; the final 0 comes from 2. The editor manipulated the corrupt text under the influence of an exegetical theory.

(f) Am. 4 11 Is. 1 7 .

(9) Hos. 11 8.

4675

SODOM AND GOMORRAH n h y i y mnw \unmv nvn, ' Cusham and Jerabmeel (sfla11 be) a desolation for ever.' For us, the principal result of this is that the ' S Q / ~ pits ' (which suggest the neighbourhood of the Dead Sea) disappear.'

The vagueness and also the excessive vehemence of this passage may %ell awaken suspicion. Probably we should read-

The Ishmaelites will give way, the Maacathites, the Keho-

A blast of horror is tlia portion of Cusham.2

( h ) Ps. 116 .

bothites ;

The fignre is taken from the simoom ; there is no thought of the judgment of the 'ruined cities.'

It will be at once noticed that three out of the four still remaining difficulties in the story of Sodom dis- ,. New theory. appear through the above criticism of

I. The cities were really, according to the earlier tradition, overthrown,' not, however, by an earthquake, but by floods of water from that upper ocean which formed a part of the cosmic system of the Hebrews. z. The scene of the catastrophe was, not beside the Dead Sea, but in the land of Jerahmeel, and we are justified in inferring from Gen. 13 IO that it was the district of Eden, where in primeval times the divine wonder-land had been visible, that suffered. I t now becomes inevitable to conjecture that the original story of Sodom, or rather perhaps S&m, was the Deluge-story, or one of the Deluge-stories, of the Jerahmeelites. It is plain that such a story is needed to complete the cycle of racy Jerahmeelite tales of the Or-igines, and in dealing with the Deluge-story in Gen.6-8 we have already found reason to hold that an earlier form of that story may have represented the Deluge as overwhelming the land of the Arabians and the Jerahrneelites, and the ark as settling on the mountains of Jerahmeel (PARADISE, $ 6, col. 3574, cp col. 3573, n. 3). The unexpected coin- cidences between the Deluge-story and the Sodom-story confirm the view tentatively proposed before (PARADISE, Z.C.). W e may take it, therefore, to be extremely probable that the Hebrew as well as, according to J a s t r o ~ , ~ the Babylonian narrative in its earliest form represented the Deluge as originally partial. Let us now trace the parallelisms between the Hebrew and Babylonian Deluge- story and the narrative in Gen. 19 (as emended).

Deluge-story. Gen. 19.

the text.

I. Therighteous rnan,'Noah' I. The righteous man, Lot (6 g), or rather Hanok (see NOAH), or, as the great Babylonian story said, Par-

(19 1-8).

napigtim.

against the city of h i p - 2. [Anger of the divinity 2. [Anger oftheilahimagainst

the city of Sodom (19).] pak.]

of society (6 1 r . 1 3 8 ) . 3. The extreme corruptness 3. The culminating act of

4. The divine revelation 4. The divine revelation

5. A long-continued, destruc- 5. For seven days a destruc- tiverain-storm(7ro-Iz 1 7 8 ) tive rain-storm OD the cities on the land of the Arabians of the whole of Jerahnieel and Jerahmeelites (7 4), or (19 24x1. (with thunder and light- ning) on the Babylonian city of Surippak.4 The latter lasted for seven daw.

wickedness (19 4-11).

(6 13.83 (1912J: cp 182OJ).

~

1 Schwally ( Z A T W 1 0 r s s f l : ) bas already noticed the diffi-

2 See Ps.(zt Note that nygn has been corrupted from

3 Jastrow, who has partly traced the parallelism lpween the Sodom-story and the Deluge-story, writes thus : Moreover, there are traces in the Sodom narrative of a tradition which

culties of MT, but has no adequate emendations.

mim i (CP 4.

once gave a larger character to it, involving the destruction of all mankind much as the destruction of Surippak is enlarged h y Eabvlonian 'traditions into a general annihilation of mankind (RBA 507).

I

4 We assume here that a tradition of a storm which overwhelmed Surippak has been fused with the tradition of a far larger flood in the Deluge-story in the epic of GilgameX (cp DEL~GE, zz ; and especially Jastrow, EsCig. Bad. Ass. 507). That even the former tradition i- historical we are far from asserting. Nor do we deny that the Deluge-&h in its earliest form related to all mankind. See DELUGE. (B 18, 22.

4676

SODOM AND GOMORRAH 6. ‘Noah’and his family de- 6. Lot and his family de.

livered (7 13 236). 7. The ark grounds on the 7. Lot warned to escape to the

mountainsofAram(so read) mountains [of Jerahmeel] -i.e. Jerahmeel (8 4), or (19 17). (B.ab;lonian) on the mountain of Nisir.

livered ( le 153).

To these parallelisms we may add though with some reserve, the parallelism between Hanak (doch) father of Methuselah (= hfethusael= Ishmael) and grandfathe; of Lamech (= Jerah- meel), and Lay, nephew or perhaps originally (cp 14 14 16) brother of Abraham (=Ahrabm= Father of Jerahmeel) and father of Moah (rather, Mi5gur ?) and Ammon (rather, Jerah- meel‘?). This parallelism is of importance, not for the story itself, but for ascertaining the particular ethnic origin of the story. It is not appropriate that the escaped righteous man (who in the earliest Deluge-myth was a solar hero) should have r.ny further concern with this earth. If Hanak (mythologically) was the father of iMethuselah (Ishmael) and Lot the father of hIissur and Jerahmeel, it must in the oiiginal story have been hefire thc Deluge. And even if Noah (Naham?) was really the name of the hero of the Deluge-story in chaps. 6-7, Naham is certainly a name of the Negeh (see NAHAM, NAHAMANI). Altogether, nothing can be more probable than that those who first arranged the Hebrew legends had their minds full of Jerah- meelite associations. We can now fully appreciate the remark of Gunkel (Gen. 195) that since the story of Sodom says nothing at all of water, although the site so strongly suggested this, it is plain that the scene of the narrative must originally have been elsewhere. Of course, the present place of the story and much besides is due to a skilful redactor.

It is true, the name of the hero is different. But there were presumably different forms of the Jerahmeelite as well as of the Babylonian Flood-story. Probably enough, there was another version in which Abraham was the hero ; comparing Gen. 8 I ( ’ God remembered Noah ’ ) with 1929 ( ’ God remembered Abraham ’), one may, in fact, not unnatnrally expect that Abraham, not Lot, should be the chief personage of the second story. The visit of the eldhim to Abraham is an uncffaced indication that he originally was so. Cer- tainly, something can still be said for Lot, who may originally have been greater than he now appears, and have been a worthy brother (see above) and rival of Abraham. nut this is a pure conjecture, and one might even infer from 137-9 that Abraham and Lot originally belonged to the class (well represented in ancient legends) of host ik brothers,’ and that Abraham corresponds to Abel (cp Remus) and Lot to Cain (cp Koniulus).

It is also true that in chap. 19 there is nowhere any trace of an underlying reference to the box ’ or ‘ chest ’ (a term specially characteristic of an inland country) in which the survivors were preserved, and that in 1928 Abraham is said to have seen ‘ the smoke of the land going up as the smoke of a furnace.’ But on the first point we may answer that if only Lot and his family were to be saved, no ark was necessary ; the ‘ Sl6him ‘ would convey the small party to a place of safety. And as for the other point, we must, a t any rate, credit the last redactor with enough capacity to adjust a muti- lated narrative to his own requirements.

Stucken has offered another explanation of the legend which now occupies US.^ According to him, the Sodom-

The legend might have taken this turn.

8. Stucken’s and-Gomorrah-story was originally a ‘ dry ’ Deluge-story-i. e . , a legend of the

,dry, deiuge. destruction of men by other means than R

flood ; such a story he finds in the Iranian theory . a

legend of the Var (or square enclosure) constructed by Kina (see DELUGE, 206). in the Peruvian and other stories of a general conflagration, and in the Egyptian story of the destruction of men by the gods3 Whether the combination of stories which refer to water with those which make no such reference is either theoretically or practically justified, may be questioned ; but we may, at any rate, admit that if the present text of Gen. 1924 correctly represents the original story, the singular

1 Stucken, however (AsfraZinyfken, 87) points out that the distinction between friendly and hostile brothers in mythology is a fluid one.

2 Astralmytlten. 96. 3 See Naville, TSBA 4 1-19 ; cp Maspero, Dawn of Ciu.

1 6 4 8

4677

SODOM AND GOMORRAH Egyptian story referred to is the nearest parallel to it. Here the ‘ Divine eye’ is the executioner ; it takes the form of the goddess Hathor, and slays men right and left ‘with great strokes of the knife.’ It seem to us, however, ( I ) that it is much more probable that the Jerahmeelites had two forms of a proper Delnge-story than that one of the extant Deluge-stories was only such in a loose sense of the term, especially having regard to the Babylonian Flood-stories, and (2) that the difficulties of Gen. 1924f: call loudly for the application of textual criticism.

Stucken seems happier in his explanation’ of the - _ 9, Judg. 19 15-30 parallelism between Gen. 19 1-11 and

He the stranEe story in Tudg. 19 15-30. thinks that both stories hive thLsame mythological ker- nel-viz., the tradition of the dividing of the body of the primreval being Tiamat (thepersonifiedocean-flood), with which compare also a series of myths of the division ot the bodies of supernatural beings (e.g., Osiris). It is in fact all the more difficult to believe that Gen. 191.11 and Judg. 1915-30 stand at all early in the process of legendary development, because both the stories to which these passages belong are ultimately of Jerah- meelite origin. This may be assumed in the former case ( I ) from the place which the ‘Sodom‘-story occupies among legends that are certainly in their origin Jerahmeelite, and (2) probably from the legend of the origin of ‘ MisSur’ and ‘ Jerahmeel’ (so read for ‘ Moab ’ and ‘ Ammon ’ in 19 37 f: ) which is attached to the Sodom’-story. And it is hardly less clear a deduction in the latter case from the results of textual criticism. For the story in Judg. 19-20 can be shown to have referred originally not to Benjamin but to some district of the Jerahmeelite Negeb.a

So far as the outward form of the story is concerned, our task is now finished. Now to resume and, if need

lo. Result. be, supplement. Originally, it seems, there was but one visit of the Eldhim ;

it is to Abraham, not to Lot, that the visit was vouchsafed. Abraham ( L e . , in the Jerahmeelite story, a personification of Jerahmeel) was the one righteous man in the land. H e received timely warning that those among whom he sojourned had displeased God, and the Elohim took him away to be with God. Then came a rain- storm submerging all Jerahmeel. This original story, however, received modifications and additions. Lot or Lotan. the reputed son, not of Seir the Horite, but probably of MisSur the Jerahmeelite, was substituted for Abm- hanr, and a floating story of mythic origin (the myth spoke of violeuce done to a supernatural being) was attached to the story of Lot in a manipulated form, so as to explain and justify the anger of the Eldhim. After this a legend was inserted to account for the name MiSsur ; Lot had taken refuge at MiSsur. by divine permission, because it was but a ‘little’ city, and again another legendwas added to record the circumstance that the people of Missur and Jerahmeel were descended from that righteous man,3 who with his two daughters alone remained (the removal of the hero to the company of the El6him had been forgotten) in the depopulated land. (Tlfe names were afterwards corrupted. ) Finally, a corruption in the text of 1924 suggested that the scene of the story must have been in that ‘ awful hollow,’ that ‘ bit of the infernal regions come to the surface ’ which was at the southern (?) end of the Dead Sea. And the singular columnar formations of rock-salt at Jebel Usdum (cp DEAD SEA. 5 5 ) to which a myth resembling that of Niobe (originally a Creation myth ?) may perhaps already have 1 Stucken, op. cif., w f i 2 There was probahly a confusion between 7,nyi (Benjamin)

and (x-ip = hcnl,-ii. nlln’ O h fl.3 (l3e;hlehem-judah)= 3~nm, n-1 (Beth-jerahmeel). The ‘ Gibeah’ of the story was perhaps the erahmeelhe Geba (Gibeah?) mentioned in 2 S. 5 25 (cp D. 22, anJsee’RmwAIM). The ‘Bethel ’ in Judg. 2018 is the southern Bethel, repeatedly spoken of b Amos (see PROPHETIC LITERATURE, S i IO, 35). Sec C d . Biz 3 The genealogists often vary in particulars of relationship.

4678

sin-sodom and gomorrah

Documents