Encyclopaedia Biblica/Chamberlain-Chronicler

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Encyclopaedia Biblica
Thomas Kelly Cheyne and John Sutherland Black
see Encyclopaedia Biblica for other articles, typographic issues, links to PDF copies, and public domain status



In Esth. I1012 etc., EV uses 'chamljerlain ' (for D'lD), perhaps as a more English- sounding title than Eu.NUCH [q.v.\ On Jer. 51 59 (AV"'K- 'chamlxirlain') sc-e Skraiaii [4].

Blastus, in Acts 12 20, is a court officer in ch.irge of the king's bedchamljcr (o rt toO xotTufot toO fiactKiut^); but in Rum. Its 23 oiKoraMOt (AV ' chanil>erlain ') is used in a wide sense (R V 'treasurer'); cp I,at. arcariut, and a gloss of Philox., o 'iri njt iimo<ri'ac rpant^r)^. The same title occurs in iiiM.ripiions (cp Marni. Oxon. 85, ed. 1732, NciAu oixofOfiai '.Vcriat ; see W. A. Wright in .Smith's DH^'i^ s.v.).


(ID'H nnn). Job 99, and probably 879 (emended text). See SfAKS, 3 r, EARTH, FOUR QUARTERS OF, 2(_ia).


i. RV Land-crocodii.e (HS, etym. uncertain), one of the reptiles mentioned as unclean in Lev. 11 30. 6 (x&AAAiAetON [KE]. x&mh. [BA]) and Vg. [chatmrlcon) have the same rendering as AV ; the Arabic version has hardaun, which means probably a species of land -crocodile. Bochart (Ifieroz. 43) argues from the Hebrew name, which is the same as the word for ' strength,' that what is me.uit is the Arabic -uHiral, the largest and most powerful sort of lizard. The Talnmdic references, on the other hand, seem to point to a smaller animal ; but they are too general to convey any definite information (Lewysohn, Zoologie da Talmuds, 223/.). N. M.

2. AV MOLE (ncr:B) in the same verse. See Lizard, 6.


("ICT, derivation uncertain, cp Lexx.; KAMHAon&pAAAic[B.\FL], Dt.l 45!). a 'clean' animal, nienti<Mied along with the fallow-deer (S*k), the roebuck ('3S and -flon'). the wild goat (ipj*), the addax ([irn), and the antelope (ikb) ; see Clean, 8. Many ancient interpreter.- {, Vg. , Arab. , .Abulw. , Kimhi, etc. ) thought that what .vas meant was the giraffe ; but the home of the giraffe lies far away from Palestine. A more probable rendering is the ,xs'T or ' w ild goat ' of the Targums, which suits the context better. 1 he chamois (Rupicapra tragus) extends from the I'yrenees to the Caucasus, but is not known to have ever inhabited Palestine, whereas of mountain sheep and goats there have been found three kinds. Tristram and Post think that zcmer may be the wild sheep [Oiii tragelaphus) ; but, though that sheep lives in Northern Africa, and an allied or identical s{x;cies occurs in .Arabia, it is doubtful whether it has lived in Palestine. See Goat.

X. M.


For i S. 17 4 23 EV (D'32n -J'^N) see Goliath, 2. For 1 S. 17 51 EV (113^) see War and cp Giant, 3.


(xanaan) .\cts 7 n 13 19 Judith 5 3 etc. AV, RV Canaan; and Chanaanite (xananaioc) Judith5i6 AV, R\' Canaanite.


(DIt: hv^), Ezra4 8^ SeeREnUM, 5.


RV Chanuneua (xanoynaioc [B.V'Ji, I i:sd. 848 = E/.ra8io, .Mkkaki, 3.


(C;JPP). Am. 7 13 -^V, RV Sanctiary (if.v. ). Cp Bethel, 3, . For i Mace. 1 47 2 Mace.

10 2 11 3 .AV see SANCTUARY.


(xA(J)eNAeA l^^^l). 1 Mace. 21 37 RV, .\V Cahhenatha.


(i.e., capitellum ; 'capital': so Amer. RV).

(') B'^i^. f^^y of '^e heads of the pillars in P's account of the tabernacle (Ex.3638 881719; UAiL Ke<j>a\L^). See Taber- nacle.

(2) T\'y\2, kOthJreih (\/T]3 'to surround,' whence 1713 'crown') is used (a) of the crowning portion of Solomon's pillars Jachin and HoAZ (i K. 7 16-20, iirCdttia (H.\L] ; 2 K. -lb 17, xui9ap [HA], inieetia [L] ; 2 Ch. 4 12/, -peS [HA], -pcuS [L] ; Jer. 52 22, ytltroi [HK.AQ], <ce</>aAiSe? [Q'"*.']); see Pillar : and(/')in the descrip- tion of Solomon's ' bases ' for the lavers(i lC.7 3i); but see Layer.

(3) nS;i, s^pheth (\/nSi 'to overlay'), also of the crowning portion of Solomon's pillar (2 Ch. 3 15, bal doubtful). See Pillar.

(4) "liBM, kaphtdr (deriv. uncertain) occurs with the same meaning, if we are to follow RV and AV"ig- (Amos9i, to XKaa- rrjpiov [BQ>g] = n']23, 0v<TLa<rTrjpLOV [AQ*] = ri3Ta ; Zeph.214; Toi <t>a7vu)ii.aTa [BX.\Qr]). But /-a/A/^r elsewhere has a different sense (see Candlestick, 2). Read perhaps mnis (Che.).


RV for n^f? Prov. 1949! (AV 'ornament' ; CTe4)ANOc)- Wisdom isa chaplet, or wreath, or garland of grace, upon a man's brow. Chaplets or garlands of flowers were common in the second century B.C., at banquets (Wisd. Sol. 28 cp 3 Mace. 48): see Meals, 11. f'or the chaplets of bridegrooms, see Crown. Of similar import are the ariiiixara of Acts 14 13 (EV ' garlands '), the usual headgear of sacrificers to Zeus.

Some critics hold that there is a hendiadys in the passage and that the meaning is raupous e<rTe;a;u.eVovs (garlanded oxen). Ornaments resembling crowns were placed on royal animals by the Assyrians (cp also Ksth. 08 and see Crown), and on victims for t!ie altar. 'The very doors, the very victims and altars, the very servants and priests, are crowned ' (Tertul. >e Cor. x.).


(xApAAeA\Ap [A]), lEsd. 536 = Ezra '259 = Neh. 76i. See Cherub (ii. ).


RV Char.'vx (ton X^PAKA [VA], a town in Gilead, with a Jewish colony (2 Mace. 12 17, see Ton), described as 750 stadia from C.\sphon {q.v.). The distance must be exaggerated. About 120 stadia NE. from Muzeirib appear el Hurak and el Hureiyik.

G. A. S.


{a) iCh. 414 (RV Gk-h.vrashim), called in (b) Neh. 11 35 ' the valley of craftsmen ' (RV'"*.'- Ge-uaharashim). In [a) MT has D'cnn N'3 ; in {b) 'nn 'J.^ The fundamental rendering of is 777 apaaeifji, which assumes various distorted forms. ^ In i Ch. I.e. this valley is described as occu- pied by craftsmen (workers in wood, stone, or metal ; cp EV'"B), who traced their origin to Kenaz. The ' father ' or founder of the family was Joab b. Seraiah. According to Kittel's analysis, however, the words ' father of the valley of craftsmen, for they were craftsmen,' are a later addition to an old record (Chron. in SBOT). If so, it becomes easier to admit that the name D-tnn N'J must be corrupt. The statement of the Talmud (Jer. , Meg. 1 r) that Lod and Ono were situated in the Ge- harashim is surely impossible. The ' plain of Ono ' (Neh. 62) is the natural phrase. Most probably 'j (ge) is a corrupt fragment of <33 [b'/ie], and the name originally meant, not 'valley of craftsmen,' but 'sons of sorcerers,'* i.e. , members of a guild of sorcerers. It was a spot connected by ancient tradition with Philistine sorcery (cp Is. 16 Mic. 7i3). Conder's identification, therefore {PEFQ, '78, p. 18) falls to the ground.

T. K. c.


i Esd. 1 25 AV and CHAR-CHEMISH, 2 Ch. 3520 AV. See Carchemish.


(anGpakia [Ti. WH]), Jn. 18 18 2I9 R\'"'K. See Coal, 3.


(Baxoyc [B]). 1 Esd. 532 AV= Ezra 2 53. Bakkos.

1 The pointing is exceptional ; the ' effect of analogy ' (KSnig, i. Ih9)? Dirferently Olsh. 348. R.ither corruption of the text.

'^ In I Ch. 4 14 ayeaSSaet'p [B], yijv patrei^i [A], (f>apai [L] ; in Neh. 11 35 Y^ apa(r[]i/x [ c.a nig. inf. L], om. B<*A.

3 In Is. 33 cx'nn = ' charmers' ; cp RV"'*,'-.


(xApeA [A]), i Esd. 5 32 = Ezra 2 53, Haksha,


a somewhat archaic expression denoting a 'platter' (which, indeed, takes. its place in the Amer. Vs. of OT), is employed by the EV to render :

(i) iViyp, ie drd/i (Nu. 7 13 19 and throughout the chapter [P] ; Tpu/SAioi' as in Mt. 2623 Mk. 14 2o), the tabernacle offering given by the heads of the tribes, elsewhere rendered ' dish.' See Meals, 9.

(2) ^'}}^,, 'igartdl ; 'chargersof gold .. of silver," enumerated among the temple vessels restored by Cyrus (Ezra 1 9, om B,l \livKriipei, i.e., wine-coolers [AL], phialce [Vg.]; || i Esd. '2 13, <x-Kovh\i\ia. [BAL]). Agdrtdl (yi\\\Qh is found with slight varia- tions in Aram., MH, and Arab.) is taken to be a loan-word from the Hellen. Or. )cdpTaA[A]o9 'basket'; cp Basket.2

(^) TTiVaf (.Mt. 148 II Mk.(i25 28), the dish upon which was brought the head of John the Baptist ; Lk. 11 39, EV 'platter,' along with 'cup.' See Meals, 9. In Mt. 23 25 7rapoi//ts.


(naa-ip, nS-ip. nDn).

1 Names[edit]

Of the three Heb. words denoting ' chariot ' merkdbh is post-exilian (^ ^- ^^ [4 26]). It is employed in Lev. log and Cant. 3 10 for the seat of the chariot or palanquin ( iwLaayfjLa [another transl. has KdOicr/xa'], i-n-ifiacns [Vg. Rashi]). In nearly every case rckhebh is used collectively for a body of chariots. The instances where it is employed to denote a single chariot (like merkabhdh) are comparatively few (Judg. 528 2 K. 921 24). Occasionally it designates the chariot-horses and riders (2 S. 10x8), or the horses only (2 S. 84 ; cp Is. 21 7 9). On the other hand, merkdbhah expresses the individual chariot, Ass. narkabtu, Ar. markahat"" , Syr. markabhtha all alike derived from the common Semitic root [rakhabh), to mount or ride, and corre- sponding in meaning to Latin currus and Greek &pfj.a.. The word in Heb. is frequently employed, not in a purely military sense, but to denote a state carriage or travelling conveyance. Examples of this use may be found in Gen. 41 43 4629 Lev. 1.^9 i K. 12 18 and Is. 2? (?).

2. Waggons[edit]

FlG. I. Assyrian Cart (temp. Tiglath-pileser III.). Brit. Mus. Nimrud Gallery, no. 84.

This word must be kept quite distinct from another term, 'agdldh (,-i^jj,'), ' cart ' or ' waggon, ' employed in the conveyance of agricultural produce (Am. 213).^ The cart was employed in very early times by the Israelites (i .S. 67 2 S. 63) before chariots were introduced among them. Its form probably approximated to that of the accompanying figure (fig. i), taken from one of the reliefs of Tiglath-pileser III. Each cart holds three occupants and is drawn by two oxen ; the wheels have eight spokes. A still more primitive kind of cart, employed by the Asiatic nations, possessed wheels which con- sisted simply of circular discs, whilst the earliest and most primitive form of all consisted in a mere frame- work with ' a board or seat, placed between two asses to which it was strapp>ed, on which the person sat as

1 The first word in fw XP""<" k.t.A. [B, om. AL], has per- haps come in by mistake for kB" representing the evvfd Kal eiKoo-i at the end of the verse ; so H. A. Redpath (in a private communication).

2 But Kap' itself is possibly a Pers. or Sem. loan-word (BBM, s.v. ; cp Frii. Aram. Fremdva. jT_f.).

3 The poetical use of this word (in the pi.) for war-chariot in Ps. 469 [10] is isolated; indeed, the text is not undisputed (see Weapons). On Am. 213 see al.so Agkicultuke, 8.

on an open liuer' (Dr. Samuel IJirch). The appended illustration (fig. a), taken from a nionunient belonging to the fourth Kgyplian dynasty, clearly exhibits this earliest nuxle of conveyance. It should Ix remembered that in the luxst camels, asses, and mules are more convenient and general as a means of transport, both for burdens and for human beings, than are wheeled vehicles ; and this was specially true of ancient times.

3. War-chariots introduced late.[edit]

Fig. 2. Ancient Eg>ptian conveyance (4lh dyn.) After Wilkinson.

The subject of the present article, however, is mainly the War-chariot. The striking fact that the ancient Hebrews for centuries refused to employ so valuable a military aid as the chariot, in their encounters with the Canaanites was due to several co-operating causes.

First among these was the nomadic origin and character of early Israel. The Cana.-inites, like the Egyptians, may have borrowed the form of their chariots from their northern neighbours, the Syrians or Hittites. This, however, is by no means certain, for among the Amarna Tablets, we have a despatch to the Egyptian monarch from one of his vassals in Canaan, in which the latter, in anticipation of an invasion by the Hittites, requests the aid of chariots and troops from the king of Eg)pt. ' Not improbably, therefore, Egypt may have Ijeen the pro.ximate source whence Caiiaanite civilisation borrowed the chariot. From Josh. 17 16 Judg. 43, however, we learn that the Canaanite war-chariot was plated or studded externally with iron, a feature which seems to l)e more probably Hittite than Egyptian.-

4. Hill-country unsuitable.[edit]

A second reason why Israel _... . remained destitute of this imjxjrtant ^^1:^,^^.^ j^ (^ ^ found in the physical configuration of Canaan. Dunng the earlier period of the Hebrew occupation, the district seized by the sons of Jacob was the central or mountainous region, where chariots and cavalry could not easily operate. Interesting illustrations of this difficulty in emjiloying chariots may be derived from the inscriptions of Tiglath-pile-ser I. {circa iioo B.C.). In Prism Inscr. col. ii. 70-74 we read : ' mighty mountains and difficult country I passed through so far as it could be traversed, in my chariot ; and that which could not be traversed, on foot. By the mountain Aruma, unsuited for the advance of my chariots, I left my chariots behind ..." (Winckler in A"/? i ; cp also col. iii. 47-49). How difficult the Canaanites found it to make effective use of them against the Israelites, may be inferred from the later experience of the Syrians, who attributed their constant defeats to the fact that the deities of the Hebrews were potent in the mountainous country (i K. 20 23) whilst their own operations, which were largely carried on with cavalry and chariots (cp v. 21 and Shalmaneser II. 's Obelisk Inscr. 65, Monolith Inscr. col. ii. 90), would be successful only in the plains. It can readily tx; understood, therefore, how the Hebrew race, by clinging to the central mountainous region and not venturing too far into the Shephtlah or low country, as well as by dint of sheer braver}' and the skilful u.se of bow, sling, and spear, were able, down to the time of David, to defy successfully the armies of Canaan and Syria.

1 Cited by Zimmern in ZDPy 13 134^

2 See the representation of a chariot of the Rutennu, figured in Wilkinson, Anc. Mg: 1 230, in which the four-spokeii wheel, as well as the body of the chariot, is evidently plated with metal ; and cp Iron, | 2.

5. Religious conservatism.[edit]

A third reason was that religion in its tendency, ever conservative of a nation's past sanctioned the ancient custom of warf;ire, and regarded horses and chariots as a foreign innovation corrupting Israel's allegiance to Yahwe. This view, constantly reflected in prophecy (Hos. I7 14 4 [3] Mic. 59[ioJZech. 9io), becanieembxxlied in the Ueuteronomic legislation (Dt. 17 16), and expressed in song (Fs. 2O7). When, however, under Uavid, Israel became an aggressive state and entered into conflict with Syrian and Hittite cavalry and chariots in the plains, the stress must have been severely felt by the Hebrews, and it is not surprising that chariots and horsemen were gradually introduced into Israel's military service. This is clear from 2 S. 84, where, following , we should restore S^ (' for himself ; ontitted in MT from religious scruples) ; the passage means that David reserved 100 chariots and horsemen for his own use. His successor, Solomon, is said to have provided Israel with 1400 war chariots, which were quartered in sp)ecial cities (i K. 9 19 10 26 ; see Hkth-makcahoth). In his reign the purchase of horses and chariots Ixicame an organised trade ; they were imported (though Winckler denies this ; see Mizkaim, 2 [a]) from Egyjjt, at the cost of 600 shekels, or about ;^8o for each chariot ' (v. 28/.). From this time onwards we constantly read of chariots and horsemen both in the northern and in the southern kingdom (i K. I69 2234 2 K. 821 13? Is. 2? Mic. 59 [Heb. ]). In col. ii. 91 of Shalmaneser ll.'s great monolith inscription we are startled to find that Ahab's contingent of chariots, 2000 in number, largely exceeded that of any other state in the confederacy that encountered the Assyrian army at Karkar in 854 B. r. (cp Ahab, 7). From Is. 30i6 31 1 369 we may infer (with Kamphausen) that the supply of chariots and horses from Eg)pt was one of the grounds of alliance between that power and Judah.

6. Egyptian chariots[edit]

Since Egypt was the land from which the Hebrews obtained their supply of this arm, we turn to its monuments for illustrative material ; and this we obtain in abundance from the eighteenth dynasty onwards (vol. vi. m I.cpsius Denkmciler). Before the eighteenth dynasty ( 1 500 B.C.) chariots and horses were unknown in Egypt, and there is good evidence to show that they were borrowed from the North Palestinian race called Rutennu.* The Egyptian chariot usually contained two persons. Nowack (HA 1 367), however, is wrong in his a.ssertion that this was invariably the case. In Lepsius' Denkmdler (Abth. iii. Bl. iS7f) ^'^ have numerous illustrations of chariots with three figures. According to Sir Gardner Wilkinson, however, this was not common, except in triumphal processions, ' when two of the princes or noble youths accompanied the king in their chariot, bearing the royal sceptre, or the flabella, and required a third person to manage the reins." On the other hand Hittite chariots frequently contained three occupants (see below, 9). Lepsius [Denkmdler, Abth. iii. Bl. 160) exhibits figures of Eg>ptian chariots in which the right-hand warrior lx:ars the bow while the left carries the shield. Here, as in many other cases, we find the reins tied round the body of one of the combatants while he is engaged in action. On another page (BL 165) we have a chariot with the soUtary royal occupant, Rameses II. , drawing the bow, while the reins of his two horses are tied around his middle. Indeed, one of the most striking features in these vivid scenes of combat, is the multiplicity of functions discharged by the chariot rider.

1 In I K. IO28 (2 Ch. I16) the text is ver>' uncertain in the latter part of the verse. In MT of i K. IO28 we read .tipo? "!TO3 nipp injp^ -l^sri nn:. h .seems simplest with Kamph. (in Kau. HS) to cancel the first nipa a"'! '" render the whole verse ' And the export of the horses of Solomon was from Egypt > and the royal merchants used to fetch a troop for pa;>-ment. This is certainly preferable to the other suggestion, to which Ki. in his note on 2 Ch. 1 16 (SBOT) refers viz., to make a trans- position and read . . . Kijao Kipo l^Cn "inai ' the king's traders getting every time a troop . . .' This use of the distributive construction is very forced. Ki. himself finds a reference in nii::icl to Kue ;.f., E. Cilicia. See the note referred to and cp MiZRAIM, S 2 (d).

2 Sayce (traces 0/ the OT 123/ 134) has shown that thU Egj'ptian name included the Hittites. It is signific.-nt that the Palestinian peoples chiefly associated chariots with the Hittites and the Eg^'ptians; 3 K. 76 (on which, however, se Ahab, I 6).

Fig 3- Egyptian Archer (Thebes). After Wilkinson.

The accompanying figure (fig. 3) exhibits an archer in the act of drawing his bow with the right hand. A whip consisting of a stick handle with leather thong attached, is suspended from his wrist, while round his waist are fastened the horses' reins.

It is obvious from the representations which portray the manufacture of different portions of the Egyptian chariot, that it was almost entirely constructed of wood. It was light and open from behind, so that it could be easily mounted, and consisted of ' a wooden framework, sometimes strengthened and ornamented with metal and leatlier binding. The tlat bottom was formed of a kind of network, consisting of interlaced thongs or rope, which gave it elasticity and mitigated the jolting ' (Wilkinson).

The occupants of a chariot nearly always stood. In rare instances the car was provided with a seat in which the royal personage sat. The furniture consisted of a bow-case, which was placed in a slanting position pointing forwards, and was often ornamented with the figure of a lion. There were also receptacles for arrow's and spears, which, as a general rule, slanted backwards (see fig. 4).

The diameter of the wheel was a little over three feet. The felloe was in si.x pieces and the tire was fastened to it by bands of hide passing through long narrow holes. 'The yoke, resting upon a small, well-padded saddle, w.xs firmly fitted into a groove of metal ; and the saddle, pl.iced upon the horse's withers, and furnished with girths and a breastband, was surmounted by an ornamental knob ; and in front of it a small hook secured the bearing rein. The other reins passed through a thong or ring at the side of the saddle, and thence over the projecting extremity of the yoke, and the same thong secured the girths.' Further details may be found in Sir Clardner Wilkinson's exhaustive work, from which the above description has been borrowed.

7. Assyrian chariots: in 9th cent.[edit]

Fig. 4. Egyptian chariot with bow and arrow-cases (Thebes). After Wilkinson.

The chariots of the Assyrians were of stouter and more solid construction than those of the Egyptians, since the former were intended to sustain the w-ear and tear of rough and rugged paths in distant campaigns. Thus we often find that the tires and felloes of the wheels amounted together to as much as eight or ten inches in thickness. In the early part of the ninth century B.C. we find chariots of this description employed by Asur-nasir-pal. Upon the obelisk of this monarch we find the archer standing on the right hand and the driver on the left, and these are their respective positions in nearly all the examples depicted on the Assyrian monuments. We observe, moreover, in all the portrayals belonging to the ninth century and the early part of the eighth, that the two receptacles for arrows are placed on the right side, and are disposed crosswise over one another, and in a slanting position as in the Egjptian examples. We notice, in one case depicted in Asur-nasir-pal s obelisk, an attendant on foot bearing a shield, and holding the reins. This meets us again on one of the monuments of Tiglath-pileser III.

Fig. 5. Hunting-chariot of A5ur-nasir-pal. Brit. Mus. NimrOd Gallery.

Vivid representations of the chariots of this period may be found in the reliefs of the Nimrud gallery in the British Museum. One excellent example, rej^rotluced in the accompanying figure (fig. 5), is borrowed from a hunting-scene in which the monarch Asur-nasir-pal is engaged. Note that we have here, as in many other instances of this period, three horses a contrast with Egyptian usage, in which the number never exceeded two. The pole of the chariot is fixed to the base of the ' body,' to the upper part of which is fastened, on the left, a large heavy shaft ^ attached to rings upon the shoulder-pieces of the central as well as the outer horse on the left side. The rein on the right-hand steed passes through a ring on his shoulder, and is attached to the bit. The use of bits with ancient Egyptian, as well as Assyrian, war-horses can admit of no doubt. As in other examples, the two receptacles for arrows cross each other slantwise on the right side of the chariot for that was obviously tlie side on which the archer most conveniently stood, thus preserving his right hand and side unencumlx;red by his companion in the use of the bow. A battle-axe stands among the arrows in one receptacle, whilst an extra bow is inserted among those in the other. We notice in this example, as in all others portrayed on the monuments of this period, that the axle of the wheel, as in the Egyptian chariot, is placed under the hindermost extremity of the body of the vehicle, in order to ensure more steadiness ; con- sequently part of the weight of the chariot and its occu- pants rested on the horses. In another specimen on the reliefs of this period we again observe three steeds harnessed to the chariot, while in this case the driver holds a whip. Near the front of the chariot, between the two occupants, rises a pole surmounted by a sym- bolic device, from which hang ornamented tassels. In other examples a spear may be seen in the receptacle that slopes backwards. Often the horses are richly ornamented with crests, sometimes with a necklace- or collar. Leather straps pass beneath and in front of the animal. We find tassels hanging down apparently from a metal boss on its side. Otherwise the animal is unprotected.

1 Weiss (in Kostiimkunde under the head of Ass)Tian chariots) describes this as merely 'a broad strip of cloth or leather,' but confesses that it is obscure as to its nature or purpose. The present writer's personal inspection of numerous examples in the Nimrud gallery leads him to regard it as much more solid in structure, and as probably intended to yoke the third steed to the other two horses. When a third horse ceased to be yoked to the chariot, at the close of the eighth cent., this large and heavy shaft no longer encumbered the Assyrian chariot.

2 Not improbably this contained amulets or charmSj like the crescents on the camels' necks in Judg. 8 21. See \Vhitehoiise, Primer of Hebrew A ntiguities, yt/. and footnote.

8. In 8th cent.[edit]

Fig. 6. State-chariot of Sentuicherib. Brit. Mus. Nimrod Gallery.

Among the reliefs of Tiglath-pileser III. we observe a state-chariot with two horses and three occupants. There is no archer. The king stands on the right and the driver on the left. The driver has three reins in each hand, a whip in his right. In front stands an attendant holding the reins. The monarch is shaded by an umbrella. We notice two new points. The receptacle for arrows stands upright. Also the wheels are now njuch enlarged, being aljout 49 feet in diameter, with tire and felloes of considerable thickness. Mr. T. G. Pinches is disposed to think that the inner rim of the wheel was of metal, and appearances would seem to justify this conclusion. It is pxjssible, however, that we have here plating, not solid metal.

The state chariot of .Sennacherib, which we here repro- duce (fig. 6), exhibits wheels at least 4^ feet in diameter, with eight spokes. We notice the thickness of the tire and felloes, and the metal studs or nails on the outer circumference. .\ large umbrella is fi.xed in the chariot. Here the driver is on the right hand, the king on the left. We also observe no receptacle for arrows, lx)w, or battle-axe ; from the close of the eighth century onwards the archers become dissociated from the chariots ; in the tinie of Aur-bani-pal they usually constitute a separate corps.'

1 In one case, however (45), we have a single -horse chariot carrying two archers with quivers on their backs. Moreover, the large upper shaft to which reference has been made dis- appears altogether from the time of Sennacherib onwards. Not more than two horses are harnessed to the chariot. Also it becomes simpler in form, while the wheels become larger. In the repre-sentation of ASur-bani-pal's war against Klam (Nimrud gallery <S, 49) we observe that the wheels have as many as twelve spokes. In some cases there is only a single occup-int. In others there are several occupants, and an umbrella is fixed in the chariot when it conveys a royal personage or some nobleman of distinction.

9 Hittite chariots[edit]

Fig. 7. Hittite Chariot. After Meyer.

Of the Ilitlitc chariot we obtain the clearest con- ception fronj Egyptian portrayals, and a special interest ^'"S^ * '^ because it is probably to be ^S^"'*-"*^ ^^ '^^ prototype from which the Egyptian was derived, and the Israelite vehicle was ultimately, if not proximately, borrowed. In one respect it differed from the Egyptian, \\t. in carrying three, not, as a rule, two occup.ints. This is important, as it seems to throw light ujkju Hebrew usage, to which we shall presently refer. The ordinary weapons of the chariot-fighter were bow and arrows. In the annexed figure (fig. 7) it will be observed that the two-horsed chariot h;is among its three riders a shield-bearer, who apparently occupies the central position. The driver on the left holds only a single rein in each hand, though he is driving two stc-eds, which are held together by a strong collar and undergirths. Simplicity and strength combined with lightness are the chief characteristics of the Hittite chariot.

10. Israelitish chariots : 'Shalish.'[edit]

Among the ancient Hebrews, as among the Assyrians, Egyptians. Hittites, and Greeks, the horses were always arravcd side by side, never one Ix.'hind another'- Mor.over, with the Assyrians ,, .,... j.j,^.p,i.^s fj,^. chariot usually held two p<"rsons. This was the case perhaps occasionally in Israel ; but various considerations lead to the inference that the chariots as a rule held thrt-e, as among the Hittites, the occupants Ix-ing the driver, the bowman, and the shield -bearer. (In the case of Jehu, he himself handles the bow, 2K. 924. ) It is therefore as something [.eculiar and exceptional that we find Jehu recalling to IJidkar that they were riding in pairs ' behind Ahab, as his Ixxly- guard, when the latter w.as confronted by Elijah near Naboth's vineyard (2K.925). This Hebrew -Hittite usage may explain the word c^'Vc* (/<'///, see Akmv, 4) which, in its origin, signified one of the three occupants of the royal chariots that accompanied the king to battle. The word is used during the regal period in the .sense of a distinguished attendant of the king who accompanied him in his chariot. This is evident from 2 K. 925 where Hidkar holds this position in relation to Jehu. It is significant that in i K. 922 the lalisiin (cz'^v) are placed in close connection with captains of chariots (331 '^j;-), and formed a body-guard conmianded by a sjxicial officer, "chief of the Hdlisim' (c"tr"'3'.T iTKi) ; 1 Ch. 11 n [2 S. 238]. Compare the use of /i//// in Ex. 147 l.'>4. That the sdlis held a high position is clearly shown in 2 K. 7 2 17, where he is descrilx.'d as one ' on whose hand the king leans." (Probably the term is used here as equivalent to cr'^'B"! rKt- )

In addition to the shalish the king w.as frequently accompanied by ' runners ' (c'sn), who were prepared to render assistance when the king dismounted from the chariot, or to hold the reins (as in the reliefs of the Assyrian kings to which we have already referred), or to discharge any other duty in the king's service, 2 S. l.'ii iK. I5 2K. IO25II4 (see Army, 4). In the time of David there was a special body of fifty men detailed for this special function.

11. Persian chariots.[edit]

We know that the Persian kings took with them on their exiseditions ap/xdfM^ai four - wheeled carriages covered with curtains, specially employed for the conveyance of women and children, may be inferred from Herod. 7 41 Xenoph. Cyrop. vi. 4 11. Probably these closely resembled, or were identical with, the dx^/"*""* ("Opdvia (vdvaia adapted for sitting or lying down. According to 2 Ch. 3023/. Josiah, when mortally wounded, was removed from his war -chariot into a reserve chariot (.n:ro3yi) which was probably regarded by the Chronicler as par- taking of this character.

1 So C'TCX Q'331 should be interpreted (Thenius and others). Oral m.ikes cncs the object of the participle.

3 Against the view that scythes are referred to in N'ab. 2 3 [4I see Ikon, f 2.

In later times chariots were provided with scythes {dpfxara SpciravTi<p6f>a, Xenoph. ^nafi.\.7 to Diod. Sic. 1 7 53). This device does not meet us among the .ancient Egyptians and Assyrians ; ^ but we know that scythe-bearing chariots were employed by the Persians and later still by the Syrians (2 Mace. 182). It was probably the Persians who introduced this formidable addition to the war-chariot. (Cp Xenophon, Cyrop. vi. 1 30. )

12. Parts of chariot.[edit]

The diflerent portions of the chariot receive special names in the Heb. of the OT. ' Wheels," D'SBIK, are mentioned in Nah. 3 2(cp Is. 2827 Prov. 2O26). Another name, more jiescriptive, was ' rollers,' O'ViSjI (Is. 5 28 Ezek. 10 2 e 23 24 20 to). I he ' spokes ' of the wheel were called C'|:3a'n, while the 'felloes' had the name D'33 or ria^. The wheel revolves by a nave (onffn), round an axle(T). See Wheel. All these terms are to be found in the locus das- sicus, I K. 7 32yC

The pole of the chariot, Sj7, was (according to Mish. Kelim 144 24 2) fastened below the middle of the axle, passed under the base of the 'body' of the chariot, and then, curving upwards, ascended to the neck of the horses. To this, draught-animals were fastened by means of the yoke, assisted by cords or wide leather straps. Beyond these broad features it is doubtful how far we are justified in following the details contained in a treatise of the Mishna composed centuries after the latest OT literature.

13. Religious conceptions.[edit]

That the chariot, which was so closely associated with the public functions of Oriental monarchs, both in war and in peace, entered into the religious conceptions as an indispensable portion ^^^^^ paraphernalia of divine monarchy, cannot awaken surprise. The chariot, therefore, has its place in ancient Semitic religion. Just as the Hellenic religious imagination endowed Helios with horses and chariot (as the Homeric Hymn clearly testifies), so Canaanite religion endowed the Sun-god .^/wo*^ with the same royal accessories (cp Horsk, 4). This feature in the cultus of the Sun the Hebrews blended with the worship of Yahw^ in the precincts of the sanctuary at Jerusalem, in the days that preceded the Reformation of Josiah ( 2 K. 23 1 1 ). The combination of Yahwe, the God of Israel's armies and of the sky, with the Sun was not unnatural to the Hebrew mind, as their literature testifies both early and late. Cp i K.812/. (an old fragment of the Book of Jashar restored by We. from -^ in i K. 853); Ps.l9i-784ii[i2].' Yahw^, as Lord of hosts, has chariots among his retinue. These were the ' chariots and horses of deliverance ' whereon Yahwe rode forth to conquer and terrify Israel's foes in the days of the Exodus (Hab. 38 /.) With this graphic touch in the Prayer of Habakkuk we may compare the fiery chariots of 2 K. 2 II 617 1814- as well as a phrase occurring in the magnificent triumphal ode, Ps. 68 18. o. c. w.

1 But cp nATTI.EMENT.

3 The Kakiib-el, 'chariot of El' (line 22). of the Zenjlrli Panammu inscription furnishes an interesting parallel. It is possible, however, that Rakub (cp the Ar. rakuh"", 'a camel for riding') may mean the divine steed (cp the Heb. Kcn'ib, Ps. 18 II ; but see Cherub, 8 i, begin.). It is mentioned frequently along with the deities Hadad, El, Shemesh, and Reshef. See D. H. Miiller'sart. in Contemp. Rev., April 1894.


(m Ar^nAi [Ti. WH]), Judei2 .-W. Sec EUCHARIST.


(xAPMH [H.\]), i Esd. 525 RV=Ezra239 = Neh. "42, H.\RIM, I.


(inn inn, Deut. ISn, etc.; D3n D'Cnn, Is. 33 RV'ng'). See Magic, 3.


one of the three rulers of Bethulia : Judith 6.5 S" 106 (xAp/weiC [BN], xaAm. [A]; in 810 106 X&pM[e]lN[BSA]).


(x&PRAN [Ti. WH]), Acts 72 4. RV Hakan, i.


(xAceBA. [B.\], om. L), an unknown family of NkthiniM in the great post-exilic list (see Ezra, ii., 9), mentioned only in i Esd. 531, between the Nekoda and Gazzam of || Ezra 248 Neh. 750/


(n-in). Gen. 820 AVne-. EV Eve. See Adam and Evf., 3.


("132, xoBAp[BAQ]), the name of a Babylonian stream, near which Ezekiel had prophetic visions (Ez. li [adnot. Q8- Barycmoc] 3 823 1015:^-^22 483 ; on 815, which is a gloss, see Tel-abib). In spite of the apparent resemblance of the names (but note the different initial letters), the Chebar cannot be the same as the Habor (iian) Babylonia never included the region watered by this river but must be one of the Babylonian canals (Bab. ndrdti ; cp ^zi nnnj, Ps. 137 i). This was first pointed out by Noldeke (Schenkel, BL, I508 ['69]). The final proof has been given by Hilprecht, who has found mention twice of the {ndru) kabaru, a large navigable canal a little to the E. of Nippur ' in the land of the Chaldeans.'*


[-\'dV'>'\13, so eastern reading, but '1Cy?T13 western reading [Ginsb. Intr. to Mass. _. crit. ed. 203/. ; conversely Strack, Kohut ^' Semitic Studies, 566] ; xoAoAAofOMOp [AEL]-A\A. [Z>], -AAr- [D]).

1. Story[edit]

According to Gen. Hi was aking of Elam, whosedominion extended as far as the SE. of Canaan, where five kings, of whom those of Sodom and Gomorrah were the chief, served him twelve years. In the thirteenth year, however, they rebelled, and in the fourteenth year they were defeated by the Elamite and his allies. In the sequel of the story (I'v. 12-24) we are told how Abram with his own servants and some allies pursued the victorious army and rescued not only the captured kings but also his nephew Lot (see Abraham, 2). The question whether this narrative is trustworthy, and whether the Chedor-laomer of the story and his allies are historical personages, is ruled by the other, as to the date of the chapter containing it.

2. Its date.[edit]

That the chapter is quite an isolated piece, and formed no part of the writings from which the Hexateuch was composed, may be considered ascertain. Some scholars, however, (e.j^., Kittel) assign it to the eighth century B.C., and are of OD'r.icn thai the author had an older writing before him ; according to others, it is not older than the fourth century B. c.^ The former hold that the antiquity and the authenticity of the story are attested by the following facts : ( i ) that at least the name of the chief king is purely Elamitic ; (2) that the Rephaim, the Zamzummin( = Zuzim), and tjie ICmim really occupied in ancient times what afterwards became the dwelling places of the Ammonites, Moabites, and Edomites, whilst the Horites (Gen. 8620), according to Dt. 2 10/: and 20^, were the oldest inhabitants of Seir ; (3) that Amorite-S if. v.), the name of the people established, according to v. 7, in Hazazon-tamar ( = Engedi, 2 Ch. 20 2), is the ancient name of the people of Canaan (Gen. 1.516 4822 Am. '29), and that several names (En-mishpat, Hobah, Shaveh), words, and expressions not occurring anywhere else, as well as the exact description of the campaign (vv. 5-7), bear the impress of antiquity and trustworthiness.

The arguments of those who ascribe the narrative to a post-exilic Jew, whose aim was to encourage his contemporaries by the description of Abram's victory over the great powers of the East, his unselfishness, piety, and proud magnanimity towards heathen men, mostly take their starting-point in the second part of the chapter.

It is pointed out that the names of Abram's allies, Mamre and Eshcol, occur elsewhere (Gen. 13 18 23 17 19 209 8627 50 13 Nu. 13 23) as place names ; that Melchizedek (Malkisedek) and Abram are represented .is monotheists ; and that the patriarch pays tithes to the priest-king, a duty not prescribed at all in Dt. (see 1422-29 2tii2 7?!), but characteristic of the post-exilic sacerdotal law (Xu. 18 21-28).

1 A tablet published by Dr. Clay in vol. ix. of Hilprecht's Bnbylonian Expedition 0/ the Unrv. of Pennsyhania (pi. 50, No. 84, I. 2). It should be added that Clubar=%,rfaA, so that naru Knt{b1')aru = Gxax\A Canal.

2 See, e.g., E. Meyer. GA 1 1(^5/: ('84); Kue. Hex. 324 (R=): St. ^y4'6 323('86); We. t // ^o /: ('89); Che. OPs. 4^2, 165, 270 ('91), cp Foundtert, iyjf. ; Holzinger, Einl. (93)- d. Hex. 425

The criticism extends also, however, to the first part, with which we are here chiefly concernc-d. It is remarked that there is no evidence of the historicity of the campaign in question, which is, in fact, as closely as possible con- nected with a view of Abraham which we know to have been |)Ost-exilic (cp Ei.IK/.F.K, i ). Moreover, it is difficult to resist the impression that the names of the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah viz. , Bera' and Birsha' (com- pounds conveying the idea of 'evil,' 'Ixidness') and the name given in the narrative to the town of Zoar viz., IJela" = ' jx-'rdition (see Hei.a) perhaps also that of the king of Zelxj'im, which the Samaritan text gives as Shem-ebed = ' slave- name ' are, some of them at least, purely symbolical and therefore fictitious. (See, how- ever, in each c;ise, the special article. )

3. Name Chedorlaomer[edit]

What is certain is this : Chedor-laomer, = Kudur-lagamar, is a purely Elamitic name, which is not, indeed, found as a royal name on the monuments, but is of the .same type as Kudur-nanhundi (Kutir-iiahhuiite in Old Susian). the name of a king who in the be ginning of the twenty-third century B.C. conquered the whole ; and Kudur-mabuk, the name of another king, who, probably later, was master of a part of Babylonia. Lagamar(u) (I^ikamar) occurs as the name of an Elamitic deity, not only in 5 R (p. vi. . coll. 6, 33), but also in the Inscriptions of Anzan-Susinak,* and seems to be the same as Lagamal, the (jueen of the town of Kisurre (2 R pi. Ix. 15^ = 14^^). Hence the name cannot be the invention of a Hebrew writer. It can hardly be doubted, either, that Arioch, king of Ellasar, is really no other than Eri-aku {i.e., servant of the Moon-god), the well-known king of L.arsa, son of Kudur-mabuk.'-'

These discoveries h.ive opened a wide field for ingenious combinations. It hxs been observed th.it Kudur-mabuk is called in one of the inscriptions of his son by the name Adda-martu, ' Father of the West.' Now, the word Martu being commonly use<l, at least in later times, to designate Western Asia, especi.illy Canaan {t/iat Aharri, or perhaps better vtat Amurri, the land of the .Amorites), .'\dda= Father has Ijeen interpreted to mean conqueror, and this has been taken as evidence ihat, in a very remote period, Cana.in fell under EIninite domijiion. It is a pity that we must call attention to a weak p< int in this theorising. Kudur-mabuk is not the same as Kudur-lag.nmar, and Aiida-martu seems to be only a synonym o{ Aiitia-yainuihala, a title which the .same kin^, as ruler of a western province of Elam, bears in other inscriptions (see Tiele, BAG 123/).

4. Amraphel[edit]

The attempts to make out the two other Eastern kings to be historical personages must be considered failures- According to Jos. Hal(5vy, Td 1 Amraphel is the famous Babylonian king Hammu-rilbi him.self, whose name is ex- plained in Semitic as Kimta-rapaUu ['atn = kim(a, rap/iel=rapaltu = rapa^tu); whilst, according to Hommel {on A 364^.), he is Hammu-rabi's father Sin-muballit, because Sin is. sometimes named Amar and inuhallit may conceivably have been condensed itito pal {phel). (See also .Xmraphei.. ) With more confidence Shin'ar is stated to Ije a Hebraised form of Suiner (see Schr. A'.'f T). Unfortunately, this is by no means certain. Though Hammurabi was king of Babylon, and there- fore of Akkad, he was not king of Sumer so long as Eri-aku was king of Larsa. Not till he had put an end to the Elamite dominion in Babylonia could he be called king of Sumer, and then neither Eri-aku nor an Elamite king could join with him in the contjuest of Canaan. As to Tid'al, king of Goyim, we may read his name Thargal, following (5- ; we may identify the Goyim with the jjeople of Gutium ; we may even go so far as prudence permits in theorising on the latest discoveries: but all this d<ies not make TiDAl, ('/.f. ) historical.

1 F. H. \\'cisst).-\rh, ' .Vnzanische Inschriften,' in Ahh. d. phif.-hist. Ciaise ,i,-> K. Sachs. Cfsellscli. d. H'issensch. xii., Leips., 1891, p. I.'; (9 > 't' -.cparate copy).

2 This, ratlu-r lluin Riiii-sin, has been proved by Schr. to be the correct reading of the name (Sitz.'ber. k. I'reuss. Ak. Pkil.- hist. Classe, 24 Oct. 1895, xli.).

5. Conclusion.[edit]

All that we can say is that the writer of Gen. 14 no more invented the names of Amraphel and Tid'al (or Thargal) than those of Chedor-laomer and Arioch ; the former are very possibly corruptions of the niimes of histcjrical personages whom we are as yet unable to iilcntify. Nor do we assert that the whole story is the product of the inventive faculty of the author. That m very remote times, Babylonian kings extended their sway as far as the Mediterranean, is not only told in ancient traditions (e.g. , of Sargon I. ), but has also been proved by the Amarna tablets. From these we learn that as late as the fifteenth century B.C., when the kings of Babylon and Assyria had no authority beyond their ow n borders and Egypt gave the law to Western Asia, Babylonian was the official and diplomatic language of the Western Asiatic nations. Hence it is not imjxjssible, it is even probable, that a simil.ar suzerainty was exercised over these nations by the Elamites, who were more than once masters of Babylonia. Our author, whether he wrote in the eighth century B.C., or, which is more probable, in the fourth, may have found this fact in some ancient record, and utilised it both for the glorification of the Father of the Faithful and for encouraging his contemporaries.

6 Further theories[edit]

So much appears to be all that can be safely stated in the present state of research. Scheil, however, is of the opinion ( 96) that the Ku-dur-la-a'g-ga-mar (?) whom he finds in a cuneiform epistle was the Elamite king of I^rsa who was conquered by Hanmiu-rabi and .Sin-idinnam, and, therefore, cannot have Ix.-en any other than the son of Kudur-mabuk, who, as king of Larsa (Ur), had adopted the name of Rim-sin (Eri-aku?). Pinches has discovered a cuneiform tablet in the Brit. Mus. col- lection which has naturally excited great hopes among conservative critics. It is sadly mutilated ; but it is at least clear that names which may be the prototyi^es of Arioch, Tid'al, and possibly Chcdorlaomer, were known in Babylonia when the tablet w.is inscrited. The tablet dates, probably, from the time of the Arsacid.x' ; but it is tempting to assume that the inscription was copied from one which was made in the primitive Babyloni.an period. It should l>e noticed, however, that the form of the first name is not Eri-aku but Eri-(I)P)[E]-a-ku, and that the third name is not read with full certainty, the second part lieing -ma/, which is only conjecturally made into lah-mal. There is also a second tablet on which two of the names are mentioned again. Pinches reads the one Eri-e-ku (possibly Eri-e-ku-a), and the other Ku-dur-lah(?)-gu-mal. In a third inscription the name Ku-dur-lah(?)-gu-[mal] appears. The second of the three names is mentioned only in the first tablet as Tu-ud-hul-a, where, since the Babylonian n answers to the Hebrew y in S;nn. Pinches and Schrader agree in recognising the Tid'al of Gen. 14. But not by a single word do these inscriptions confirm the historicity of the invasion ' in the days of Amraphel. '

[The doubts here expressed are fully justified by L. W. King's more recent investigations. Both Scheil's and Pinches' readings of the res[)ective inscriptions are incorrect, and 'though Ku-dur-ku-ku-nal (Kudur-KU- KU-mal) is styled (in Pinches' inscriptions) a king of Elam, there is no reason to suppose that he was a contemporar>' of Hammu-rabi. He might have occupied the throne at any period before the fourth century n.c]

To the references already given may be added G. Rawlinson, Fri'e Monarchies, \H)/., where older works are cited; Tiele, B.-\G 65/.: Hommel, GHA i23jf. ; Schr. AW 7"-' li^ jr.= COT 1 \ioff. ; Opi)ert, Voniptrs-rendtis dr FacaJ. des inscr. 9 dte. 1887 ; Pinches, Acts of the Geneva Oriental Congress, also his paper read Ijefore the VictorLi Institute, Jari. 20, 1896 ; Schr. ' Ueber einen altoriental. Herrschernamen ' in SR.Al^', 1895, no. xli.; Fr. v. Scheil in Keciieil lie /"rot'rtw.r (Maspcro) \^^jff., ' correspondance de Hammurabi, roi de liabylone, avec Sinidinnam, roi de Larsa, oil il est uuestioii de Codorlahomor ; cp Hommel, AHT, 173-180; L. W. King, Letters and Inscrip- tions 0/ IJanimuriiH, vol. i., 1898. c. V. T. \V. H. K.


(aVnin *v*in, i s. i7i8 ; np*i. 2s. 1739; nraj. Job 10 io[. " See MiLK.


(T'73), one of the b'ne Pahath-moab in the list of jKTSons with foreign wives (see E/.KA, i. 5 end), Kzni 10 30 ((5 has joined Chelal with the preceding name Adna (nnjj) and reads Aidaiue XarjX [B ; with ESatve B'lb]. ESei'fx H\ [X], E5^e Kai Xa\r)\ [A], Aiavaarjif XaXfiavaL [L]). The || i Esd. 931 has quite different names 'and of the sons of Addi ; Naathus, and Moossias, Laccunus,' etc. ('-, however, reads ESva A-ai 2::i5ta /cai XaXa/j-avai). See Lac:i;nus.


RV Hei.kias, i.e., Hilkiah, g.v. (xeA- k[]iac [BAQ cod. 87Theod.]).

1. The father of Susanna (Hist, of Sus., tv. 2, 29, and [cm. cod. 87] 63).

2. .\n ancestor of Baruch (Bar. 1 i).

3. .\ priest (I!.-ir. I7)


(xaAAaicon [B], xeAecON [N*A], Syr. Lj^a). In Judith 223 mention is made of 'the children of Ishmael, whicli were over against the wilder- ness to the S. of the land of the Chellians.' The com- paratively easier reading Chaldeans, which is attested by (S'^, Syr. and Vet. Lat. , is no doubt rightly con- sidered by Grimm to be a deliberate rectification of the te.\t. See Ciikllus.


RV Chkluhi, mg. Cheluhu (^n-"l?5. Kt. ; "ini'pS, Kre; xeAlACOyB [L ; probably through the influence of eAlAC. "' 3^]). mentioned in the list of persons with foreign wives (see EzK.\, i. 5, end), Ezral035 (xeAKeiA [BX], xeAiA [A]) = i Esd. 934. EV Enasihus (eca(T[e]c/3os [BA]).


(xeAoYC [BA]; xecA. [N], ^ci:::^^ [Syr.]), one of the places to which Nebuchadrezzar sent his summons, according to Judith 1 9. The Halhul of Josh. 1058 may be meant ; but the reading xeo'Xoi'S suggests rather Chesum.oth or CE^ISLOTH-TABOR, which is given by Jerome and Eusebius as C/iasa/us or x'^^'f^oi'^ {OSi^K 91 4, etc., 30264). See Chellian-.s. Another identification should be mentioned. Chellus is perhaps the same as the place which in Jos. An(. .xiv. 1 4 is called a\ov(Ta, by Jerome and Eusebius a//us, aWovS {OSi-K 8r>6 211 89), viz. nsi'jn (Targ. Jer. Gen. 16 14 ; cp Gen. 20 1 in Ar., and see Bered), or Elusa. Cp We. Net\/.i-< 48, n. I ; WRS, A'in. 293/.


(xeAeoyA [B], xecAMoyAA [*]. XeAAloyA [X":-^]. xeAeoyA [A]). 'Very many nations of the sons of Chelod ' (Judith 1 6) assembled themselves to battle in the plain of Arioch in the days of Nebu- chadrezzar and Arphaxad (!). What we ought to understand by Chelod is cjuite uncertain.

Vet. Lat. has Chelteuth, and Syr. has ' against the Chalda;ans.' One very improbable conjecture is that \a.\iMV (Calnkh) is intended ; another, hardly less unlikely, is that the word is the Hebrew "I7h (' weasel '), and that by the opprobrious designation of 'children of the weasel' are meant the Syrians (Ew. GV'I a 543)- ,


(3173, 67, probably a variation of Caleb, cp below).

(i) .\ Judahite, doubtless to be identified with Caleb ( 4); similarly We. (Gent. 20), who reads 'Caleb b. Hezron ' (i Ch.

4 II xaAe^ [BAL], Caleb [Vg.] ">N'^ [Pesh ]). His designa- tion 'brother of Shuhah' (,nmtI'"'nN) is not clear; ba read 'father of -Xchsah,' possibly a correction (Ki. SBOT). Cp the still further corrupt Pesh. ' brother of .'\hiah'(JLjiff wkOtClAti ) (2) Father of Ezm, i Ch. 27 26 (xo/3ouS [R], xeAou^ [A], ^a- [L]).


(*3-'l'??, 67, a gentilic [ = 3'?3 : see I S. 203 Kre] used instead of the proper name Caleb), b. Hezron. i Ch. 29 (o X^AeB [A], o X^BeA [B], o XaAcoBi [E], . . o\ <v, [Pesh., a corruption]); see Cai.kh, 3, Cakmi, I.


(xeAiA [A]). Ezra 10 35 RV, RV"'g- Cheluhu, .\V Chei.i.uh.


(QnpS), Zeph. I4 RV 2 K. 23 s mg. Hos. 10 5 nig. ; AV Chemarims, Zeph. I4. Rather Kfimarim.

The original Heb. word appears also in 2 K.Ms, where EV gives 'idolatrous priests,' and in Hos. 10 5, where EV has 'priests.' It is also highly probable that in Hos. 44 we should read, with Beck 'for mypeople is like its Chemarim ' 1 (, however, (09 ai'TiA<y6/i.(i'o; ttpfiif, perhaps an error for -01 Itftivai (Schleusnerj) transliterates Xiu/iapet^ ([B.^] 2 K. /.f. ; but Itptlt is also supported, see Field, //ex eui loc.) ; it apparently omits in Zeph.; (in Hos. it had a different Heb.). Vg. varies between aruspices (2 K.) and trditui (Zeph. Hos.); Targ. between k'TCID (2 K. Zeph.) and nin'?D ' 'ii: ministers thereof ' ; Pesh. adheres to

As to the meaning, if we appeal to the versions, we find only the dim light which an unassisted study of the context can supply. Evidently the term was applied to the priests of Baal, who served at the high places under royal authority, but were put down by Josiah. But what special idea did the word convey? In itself it meant simply ' priests ' ; in Zeph. 1 4 KHmdrim and Ko/itinim are put side by side to express the idea of a priesthood of many members ; and in Hos. 84 (if the view proposed above be adopted) we have lihndrim used of the priests of N. Israel, when these are spoken of objectively, and then ko/ien, when the priests are ad- dressed as an organic unity. But the word Klmdrim probably also conveyed the idea of a worship which had Syrian affinities. Certainly it cannot be explained from Hebrew ; -cd does not mean ' to be black ' (cp Eci.ii'SE), and even if it did, the ' black-rol>ed ones ' is a most improbable designation for ancient priests.* The word is no doubt of Syrian origin (see the Aram, inscrip- tions in CIS 2 nos. 113 130). The primitive form is liumr, whence Aram, kumrd (never used in an unfavourable sense) and Heb. /cfmdrim are normally formed. Lagarde {Armen. Stud. 2386) compared Arm. c/iourm ; but it is more obviously reasonable to compare the Assyrian kummaru, which is given as a synonym of lubaru za/iu i.e., 'a clean vesture' (Del. Ass. HWB 2,'i7 b., cp 254 b. ). The term fiUmdrim probably described the Syrian and Israelitish priests in their clean vestments (cp 2 K. IO22, the Baal festival) when ministering to their God. To derive it from an Aram, root meaning ' to be sad ' is much less natural.

Delitzsch compares Ass. kaiiidrv, ' to throw down ' ; the term, he thinks, describes the priests as those who prostrate themselves in worship (.4 Ji. and Heb., 41, 42; so Che. I/os. 103, III). Finally, Robertson Smith,'^ noting that the word belongs to a race in which the mass of the people were probably not circumcised (Herod. '2104, cp Jos. Ant. viii. IO3, c. A/>. i. 22) while the priests were (Dio Cassius, "9ii; Ep. Barnab. 96 ; cp Chwoison, Ssabier, 2 114), conjectures that /iuiii>n means ' the circumcised ' {.\r. /en. I, ' glans penis ').

1 Continue, DOV jnsn B?r3l, 'and thou shall stumble, O priest, in the daytime ' ; at the close of the verse read, with Ruben, ^'C.n, ' thy Thummim ' (addressed to the priest).

2 Cp Mishna, Middnth 64. .\ priest who had become unfit for service put on black garments and departed. One who was approved by the Sanhedrin clothed himself in white, and went in, and ministered

3 /T^'OI s.v. ' Priest.'

  • KB '2 go/.; CO'/' 1 281.
  • Others read Chemoshgad.

6 Kenan, Miss, de P/ifn. 35a.


(:^'10^, in M/ E;'03 ; on name see 4, end; x^MCOC [B^bXAFQE], amcoc [B* Judg. 11 24], 1 TW K' Oa;wj) the national god of the Moabites (jK. II7, Jer. 48713).

1. Moab's national deity[edit]

Moab is the people of Chemosh ; the Moabites are his sons and daughters (Nu. 21 29; cp the relation of Yahwe to Israel, Judg. 5 11 Nu. 11 29 Judg. 11 24 Is. 45 II, etc.). A king of Moab in the time of Sennacherib was named Chemoshnadab (A'amusu- 7iadab;* cp Jehonadab) ; the father of Mesha was Chemoshmelech ; ^ a gem found near Beirut is inscribed 'nx'OD^ * (cp Heb. n;n;, "^x-n' ; Phccn. >n'Ta, iVcin-). The stele of Mesha king oif Moab, contemporary with Ahab, Ahaziah, and Jehoram of Israel (2 K. 1 3), in the middle of the ninth century B.C. (see Me.sha), was erected to commemorate the deliverance which Chemosh had wrought for his people.

The injicnplion tells us that Omri had oppressed Moab for a loiiK time Iwcaiisc Chemosh was wioih wiili his land (/. 4/); the Israelites had occupied the district of Medelia forty years, hut Cheiiiosh had now restored it to Moali {//. 7-9) ; Cheniosh drove out the kinj; of Israel lK:forc Moiih from Jaiiaz (//. 18-21); at the bidding of Cliemo>h, .\l:>ha foujjht a^jainst Nelx) and look it (//. 14-17); at his command, he mailc war on Horonaim, and Chemosh restored it to Moab (//. 31-33); the inhabitants of captured cities were slaughtered, ' a spectacle (? fi'i) for Chemosh and Moab" (//. iiy.); men, women, and children were devoted to Ashtar-Chemosh (//. 15-17) the D^n (sec Ban); the spoils of Israelite sanctuaries were carried off and presented to Chemosh (ff. 12/. 17/).

The religion of Moab in the ninth century was thus vciy similar to that of Israel : the historical books of the OT | furnish parallels to almost every line of the inscription.

We learn from the OT that human sacrifices were offered toChemosh, at least in great nation.il emergencies; the king of Moab, shut up in Kir-hareseth and unable to cut his way out, ofiercd his eldest son upon the wall ; the effect of this extraordinary sacrifice w.os a great outburst of Chemosh's fury upon Israel, which compelled the invaders to return discomfited to their own land (2 K. 827). Priests of Chemosh are mentioned in Jer. 487; the language of Mesha, 'Chemosh said to me" (//. 14, 32), supposes an oracle, or i)erh;i()S prophets.

2. Other Moabite gods.[edit]

The worshi]) of Chemosh as the national god did not cxclude the worship of other gods ; Mesha's inscription speaks of Ashtar-Chemosh (/. 17) that is, most probably, an 'Ashlar (.Astarte) who was associated in worship with Chemosh,' perhaps at a particular sanctuary. The worshij) of Haal-peor (Nu. 2."), cp Hos. 9 10) was probably a local Moabite cult there is no ground for identifying the god with Chemosh. (See B.'\al-pkok. ) [Mcth] I'.aal-meon (Mesha, //. 9, 30; OT) was, as the name shows, the seat of another local Baal cult. Mount Nebo may have received its name in the period of Babylonian supremacy ; but we do not know that the worship of the Babylonian god was perpetuated by the Moabites. Cp Xi;no.

The statement of Eusebius (OS 228 66/?:, s.7>. 'Apivd) that the inhabitants of Areopolis in his day called their idol 'Api^A, ' Ijecause they worship))ed Ares," seems to be the product of a complex misunderstanding.

3. Chemosh outside Moab[edit]

In Judg. 1124, in the arguiuent of Jcphthah with the king of the .Xnunonites, 'Chemosh thy god' is set over against ' Yahw6 our god ' in such a way as to imply that Chemosh was the national god of Ammon. From many passages in the C) T we know, however, that the national god of the Anmionites was Mikoin (see Mll.roM) while Chemosh was the god of Moab. The hypothesis that Chemosh and Milcom are but two names of the .same god (.Milcom originally a title) is excluded by the contexts in which they ajj'pear side by side {e._^., i K. II33). N'or is it sufiicient to sujipose that Chemosh in Judg. 11 24 is merely a slip on the part of the author or a scribe for MiUom : closer examination shows that the whole historical argument applies to Moab only, not to Anunon. Whatever explanation may lie given of this incongruity (see Moore, Judi^es, 283 ; Bu. tiiihter, 80/ ), the passage caiuiot be taken as evidence tliat t!hemosh was the god of Ammon as well as of the sister people Moab. The statement of Suidas {s.v. Xafius) that Chemosh was a god of the Tyrians and .\mmonites is, as the context shows, a confused reminiscence of 1 K. 1 1 5 7.

From the name viufiaa/SijAo?, the second mythical Babylonian ruler after the flootl (Frat^. Ifisi. (7r. 2 503), it has been surmised that the worship of Chemosh was of Babylonian oriRin ; the narnc of the city Carchcmish on the Euphrates has been ex- plained as 'Citadel of C"hemosh ';_ neither of these theories has any other basis than a fortuitous similarity of sound.

.Solomon built a high place for Chemosh on the MoiNT OK Oi.iVKS (1 K. Il7(i), where, according to 2 K. '23 13, it stood until Josiah's reform more than three hundred years.

1 Cp Phocn. rnncUDVo and 'the Astarte in the ashera of El-hamman,' in the Ma'sub inscription.

4. Nature of Chemosh : representations[edit]

During the long reign of the theory not yet universally abandoned that all the gods of the nations were heavenly bodies or metioric phenomona, Chemossh was by some thought to \k. the sun, by others identified with Milcom-Moloch-saturn ; the one opinion has as little foundation as the other. In Roman times Rabbath-moab, as well as the more northern .\r-moab, was called Areopolis, and this name perhaps originally only a Gra;cising of Ar (Jerome) w.as understood as City of .Xres. ' Coins of Kabbath-moab in the reigns of Getaand .Severus ( Kckkel , iii. 504 ; cp .Mionnet, v. 591, Sup|)l. viii. 388) exhibit a standing warrior in whom the tyix; of Mars is to Ix; recognised ; but even if we were sure that the old Moabite god of the city is represeiUed, and not the Nabataan Dusares, we could learn nothing alxjut the nature of C hemosh in O T times from so late and contaminated a source. Confusion of Chemosh with Dusares is probably to Ixj assumed in the statements of Jewish writers that the idol of Chemosh was a black stone the same which is now adored by Moslems in the Caaba at Mecca. ^

The etymology of the name Chemosh is quite unknown : a fact which gives good reason to believe that he is one of the older Semitic gods.

5. Literature.[edit]

D. Hackmann, ' Ue Chemoscho Moabitarum idolo,' 1730 (in Oelrich's Cotleclio of>uscutorum, 1768, pp. 17-60), Movers, J hSiiizit-r, 1 3347?! ; Scholz, Cotzendienst </ '/.auhcrivtsen hei di-n aiten Hehriiern, \-](iff- \ Baudissin, in PKE'!^) s.v. ' Kemosch ' (with full literature); IJaetlit'en, Beitr. 13-15. G. Y. M.


(njyj?, 73, ' towards Canaan ' (?) ; XANAAN [HL]).

1. In genealogyof Benjamin (89(11.)), i Ch. 7 \o(\avo.vav [.^1).

2. Father of the false prophet Zedekiah, i K. 'J- 11 (^aoi-a [B], x<iv<xva.\\\)i^; 2Ch. 18io(xai'aoi'a[.\])23.


("333 : cp Chenaniah), Levite officiating at constitution of ' congregation ' (see I'",/.k.\, ii. }: 12, 13 [/.J); Xeh.94 (om. B.. Yioi xanani [for MT Bani Chenani, N-'-'A], xoONeNlAC [l-])-


("in^m and n;33?, 31 : [eJiexoNiAC [I'>NLJ ; cp Chenani), chief of the Levites, who was over ' the song,' or ' the carrying' (viz., 'of the ark' text obscure: see Ki. and Be. ad loc.) \ i Ch. I.'j22 (kconenia [HN], xo). [-^ll. 27 (kai xencniac [-^1. XONCN- [L]), '2t)29 (xcoNjeNeiA [1^]. X'*>xeNiAC L-^]. XONeNIA [l']-


RV Chephar-ammoni (yifSyn 1D3 /'.(., 'village of the Ammonite'; see Bknjamin, 3 ; Kr. has n^itOyn ; KAPA(t)A K. Ke4)eipA KAI MONei [B; MONei represents also *3Ei;]; KA(i)HpAMA,\IN [A]; KA4)ApAMMC0NA L'-l*' ^" """ identitied place in Benjamin, mentioned with OriiM [</.T'.] (Josh. 18 24 P). The name is possibly of post- exilic origin (cp P.\h.\tii-m().\b). See A.mmon, 6, and Bi niiioKo.N, 4, Tohij.mi, 4.


(nTD3; in Josh. n-l'Mn ; 'the village'? or 'the lion'? KA(|)[elipA [BX.\]. Ke4)eipA [l,]i, a town of the Hiviles, member of the Gibeonite confederation (Josh. 917: xt<pnpa. [A], kc^. [BK], Kfcfnjpa [LJ), afterwards assignee! to Benjamin (Josh. 18 26: Xf<pfipa T-V]. <f>- [B]). and mentioned in the great post- exilic list (see V.7.HA, ii. 9, tj 8 r. ) Kzra 225 = Xch. 729 (xa^tpa [^3)=' ^sd. 5 19, C.\i'iiiK.\ (01 (k irapas [B], . . . Ka^tpas [.\], K((f>npo- [I-]), 's the modern Kefireh, alKHit 5 m. WSW. from el-Jib ((iibeon).

In I Ks<!. .'iiq PiRA (AV, oni. RV ; weipa.^ [B]), the second n.-ime after Caphira, is apparently a corrupt repetition (cp B's form of Caphira). Buhl (/'/. 169) suggests that Kephirim (EV 'villages') in Neh. 62 may l>e the same as Kephirah.

1 Lek-iuh Toh on Nu. 21 20. By a strange blunder W. L. Bevan and Sayce (in Smiths DB<>') s.v.) have turned this into a black s/nr.

2 The forms Kiavtvia, etc., point to a reading n'ii^3 (cp aCh. 31i2yC), whilst I(xoi"af points to n'32' or rather to ri'313% a .scribe's error for n*33131 (cp Ki., Chron., SBOT).


(|'5*^*n), Ex.28439 RV. See Emhkoidkky, WicAviNG ; also Tunic.


(p? ; XAPPAN [ADEL], a Horite clan-name (CJen. 8626). See DiSHON.


RV Ch.kkeas (xaircac and ^ep- [A], Xep&iAC [\jl. brother of TiMOTiiKis (i/.v.). and com- maiuk-r of the fortress at CJazara (2 Mace. IO3237).


(D^niS, 'niSn. in Sam. and K. o xcpe99ei. or [by assimilation to Pelethites]

xe^eeeei ; Vg. Ct-rethi ; 'in Prophets KpHTCc). a people in the south of Palestine. In the days of Saul and David a region in the Negeb adjoining Judah and Caleb bore their name (i S. ;30i4 xo^^" [B] XfP'?^" [A] XO/)/)t [L]). From v. 16 it appears that the inhabitants of this region were reckoned to the Philistines ; in Zeph. 25 and Ez. 25 16 (AV Cherethims), also, Philistines and Cherethites are coupled in such a way as to show that they were regarded as one people. P'inally, in the names mentioned in the prophecy against Egypt in Ez. 30 5,' where AV gives, 'the men of the land that is in league,' we should restore 'the Cherethites' ('n-i3n '33? ; so Cornill, Toy). It is to be inferred that the Cherethites were a branch of the Philistines ; or, perhaps, that they were one of the tribes which took part with the Philistines in the invasion of Palestine, and that, like the latter, they remained behind when the wave receded (see Philistines, 2, Caphtor, 2). The translators of Zeph. and Ez. interpreted the name by Cretans ; and in this, although they may have been guided only by the sound, they perhaps hit upon the truth. ' An early connection between Gaza and Crete seems to be indicated by other evidence (see Gaza).

Except in the three passages already cited, the name occurs only in the phrase, ' the Cherethites and Pele- thites' (-nl^srii 'nirn gen. (peXeddei) as the designation of a corps of troops in the service of David his body- guard (2S. 8 18 15 18 -207 23 Kr., i K. I3844 i Ch. 18 17 ; ffijuaTo<pv\aKs Jos. Ant vii. 64, etc. ).^ They were commanded by Benaiah, i, and remained faithful to their master in all the crises of his reign (2 S. 15 20

1 K. 1).

Only the strongest reasons could warrant our separat- ing the C'herethites of David's guard from the people of the same name spoken of in the same source (i S. 3O14). There are no such reasons : 'niDn has the regular form of a gentile noun ; and, although much ingenuity has been expended on the problem, all attempts to explain the word as an appellative have failed. The name Pelethite, which is found only coupled with Cherethite in the phrase above cited, also is a gentile noun ; the etymo- logical explanations are even more far-fetched than in the case of the Cherethites. The presumption is that the I'elethites also were Philistines ; * and this is confirmed by the passages cited from Zeph. and Ez. ; 'rt^s is perhaps only a lisping pronunciation of 'nii'Ss. to make it rhyme with 'niD-

It need not surprise us that David's guard was com- posed of foreign mercenaries. The Egyptian kings of the nineteenth dynasty recruited their cor/>s d'^lile from the bold sea-rovers who periodically descended on their coasts ; Rameses II. displays great pride in his Sardinian

1 \Kf>i\Tf(i in is obviously misplaced ; this version has been conformed to the Hebrew ; hence the insertion xal tutv vliiv njs fiioflnicT)? jiiov. Davidson's view (icpiJTes = Put) will hardly stand. In three places has At/Sues for Put. See Chub, Gkographv, ?2.]

- Lakemacher, Ewald, Hitzig, Stade, and others. For another view see Cachtor.

8 [The readings var>' : thusx'peSi [L in 2 S. 8 i8], x^TTfi [R in doublet 2 S. 15 18], xfTi (L ib.\, A om. doublet xopfO0ei [A in

2 S. 207 ; L omits and in t. 23I ; trpeis [RL] and xep)Si [A] in

1 Ch. 18 17, xoPfx- [L in 1 K. I38 44]). Variants for Pelethites are <^eATTt [B in 2 S. 818] <o<^fAee [A ti.] -rflfi [R in doublet

2 S. 1.5i81, .ind<fraATeta[R]-Tia[K]4aA6eflt[A]iniCh. 1817. L has uniformly </)eATi, but <f>f\9i in 2S. 15 18, (^ep<0t in i Ch. 18 17, and n\ivOiov in 2 S. 2O23 ; see Renaiah, 1.]

  • Abulwalid, Laketnacber, Ewald, etc.

guards, and Sardinians and Libyans are the flower of the army of Rameses III.' The Philistines were more skilled in arms than the Israelites, and doubtless liked fighting better : cp Ittai the Gittite, and see Army, 4. It is the opinion of some recent scholars that where David's j^Mon'm (EV ' mighty men ') seem to Ix; spoken of as a Ixxly, the Cherethites and Pelethites are meant ; see especially i K. 1 8 10 compared with v. 38. This is, however, not a necessary inference from the verses cited ; and conflicts with 2 S. 20? (cpl5i8 6). More prob- ably the ^bborim were the comrades of Da\id in the days of his outlawry- and the struggle with the Philistines for independence. See Davip, 11. In 2 S. 20 23 for 'Cherethites' the Heb. text (Kt.) has Carites ('-en).* In 2 K. II4 19, where this name again occurs, it prob- ably means 'Carians.' The Carians were a famous mercenary folk, and it would not surprise us tcj find them at Jerusalem in the days of Athaliah (sec Cakites). That the soldiers of the guard in even later times were usually foreigners has been inferred from Zeph. 18/ and from Ez. 446^: see WRS O/yCW 260/., but also Threshold. For mercenary troops in post-exilic times see Army, 7.

Literature. Dissertations by Joh. Benedict Carpzov (1661), and Hen. Opitz (1672), in Ugol. Ihes. 27423^., 451 ff.\ ].G. Lakemacher, Ohservaiiones Philolngicee, P. II. (1727), pp. 11-44 ; Conrad Iken, Dissertationes Philologiio-Tfieolo^ine (i-ng), pp. 111-132; B. Rehrend, Die Kreti uud Plcti ; ihre inhaltliche Bedeutung und Geschichte ('88) extract from MGIVJ ('87), pp. 1 1 7- 1 53 ; Riietschi, PRE(^) 8 268 ^^ g. F. M.


(nn?, xopp^e [BAL] ; xoppA \_Onom.-\). Elijah {q.v.) has just informed .-Xhabof the impending drought, when we are abruptly told that ' Yahwes word came unto him, saying. Get thee hence' [i.e., pre- sumably from Samaria), 'and turn to the east (,^c^g) and hide thyself in the torrent-valley of Cherith which is before (<33-'?l') Jordan' (i K. 1735)- This occurs in the first scene of the highly dramatic story of Elijah. In the second he appears in the far north of Palestine at Zarephath, which hardly suits Robin.son's identification {RR\^=,^) of Cherith withthe VVady el- Kelt (which is rather the Valley of Zeboim \q.v., i.]). at least if these two scenes stood in juxtaposition from the first. Besides this, the two names Kelt and Cherith begin with different palatals and since the expression l^efore Jordan ' is most naturally explained ' to the E. of the Jordan,' ^ it is plausible to hold with Prof G. A. Smith that the scene of Elijah's retreat must be sought in Gilead {HG zfio). Let us, then, look across the Jordan eastward from Samaria (where Elijah may have had his interview with Ahab). The \\TKly 'Ajlim and the Wady Rajib have been proposed by Thenius ; the Wady el-Yabis by Miihlau. But, as C. Niebuhr {Gesch.\-i()\) points out, Elijah would certainly go to some famous holy place. Of the burial-place of Moses (Niebuhr) we know nothing ; but i K. I93 9 suggests that the sanctuary was in the far south. It is true, Eus. and Jer. (O5 30269 II328) already place Cherith {Xoppa, Chorath) bej-ond Jordan. Josephus, however, makes Elijah depart 'into the southern parts' {Ant. viii. 132). What we have to do is to find a name which could, in accordance with analogies, be worn down and corrupted into nna. Such a name is hbhi, Rehoboth. The valley of Rehoboth (the W'ddy Riihailjch) would be fitly described as onsO '3B"Sy, 'fronting Misrim' (see MiZRAiM) ; cp Gen. 25 i8. The alteration of c'lXD into f-pi'n was made in order to suit the next story, in which Zki'HATH {i/.v.) had been already corrupted into ZAKEI'HATH. t. k. c.

^ Many other examples in ancient and modem times will occur to the reader.

2 In 2 S. 20 23 Kt. 'n^rt is perhaps not a purely graphic accident ; cp also i S. 30 14 L xPP<-> ^^'^

  • ['3S"'?y in geographical and topographical expressions means

commonly .^.f/ ; cp i K.II7 2 K. 23 13 Dt.3249 Gen. 23 19 2.5 _iS, etc. Besides the vaguer meaning of be/ore (e.g., Clen. 16 12) it is sometimes made definite by the addition of a word or of an expression in order to denote a particular direction e.g.. Josh. 158, the mountain l-efore the Valley of Hinnom wes/iward (Zech. 144), and the Mount of Olives, which is^^/ijfore Jerusalem on the Easi iZ-}r)ri) : cp Nu. 21 11 Josh. 18 14. Lastly, it is used in the sense of overlooking; cp Gen.l8i6 1928 Nu.'23 28 (cp Dr. on I Sam. 1;")7, Di. on Josh. 17 7, and especially Moore, /<J^, 10 3). In iK. 173, TDij?, 'eastward,' should be corrected to in^SIO, ' towards the desert ' (as 19 4).]


plural form Cherubim (3n3. D'2-J3. D^anS; xepoyB- xepoYB(e]i/v\, -re]iN Li^-'^M: e'y "'"'"y 'si'ute.l ; Ps. 10:43 may allude to a popular post-cxilic identification ^^^ ^riS and nn"). but kerub being, like ypr\(/, a loan-word, a Hebrew etymology is inadmissible).

1 Lata Jewish angelology.[edit]

In the composite system of Jewish angelology the cherubim form one of the ten highest classes of angels, while another class is distinguished by the synonymous term 'living creatures" {Aajyd/A). These two classes, together with the 'ophannim or ' wheels," are specially attached to the throne of the divine glory, and it is the function of the cherubim to be bearers of the throne on its progresses through the worlds. The Jewish liturgy, like the ' Te Deum,' delights to associate the ' praises of Israel " (Ps. '22 3 [4]) with those offered to God by the different cla.sses of angels, and singles out for special mention in a portion of the daily morning service the 'ophannim, the hayyoth, and the slraphim. We find an approach to this conception in the Apocalypse, where the four fwa (Rev. 46-8), though like the twenty- four Trpfa^vTfpoL they are always mentioned apart from the angels, and discharge some altogether peculiar functions, are yet associated with the angels in the utterance of do.xologies ' (Rev. 48011-14191-7).

A siniilar view is suggested in the ' Similitudes ' in Enoch, in one passage of which (61 10/. ) ' the cherubim, seraphim, and 'ophannim, and all the angels of power ' are combined under the phrase ' the host of God," and unite in the ivscription of blessedness to the ' Lord of Spirits," while in another (chap. xl. ) the 'four faces on the four sides of the Lord of Spirits " (a reminiscence of Ezek. 16) are identified or confounded with the arch- angels. Elsewhere, however, a somewhat different view is presented of the cherubim. They are the sleep- less guardians of the ' throne of His glory ' (71 7) ; they arc t!ie ' fiery cherubim ' (Hii), and together with the seraphim (exceptionally called ' serpents,' SpaKovrcs) are closely connected v.ith Paradise, and placed under the archangel Gabriel (20 7). From these facts we gather that in the last two centuries B.C. there were different ways of conceiving the cherubim.

2. Ezekiel 23:13+ .16, Isaiah 14:13-15[edit]

Some writers had a stronger sense of the peculiarity of the nature of the cherubim than others, and laid stress on such points as their connection with the divine tire, and with Paradise and its serpent-guardians. Whence did they derive a notion so suggestive of mythological comparisons?

The most reasonable answer is, I'rom the earlier religious writings, supplemented and interpreted by a not yet extinct oral tradition. A tale of the serpents by the sacred tree (once probably serpent-demons) may have been orally handed down, but the conception of the fiery cherubim in God's heavenly palace is to be tracetl to the vision in Ezek. 1, and to the account of the ' mountain of God ' in Eden, with its ' stones of fire ' and its cherub -guardian, in Ezek. 28 13/ 16. These two passages of Ezekiel form the next stage in our journey. The latter nmst be treated first, as being evidently a faithful report of a popular tradition. Unfortunately the received Hebrew text is faulty, and an intelligible exegesis of the passage is rarely given. Keil, for instance, admits some reference to Paradise, but feels

1 "The differences lictween the fia of Revelation and those of Ezekiel, both as to their appearance and as to their functions, are obvious. But without the latter how could the former have been itnagined? The traditional Christian view that the apoca- lyptic fia symbolise the four Gospels can hardly be seriously defended.

obliged to infer from the epithet ' that covereth' (^3^o.^) that ' the place of the cherub in the sanctuary (Ex. 2.') 20) was also present to the prophet's mind. ' .\or is the diflliculty confined to this epithet and to the c<)ually strange word (nrcc) which Vg. renders 'extentus,' and EV ' anointed ' (so Thcodot.); the opening phrase ariTnu, whether renderetl ' thou wast the cherub ' or 1 pointing r\H differently) 'with the cherub, baffles comprehension. It is necessary, therefore, to correct the text of w. 13/. 16^ ; we shall then arrive at the following sense :

' Thou wast in Eden, the divine garden ; of all I precious stones was thy covering cornelian, etc. ; and of gold were thy . . . worked ; in the day when thou wast made were they prepared. To be . . . had 1 appointed thee ; thou wast upon the holy, divine moun- tain ; amidst the stones of fire didst thou walk to and fro.'- Then wast thou dishonoured (being cast) out of the divine mountain, and the cherub destroyed thee (hurling thee) out of the midst of the stones of fire."

The sense now becomes fairly clear. We have here a tradition of Paradise distinct from that in Gen. 2 and 3. Favoured men, it appears, could be admitted to the divine garden, which glittered with precious stones (or, as they are also called, 'stones of fire) like the mythic tree which the hero (jilgames saw in the Babylonian epic,** or like the interior of the temples of Babylon or Tyre,* or like the walls and gates and streets of the new Jerusalem in the .\f>ocalypse. But these privileged persons were still liable to the sin of pride, and such a sin would l)c their ruin. This Ezekiel applies to the case of the king of Tyre, who reckoned himself the favourite of his god, and secure of admission to Paradise.

The idea of the passage is closely akin to that ex- pressed in Is. 1413-15. The king of Babylon believes that by his unique position and passionate devotion to the gods he is as.sured of entering that glorious cosmic temple of which his splendid terrace-temples are to him the symbols. Towards Marduk he is humility itself, but to the unnamed prophet of Yahwe he seems proud even to madness. From that heaven of which in his thoughts he is already the inhabitant, the prophet sees him hurled as a lifeless corpse to an ignoble grave. This is just what Ezekiel holds out in pros[)ect to the king of Tyre, and the destroying agent is the cherub. How different this idea of the cherub from that of the apocalyptic fwa !

1 So Co., following BAQ, Sym., but in other respects reading p. T 4 as above.

2 According to the ordinary view which m.ikes the Tyrian prince a cherub, the plumage of the cherub of K/ekiel's tradition was resplendent as if with gold and precious stones. But surely it wxs not merely as a griffm, nor as a grirTins fellow, that the Tyrian prince was placed (as the prophet dramatically states) in Paradise, but as one of the ' sons of Elohim" ; and the covering spoken of is a state-dress besprinkled with precious stones. 'Stones of fire" means 'flashing stones," like the Assyrian aban t'sdti, ' stone of fire," one of the names of a certain precious stone (Friedr. Del. /'an 118).

3 Tablet IX. See Jeremias, [zduhar-Ximrod, 70.

  • For Babylon see >f ebuchadre?7ar"s inscription, R r<^ S \cnff-,

where he describes the beautification of the temple R-sagila at great length. Gold and precious stones are specially mentioned. or the temple of Tyre see Herod. 244 (the two brilliant pillars). Gold was also lavishly used in the temple of Solomon.

  • There is a second description in IO8-17, but it is the attempt

of a later writer to improve upon Ezekiel's account, and to pre- pare the way for v. 20. K. 14 should be omitted as a verj- care- less gloss. See Comill, and on r. 14 cp Davidson.

3. Ezekiel 1:1[edit]

We have again a different conception of the cherubim in Ezekiel's vision (Ez. 1).* The prophet has not the old untjuestioning belief in tradition, and modifies the traditional data so as to produce effective symbols of religious ideas. Out of the elaborate description it is enough to select a few salient points. Observe then that the one cherub of the tradition in ch. 28 has now become four cherubim (cp Rev. 46-8), each of which has four faces, one looking each way, viz. that of a man, a lion, an ox, and an eagle, and human hands on his four sides. They are not, however, called cherubim, but hayyoth. ('living creatures'), until we come to 93, and Ezekiel tells us (lOzo) that he did not 'know that they were cherubim' till he heard them called so by God (10 2). By this he implies that his own description of them differed so widely from that received by tradition that without the divine assurance he could not have ventured to call them cherubim. Sometimes, however, he sixjaks of them in the singular ('the living creature,' 1 20-22 ; 'the cherub,' 93 IO24, if MT is correct), apparently to indicate that, being animated by one 'spirit,' the four l>eings formed but one complex phenomenon. The fourfold character o the cherub is caused by the new function (relatively to the account in ch. 28) which is assigned to it ; in fact, it has now become the bearer of the throne of God (more strictly of the 'firmament' under the throne I2226). But the whole appearance was at the moment bathed in luminous splendour, so that the seer needed reflection to realise it. We will therefore not dwell too much on what must be to a large extent peculiar to Ezekiel and artificially symbolic, and in so far belongs rather to the student of biblical theology. All that it is important to add is that the divine manifestation takes place within a storm-cloud, and that a fire which gives out flashes of lightning burns brightly between the cherubim ; also that there are revolving wheels txiside the cherubim, animated by the same ' spirit ' as the living creatures, and as brilliant as the chrysolith or topaz ; and that in his vision of the temple Ezekiel again modifies his picture of the; cherubim, each cherub having there but two faces, that of a man and that of a lion (-11 18/ ).

1 in the three passages from S. and i Ch. the phra.se 20^ C'lisn has been interpolated (cp Ark, i).

2 See Che., PsJ^', ad loc, where the text of the deeply corrupt verse is restored with .some confidence.

4 Some post-exilic passages.[edit]

Another group of passages on the cherubim is found in the Psalter, viz. Ps. 18 10/ [11/.] 80 1 [2] 99 1, and to the latter we may join not onlv I's. 33 [4], but phrases in i S. U 2S. 62 ^ ^l^'\^^ 2 K. 19 15 ( = Is. 37 16). All these passages are post-exilic.^ In the first we read, ' He bowed the heavens and came down, and thick clouds were under his feet ; he mounted the cherub and flew, he came swooping upon the wings of the wind.' That there is a mythical conception here is obvious, but it has grown very pale, and does not express much more than Ps. 104 3(^. The conception agrees with that of Ezekiel ; the cherub (only one is mentioned, but this does not exclude the existence of more) is in some sense the divine chariot, and has some relation to the storm-wind and the storm-clouds. The other psalm- passages appear at first sight to give a new conception of the cherubim, who are neither the guards of the 'mountain of God,' nor the chariot of the moving Deity, but the throne on which he is seated. It may be questioned, however, whether the phrase ' enthroned upon the cherubim ' is not simply a condensed expres- sion for ' seated on the throne which is guarded by the cherubim. ' Both in the Psalter and in the narrative- books it is the heavenly throne of Yahwfe which is meant, the throne from which (as is implied in Ps. 80i[2]99i and 2 K. 19 15) he rules the universe and guides the destiny of the nations. That is the only change which has taken place in the conception of the cherubim ; they have been definitely transferred to heaven, and, strictly s[>eaking, their occupation as bearers of the Deity should have gone, for the ' angels ' are sufficient links between God and the world of men Or rather there is j-et another point in which the cherub idea has been modified; it is indicated in Ps. 223(4) where, if the text is correct,^ Yahwe is addressed as 'enthroned,' not upon the cherubim, but 'upon the praises of Israel.' The idea is that the cherubim in heaven have now the great new function of praising God. and that in the praiseful services of the temple, where God is certainly in some degree present, the congregation takes the place of the cherubim. This at any rate agrees with later Ixjliefs, and may be illustrated by the direction in Ex. 2020 (P) that the faces of the cherubim on the ark shall be ' towards the mercy-seat ' [kapporeth). The meaning of the priestly theorist (for the description is imaginary, the ark having long ago tlisappeared) is, that the cherubim are a kind of higher angels who surround the earthly throne of Yahwe and contemplate and praise his glory. It is also stated that their faces are to be 'one to another,' and, if we add to this that they have to guard, not Yahwe, but the sacramental sign of his favour, we get three points in which the cherubim of the priestly writer are cl().sely analogous to the seraphim of the vision of Isaiah (Is. 6).

5. Solomon's temple[edit]

We now come to the cherubim in the temple of Solomon. Carved figures of cherubim were prominent in the decoration of the walls and the doors, and two colossal cherubim stood in the dfblr or 'adytum,' where they ' formed a kind of dais, one wing being horizontally stretched towards the lateral wall, whilst the other over-shadowed the ark, a felicitous arrangement resulting in charming effects'^ (see i K. 623-35). Obviously they are the guards of the sacred ark and its still more sacred contents. (Jp Temi'I.e.

6. Paradise story.[edit]

There is no record of any myth which directly accounts for the temple-cherubim. But an old tradition said that after the first human pair had been driven out of the divine garden, Yahwe 'stationed at the east of the Garden of Eden the cherubim and the blade of the whirling sword,' and the function of these two allied but independent powers was ' to guard the way to the tree of life' (Gen. 824). Neither in this case, nor in the preceding one, is any account given of the physiognomy of the cherubim. In the height of the mythological period no such account was needed.

7. Development[edit]

We see therefore that the most primitive Hebrew myth descrited the cherubim as beings of superhuman power and devoid of human sympathies, whose office was to drive away intruders from the abode of God, or of the gods. Originally this abode was conceived of as a mountain, or as a garden on the lower slopes of a mountain, and as glittering with a many- coloured brightness. But when the range of the supreme god's power became wider, when from an earth -god he became also a heaven-god, the cherub too passed into a new phase ; he became the divine chariot. We have no early authority for this view, but the age which produced the story of Elijah's ascent to heaven in a fiery chariot (2K. 2ii) may be supposed to have known of fiery cherubs on which Yahw^ rode. At a still later time, the cherubim, though still spoken of by certain writers, were no longer indispensable.* The forces of nature were alike Yahwe's guards and his ministers. Mythology became a subject of special learning, and its details acquired new meanings, and the cherub-myth passed into an entirely new phase.

1 Perrot and Chipiez, Art injudcra, 1 245-

2 The sword is not the sword of the cherubim but that of Yahwe; it is the same with which he 'slew the dragon' (Is. 'J7i). M.-irduk, too, has such a sword (see Smith, Chald, Gen. 86 I'So], and the illustration, opp. 114).

3 In Hab. 3 8 a very late poet speaks of Vahwb as riding, not upon a cherub, but upon horses. This is a return to a very old myth (see tablet 4 ot the Babylonian Creation epic, p. 52, Zimmern's restoration in Gunkel's SchSpf. 411).

8. origin[edit]

There is much that is obscure about the form of the primitive Israelitish cherub. It was in the main a land-animal, but it had \yings. That is all that we know, though a probable conjecture (see below) may lead us further. As to the meaning of the cherubim, they have been thought to represent the storm-clouds which sometimes hang around the mountain peaks, sometimes rush 'on the wings of the wind,' sending forth arrows like flashes of li(;htning. This theory is consistent withthe lanRuafjc of Ps. IX9/ liz. 1 4/ 24, and the passages of Enoch, but hardly explains the symbolism of the cherub in its earliest historically known forms. At any rate, we can aftirm positively that the myth is of foreign origin. Ixnorntant thoui,'ht that he had tracctl it to Babylonia,* on the grounil that kirubu occurs on a talisman as a synonym for shidu, a common term for the divine bull-guardian of temples and palaces. This theory however is not con- firmed as regards the derivation of ana (see ZA 1 68/ ['86]). \\c may indeed admit that Rzekiel probably mingled the old Palestinian view of the cherub with the analogoui Babylonian conception of the divine winged bulls. But, so far as can be seen at present, the early Hebrew cherub came nearer to the griffin, which was not divine, but the servant of the Deity, ?nd the origin of which is now assigned to the Hiltites of Syria.* The idea of this mythic form is the combination of parts of the two strongest animals of air and land the lion and the eagle, and a reminiscence of this may perhaps be traced in the reference to these animals in Ez. 1 10. It was adopted by various natif>ns, but to understand its true significance we must go, not to l'"gypt nor to Cireccc, but to the Hiltites, whose originality in the use of animal-forms is well known. The Hittite griffin apjx-ars almost always, in contrast to many Babylonian representations, not as a fierce Ijeast of prey, but seated in cahn dignity like an irresistible guardian of holy things. It is only on later Syrian monuments that the Sun-god is represented in a chariot drawn by griffins, wiiich agrees with a statement respecting the Indian sun-god in I'hilostratus's Life of Apollonius (348). The Egyptians imported this form, probably from Syria or Canaan at the beginning of the New Empire, but the griffin never ac(|uire(l among them the religious significance of the Spiiin.x. The I'hccnicians, and probably the Canaanites, and through them the Is- raelites, evidently attached greater importance to the grilfin or cherub, and it is said that among the dis- coveries at Zeiijirli in X. Syria(see Ak.\m.mc Lanou.\(;i;, 2) is a genuine representation of this mythic form as described in Ez. 41 18/.* Whether the sculptured quad- ruped with a bearded human head, Assyrian in tyfx;, discovered by M. Clermont-Ganneau in the subterranean quarries in the north of Jerusalem, is rightly called a cherub seems very doubtful.

For a general sketch of the different conceptions of winged composite animals, see H. Teloni, /,A 1)124-140 ['91I, and cp Fiirtu.iiiglcr's art. in Roscher, Lex., cited alre.ady ; also, for OT criticism, Valke, Die Rel. des A /', 329-334 ['35I. T. K. C.


(in?: XApoyB [BN.\]). a town or district in Babylonia, unless Cherub- Addan- ImnuT should be taken as one name, I-'./ra'Jsg (xApoyc [BJ. XepoYB [.}!-]) -N-h. 76, (xepoyB L'<'-'^^ -"A], ax- [>-]) = iEsd. r)36 (xapaaGaAan [B], xepoyBiAAN [E]. XApA AAaAap [-^l'. where the former two of these names are run together (Cl!.\R.\.\TH.\l,.\R, RV Cll.\K- .\.\iii.\i..\n) and the names are regarded as personal rallier tiian as local.

1 See I-enormant, Les origines, \wijf.\ Schrader, COT I40; Frd. Del. Par. 153; Che. is.^^) 'Jag?/ Delitzsch, however, still holds to a connection between 3n3 and Ass. kMrahu (?) = karilhu ' mighty ' (Ass. //ll 7>, 352). Sayce com- pares the quasi -human winged figures represented on .^s- syrian walls as fertilising the 'tree of life," the date-palm (Crit. Mon. 102; cpTylor, PSR.l, Vi^^^ff. [iSSg-qo]).

' Furtwangler, in Roscher, Lex. Bd. ii., art. 'Gryps.'

> Rakubel(D. H. Midler) or perh.-ips Rek.nb'el or Rakkfd.el (G. Hoffmann) is one of the gods of the Syrian district of Ya'di (Zenjirli inscriptions). G. Hoffmann explains Rekab'cl 'charioteer of El ' (ZA, 11 ['96], 2V^).

  • Furtwangler, in Roscher, Lex. Bd. ii. (ut suf>.) ; cp Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kyf>ros, 434/I

5 See ZA (i 420/ ['94). Rtv. crit., 16 Mai, 1892.


(p^D?; xacAcon [B]. -caA- [AE]>. on the N. side of Mount Jearim, one of the places which in Joshua (15 10) mark the northern frontier of the tribe of Judah. It is the modern Kesld, 2087 ft. above sea-level, on a high ridge immediately to the S. of the Wady (ihurab, and about half-way between Karyat el "Enab (Robinson's Kiriath-jearim) and EshiV (Eshtaol). (See Rob. HR 'lyo 3 154) In the time of Eusebius and Jerome, who pl.ice it on the Ijorder, the one in Benjamin and the other in Judah, it was ' a very large village in the confines of Jerusalem' (OS, \a\o.cij)v, Chasalon). Stanley (.S7^ 496) fitly comp.ires the name and situation with that of Chesulloth or ChisLoth-TAHOK (iJ-V.).


(nb'3, xacaA [Z>], x&czaA [A]. XA2&9 [L]), son of Nahor by Milcah (Gen. 2222), the eponym of a branch of the Chalda;ans. See Aram, 3, ARPHAXAD.


('?'P5), Josh. 1530 = 194. Bktmll.


(poll?). Gen. 3O37. RV I'i.ank.


1. p^<l, in 2 K. I29 / [10 /.] = 2 Ch. 24 8 ^, used of a box with lid [rh^, see Door) and hole (in) into which money might be dropped (pAcoC-COKOMOC [B.\L], eHC&YPOC [Jos. Ant. ix. 82]). The same word is used of a coffin (Gen. 50 26, see Dkau, 1 ), and of the Ark of the Covenant (see Ark, and cp COFFER).

2. c"ana 't:3, Ezek. 2724, EV ' chests of rich apparel,' but though t:3 (see Treasure Holski, like 6riaaip6i (Mt. 2 11), might conceivably mean a re|)ository for costly objects, yet the parallel expression ' mantles (not ' wrappings,' as R\') of blue and broidercd work ' shows that 'ijj must mean 'garments,' or the like, n and i are so easily confounded that we need not hesitate to read 'ija (Che. ), rendering ' rolx-'S of variegated stuff.' ^

See EMBROIDERY, and cp DRESS, 4.


(ni-JD?), Josh. 19.8. See CHIS-LOTU-TABOK.


(xeTTieiM [ANV]), i Mace. 1 . AV. RV CiiiTTiM. See KrrriM.


(2*T3), Gcn.SSst- See Anizin, i.


ip'3), I Ch. 139. See Na( iio.v.


The former, like ' captain.' is often used in AV as a substantive witli a convi nicnt vagueness to render various lleb. words (surh as K'r:, C'Ni. .132. ['iip) which apjx-ar to be used in a more or less general sense.

For 'chief ruler ' or 'chief minister ' (2 S. 8 is 20 26 iCh.Sa), cp Priest and Prince; for 'thief man' (Trptiros Actsjs;), see Mei.ita ; and for 'chief of .Asia,' (.Acts 1!) 31) see Asiakc h.

Chiektai.v occurs only in Zech.'.>7 12 5/ RV for ']<, for which see Duke.


See DANIEL, ijj! 19, 22.


(2i62, 4). son of David (2 .s. 33I In I Ch. 3i he is caUed Damki. (</.;. 4).


(xiAiApxoc [Ti. WlIJi, Rev. 19.3 R\"'n- .See Army, 10.


{]vh3; 74. xe\\d.\OJN [L]). and Mahi.on (ppnp, MA&AcON [B.\L]. 74). 'sickness' and 'wasting,' the names given to the sons of Naomi in the narrative of Ruth (Ruthl2 KeAAicoN [B], XcAecoN [-Vl ; J'- 5 xe^<M'j^>N [B]. xeAeooN [-^] ; 49 XeAAitoN [B]. XAiAecoN ['<])

1 Cp Ass. burrumu, ' variegated cloth ' (Muss-AinoItX


(np^3, XAPMAN [B.\Q]), Ez.2723. MT. usually supposetl to be a place or land not far from Assyria. If this be correct, it must at any rate be some fairly well-known place or lancl. But no name re- sembling Chilmad occurs anywhere else, and, as two corruptions of the text have already been found in this verse (Canneh, Shkba, ill.), we may presume a third. Read with Targ. 'and Media' (nci). Less probably (iriitz, ' Babylon and Media ' (not Saa) ; Mez and Bertholet, 'all Media' ('la-^a). \>2 should be dis- regarded. It came from '?3i ; the scribe began to write Sdt too soon, t fell out owing to the t which precedes ; restore i.

T. K. c.


(DnpS, 66, 77, or [2S. I941] tTO?.! or [Jer. 41 17 Kt.] DniD? ;.^., if the text is right, ' blind' [cp o.AA. cictrus fuit, and note Nestle's view on the Aramaean origin of Barzillai] ; XAMA&M [B], XANAAN [A], AXIMAAM [L], AXIMANOC. Jos. .-///A vii. 11 14 ; in Jer. 41 17 -XAMAA [B]. "XAMA [S], "XAMAAM [AQ*]), one of the sons of the Gileadite Barzillai, in whose stead he entered the service of David (2 S. 1937 [3S]/. XAAW [B*] 40 [41]). Most probably his real name was .\hinoam (avrnn) ; note the i in Jer. 's form, the j in 2S. , the Gr. forms with a^t and v, and the Egyptian form (? see below) with n-ma (Che.). Following Kw. [Hist. 8216), Deans Stanley and Plumptre have supposed that he carried on the family tradition of hospitality by erecting at Bethlehem a khan or hospice for travellers (see Jer. 41 17, cnps rrna, RV-uK- ' lodging- place of Chimham'). This view, however, is based on the faulty reading nnp- This should be corrected into niTiJ, which is the reading of Jos. (see Ant. .\. 95), of .^q., and of the He.vaplar Syri.ac (see Field), and has been adopted by Hitzig and Giesebrecht. In the text represented by [see Swete] the t in rmij had become a 3. Gidroth-chimham i.e., ' the hurdles, or sheep- pens, of Chimham' seems a probable name for a locality in a pastoral district. ' Chimham ' (or .\hinoam ?) is appended to distinguish this Gederoth from other places of the same name. It is just possible that the family of Chimham or Ahinoam had property there. Among the names of the places in Palestine conquered by .Seti I. we find Ha(?)-ma-he-mu, ' the city of Kaduru in He(?)-n-ma.,' which m^y possibly belong to the same place (WMM As. u. Eur. 193, 202). -viz., Gidroth-chimham (Sayce, Pat. Pal. 157), or rather (jitlroth-ahinoam. T. K. C. S. A. C.


(na-lNI), Hos. 133. See Coal, 3. Lattice, 2(1).


(n-133, in Josh. 1827 yeNepee [B], xeNcptoe [AL]; 1935. KGNepee [B], xen. [L], XGNepoG [A]; in Dt., JT^JSp, 'from Chinnereth ' ; MAXANApee [B], AnO MAXGNep. [AF], AHO X [L]). the name of one of the 'fenced cities' of Naphtali (Josh. 1935). Possibly it is also referred to in i K. 1020, where we should perhaps read 'and Abel-beth- maacah, and Chinneroth, and all the land of Naphtali. '^ It is of great antiquity, for it occurs under the form kn-na-ra-tu in the list of places conquered by Thotmes III., n. 34 (i?/--) 5 45 ; WMM As. u. Eur. 84). It is also given (i), with the prefix 'sea of to the Galilean lake (Xu. .34ii \xfvapa BF, -epf.d AL] Josh. 1827); (2) to the same inland 'sea' without that prefi.x (Dt. 8 17, cp Josh. 112 and see below). The site of the town can no longer be identified.

Jerome identified it with Tiberi.is (0.9n'2 29) ; some rabbins with a town .it the S. of ihe Lake called Beth-jerach (probably the Tarichxa of Josephus). Others included Sanbari (the Senna- brisof Jos. j9/iii. O7) under the designation; a third extended the application of the name to Heth-shean (Ber. raJ'ha, par. 98, Wiinsche). This vagueness sufficiently shows that nothing was known as to the site of the ancient town. Cp Neubauer, Grog. 'I'alm., 2n/.

On the derivation of Chinnereth, see Gennesaret.

T. K. c.

1 The Kt. reading DniC2, Jer. 41 17, may safely lie disre- gardeii.

^ 7rE3 p^r'7^ rm m:3 nx'!- i11 in MT's rinaa may conceal TKI. , in 2Ch. Ifli4, however, presupposes '"jniJJ nnss (rav ircpixwpovf ; see Ki., SBOT).


([Gins.] fin:3 or [Ba.] nn33, the ' pluralis f.x/insivus' of Chi.n.n'ERKTii) is the name applied (i). with the prefix 'sea of to the Galilean lake in Josh. I23 {xevepfO [BFL], x^^v. [A]), (2), with- out this prefix (cp Dt. 8 17), to the same lake in Josh. 11 2 ((cei-f/jwtf [B], xffpe^^t [A], -f0[FL]), (3), in the spelling CiNNEKOTH (.-VV only), to a district (?) in Naphtali laid waste by Benhadad king of Damascus (r K. 15 20, XevepfO [AL], x^^po-O [B]). See CiTY, 2 (/. ), n. The second and third passages need a brief comment. In I K. l.")2o, Ewald [Hist. 2290, n. 6) explains 'all Chin- neroth ' to mean the W. shore of Lake Merom and the Sea of Galilee and of that part of the Jordan which flows between those lakes ; Theiiius, the basin which extends from Lake Merom to the upper point of the Sea of Galilee. Such a large extent of meaning, however, is improbable. Unless we adopt the cor- rection suggested above (Chinnereth) it is best to suppose Chinneroth to mean here the shores (or the W. or E. shore alone) of that famous lake. In support of this explanation, the second passage mentioned above (Josh. 11 2) may be appealed to.

The text, however, is not quite correct. The rendering ' in the Arabah south of Chinneroth ' (RV) can hardly be defended. The difficulty lies in 333, for which it is better with Di. to read 133 ((Bhafl a.-neva.vTi.) ; we shall then get the phrase ' in the Arabah over against Chinneroth.' This may be a designation of the fertile plain called el-Ghuiveir, the Gennesaret of the Synoptic Gospels, in which the town of Chiunereth was presum- ably situated. Cp Gennesaret, and Judah upon Jordan.


(xiOC [Ti. WH]: Chius), the beautiful and fruitful Scio, the central member of the triad of large islands lying off the coast of Asia Minor. It has little connection with biblical history, but the solitary mention of it (Acts 20 15) very clearly indicates its geographical position. Paul returning from Macedonia, to keep Pentecost at Jeru.salem, touched at Mitylene in Lesbos ; next day he was ' over against ' Chios [Ka.Tt)VTi](Tap.iv dvTiKpvi Xtof) ; probably somewhere about Cape Argennum. mod. Asprokavo, which was a place of anchorage (Polyb. 168). On the third day at Samos. The ship evidently anchored each night and sailed with the early morning trceze, which prevails generally in the ^gean during the summer, blowing from the N. and dying away in the afternoon. The run from Mitylene to Chios is something over 50 m. Herod's voyage as related in Jos. Ant. xvi. 22, in the reverse direction, illustrates the apostle's journey.

Strabo describes the town as having a good harbour with anchorage for eighty ships (645). Paul possibly lay becalmed in the channel (about 7 m. wide), and may not have landed. The island was noted for its wines (Stralxj, 645, 657X \v. j. w.


RV Chislev (I'Pp?, in Assjt. Kisilivu, cp KAT^) 380. in Palm. '?"l'rD3 DeVog. Svr. Cent. nos. 24, 75): Zcch. 7i x^^ceAey [ABF-*], -ciA. [Xi?"^-b]. -cA. [r*], pACiAey or r^c. [X*]); Neh. 1 1, cexeHAoy [Bl, -xgnA. [B*^], -xehA [^^*]. xeceAey [X-:-^ '"?], xAcenAoY [A], XACAAey \.^A)- AV has CASTLEU in I Mace. 154 452 (xacrtXev [AN<:n']. -aa\. [.S*], but xAceAeoy [A in 452J). -See Month, 5.


(fl'?p3 ' confidence ' ? xAcAcxiN [BAFL]), the father of Elidad (Nu. 34 21).


(lUri-ni^M ; 99 ' loins ' or ' flanks ' of Tabor ; cp .Xznoth-tabor, ' ears ' or ' peaks of Tabor; xACeAa)BAie [B], -caA^^oG BaGoiR [A], -ceAAAB BaBcop [L]), Josh 19 12 or in v. if Chksll- LOTH (ni^D? ; XACA\6oe [B], AXAceA- [AL]), lay on the border between Zebulun (Josh. 19 12) and Issachar {v. 18). It is the Xaloth (SaXwtf) of Josephiis (B/'\\\.Zi Vit. 44\ the Chasalus or XaireXoi'S of Eusebius and Jerome desiTilied by them as a small village on the plain below Mount Tabor, 8 R. m. from DiocjEsarea or Sepphoris (O.S"<2)9l4 9435 22859). It is represented by the modern Iksdl, 460 ft. above sea level, 7 m. SW. from Sepphoris, 5^ m. N. from Shunem, and nearly 3 m. W. from the base of Mount Tabor. The name has been suggested as an emendation for Mai<Ta\w0 or yieffffa\ti>6 in i Mace. 9a and of Chellus in Judith 1 9 (sec CiiKi,t.t;s). The position of tlie place on the main road N. , in the pass between 'ral)f>r and t!ie hills of Na/.areth, explains its strategical value, as witinssed in its various ap[)earances in history.


(L*'^^n3). Josh. IS^oRV. AV KrniLisH.


{D*n3). Is. 23i AV. etc.; Gen. IO4

KllIlM {./.-:).


(I-V3 and n"l3p). Am. 526 RV.

1. Identification[edit]

' Vca. yc [O house of Israel] have borne .Siccuth your . , .. kinj;, and Chiun vour iniaRcs, the star of y^^^j^ ^,^^^1 . ,\v, kv-mf differ by rendering j^,|2D. the talx-rnacle (of). ' These words have long been a puzzle to scholars. The priniary question is, whether they should Ite considered apjjella- tives or proper nouns. The i)roblem is ancient, as appears from the phenomena of the versions (.see l>eiow, 2). Into the syntactical and cxegetical difficulties of V. 26, taken with its context, we cannot here enter ; our object is to consider the explanation of the above- mentioned words offered by Schrader (6V. A>. 324 Jf. [74], and COT 2 141/. ), which, though widely acccjjted, fails to satisfy some good critics. According to Schrack-r's theory n'33 is to be pointed n?30 and |V3 |V3, the former representing the divine name Sakkut, the latter Kaiwan. 0(ipert had already recogni.sed in Chiun the Babylonian Kaiwan, and this identification may be regarded as almost certain. The word is of frequent occurrence in Babylonian mythological and religious texts as the name of the planet Saturn. It is of uncertain meaning and etymology.

Other .Semitic peoples have preserved the same name, prob- ahly as loan words, for Saturn is called by the Mandsans [xr3, by the Syrians t OjLO, and by the Persians Kahvdn (for references to the occurrence of the word in Babylonian texts, see JciKcn, h'osiiiol. iMjf.).

The name Siccuth presents much greater difficulties. Schrader has sliown that the name Sak-kut, which is probably the same as the Siccuth of the text, is used in a H.ibylonian list as a name, or an ideographic writing, for the god Ninib (2 R. 5740). Ninib, however, appears to be the god of the planet Kaiwanu or Saturn (see Jensen, A'osmol. 136^ ; Lotz, Qiurst. de hist. Sabbati, 27^). We seem, therefore, to be brought to the con- clusion that Sakkuth and Kaiwan are the same (which would he. still more clear if it could be shown with certainty that S.\G-u5, 2 R. 32 no. 3 /. 25, might be read Sak-kut, as Opjiert and Schrader believe). Not all the steps in the argument made to coimect Sak-kut and Kaiwan are perfectly clear. Still, indirect confirmation of the correctness of the result h;is lately come to hand, the two words having been found together in a mytho- logical text. In the Surpu texts S;ik-kut and Kaiw.anu are invokeil together (4 R. 52 col. 4 /. 9; cp Zimmcrn, Beit, zur Kenntniss der Bab. Rel., 1896, p. 10/. 179). In this text at least the two words Sak-kut and Kaiwan appear together as they do in Amos.

[Not impri)l>ably_, according to Che., there is a reference to Saccuth- Kaiwun in 2 K. 17 30 (see Si'c. orn - P.f.noth) and another to Kaiwan in a pa-is.ige of Kzekiel. 'The ini.ni;e of jealousy" in lizek. 8 3 5 is not a possible title; .nKjip sei-nis to be a corruption of IK1'3. The word for 'image' is 7DO ; it was probably a statue of Kaiw.nn which E/ekicl saw (in ecstasy) "HDrthward of the .nltar gate' in the outtr court of the temple, unless indeed '<C3 (Idol, g i c.) should rather be QoS '/-i laniassu, one of the names for the colossal winged bulls which gu.inlcd the entrances of Assyrian and ISabylonian palaces and temples (cp Ezek. 835 where, however, read Hie?, 'at the entrance,' with Gra. for nK33)- At any rate, we now seem to know the period to which the inter|K)lation of Am. 626 refers (see further Che., Kxp. Times, lOi^j, Dec. '98)].

2 Text[edit]

The connection of Siccuth and Chiun with the Babylonian name and the ideographic value for the planet Saturn agree well with their juxtaposition in Am. 526, and if 'Sk 330 and ds'dSx are transposed, the verse becomes at least intelligible (see Schr. ib., and cp Orelli, ad loc. ). 'Ihe phenomena of 0's text, however, and **'*" "^*^ ^^ '^* ^\'X , suggest the inference that there may be a more deeply - se;iied corruption (see Amos, 13).

[Korthefiijo of Heb. text *u*0 Symm. give tt)i <jKi\vr\ i.e., nSO (cp Acts7 43). eh. oiUajOC, A<j. <rirta<r/iovt, Theo<l. T^v oftaaiv, Vg. tal>ei-naculuni, Tg. (I-ig.) ni3'D. which confirms MT. For n'3 (Heb. text and 1 g.), Aq. and .Symm. have xi-oitv, Theiid. a.y.tt.vaui<Tiv , Vg. iiiiaii;inetn iSnr sec Kf.m- I'HAN). Tlic pointing of MT seems to \x suggested by that of ppP, ' al>omination ' = ' idol ' ; cp 7\^i. For references to recent critics see Amos, | 13, and cp Che., Exp. Jan. 1897, pp. 42-44.]

R. W. K.


(xAoH [Ti. WH]). a woman of whom nothing is known, save that ' they of Chloe ' (01 xAoHc) were the first to let Paul know at Ephesus of the division which had arisen in the Corinthian church (t Cor. In).

Whether she belonged to Ephesus or to Corinth, who the members of her household were, whether even .she was a Christian or not, are questions on all of which only conjectures can be offered. It is possible, but hardly probable, that Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus (i Cor. 1(J \T /.) may have been servants of Chloc.


(xojBa [HA], x&B& (s). <.. O^ [L-U'], j t. * [Walton]), called in Judith ir>4y: Chobai (xcoBai [BX^'A], xcoBa [N*], in If.s xojBa [BNA], ^^ <^ ., ,. [l^ag. ]), is mentioned in connection with the defensi\e measures of the Jews against Holofernes (Judith 4 4). Reland (p. 721) proposed the Coabis oi the Tab. Pent, near Jericho, a site that would agree with both the Greek and the Syriac of Judith 4 4 ; and in connection with it Conder {PEF .Mem. 2231) ])oints to the ruin el-Mekhubby and the cave ' Ardk el K hubby on the Roman road 3 m. from TUbds (see Thebez) and 1 1 from Beisdn.


(xoiNi5: in Ezek.45io/ "aQ for Bath), a measure of capacity Rev. 66 RV?- (EV ' measure '). See Wkight.s and Mkasl-kk.s.


1 Members.[edit]

The subject of the hereditary choirs, or better, guilds of singers is considered elsewhere (see PSALMS). We content ourselves here ^-^^^ ^^^ Talmudic statements relative to the Temple choir in the narrower sense of the word, postponing, however, the question of choral psalms. The Talmud affirms that the choir in the Second Temple consisted of not less than twelve adult Levites, nine of whom played on the instrument called the Kinnor (lyre?), two on the Neliel (lute?), while the remaining one beat the .selsOlim (cymtwls). This number might, however, be exceeded on the occasion of festivals (Mish. Erach. 23-5). No statement is made as to the number of the singers whom these musicians accompanied, from which Cratz infers that the instru- mental and the vocal music were performed by the same persons. This seems to illustrate Ps. 92i[i] 3[4] (Che.)-

Good is it to give thanks to Yahw^, To m.ike melody to the name of the Most High, 'I'o the sound ofthe horn and the lute, To the sweetly sounding notes ofthe lyre. Certainly the most important duty of the choir of Levites was the service of song. The Talmud also states that boys' voices were called in to modify the deep bass of the men's voices. The choir-boys did not stand on the platform with the Ixvites, but lower down, so that their heads were on a level w iih the feet of the Levites. They were sons of persons of rank in Jeru- salem ('trn' *Tp"33, Talm. Erach. 13/^). See Griitz, Psalmen, 65/ ; Del., Ps. 26/., 372 ; and cp Music, 1.3/

2. Duty[edit]

The duty of the choir is briefly summed up in Neh. 1224 2 Ch. 513. It is T^\Th\ \Sjh, i.e., to raise the strain of praise ( HallfilQ = praise ye) and thanksgiving (H6du = give ye thanks). See IIallel, Conkession, 3. The formula of 'thanks-giving which served as a refrain in the later eucharistic songs was, ' P"or he is good, for his loving-kindness is for ever' (2 Ch. 5 13 736 Ezra 3 n Jer. 3:iii the last passage has been expanded by a late writer and cp the psalms beginning 'Give thanks unto Yahwe'). Were there any female singers in the temple choirs? From Xch. 767 Pcritz infers that there were ('Women ill the Ancient Hebrew Cult.' /BLlI nZ ['98]).

Strange to say, the word 'choirs' occurs but once, and only in RV'iitJ. Mattaniah (if this mg. is right) was ' over the choirs' (MT nn;.-!), Neh.128. Del. {Psalmen 26), Ry., and Kau. (//.?), however, give 'choir' as the rendering of niin in Neh. 1231, where RV has 'companies that gave thanl;s.' This may be accepted, but the mg. 'choirs' in 12 8 is but a con- fession of the great improbability of MT. Neither n'n'H "*"" r'T.T (which Ry. and Ron. prefer) can be naturally defended. Re.-id niliTSy. 'over the thanksgiving' (Bottch., Ol., Guthe). EV in Neh. 12 8, therefore, virtually corrects the text, l irt\ ruiv i^oixoKoyr)(T(iav : (puNA pointed mi^ri (ejri Ttt>'X"P<")- Cp Neh. 11 17, and see M.\ttaniah, 2. t. K. C.


(xooAa [B]), Judith 15 4 RV, AV Coi.a (,/.r.).


RV Cor-.vshan (|L*'y-li3), 1S.3O30. See AsHAN and BoK-ASiiAN.


(xopAzeiN[Ti. WH]Mt. 1121 Lk. IO13 F.us. OS^-^'.iO'iT! xtop)- III these two passages Jesus calls woe upon Chorazin andBethsaida (and immediately after on Capernaum) as towns in which his wonderful works have produced no effect. From his direct address to all three, they appear to have lain together within his sight. Jerome (C>.S'(-' 114 7 Chorozain) places Chorazin 2 R. m. from Capernaum (Euseb. 12 R.m., but this seems a copyist's error). In his commentary on Is. 9i Jerome describes the town as on the shore of the lake like Capernaum, Tiberias, and Bethsaida. From this Robinson (A'A'Sasg/; ) argues for the site at Tell Hum. But about I m. N. of Tell Hum, in a shallow wfuly running from the Lake into the hills, there are black basalt ruins, including those of a large syna- gogue, with Corinthian columns, which bear the name AVracM (/V:/-M/<v//.l 400-2). Now, Willibald (722) says that he went from Capernaum to Bethsaida, thence to Chorazin, and thence to the sources of the Jordan a course which, in spite of what Robinson asserts, suits Kerazeh as it does not suit either Tell Hum, or any other site on the Lake. Accordingly, most moderns, since Thomson discovered the site in 1857, agree that Kerazeh is Chorazin, and take Jerome's statement as either vague or inaccurate. (Robinson thinks the name may have drifted from Tell Hum to Kerazeh.) Jesus calls Chorazin a city and treats it as comparable with Tyre and Sidon. The ruins are extensive, and there are traces of a paved road connecting the site with the great trunk road from Capernaum to Damascus.

The 15ab. Talmud (Mfnahoth 85(1) praises the wheat of Chorazin (cvi^ cp Neubauer, Geog. Talin. 220). In the days of Eusebius and Jerome (330 and 400 a.d.) the place was in ruins. Willibald found a Christian Church there. G. A. S.


(xopBs [BA]), i Esd. 5i2 RV=Ezra29 Zacc.m.


(xocAMAOC [B], -omaioc [A], I^a-VXm cxd qj cia(*i a_!O.*09) [Syr. ] ), i Esd. 9 32. The name follows .Siiuon (=.Shimeon in || Ezra IO31), and hence may represent one of the three names in Ezra 10 32 otherwise omitted in i Esd. Possibly in a poor MS only the final -; of Malluch and the third name Shemariah were legible, and out of these the scribe made Choshamiah(Ban, I'ar. Apoc). Otherwise the name has arisen from Hashum (ciiE^n), "v. 33 ; but the Syr. } ;-v-r still remains a difficulty.


RV Cozeba (n3T3), iCh. 422t. See AcHzin, I. 


(o XPICTOC [Ti. WH]), Mt. 24. See Messiah, 2, end.


1 Infrequency[edit]

We can readily understand that the followers of Jesus confessed to the name of their Master whenever occasion arose. On the other hand, the time, the place, and the circumstances of the origin of the name Xpi(rria'6$ as a specific designation are obscure. According to Acts 11 26 the matter seems a simple one ; but, with this passage before us, it is remarkable how seldom the name occurs elsewhere in the records of early Christianity. In the NT the only other places where it is found are Acts 2628 and i I'et. 4i6. It is certainly not alluded to in Acts 5 41 ; for ' the name' on account of which the apostles here suffer dishonour was, as we are expressly told in v. 40, the name of Jesus. This passage, accordingly, lielongs to the same category as Mk. 93741 where, Ijesides, the words 'because ye are Christ's' after kirl T<p dySnari fxov (so Ti. ) may be merely the explanatory marginal gloss of some early reader and ^lk. 13 13. In Ja. 27 also, the ' honourable name ' by which the readers are called is not the nanie 'Christian,' but the name of Christ himself as their Lord ; for the expression is to be explained in the same sense as .Am. 9 12 ( ' the heathen, which are called by my name ' ) viz. , by reference to 2 S. I228 ( ' lest ... it be called after my name ' ). All passages of this class must here be left out of account, inasmuch as they do not presuppose the specific name ' Christian. ' The name is presupposed, as far as the NT is concerned, only in Lk. 622 [rb dvofia

Outside of the NT, according to the exhaustive re- searches of Lipsius.i the name does not occur in either of the epistles ascriljed to Clement of Rome ; it is absent from Barnabas, Hernias, Polycarp, the Pse'udo- Clementine Homilies, Tatian, and the Cohortatio ad Circvcos. The Pseudo-C/emenfi/ie Recognitions, as also the Catholic Acts of Peter and Paul, have it only in a few passages of later insertion ; so also with the Gnostic writings. As a word in regular use it makes its earliest appearances in the Apologists Justin, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Minucius Felix and in the ' Epistle to Diognetus,' in Ignatius, who uses also the word Xpiar- laviafxhs, in the ' Martyrdom of Polycarp,' in the Catholic Krjpvyfxa TliTpov, in the letter of the churches of LugdQnum and \'ienna (I^us. //A'5i/), in Irenosus, TertuUian, and Clement of Alexandria. To this list must be added the passage in the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (124), discovered after the publication of Lipsius's essa)'.

Lipsius, it is true, points out allusions to the existence of the name ' Christian ' in older writings. As far as Hernias, however, is concerned, the only valid passage is Sim. ix. 174-

The phrase is tTrl tuj oi'dfiari toC viou toO 6tov Ka\ei(rCai. Such expressions as to oi/o^ia toO vlov toO ficoO <f>opelv (ix. 13 2^? 14 s_yC H5 3) or Aa^i^arcif (ix. 13 7) or <j>epeiv (Polycarp, *i 3) do not necessarily presuppose the word XpicTtaro?, and the simple phrase to ovofia (j)opdv(Sii. ix. 13 2yC), or na.(rxfi-v Sia to ora/ua, or veKa tou ofo/xaros (ix. 28 3 5 ; F/V. iii. 1 q 2 i), in several cases is clearly in juxtaposition to the words to oro^ta toO vlov Toi) 6eov or ToO Kvpiov (Sim. ix. 13 3, 28 2-6 ; / 'is. iii. 5 2).

Even I Clem. 143 /. cannot with certainty be taken in the sense which is so abundantly plain in Justin {.-Ipol. 1 4) : Xptcrtaj'oi elvai KarriyopovfieOa ' t6 di xpujarbv /McrelffOai ov SiKaiov. This play upon words seems, besides, to be sufficiently explained by the consideration that xP'^o'Tiis had at that time the same pronunciation as xP<'"(5s- TertuUian {A/>.3; Ad A'at. I 3), however, expressly says that the Gentiles perperam or corrupte pronounced it Chrestiani. XprfffTiavoi is the reading in all three NT passages of the uncorrected N ; it pre- ponderates in the inscri[)tions ; and Justin, according to .Blass (Hermes, 1895, pp. 465-470), associates this word with xpiJcTiis in his Apology {'\. 4 46 49 ; ii. 6, where, as he says, KiXPV<^Oa.i ought to be read), just as in his Dialogue with Trypho he associates it with XP^^*-"-

1 ' Ueber den Ursprung u. d. altesten Gebrauch des Christen- namens ; ' Gratulationsprogramm der theologischen Facultiit Jena fiir Hase, 1873, pp. 6-10.

Blass conjectures from this that the PaRiiiis to wliom the ApoU>g\' is addressed had derived ihe words ' anointed, followers of tlie anointed,' which were mysterious to them, by a [xjpular etymology fron x/"?*'"'""* : ""<^' Justin, for simphcity s sake, accepted the derivation without seeking to correct it.

2. Possible early origin.[edit]

We have thus seen that the name was left unused by a series of Christian writers at a time when it was already familiar to the younger Pliny {Epist. 10 96 [97]) in 112 A.D. , to 'I'adtus [Ann. 1544) in 1 16-1 17 A. I). , and to Suetonius (AVr.i, 16) ill 120 A. I). 'I'he plain fact is that they did not necil it. I'or designating their conununity there lay at their command an ample variety of expressions,' sucli as 'brethren,' 'saints,' 'elect,' 'called,' 'that lx;lieved,* 'faithful,' ' disciples,' ' they that are in Christ,' ' they that are in the Lord,' 'they that arc Christ's,' and ['any . . . of the way'?]. It follows that, notwithstaruling its absence from their writings, the name of Christian may very well have originated at a comparatively early time.

It can hardly, however, have been current at so early a date as that indicated in .Acts 11 26.

The famine predicted at that time, according to Acts 11 28, occurred in Palestine l)ct\veen the years 44 and 48. (The belief that it extended over the whole of the habitable world is a mis- take.) The prediction itself must, of course, have been earlier. Indeed, the expression, ' which came to pass -n the <lays of Claudius," may be held to imply that it was made before tlie accession of that emperor that is to say, before 41 A.u. Wiih this it agrees that the death of Henxl Agrippa I. (44 A.u.) is mentioned in the following chapter (I'J).

Some fifteen years later, or n)ore, the claim to be ' of Chri.st ' was made by a single party in Corinth (iCor. 112^

I'resumably certain personal disciples of Jesus had first applied this designation to themselves, whilst denying to Paul the right to l)c so called, as also his right to the apostleship (2 Cor. In 7). Paul, on the other hand, takes great pains to establish the right of ail believers in Christ to the designation (i Cor. 1 13 823 ; also 7 22 10 23 Rom. 8 I Gal. 3 29 5 24).

Thus it can hardly have been already a current name.

As for Jesus himself, it is permissible to doubt whether he used in their present forms such e.xpressions as we now find in Mk. it 37 41 13 13 that is to say, with the eiui)hasis upon his own name. The theory that he pre- supposes the currency of the name ' Christians ' in Lk. 622 is absolutely excluded by the consideration that, according to the same gospel, he does not himself lay claim to the name of Christ till later (9 20), and even then wishes it to be kept secret, and further that, according to the same author (.Acts 1 1 26), the name ' Christians ' did not arise till a considerable time after his death.

All this makes it more than doubtful whether the writer had even here any trustworthy authority for assigning the occurrence to so early a dale. I lis reason for doing so may have been simply that the founding of the first Gentile Christian church seemed to be the most likely occasion for its coming into u.se.

3. Used by and with pagans.[edit]

The suddenness with which the name ' Christian ' becomes one of frcciuent occurrence in the writings of the apologists shows that the word first became necessary for Christians in their dealings with Pagans. In speaking to the Letter, such periphrases as ' those of Christ ' were found to be inadecjuate : a definite name was wanted. In fact, it is probable enough that the name came from the heathen themselves in the first instance. With such a view of its origin Acts 11 26 fits in very well. -\t all events, the name did not come from the Jews. These were still looking for their Messiah. By using a name which signified ' those of the Messiah,' they would by implication have justified the sect that regarded Jesus as such, and so have stultified themselves. Even Herod Agrippa II., notwithstanding his Greek training and the indifference towards his ancestral religion which this carrietl with it, could not have gone so far ; moreover, he still held by Judaism to the extent at least that he

1 a5A(^ot, ayiot, eicAeicToi, kAijtoi, TrterrcvoKT*?, irttrrot, /ia^rai, 01 iv Xpio-Tu), ot oyrri'i iv Kvpi(f, oi tou Xpiorou, oi nis 65o0 oi'Tts.

insisted uiK)n King .Azizus of F.mcsa and King Polemo of Cilicia bcing circumcised before being allowed to marry his sisters Drusilla and Ikrrenicc (Jos. .-//. xx. 7 i 3 [S '39. 145/])- If- accordingly, the saying attributed to him in Acts 2628' is authentic, the name 'Christian' must by that time have become so thoroughly established that its etymological meaning was no longer thought of.

The whole scene, however, is in full accord with the tendency of Acts (see Acts, Si) to set forth Paul's innocence, and at the same time the truth of Christianity, as accepted by the Roman authorities; and this of course is more effectively done by the mouth of a Jew. An obvious iiarallel is the statement of Merod Antipas in the gospel by the same author (Lk. '2.'J6-i5) ; but its historicity is oix.'n to grave suspicion, both in view of what we know of Henxls relations to John the Haptist and in view of the fact that the story is absent from the other gos|K.'ls. Even if Pauls meeting with Herod Agrippa II. is historical, the word Xpiariavds may very easily have come into the narrative out of the author s own vocabulary. We are informed by the same writer (.\cts 2 1 5) with much greater precision that 'sect of the Nazarenes ' (aipeffis tu)p Naj'wpatwi') was the name given by the Jews U) the Christians, as we learn also from Tertullian (.hh: Marc. 4 8) and Jerome (in Jes. ch. 5 i8y. 4'J7 52 s). It was not till afterwards that the expression was restricted to a particular sect of t'hristians a fact by which Epiphanius allowefl himself to Ix; misled. He tells us [Har. 289) that the Jews, in their public prayers, which were oftered ihree limes daily in their synagogues, pronounced a .solemn curse upon this sect a curse which, as we learn from Justin (Diul. 16 and elsewhere), and indeed as we see from the nature of the ca.se, applied rather to all Christians.- Its Hebrew name, Hirkat-ha- Minim, shows that the Jews liad still another name for the Christians and this name could also be Graecised into 'S\ivaloi.

4. Place of origin.[edit]

As for the place where the name Christian arose, the apparent Latin termination used to be thought to point to a western, indeed (lac. .///. If) 44) to a Roman, origin ; but that it was there that the name first came intcj use is by no means said by Tacitus, whilst in such a word as Herodian, '\lpi^5iavo% (Mk. 36and elsewhere), we have evidence that in the Greek- s[x-aking domain this col- loquial Latin fcjrmation of personal names (f.^., Citsa- riani), in incorrect imitation of forms like Pompeiani (where the / is part of the root), was not unknown. The ancient Greek grammarians recognise the termina- tion -avos for derivatives from town .ind country names, and even designate it specially as the rvnoi ' Xaiavos, as being met with, not in Circcce itself, but in .Asia (Buttmann, Am:/. Gr. Sprachlehre, 11954; many examjyles in Lipsius, 13-16). In this matter, therefore. Acts 11 26 is not open to criticism (yet sec alxjve, 2).

5. Pompey inscription.[edit]

The time at which the name arose could not with assurance be placed earlier than 79 .A. D. , even if a certain pompey inscription (which disappeared soon after its discovery) at Pompeii, on the wall of a building (at first supposcd to have bc-cn a Christian meeting-house), had actually contained the letters CHRISTIANI.

This reading might very well have Ken a derivative from the tolerably frequent proper name Chrestus (see above, 1); but, in point of fact, the reading is only a conjecture, and, according to Kies<lings original transcription (which is still extant), the word really was 'ceristirce' whatever that may mean.

1 The best-attested rcidinj:, iv oKiytf fie ireifli? XpiiTTiavov irot^O'ai (unless we are to read, with IK, yfi-aSai or, with .A, ire*]7, or, to conjecture with Hon, Troroitfat (instead of fit rrtiBfii) is perhaps most e.-\sily explained as a Laiinism : ' you are persuading me somewhat to act the part of a Christian ' {(Shristianutn agere ; so Potwin, Bihl. Stur. iSSg, p. 562_/C).

2 This solemn curse is said to have first taken shape at Jabneh in the time of Gamaliel ii. (80-177 a.d.).

The architecture of the house shows it to have been an 'inn' (caupona), provided even with a cei/a meretricia, where, accordingly, it is hardly likely that Christian meetings would have been held ; in fact, the inscription, which ixji^ins with the words, ' Vina Nervii,' was probably an advertisement of wines. '

6. Early persecutions.[edit]

An answer to our question can, therefore, be hoped for only from examination of the history of the Christian persecutions. The character of these has been placed in an entirely new light by the proposition of Mommsen in 1885 {Rom. Gesch. 6520, n. ), which has since then been more fully and elaborately develojjcd by him in .Sybel's Hist. Ztschr. 64389-429 [90], and accepted by C. J. Neumann [Der. roin. Staat u. d. Allgeni. kirchf, 1 16 [90]) and by Ramsay (chap. 10, g 5) that ' the persecution of the Christians was always similar to that of robbers.' On this view, every pro- vincial governor had, without special instructions, the duty of seeking out and bringing to justice latrones, Si7cn7f^n>s, plagiarios (kidnappers), and fures [Dig. i. 18 13 xlviii. 134), and for this end was invested, over and alwve his ordinary judicial attributes, with a very full power of magisterial coercion, which was not limited to definite offences, or to a regular form of process, or to any fixed scale of punishments. Only, as far as Roman citizens were concerned, banishment was forbidden, and the capital penalty was reserved for the judgment of the emperor.

i. 'Lr^i^al Status of Christians. While actually throw- ing into still further obscurity the date of the origin of the Christian name, this discovery of Mommsen's (above, 6) sheds much light upon the question of legal position. The points on which the scholars named, as well as others, are agreed are, brieliy, these. Among the duties of a Roman citizen a fundamental place was held by that of worshipping the ancestral gods. Hy these in the earliest period were meant only those of the city of Rome ; but subsequently those of Latium were included, and finally all those of Italy and Greece, as soon as they had been formally recognised by decree of the senate. Non-citizens were forbidden to proselytise to strange gods, but not to worship them, so far as this did not appear to Ije of danger to the state. The Christian religion, however, was held to be dangerous in this way, as denying the existence of the gods of the state. The Jewish religion was, strictly, under the same ban ; and, therefore, circumcision w.as laid under severe penalties by Hadrian, and, as far as non-Jews were concerned, by Antoninus Pius and Septimius Severus also. For themselves, however, the Jews,

apart from the prohibition by Hadrian just mentioned, possessed religious freedom on the ground of special privileges conceded to them, particularly by Julius Caesar and .-Vugustus, in accordance with the favoured position which they had enjoyed, long before the Roman rule, in F^gypt and elsewhere in the East. These privileges included exemption from military service, which would have interfered with their strict observance of the sabbath, and exemption from the obligation to appear before the courts on th..t day. When Caesar, on account of susj^ected political activity, suppressed curtita collegia ftrirter antiquitus constituta {Snel. Cces. 42), the Jews were expressly exempted. New cor[X)ra- tions in the older {i.e., senatorial) provinces required the s.anction of the senate ; in the imperial provinces still under military government that of the emperor himself was doubtless sufficient. It is probable that burial societies had a general sanction from the senate. Apart from these, however, there were many societies which had never obtainerl any special concession. They were left alone if they did not apjxiar to be dangerous ; but at any moment they could be suppressed by the pcjlice. In the cases of those wliich had lxn sanctioned by the senate, suppression was made lawful

1 So Victor Schultze, Z./i Kircluns^csch. 1S81. pp. 125-130, and also, as regards the text, C/Libjt) ('7;)- }"^ inscription ought not, therefore, to be relied on, as it is still relied on by Ramsay (CAKrc/jP) chap. 12, 5, p. 268, and St. Paul, chap. 15, I. ed. 1896, p. 346).

only by a new senatorial decree. Now, the Christians could never have obtained such a concession, for their religion did not belong to the class of permitted re- ligions. In their case, accordingly, the well-known rule (Z>/>. xlvii. 22i) did not apply: ( ' permittitur tenuioribus stipem menstruam conferre, dum tamen semel in mense coeant . . . sed) religionis causa coire non i)rohib^'ntur, duin tamen per hoc non fiat contra senatus consultum, cjuo illicita collegia arcentur." They had, therefore, to hold their meetings simply on sufferance, and were never for a moment free from the risk of |>olice interference. Still, they did not expose themselves to {Xirsecution or to death merely by holding unauthorised meetings. l-'or such an offence these [XMialties were much too severe. When a sodalitas of this sort was broken up, unless its object had bwn in itself criminal, the members were subjected only to a mild jiunishment. In fact, they were allowed to divide among themselves the funds of the society, which were confiscated in the case of all capital offen- ces. Persecution and capital punishment fell to the lot of the Christians, therefore, only because their religion was regarded as criminal. In the case of Roman citizens it implied a violation of the duty to worship the gods of the state ; in the case of pro- vincials who were not citizens, ddtJTrjs as against the local gods of the place was in like manner implied. In a (legally) very lax sense they were accused of saci-ilegiuvt, which originally meant only theft of sacred objects. Over and above this, all Christian subjects were chargeable with the offence of refusing to worship the Emperor, an offence legally construed as majestas, or crimen Iccsic majestatis more precisely, as iiiajestatis imperaloruin the majestas popiili Romayii not being touched by this class of offences. Thus, either as sacrilege or as majestas, Christianity could at all times be prosecuted, and certainly in the case of non- citizens, probably also in that of citizens by the mere exercise of arbitrary coercive power. The penalties under either charge were, approximately, the same.

ii. Correspondence of Pliny and Trajan. Thus we gain a new light on the correspondence between Pliny and Trajan (see above, 2). Let it be premised that by the Jlagitia (2), as may be gathered from the allusion in the words cibum promiscuum et innoxium (7), were certainly intended the cpulcv Thycstecv and the concubitus Oedipodei, which, as we learn from Justin {Apol. I26 2 12) and other writers of the second century, were laid to the charge of the Christians. Acts 20 8 already appears to be inti^nded to meet the familiar accusation. The story ran th.at tefore the beginning ot these orgies all lights were jiut out. Pliny's question, then, whether the mere fact of being Christian {nomen ipsmn), or whether only the crimes a.ssociated therewith ought to be punished, is, from what we have seen, already answered in the first sense, and is so decided by Trajan also. On the other hand, Trajan's injunction, conquirendi non sunt, with which also is to be associated his order to disregard anonymous letters of accusation, is an important mitigation of the law, as is his other direction that a Christian who formally renounces his Christianity by sacrificing to the images of the gods shall be exempt from punishment. Such a degree of favour could, from the nature of the case, never be shown to the robber or to the thief, with whom, nevertheless, the Christian is classed. Let it be noted, also, that Pliny had no difliculty in deciding on his own responsibility the earlier cases that came before him (2-4). His reference of the matter to the emperor was first occasioned by the largeness of the numlx'r of those who ultimately came to be denounced, and by certain leanings, on grounds of pwlicy, towards clemency (49/ ), to which Trajan gives his sanction by both of his decisions.

We must, therefore, no longer hold to the view that in this rescript (which, although originally intended only for Pliny, was shortly afterwards piiblishrti, along wilh the whole correspondence, and taken as a norm by other provincial governors) the persecution of the Christians was now for the first time authorised. Accordingly, we must proceed to investigate such notices

is we have of earlier persecutions, and esjK-cially to

discuss the (|uestion whether in these cases the notnen Chiititiuum w;xs known to the authorities and consti- tuted the ground of accus;ition.

iil. Claudius. Of Claudius we arc informed by Suetonius {CltiuJ. 25) that Judaus impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Kama expulit. It is quite im- possible, however, to determine whether by Chrestos (on the form of the name, see above, 1) we are here to understand Jesus, the preaching of whom by Christians divided the Jews in Koine into two parties, or whether Suetonius conceivetl him to have been |)ersonally present in Rome, or whether we should lake hiin to be a Jewish agitator of whom nothing further is known, .\clsl82 is by no means decisive f<jr the first or the second alternative, even if we are to supjwse that Aquila and Prisca were already Christians when they came to Corinth.

iv. romponia Grercina. Of Toniponia Grascina wc learn from Tacitus (Ann. I332) only that in 57 :\.v. she was accused superstttionis externa', and that she was ac(|Uittc(l of the charge by her hustxiiul. the consular A. I'laiiiiiis, before whom she had Ix-en brought for trial. At that time, however, the Jewish and I'gyiHian religions were regarded as foreign, just as much as the Christian, which has been supposed to be meant in her case (Tac. Ann. '1 85 ; Suet. Tib. 36). For full details see Hasenclever, JPT, 1882, pp. 47-64.

V. A'eronian Persecution. The notices we have of the Neronian persecution are very obscure.

Tacitus (.-(. 1544) says: 'abolcndo rumori (of havinj; planned the burning; of Rome) Nero subdidit reos et qujesi- tissimis ptcnis alTecit, quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Christi- aiios appellabat . . . prinium correpti, <|ui fatebantur, deinde iiulicio eorum multitiido ingens baud proiiide in crimine incendii quam odio generis humani coniuncti sunt.' Conjuticti here could mean only that the ingen.i ntuttitmio was added to the primuni c(Jrrf/^/(Ramsay, chap. 1 1, 3) ; the reatling ( onvicti for coniuncti is a conjectural emend^ition almost universally adopted.

At the outset the only thing quite clear is that the Christians were from the first accused not as Christians, but as incendiaries. Otherwise Nero could not have been freed from the suspicion of being the guilty party. The Christians, however, were innocent (subdidit) ; and the ground on which they were condemned, accordingly, was not so much (hand proinde) the evidence that they had tjeen incendiaries as the odium generis humani. liy this expression there cannot be understood a hatred of which they were the objects : Roman society, w hich alone could be regarded as cherishing it, cannot possibly have been spoken of as genus humanum by Tacitus, .^till, understood as cherished by the Christians, ' hatred of the human race ' is no less an idea foreign to all legal conceptions, nor could it be supposed to represent another ground of accusation against them, over and above that ot incendiarism.

Weizsacker (.4/. Zeitalt. 478, 2nd ed. 462 ; ET 2 143) and Ramsjiy (chap. II , 8 2 4) try indeed to make out that this actually was brought as a charge against them by referring to Suetonius (S'ero 16) : afflicti suppliciis Cltristinni, genus hominum superstitionii nova- ac ntaleficir, holding that by tnaUficiuni witchcraft and poisoning are meant, and that it was precisely for these offences against society that the two punishments bestiis ohjici and crucibus affigi were thre.itened, and (according to Tacitus) inflicted. These same punishments, however, were attached to many other crimes also. Suetonius says nothing about the conflagration as having occasioned the accusation against the Christians. In other words, he follows an entirely different account, and we are not justified in seeking to explain Tacitus by referring to Suetonius. The two authors agree only in believing that the occurrence in question was confined to Rome.

The main question, then, in the case of Tacitus, is as to what it was that the persons first accused made confession of ( fatebantur). The answer seems to lie to our hand : se incendium fecisse. Such a confession may very well have lx?en made by them, though innocent, under torture. As regards the ingens multitudo nothing more was re(|uirttl than merely some v.igue suspicions, or a few false witnesses, to whom the judges, on account of the conmionly assumed general perversity of the Chris- tians (iheiT odium generis humani), were only too ready to give cretlence. There remains, therefore, a possi- bility that the religion of the accusetl did not come into (juestion at all, and that Tacitus and Suetonius have, unhistorically, carried back the name Christiani from their own time into that of Nero. W ere this not so, the reader, moreover, would expect to find in Tacitus a name indicating the characteristic attribute of those denoted by it ; after quos per Jlngitia invisos vulgus one would exiX!Ct not Christianas but some such expressi<jn as Jlagitiarios appellabat.

Another interpretation oi fatebantur is not less i)os- sible. It is tliat at hist only those who h.ad already habitually confessed thcin.selves in public to Ix; Christians (fatebantur se Ciiristiano^ esse) were apprehended, and that only aftenvards, on the evitlence obtained from these in the course of the legal jiroceedings, a great number (ingens multitudo) of those who had not hitherto made any such public profession shared the same fate. The Christians were laid hold of lx:cause it was hoped that popular belief would readily attribute the incendiarism to them. Although, on this supposition also, their re- ligion con.stituted no ground of accusation, it was recog- nised as distinct from the Jewish ; whereas if the other inlerj)retation o[ fatebantur is adopted the Christians may have been regarded simply as Jews : Tacitus {Hist. 5 5) attributes adversus omnes hostile odium to the Jews also.

Clement of Home further (i. 5i-()2) tells us only that the (.hristians suflered, without informing us why ; and I'aul's trial in Rome could throw light upon the question before us only if we knew what was its result, (ja'lio was not led by the accusation, as cited in Actsl.Hi3, to suppose that Paul taught a religion dangi-rous to the .state. The representation, too (though not necessarily the fact), is oj)en to suspicion on account of the ' tcnd- ency ' observable in Acts (see Acts, 5i). In a word, the little that we really know of the Neronian period does not enable us to tome to a decision on the question as to the date and origin of the name ' Christian. '

Ramsay, however (chap. 11, S8 2 6/1), considers that in the second stage the Neronian persecution was permanent, otherwise than in the first stage. As the persecution is mentioned by Sue- tonius along with oihermc;isures of police which must have Iwen of a permanent nature, he holds that it must have had the same character : in the .sei:ond stage, of course, the persecution was not on account of incendiarism, but on account of alleged witchcraft and o\.\\v.r jiagiti a. Tacitus, Ramsay believes, al.so gives proof of this permanence of the persecution under Nero when he says, untie . . . vtiseratio oriebatur tanquam non utiiitate publica seJ in stnrtiatn unius ahsuiiierentur; and Sulpicius .Severus (ii. '.'03) is understood to speak to the same etTect hoc initio in Christianos satiiri caeptum : post ctiavt datis legibus r, tigio vetabatur pnlamque edutis propositis Ckristianuiii esse non licehat. Immediately up< in this, however(ll7 Vl\ ; 3rd ed.pp. 244, 255), Ramsay e.\:plains that the word post refers to other emperors th.in Nero, and also concc-des that the e.vpressions edicta and leges are 'loosely and inaccuratelv ' employed by Sulpicius. Further, the unde in Tacitus traces the niiseratio to the horrors of the public celebration of the executions and Nero's personal participation in them incidents which were, of course, not of constant recurrence. The argument based on the context in Suetonius is too precarious to rest history upon, even apart from the doubtful interpretation o( nialrficir.

vi. Titus and Vespasian. We read in Sulpicius Severus (ii. 306-8) that, in a council of war, Titus finally decided on the destruction of the temple in Jerusaletn quo plenius Jud<eorum et Christianorum religio toile- retur : quippe has religiones licet contrnrias sibi, iisdem tamen (ab) auctoribus profectas ; Christianas ex Judetis exstitisse : radice sublatc stirpem facile perituram. Now, even were we to reject, as a falsification of history from motives of complaisance, the very different statement of Josephus, an eye-witness (IJJw. 43-7), that Titus wished the temple to be preser^ed, and were we to carry back the words of Sulpicius Severus to Tacitus, whom he elsewhere always follows, we should still be a long way from having proved the account of Scverus to be historical. It is in the highest degree improbable that Titus had such erroneous ideas as to the depend- ence of the Christians on the temple, while attributing to them such dangerous qualities and so great a degree of independence as apart from the Jews. Even Momni- sen(/?i>m. Gesch. 5539 ; ET Provinces, 2216/. ). on whose authority Ramsay relies, detects here traces at least of a Christian editor. Ramsay, however (chap. r2i/. ), re- garding the speech as a progranmie for treatment of Christians, holds it to be 'a historical document of the utmost importance,' and further .assumes that the pro- gramme was actually carried out by Vesp.asian. For this he has not a word of proof to allege apart from the statement of Suetonius ( / 'vsp. 1 5 ) nequc cirde cujusquam unquain hvtatHS est et (by the three last words he conjecturally tills a hiatus )y'//5//j suppliciis ilhcrimavit ctiain et ingemuit which, he considers, we are entitled to interpret as referring to processes against Christians. \\'ere this the case, it would be natural at least to e.xpect that these should have begun immediately after the destruction of the temple ; but, according to Ramsay, they did not begin till towards the end of the reign of Vesp.asian. As far as the documents are concerned, this last hypothesis finds still less support than that of Vespasian's Christian persecution as a whole. All that can be said for the hypothesis is that it is requisite in order that, by the shortness of the per- secution under Vespasian, the silence of Christian writers respecting them may be explained (see below, 16).

vii. Domitian. With regard to Domitian, Suetonius (Dom. 15) tells us that eight months before his death Flavium Clemcntem patnielcm sit inn contemptissim.e inert ice . . . repenteex tcnitissimasiispicione tantumnonin ipso ejus consulatu in te rem it. Cassius Uio ( Ixvii. 14 i/. ). according to the excerpt of the monk Xiphilinus, adds that at the same lime his wife, Flavia Domitiila, wp.s banished to the island of Fandataria: eirrjxt>V oe ajx<poli' fyK\r]fj.a adeorrjTOS. i<4> '^s ^i' dWot i's to. tQv 'lov8aiu}i' ijdr] fJo.ve'XXovres ttoWoI KaTe5iKda0r](Tav. Now, Chris- tian legend, and in particular the Vseudo-C/emcntii/e Keco^nitiLiiis and Iloiiiilies, speak of Flavius Clemens as Bishop of Rome, and of his father as, like the consular in Suetonius, related to the imperial family ; the daugliter of his sister (also called I'lavia Domitiila) became involved in ,a Christian per.stcaiion, .and was banished to I'cjntia (the island adjacent to Pandataria). This Last statement is all the more important because Eusebius {('/iron. ann. 2110, 2112 Abrah.: HEm. I84) takes it from a heathen chronographer, Bruttius or Brettius, who wrote before 221 a.d. For further details see Lipsius, Chronol. d. riiin. Bischbfe, 152-161. It is alike natural and difficult to assume that Clement and Domitiila represent each only one person, and that person a Christian. The charges in Cassius Dio, taken by themselves alone, show either that the question was one not of Christi.ans but of Jews, or that Christians at that time still remained undistinguished from Jews. The view that they were Jews can hardly be main- tained.

In the heathen writer Rruttius, Domitiila figures expressly as a Christian, and in all later Christian writings Domitian is represented as a violent persecutor of the faiih (see, e.g., Melito ap. Euseb. HE iv. iiig). He is called by Tertullian {.if>ol. 5) portio Xeronis de crudelitate ; and, though the heathen Juvenal (\y]f.\ it is true, says something to the same effect, the Christian bases his .iccusation e.xpressly upon the persecution of his brethren in the faith.

We are then, left with the second interpretation of the words of Cassius Dio, that they relate to Christians. Ramsay's method of evading this (chap. 12, 4) is surely forced that in Dio's time (211-222 A.D.) it w.as 'a fashion and an affectation among a certain class of Greek men of letters to ignore the existence of the Christians and to pretend to confuse them with the Jews.' Further, in the collection of temple money (now a state tax) from the Jews, according to Suetonius (Dom. 12), those also were taken account of qi/i vel improfessi Judaicam vixerent vitant (or : Judaicam fidem similem viverent vitam) vel dissimuiata orii;ine imposita genii tributa non pependissent. As at that time \.he judaicus /iscus acerdissime cutus est. it would be very remarkable if here we were not intended to understand both the Jewish Christians regarded as cir- cumcised persons and the Gentile Christians regarded as proselytes. The Roman officers, we know fiom .Suetonius, in cases where it was necessary, satisfied themselves as to the fact of circumcision by ins|)ection. Even though greed may well have been a motive for conniving at the profession of the Christian religion, it is plain that the danger to the state presented by the Chris- tians cannot have been taken very seriously. We are led to the same conclusion by the story (as far as it can be believed) of Hegesippus (in Eus. HE 819/) that Domitian released the graiulcliildren or Jude, the brother of Jesus, as not Ix'ing dangerous persons, although they confessed themselves to be not only descendants of David, but also Christians. It was not till the end of his reign that the persecution began, viii. A'en'a. As far as the accusations under Domi- tian had reference to Christians they are covered by the regulations of Nerva (Cassius Dio, Ixviii. 1 2, after Xiphilinus).

Tertullian {Apol. 5) and Hegesippus (Eus. HE iii. 20 5) erroneously attribute the regulations to Domitian himself. The text of Cassius Dio is : -ous re KptfOfj-fvovi in' acre^tia aii>rfKt Ka'i TOVT f^ei'yorra? KaTTyyoyc . . . T015 6e hr^ aAAot? ovr* a(7e/)eia9 OVT 'louOaiKoO fiiov KaraiTia<T0ai Tiva^ <Tvi'fXuipri<Tei'.

7. Result of discussion.[edit]

The preceding discussion of the Christian persecutions makes it evident that the grounds upon which these were conducted were by no means clearly set forth, .and that (partly on this account, but mainly from want of information) we can hardly venture to suppose the persecutions to have been of so great frequency as we should have expected on the principles laid down by Monuusen and Ramsay. In particular, had they been so frequent, the hesitation of Pliny or, at all events, that of Trajan would be quite inexplicable. Ramsay's answer (chap. 10, 6), that Trajan's words neque eniin in universiim aliquid quod quasi certain formam haheat constittii potest refer to Pliny's doubt whether or not the question of age should be allowed to make a difference in the punishment, is quite inadmissible. Xeque eniin does not refer to the decision upon a matter which was still in question. It refers, in commendation, to a judgment which Pliny had already taken : actum quern debuisti . . . secutus es. Thus R.amsay's conjectures of .some archive which Trajan caused to be searched for the decisions of his predecessors upon previous references by other pro- curators luust also be rejected. Whatever the principles of the government, and however strongly they may have led, if rigidly interpreted, to unieni tting search for and punishment of Christians once tluse had been definitely distinguished from Jews, they can have been carried into practice only in an intermittent way. In the conditions of privacy in which, as we know, the Christians carried out the exercises of their religion, no direct danger to the state can have manifested itself. In Pergamum Antipas was the only martyr (Rev. 213). Therefore, Trajan's conquirendi non sunt was a mitigation in principle, indeed, but not necessarily in practice. If only parties could be found to denounce, persecutions could be instituted, after Trajan's time, on a much greater scale than before under the infiu-nce of the stricter but seldom used principle of conquirere. Such, according to all documents, was in reality the case.

For the period before Trajan we know of persecutions only under Nero and Domitian. Tertullian, for example, was not aware of any others (.-ipot. 5), and .Melito in his .Apology t > Antoninus Pius {ap. Eus. //A" iv. 269) expressly says that only Nero and Domitian (fiovoi wdvriov ^tpiov Kai Ao/ieriatvf) had given up the Christians to the slanders of denouncers. To the same purpose we have the Malemeni of Ori^cn (r. Cr/s. .h) that oAtyoi xard icatpovt xai c^oipa ti/apiSuijroi . . . T*0yri- Kaaii' ; liver a(;ain!tt which tlie iroAv n-Aijtfof cjcAcktwc spoken of liy Clemens Kumanus (i. I) i) in (he reit;n of Nero, and the ingem tnu/titut/o o( 'tiu:ilU!i, must, of course, not be overlooked.

In view of such delinitc statements as these, it is not impossible to explain the silence of our authors especially that of Christian authors on the persecutions which Ramsay infers to have been instituted under \'csiiasian and Titus, as being due only to the shortness of those reigns or rather the shortness of the portions of them in wliich jx^rsecutions occurred (above, 6. vi. end) or to the fact that the Christians had no eyes for any- thing except the imminent end of the world (kamsay, chap. 12. 2).

8. Date of 1 Peter[edit]

Ramsay, it is true, finds support by assigning 1 Pet. to about the year 80 A. I) that is to say, the reign of 'I'ilus (chap. 13 1-3) or to 75-79 .\. D. , in the reign of Vcspasian (ExpuMlor, Oct. 1893, p. 286). He does so, however, on grounds the validity of which de|x;iids on liiat of his hypothcsis.

He shows with truth thai the ci)istle presupposes accusations on acciiuni of the mere noiiifn Christianiiiii (ii^/.), and that it was conifiosed at the beginning of a jwrsecution (4 12 3 14 17 2 14). It has also Ijcen rightly urged that there is no reason for assign- ing it to the year 112 on the mere ground that then for the first time a persecution of Christians over the whole oiKovf<V>) (.'19) liecime i)os>il)le. On the other hand, before that date there had l)cen no persecution which had touched or threatened the provinces named in 1 1 and gave cause to anticipate its extension over the whole habitable wiirld.

When the contents of this letter are considered, no one who can Ix.' reached by critical considerations will unreservedly maintain its genuineness, containing as it does so little that is characteristic of I'eter and so much that is reminiscent of I'aul.

The presence in 1 1 7 of the words Biairnopa and ioKi)xioi', which here are superfluous and disturbinjj, and have their appropriate place only in Ja. 1 i 3, shows its dependence on that epistle, which in its turn depends not only on the J-.pistles of I'aul but also on that to the Hebrews (I I 31, cp Ja. 'J 25). Dependence on James is shown also in i IVt. 05 /I, which is Twrrowed from }a..-ii<J'. In the latter passage the our is logical (Beou 44... 0(ut), and in the former, therefore, in like manner, the oAArJAois of 7'. 5 should have Ijeen followed by some such expression as 'submit yourselves one to another,' if the writer had been following a natural and not a borrowed train of thought.

.As for the word aWorpLociriaKoiroi , the only satis- fiictory explanation of its use m i Pet. 4 15. to di-note a criminal of the same class as <j!>oi'eis antl K\iwTr)^, is that of Hilgcnfeld, according to whom what is intended is the class of dflatores, who made a trade of denunci- ation, which was first made criminal by Trajan (Plin. Panei;yr. 34/.). Hy aWoTpiofinaKOiroi Ramsay under- stands people who stir up .strife Ixnween memlxtrs of the same family, or between servants and masters. This accusation could lie very easily brought against Christians, as soon as they began to attcmjjt conversions. Ramsay's assertion, however, that Nero gave power to the courts of justice thenceforward to regard such persons as magicians and to punish them as criminals (chap. 15 i), rests upon no documentary evi- dence : it proceeds solely upon his own imerijrotation of the muli-JictP of Suetonius (.above, 6, v. ). Nor has Ramsay made out (chap. 8, i 2, pj). 280 /'. 290) that I Pet. presupposes search for Christians to have been made by the state.

Were this so, the epistle could, of course, have been written only either before Tr.ii.in's decision, coiujuiremii non sunt, or after the re-enactment of c<^;'fr6- by Marcus Aurelius ; but here again it has to be remarked that, if only there were de- nunciations enough and Ramsay himself (chap. 10, g 2) is aware how readily these could at any time appear among the class of sellers of s.icrificial animals ( Fliny to Tmjan, 10), or among people in the position of Demetrius (Acts 19 24-34), or of the masters of the damsel with the spirit of divination (Iti 16-19) 1 Pet. 31568 become intelligible enough, even after the publication of Trajan's contjuirendi non sunt.

We may still hold, therefore, that 1 Pet. was written in 112 A. D.

The one new thing we have learned is that, when I Pet. touches upon the subject of punishment for the mere name of Christian (4t6), it is describing not a new attitude of the authorities but one that \\w\ have JK-en taking for .vjme time. This very fact makes it im{X)ssible to use this passage as Ramsay does as fixing the date of the epistle for the transition jK-riofl during which puni.shment of Christians only for flat^itia was giving place to a system of ix:r>ecution for the mere name. Ramsay (chap. 1 3, i ) argues that this last mode of jH-Tsecution ntust have been new to the author, Ijccause at the same time his language const.mtly pre- supposes the continuance of the old state of things ; but the exhortation in \ 15 that none should .suffer as a flagitious jxjrson is not in any case out of place, even if Jiagitia had not thitherto been the only ground on wliich the |)unishment of Christians procveticd ; against such Jlagitid Paul also constantly warns his readers ((jal. 5 19-21 I Cor. &<) /. 2 Cor. 122<j f. Rom. I.'ii-i3), and that at a time when there was no thought of ( hristian I>ersecution. Further, the hoix; of being able by ' seemly behaviour ' and ' good works ' to convince the secular jxjwer of the injustice of jK-rsecution ( i I'et. 2 12 3 13 etc. ) is one that Christians can never have wholly abandoned, and it found a reasonable justification in the plea of Pliny (27-10) for mild treaunent of those who had Ix'en denounced. We can understand its jx-rsistence most easily on the assumption, as made alxne, that [Xfrsecu- tion was only then beginning.

9. Conclusion.[edit]

The very positions argued for by Mommsen (and accepted by Ramsay) make it clear that there never had been a period during which Christians, although recognised as a distinct religious society, were punished for fiagilia merely, and not on account of the nomen. The strength of Mommseiis view lies precisely in this : that the name, as soon as it w.is known, also became punish- able. .According to Mommsen, we must also conclude, conversely, that where flagitia alone are punished the noiinn is not yet known. Kven for the time of Nero this argumentation would be conclusive, had he not wanted incendiaries. But if, as Ram.say says. Chris- tians under Nero were already recognised as distinct from jews, then J/ai;iti(i other than fire-raising as, for example, witchcraft cannot, even in the second stage of the Neronian [X-Tsecution (on the assumption of theie having Ix-en such a stage at all), have been the sole ground on which condemnation [iroceeded. On

the (|uestion as to the date at which Christianity first began to be recognised as a distinct religion we must confess ourselves comjiletely at a loss. Only this much is certain : that it had come alxaut l^efore the time of Pliny's governorship. From what has Ixen said al ove. the view of Neumann (and Lipsius) appears the most plausible : the view, namely, that the distinction first re- ceived recognition under Uomitian, and, more precisely, in the last year of his reign. To this Weizsacker and others' object, with good reason, that it is highly improb- able that Christians should have pas.setl for jews so long. The simple facts that they ilid not accejjt circumcision, and frec|uented, not the synagogues but meeting-places of their own, and moreover often came into conflict with the Jews, made the recognition of a distinction inevitable especially as the Roman authorities, most notably in matters affecting societies, were wont to take careful cognisance of even the minutest trifles, and of course, in a forntal investigation, had means readily at their disposal for eliciting every detail. If we had nothing but Suetonius's account of Nero to go ui>on, these considerations would certainly Ix held to Ix conclusive even for the time of Nero ; but we have Tacitus, who makes us hesitate ; aiW what is said alxjut Domitian goes against Weizsiicker's conclusion. Chris- tian sources give no hope of a decision. Ramsay's citation of I Pet. does not hold good ; that of the Apocalypse

1 E.g., Keim, the only one besides Lipsius (and Carr, E.rf'Oi., June "98, pp. 456-463) who has r J- /*r^/tMt taken up the Question of the origin of the name of Christian (Aus dem L'rchriiten- thum, 1878, 1 171-181).

is worthless as long as the unity and the date of the book continue to be as questionable as they are ; and the Pastoral Epistles are too doubtful. Moreover, it is [ not at all certain that they sjjeak of flagitia as the [ ground of persecution, so as to necessitate their being assigned to the period of Nero, even if Ramsay s view is adopted as correct ; for 2 lirn. 29 does not necessarily mean that Paul suffers ^icfrtwjf he is rejjarded 1 as a Ka.KOvpyo% it can just as well mean that he suftirs j the same |X"nalties as those to which a K(j.Kovp-^o% is liable, but that the cause of them is in his case his pre.ichmg of the gosptjl (eV <^) in other words, his Christianity. In like manner, it is quite as conceivable in 2 Tim. 3 12 that the nomen is the cause of the sufferings of all Christians as that jlagitia are. As for the Third Gospel and Acts, according to what has been said above ( 2), they show only that their author, about 100-130 A. D. , was acquainted with the name, and knew nothing as to its origin that rendered it impossible for him to place its date ab:)Ut the year 40. All that the present discussion can be regarded as contributing towards the solution of the question is the conjecture that the ]\agans, in as far as they knew the true character of Christianity at a time before that which we have definitely ascertained, hardly took any cognisance of it on account of the infrequency with which it came under public notice. i'. vv. s.


(T3Tp), 2S. 8162O24, Is. 3G3, R\'"'*-'- ; EV kK.roKDKR ^/.k ).