# Encyclopaedia Biblica/Chrysoprase-Cock

 Encyclopaedia Biblica Chrysoprase-Cock
 see Encyclopaedia Biblica for other articles, typographic issues, links to PDF copies, and public domain status

## CHRYSOPRASE, CHRYSOPRASUS

(xpyconpA- COC). one of the foundations of the wall of the New Jerusalem in the Apocalypse (Rev. 21 lof). In ancient times the term was perhaps applied to a shade of Beryl ; cp Pkeciol's Stones.

The word does not occur in (S ;' but AVnig. has ' chrysoprase ' for 1313, kadhkodh, in Ezek. 27 16 where AV has 'agate' and RV 'ruby' (see Chalcedony); and has ' chrj-soprase ' also for -3:, ndphekh, in Ezek. 28 13, where EV has ' emerald ' and RV>g. ' carbuncle * (see Carbuncle, Emerald). In mod. mineralogy the chrysoprase is an agate coloured apple-green by the presence of oxide of nickel.

## CHUB

RV CUB(2'13 ; Aq., Sym., Theod. xoyBaA). if correct, is the name of a people (Ezek. 30 st) I but "AQ has AiByec. ^^^ Cornill is doubtless right in regarding 3^3, Cub, as a corruption of 3-,'?, Lub, which occurs repeatedly in the plural form LUBIM (q.v. ). See also Mingled People.

## CHUN

RV CuN (113, I Ch. 188). an Aramaean city identified by Ges.-Buhl (following ZZ>/^r 8 34) with the modern Kuna (Rom. Cunnce) between Laodicea and Hicrapolis. The reading Chun is, however, certainly corrupt (cp Ki. in SJ30T). See Berothai, and, for a suggested emendation, Merom.

## CHURCH

(ckkAhcIA)- I- Name and Idea.

### 1. History Of word.

The word Ecclesia has an important history behind it when it first appears in Christian literature. It was the regular designation of the assembly of the whole body of citizens in a free Greek state, 'called out' or summoned to the transaction of public business. It had then been employed by the Greek translators of the OT as a natural rendering of the Hebrew "jnp (see .Assembly), the whole ' congregation ' of Israel, regarded in its entirety as the people of God. A less technical Greek usage, current in the apostolic age, is illustrated by the disorderly assemblage in the theatre at Ephesus (Acts 1 y 32 41 ) , where we find also by way of contrast a reference to ' the lawful assembly' {v. 39, iv t% ivvop-i^ eKKXtjcria). The Jewish usage is found in Stephen's speech when he speaks of Moses as having been ' in the church in the wilderness' (738). Thus the traditions of the word enabled it to appeal alike to Jews and Gentiles as a fitting designation of the new people of God, the Christian society regarded as a corporate whole.

### 2. NT usage in Gospels

In this full sense we find it in Jesus' declaration to Peter, ' I will build my church ' (olKooofiria-u} fxov t^jv TfTusara ^'^^rycria,' : ML 16 18). Here it is regarded as the divine house that is to be builded, ' the keys ' of which are to be placed in the apostle's hands: see Binding and Loosing. It is thus ec]uated with ' the kingdom of heaven ' which Christ has come to establish, each of the designations being derived from the past histor>' of the sacred commonwealth. The force of the phrase, as well as the emphasis given by the position of the pronoun in the original, comes out if for a moment we venture to substitute the word ' Israel ' for the word ' church' (Hort) ; and the thought thus finds a parallel in the quotation of Amos 9 11/ in Acts 15 16/., ' I will build again the tabernacle of David which is fallen down. '

The only other passage where the word occurs in the Gospels is Ml 18 17, where 'the church' is contrasted with the ' one or two more ' whom the erring brother has refused to hear. We are here again reminded of the whole congregation of Israel from which offenders were cut off : the delinquent becomes henceforth as one who belongs to the ' nations ' outside, and as a traitor to the chosen people {ufftrtp 6 iOviKbi Kal 6 rtXihvifi).

It is possible indeed that the primary reference in this [)lace may Ix; to the Jewish ecclrsia ; but if so, the principle remains unchanged for the Christian ecclesia ; and in either case, while some local embodiment of the Chijrch is thought of as the means by wliich action is taken, the meaning is that the whole weight of the divine society is to be brought to bx?ar upon the offender.

1 Though 6 Ai'floc 6 irpo<rti'Of represents C^V (Beryl) in Gen.

### 3. In Acts

While the Christian society is still contined within the walls of Jerusalem, ' the church ' is the designation of the whole body of the believers, as contrasted with the other residents in the city (Acts 5 II cp 8 i 3) ; but it is possible that the appellation is here due to the historian himself, recounting the events many years later. When, as the result of Stephen's testimony and death, believers are to be found in all parts of Palestine, they are still summed up in the same single word : ' the church (RV ; not ' the churches,' AV) throughout the whole of Judaea and Galilee and Samaria had peace, txjiiig builded ' (Acts 9 31 ; cp Mt. IG18 as above).

### 4. In Paul

The same full sense of the word is found in Paul s epistles at a time when Christian communities were established in various cities of Asia Minor and of Gre<x.e : apostles, prophets, and teachers are set ' in the church ' by (jod (1 Cor. I'izS) ; 'the cluirch of God' is contrasted with Jews and Greeks (IO32).

The Church is thus the new chosen people : it is 'the Israel of Ciod ' (cp Gal. 616). Jews and Gentiles who enter it are mergetl into unity ; the two are n.ade one (l~ph. 2 14 16). It is 'the botiy of t'hrist,' and as such in.separable from him. Christ and the Church are not two, but one as it was written of earthly marriage, ' they twain shall be one flesh ' (liph. 531/! ). The main practiail an.xiety of Paul's life ap^jears to have been the preservation of the scattered communities of Christians, which had sprung up under his preaching, in a living unity with the earlier comnmnitics of Palestine, so as to form with them a single whole, the undivided and indivisible representative of Christ in the world.

## CIS

(KGic [Ti. WH]). Acts 1321, RV KisH {q.i:).

## CISAI

iK[eliCAiOY [BXALo^]). Esth. 11 2, RV KisKT.-,. .Sec Kisii.

## CISTERN

(1X3, lia), Jcr. 213 etc. See Conduits, 1 (I)-

## CITHERN

(Kie&pA [ASV]), 1 Mace. 454- -See MiMc, 7/A

## CITIMS

(KlTiecON [iS*]). i Mace. 85, AV. See Ki rriM.

## CITRON

See Api'i.K, 2(3).

## CITY

("l*r ; n^lp, almost confined to poetry and place-names ; TTp, frequent in Phoinician, but only five times in O T ; cp also KARTI, KARTAN : ^'^^"'

### 1. Names.

A synonym of I'V ?r=Ass-uru alu 'settlement, city'; cp Cain, 81; for Heb. kiryah and kereth, cp Aram, ktfitha, \r. karyuu'i.

The influence of the old Babylonian culture is manifest. We note, too, that'/>, in virtue of its origin, is an elastic term including the settlements of those who were once nomads (see Hazor, Vii.i.agk), and thus we can account for the 'cities (read ny with "', Klo. ) of Amalek ' in iS. 15$, and the description in 2 K. I79. ' in all their cities, from the tower of the watchmen (see Towkr) to the fortified city.' Uillmann, too, thus explains the phrase 'the wilderness and its cities' in Is. 4'2ii,' and some have supposed that the ' city' built by Cain was but a settlement such as we have just referred to -a most uncritical supjxisition ! * We may safely assume that the Israelites acquired the word 'ir in Canaan. There they encountered highly civilisctl peoples and strongly fortified cities. The Deuteronoinist remarks (Josh. 11 13; cp Jer. 30i8) that places which stood u[x)n //////;/' i.e., on artificially heightened mounds or hills the Israelitish immigrants did not burn down, with the single exception of Hazor. Of course, mountain cities were still more difficult to take (see FORTRESS). 1 The text, however, is corrupt. For riyi 'and its cities' we should read ,^a-|^'1 'and the desert' (see SHOT ad Inc.). ^ It was not a dweller in the land of Nod (' wandering ') who huilt (or whose son built) a city, and obtained the first place in the Hebrew legend of culture. Cain w.is originally a divine beiig, or semi-divine hero. See Cainiths, 3. ' Read oVn (/>.); cp De Dicu, Critica Sacra (1693), 49. The '?B (see BOB s.v.) or /</ (////) on which Lachish {q.v.) was built is a good specimen of these hills. Tell al>ounds in the Arabic geographical nomenclature of Syria and the Euphrates Valley. ### 2. Various details (a) Citadels. In Gen. 11 4 the builders of Bahylon say, ' Let us make a city and a tower' ; the migdal or tower here rej)resents the citadel. Elsewhere it is the '/> {\'ji) that is the citadel - e.g. the ' city of David. ' ' city of Milcom ' (see RABBATH AMMON) ; but observe that in Jer. 4841 nvip appears to be used of the lower cities as opposed to the rrnsD or citadels. (d) Gates. .\t the gates' of the town (see FoRTRKSS) there were ' broad places,' 'expressly distinguished from the 'street' in Prov. 7", devoted in turn to judicial business, traffic, popular assemblies, and gossip. See 2 K. 7i 2Ch. 3'26 Neh. 81 16 Job 29? ; also I's. 55 n, where we might render, ' Extortion and deceit depart not from its market-place.' (c) Streets. Except in GrfEco - Roman cities like Ca.'sarea and Sebast^ cities the importance of which is shown by the continuance of their names in an alniost unnnxiified form the streets* were presumably as narrow as those in a modern Oriental city. That the houses before the (Jreek jjeriod were for the most part poor and perishable is remarked elsewhere (see HoLSK, 1). Still, the increase of wealth nuist have had some effect on the architecture (cp Jer. 22 14) at any rate, in the merchants' (|uarters, the existence of which may Ij<3 inferred from Zeph. In Xeh.331/. Jer. 3721 (the 'bakers' street'). Whether the Aramaean merchants in .Samaria had whole streets (M T of i K. 2O34) or simply caravanserais (ninsn. Klo., for nisin) may be left undecided. On the question whether the streets were paved it may l)e said that the soil was so often rocky that, paving would fre(|uently be uncalled for. We have no evidence of paving in Jerusalem l)efore the Roman period (Jos. ,-//'. xx. 97). Herod the (jreat is said to have laid an ojien road in .Antioch with polished stone (Jos. yint. xv\. [>i). On the 'street called Straight," see Damascus. (d) Watchmen. Watchmen, apart from the keepers of the gates, are mentioned only in two almost identical passages of Canticles (33 57), a work ])o.ssil)ly of the (Jreek period ; it is, of course, the capital that is referred to. {e) Water-supply. The excellent water-supply of ancient Jerusalem is treated elsewhere (see CoNDL'irs) ; smaller places had to be content with the fountains which were the origin.al cause of the settlements. The student will now be able to judge how far the Hebrew and the Greek conception of a city diflered. Pausanias (2nd cent. A.D. ) thus presents the (ireek conception (Paus. x. 4i, Fra/.er. 1 503): 'It is twenty furlongs from Chaeronoa to Panopeus, a city of Phocis, if city it can be called that has no government-offices, no gymnasium, no theatre, no market-place, no water conducted to a fountain, and where the people live in hovels, just like highland shanties, perched on the edge of a ravine. Yet its territory is marked off by Ixsun- daries from that of its neighlx)urs, and it even sends meinljers to the Phocian parliament.' Jerusalem, at any rate, had its conduits and a substitute for a market- place, nor were large and high houses (niC"!N) altogether unknown (see HOUSE, 1). The gymnasium spoken of in I Mace. 1 14 2 Mace. 4912 was only a temporary innovation. 1 'City of the house of Ha-il' (2K.1025) is not a correct phrase. For 'ciiy ' {'ir) read 'sanctuary' (delrir). See JtHU. In EV I K.837 a Ch. 6 28 Ruth 3 11 "1^? '* actually rendered 'city' (and in this sense is characteristic of I)), but pr;icticallv is equivalent to 'jurisdi tion.' Cp 'The .Sublime Pone ' and the Japanese ' Mikado,' literally ' exalted gate.' So in (B TToAit and irvAr; are often confused. See Gate. So RV for mairi in Prov. I.e. ; in Cant. 82 EV has 'broad ways': cp "I'i'.n -\^'V 2rn, 2Ch.S2 6; see Neh. .Si. ff5 always irAarcia, except Is. l.')3 (pvfil) because of irAorfia preceding. • nr\- has irAarcta five times, 64o five or six times, itoJo once or twice, !(oSo^ nmre than twelve times, but most fre- quently renders, with reference to the etymology, simply i^uiOtv, efiuTpot, or i(u. pxp, Prov. 7 8 Keel. 1'24 5 Cant. 82!; ayopa. In NT the words are irAarcca and pviii) (in Lk. 14 21, ' fane ') ; cp Tobit 13 18 Ecclus. 9 7. (f) Store-cities. This phrase ' means cities in which grain (aCh. 3228) or other royal provisions, valuable for war or for peace, were stored ( r K. 9 19 etc. ). It is implied that such cities were fortified. In K.\. 1 n gives ir6\fts dx^pd^ ; cp Pithom, Raamses. On citizenship, cp Govkknment, 4; Law and Justice, I 14 : and iJisiM- KsioN, 15. For the cities of the Plain (nasn ny) see Aumah, etc. ; on the cities of refuge (a'^ps"! ny), see Asylum, ## CITY OF MOAB (3XiO l^r), Nu. 2236. See AR OF MOAB ## CITY OF SALT See Salt, City of. ## CLASPS (D^pip), Ex. 266 RV ; AV 'taches.' See Tabeknaclk. ## CLAUDA RV Cauda (kAayAa [Ti- with N* 13, etc.], KAY^A [^^'^ ^^'^'^ ^^^^J' <^^""i.^Acts 27 16), is described as a small island (vy)ffiov) under the lee of which Paul's ship ran for shelter {viroSpa/jiovTes) when blown off the Cretan shore. She was driving Ijefore an ENE. wind {z'. 14), which caught her between Cape Lithinos (called also Cape Matala) and Lutro harbour (see Piia-:.\ix, 2). Hence Clauda must be the small island now called Gaudhonisi [VavSovrjcn) or Gozzo, lying about 20 m. due S. of Lutro. Ptolemy (iii. 17") has KXoCoos vrjcro^ ev y iroXit, and remains of a small town are found on the island. There is some variety in the ancient appellation (KXavSLa, Stad.m.m., 328 ; Gaudos. Pomp. Mela, 2 114; Pliny, iV.V iv. 12 6i). It became the seat of a bishop (cp Hier. Syn. p. 14, N^aos KXaOSoj, and Notit. Epis. 8 240, etc. ). \v. J. w. ## CLAUDIA (kAay^ia [T'- WH]) unites with Paul at Rome in sending greeting to Timothy at Ephesus (2 Tim. 421). Nothing further is known concerning her. For the ingenious but unconvincing argument by which it has been sought to identify her with the Claudia who marries Fudens in Martial's epigram (4 13), and to prove her the daughter of the British king Tiberius Claudius Cogidubnus, see Alford, NT, vol. iii., Prol. to 2 Tim. ## CLAUDIUS the fourth emperor of Rome (41-54), was the son of Nero Claudius Drusus and the successor of Caius Caligula. His advancement to this position came chiefly through the energies of Herod Agr"ippa I., whom he rewarded with consular honours and the enlargement of his territories by the addition of JudiKa, Samaria, and certain districts in Lebanon. For the history of the Jews during his reign, see ISRAEL. Claudius is twice mentioned in the NT. In Acts 11 28 the famine fore- told by Ag.vbus is said to have been in the time of Claudius Civsar {iirl KXauSiou [Ti. WH] ; AV after TR, L KX. KaiVapos ; but see C.ksar), and in I81/. reference is made to the expulsion of the Jews from Rome which he was induced to order (as Suet. Claud. 25 tells us) on account of their tumults : ' Jud;vos impuhore Chrcsto- assidu^ tumultuantes Roma e.vpulit." The precise dates of both famine and expulsion have been disputed ; see Chronology, 76/. ## CLAUDIUS LYSIAS (kXay^ioc Xyciac [Ti.WH], Acts 2:526), ' chief captain ' (military tribune, or chiliarch) in command of the Roman garrison of Jerusalem in the governorship of Felix (Acts 21 31 ff. ). 1 The Heb. phrase is nijSDO "lijf ; cp F,x. 1 1 1 (.\V ' treasure cities'), zCh. 846 (L adds rmv (^opiov), 17 12 (EV 'cities of store ). nv is omitted in 2 Ch. 32 28 (EV ' storehouses,' ttoAcij [BAL]). In I K.O19 (D5n '-iV) * renders iroAec? tui' <TKr]vu>- liiTuv, apparently ni;2-i.a I?L (Tide 10 23) omit. miDDD in a Ch. I64 is corrupt ; see || i K. l.'izo, and cp Chinnkketh. . 2 For the question of the identity of Chrestus, see Christian, Name of, S 6, iii. ## CLAY is derived mostly from the decomposition of felspathic rocks (especially granite and gneiss) and of the crystalline ; but the materials are so varying that there is clay of several kinds suitable for several uses. The term ' clay ' is often applied loosely to ' loam ' ; of such, for example, is the clay of Egypt and of Palestine, although a bituminous shale, easily convertible into clay, is said to occur at the source of the Jordan and near the Dead Sea ; see Bitumen. In Palestine, and indeed throughout the E. , clay is used chiefly ( i ) in building, either retained in its natural state (for ceilings and floors) or manufac- tured into bricks (see Habvlonl\, 15, Hkick, Cham- ber, House); (a) in the manufacture of utensils (see Pottery); (3) in providing a material for documents public and private and a means of safely preserving them. Very many deeds and other records have been found in the form of inscriljed clay tablets in Assyria and Babylonia. ' The deed or record was first written on a small tablet, or brick, of clay, with the names of the principals, witnesses, etc. , appended. This tablet was then enclosed in an enveloi^e of clay, on which was written, apparently from memory, the contents of the document, the names of the witnesses,' etc. (Peters). In Palestine, where, so far as we know, clay tablets were not customary in the historic Isiaelitish period, clay, instead of wax, was used for sealing. See, besides. Job 38 14 14 17*, where AV's ' sewest up' should rather be ' smearest (clay) over' parallel to ' sealed up' in v. tja. In Egypt jars, mummy-pits, etc., were frequently sealed with clay. The Heb. and Gr. words which are rendered 'clay' are (i) "Oh hdmcr, Gen. 11 3, etc.; (2) 13'D ///, used of the mire of streets, also of brick (Nab. 3 14) and potter's clay (Is. 41 25) ; (3) the biblical Aram, representative ^iCri /;rtja//(Dan.2 33); and (4) iTTjAos, Rom. 9 21: see further Pottekv. t:^^ /</</, Jer. 489 AV (RV ' mortar ') is uncertain {ev npoOvpoi^ [B.\Q]A iv tw Kpv4>im [Qi"H]). A possible meaning is ' earth ' (Gieseljr.) ; l>ut it may be a corruption for a^3 'secretly' ; see Ges. Lex.{^^}. ## CLEAN and UNCLEAN / HOLY and PROFANE. ### 1. Meaning of Terms Of the Heb. terms which convey the idea of cleanliness or holiness the most prominent is (i) '^-P ^'^"e- ^^- ^=->' '^ ^'^ the meaning of which is not clear. Smend in AT Rel.-gesch.^'^'^ 334 (cp, however, 2nd ed. 150, 223, 325), expresses the common uncertainty of the moment. The older view of Ges. ( Thes. ), defended now only in a much modified form, is that the root means 'clear,' 'brilliant.' Baudissin,* writing in 1878. finds the fundamental idea in ' separation,' a view which is still widely held. [Baudi.ssin says, ' .\ comparison with cnn makes it natural to conjecture that thp meant from the first " to be separated " " to be pure "i.e., that V\-\^ was from the beginning synonymous with 'Tl12; cp "Q, "pure," from 113, "tocut" or "cut out.'" It is certain, too, that Vahwe's holiness and his glor>' are correlative ideas (as, in the ATCsta, Ahura Mazda's). In Is. O3 this is very clearly indicated, and in t. 5 the thought of Vahwfc's holiness suggests to Isaiah that of his own (moral) uncleanness (cp Ps. l.'iiy; ii-i/.). May there not have been a time when np suggested the idea of purity without any moral reference ? Zimmern, followed by Whitehouse ( rA/-fr?r, July 1892, p. 52), connects C'n^ with Ass. kuddtiiu {Busspsalmen, 37, n. 2; Bcitr. zur Assyr.\ 105; Vater, Sohn, Furs/>recher, 11, n. 3), which means 'bright,' 'pure,' or, more precisely ( = e/liisu), ' bright,' ' pure ' (very frequently), ' illustrious,' ' holy ' (so Sayce, in a private letter). According to Aliel (in Baudissin, 38), words which originally denoted ' purity ' are used in Coptic to denote the divine or the consecrated. This is quite in accordance with the spirit of the old Egyptian religions and with that of the old Semitic religions. If, however, this tempting comparison l)e accepted, we must frankly admit that the original meaning had become forgotten, or was but obscurely felt, by the OT writers. Only once is 'the Holy One' distinctly parallel to 'light' (Is. 10 1 7); but the ideas are, at .-iny rate, implicitly .synonymous in Is. 31 9^ 33 14/ In usage, as Davidson (Kzek. xxxix.), remarks, the term ' holy ' expresses, not any particular attribute 1 Possibly, however, iv wpoBvpoit represents pSoa. and oSca is omitted by baq. 2 Studien zur semit. Rei.-^eich. 2 20 (in his important dissertation, 'Der Begriffder Heiligkeit im Alten TesUment'). just rather the general notion of godhead. In a secondary, though slill early sense, it is applied to that 'which bcloiiR) to the sphere of dcily, which lies near Cod's presence or has come into it (Kx. 3s Nu. '837/ (17a/]), or which beionfjs to him, whetlicr as part of himself or as his property.' Davidson also remarks that the root 'prolubly expressed some phvsical idea, thuii);h the idea is not now reasonnlile.' See also WRS ProtkS^ 414, who points out (after Nnldekc) that the Arabic evidence for the supposed root-idea of purity will not hold. In A'iy.*), 150, the same scholar finds 'some probability' that the origni.-tl meaning was 'se(ration' or 'withdrawal.' Other less prominent terms are b,ir (13), la/ck ("[j), and tdhflr (lineX nil of which are rcnderetl indifferenlly by 'clean' and 'pure.' (a) Of these the most definitely religious in its applica- tion is tahOr. No doubt jjo'*! >> ^ tdhflr, i.e., refined (Ex. li.*)!! Job 28 10); so also a tur>>an (Zech.aj), vessels (Kx. 'J4 f>), etc. ; but the levitical sense is s|>cci.illy promment (Lev. 7 19 Nu.i>i3, etc.) The eyes of (;<xl also can I* tdhflr {\\a.h. 1 i ,) ; therefore he cannot tolerate wickedness. Similarly innocence in man; lob 17 9 Ps. 61ia [lo). God's promises are tdJtflr i.e., perfectly veracious (I's. 12 7 UJ). (3) TjJ zaJc, also means refined (as oil, Ex. 27ao); incense (Ex. 3O34X morally pure, 'upright ' (Job 8 6 [II "KT), Prov. SOn 21 %\ It is used of a prayer (Job IC 17), of the heart (it has to be m.ide or kept ' pure ' or 'clean,' Ps. 73 13 Prov. 2O9 [|1 vtBl), or the conduct (Ps. IH'q). (4) 13, har, 'separated' i.e., 'pure' (cp [i] above). Some Rabbins interpret 13 in Ps. 2 12, 'selected ' = Trial !>"' 't would be c.isier (though not the best solution) to re.id Mrn^- In a physical sense ^ar= spotlessly Ixrautiiiil (Cant. <i<)/-'i. Spolk-ss purity belongs to (Jod's commandments (Ps. Itfg). It is used of moral puriiy (Jobll 4 Ps. 244 73 i). The NT terms which have to be noticed are (5) oycd? ' pure ' (, = tdhflr), in a physical sense of modesty or chastity (1 Cor. 11 2 Tit. 2 5 I Pet. 3 a); sacred, for ceremonial use (2 .Mace. 13 8) ; pure ethically of men (a Cor. 7 11 Phil. 48 i Tim. 632), of God (i_ Jn. 3 3), and of his wisdom (Ja. 3 17). (6) ayicK, worthy of veneration, whether of things connected with ( '.oil (I.k. 1 4 Heb.9i24Xorofpersons(-.^.,Johnthe Baptist, Mk. t> 21 ; Christian disciples, Acts9 13, etc.). Thus the church like Israel (Tit. 2 14, see Peculiar Picoile) is called eSiot ayiov (cp Ex. l'J6, cmp ij). oiyiot stands in the same relation liajCLOi as 13^ (see Lovingkinii.s'ess and cp Assideans) to pIS (see Thayer, Lex. NT, s.v. ayio's). (7) oaio corresponds chiefly with TDPI : see (6) above : (so also in ). It is used of men (Tit. l Heb. 726), of the Messiah (Acts2 27 1835), of .Messianic blessings (Acts 13 34 toL 6<Tia :^aviS), and of God (Rev. 164 16 5 cp Dt. 324 Heb. y:x (8) ipos, consecrated to the deity, belonging to God, used of the 'sacred' writings (2 Tim. 815 KV, AV 'holy'). In i Cor. 9 13 tA Ifpi means all the sacred objects pertaining to the worship of God in the temple. P'or the negatives of these qualities, see Co.mmon, Pkokane.) Baudissin's view (above [i]) suits many passages : the holiness of the k'^disim and the A't'deSotk'^ (see iDOi-ATKy, 6), who were certainly found in Israel very early, can have consisted only in their separation: either they were dedicated to foreign gods, or pcrha[)S they were set apart at puberty from the households in which they grew up. according to a custom which ranges from the (iold Coast to Tahiti (see Frazer's Golden Hough, 2225^), and never returned to them or entered others. The hire of the ' harlot ' Tyre (Is. '23 18) is to In; ' holiness unto Yahwe,' not Ixxause the reviving trade of Tyre is to be conducted in a Ix^tter spirit than before, but liecause it is to be taxed at the new Jerusalem (which is presumably to Ije a staple town of the wool and spice trade) in a way to absorb all its profits. Again (Zech. I420/. ), everything in the new Jerusalem after its last great trial is to be so holy, so perfectly the property of God, that the very horse-liells will bear the same motto as the High Priest's mitre ; the pots in which the sacrificial flesh is Ix)iled for priests are to be as holy as the Ixjwls which hold the sacrificial blood reserved for God ; the common cooking pots of Jerusalem are to be holy enough for pilgrims to boil their sacrifices in. Jerusalem (Joel 3 [4] 17) is to be 'holy'; no stranger is to pass through. There is to l)e through the wilderness of Judah a 'holy ' way (Is. 3.'>8) in which no uncl<:in .shall walk. 1 [See Dr. Di. 264/ ; St. GVl 1 479/ : Movers, Die Phdn. 1 ^Tiff- Henzinger (//.4, { 61) rem.-irks, 'It may !>.-ifely be affirmed that this form of consecration to the deity, and es- pecially the violation of nature combined with it, was unknown to the Israelitish nomads; but also, that with so many other details of Itaal-worship, it penetrated into the service of Yahwe, and there spread to a considerable extent.') So far it seems as if holiness might l>c explained as a relation rather than a quality. The flesh and blorxl of the sacrifice are holy Ijcc-ausc they Ijelong to (iol ; the pots and bowls have to lie holy that they may hold the flesh and blood. So. too, the vessels (the Ixxlies ? or the wallets?) of David's followers (i .S. 'J 1 5 [6]) have to be holy that they may receive the shewbread, which is holy because it is set l>efore Gfxl. David (whom all the writers who speiik of him regard, from their several pcjints of view, .xs a model of wisdom and jiiety) vouches for the negative holiness of his men, and any accidental defilement which he does not know will have had time to wear off : he appears to think that the shewbread will sanctify their 'vessels, and implies that if they had been specially sanctified, as for a holy war or a pilgrimage, they might have eaten the shewbread though they were not priests. ### 2. Contagion of holiness The ' sanctification ' of persons and things falls under the s;ime notion. ' Holiness," as Robertson Smith observed (^>"-\45o^). is contagious: whatever a holy thing or a -holy- person touches becomes holy. When Elijah casts his mantle over Elisha, the latter has to follow till Elijah releases him ; the worshippers of Baal, whose ordinary dress might ' profane ' the house, are provided with special vestments from the stores of the house of Baal ; otherw ise. when they came outside, their ordinary dress would make w hatever it touched ' holy to Rial, ' and unavailable to the former owners. The prii'st on the great Day of Atonement (the rule is older than the day) is to take off the holy linen garments and leave them in the holy place, and to wash his flesh in water lest any of the contagion of holiness should cling lo him. In a te.\t which, though l>elonging to the mam stock of P, seems to represent a later state of the law, the consecration of .Aaron and his successors seems to consist in their investiture with the (hereditar)- ?) st.ite dress of Ex. "28 ; cp Nu. 20 25-28. According to another view, which is older than Zech. 4 14, the consecration consists in the anointing (cp Anointi.vg, 3, r). The doctrine of the contagion of holiness is at its height in Ezek. (4624), who provides Sjjecial kitchens where the priests are to cook the most holy things, and special chamljers in which they are to eat them, without bringing them forth into the outer court to sanctify the people (who are eating their own sacrifices). Other- wise, they might become the pro|x:rty of the sanctuary, or at least would be subject to the same obligations as the priests. For the s.ime reason, it is expressly stated, they are to leave the holy garments in the holy place, though all the top of the mountain is most holy. So, too, a little later, the profane sacrificers'^ of Is. 6.') 5 either threaten to sanctify the poor who approach them, or claim to be too holy to l)e approachetl. In Hag. '2 12/ we find a distinct change. The contagion of uncleanness is stronger than the contagion of holiness. A garment in which holy flesh is carried does not sanctify ; a garment which h.is touched the dead pollutes (cp Egypt, 19, and see Drk.ss, 8>. The stricter view is still presupi)o.sed, at least for the ' most holy ' things ; any garment sprinkled with blood has to be washed in the holy place (Lev. 6 27[2o]) ;' otherwise it would sanctify. For the same reason the earthen pots used in cooking are to be broken; brass pots (too valuable to break) may be usetl, but only after having been rinsed and scoured obviously to remove the last vestige of the holy food. 1 Everybody dedicated a new house (Dt. 20 5) : was it ever a custom to dedicate vessels? • They wish to fors.-ike God's holy mountain and set up a temple of their own ; they ate rebuked in a ay to imply tnat no temple exists or is needed (cp Is. DO xff. and see Isaiah, ii., I "). • Is this the reason why the holy garments are of linen T Woollen garments would naturally be sent to the fuller at long intervals. ### 3. Holiness of priests. The rank of the priests is determined by their right to eat of both the holy and the most holy, which are often cited as if they were known, and never descritjed: though we are told that the ' sin ' and the ' trespass ' offering are most holy and must be eaten in the holy place, and hence could not be eaten by the households of the priests. Why these special offerings are specially holy is discussed elsewhere (see SACRIFICE). The scribes, to whom we owe this law, are the fathers of those who decided that a book was or was not canonical according as it did or did not ' defile the hands. ' After touching a really holy book, a man had to wash before touching common food lest his hands should sanctify it (cp Canon, 4). In the oldest practice, it would seem, it is the contact with the holy Mesh that is the essence of the con- secration of priests : the sacrificer who wishes to institute a priest ' fills his hand. ' ' As sacrifice and slaughter are nearly synonymous (as late as Is. 346; Isaiah, ii. , 14), we seem to find in one of the stories of the golden calf that the share of the Levites in the slaughter of the worshipp<Ms is virtually their consecration. ' They have filled ) our hand forYahw^' (i.e., 'Ye have been to-day appointed priests'), 'for every man was against his son and his brother ' (Ex. 3229). '^ In i K. 1833 Jeroboam fills the hand for the priests of the high places: in 2Ch. 189 each candidate brings a bullock and seven rams to fill his hand.^ This seems an echo of old tradition ; for in Kx. 29 (P), Moses takes only two rams and a bullock when he fills the hand of Aaron and his sons : the blood of the ram of the ' fill offering ' is put on the right ear, the right thumb, the right great toe, of each priest ; the pieces, which as a rule are burnt, and one of those which in ordinary sacrifices fell to the priest as his fee, are both laid with cake on the hand of each priest and waved before God (to assert the priest's right to the ' wave-breast ' and the ' heave shoulder ' ) and then burnt. There seems to be an afterthought {v. 26) in which Moses as the officiating priest takes the wave breast to himself; the priests eat the rest of the sacrifice (which in ordinary cases the worshipper would eat) in the holy place. The idea seems to be that jvist as the worshijjper in the old profession (Dt. 2613) declares ' I have put away the holy out of my house,' so the sacrificer passes on the dangerous holy food to a priest who will take the risk and the privilege of sharing the table of God, and bear the inicjuity of the people in their holy things. Possibly the Levites in Ex. 3226^ may point to a time when the priest was not chosen by the sacrificer, but handselled his office by laying hands on the holy flesh. 1 If Micah (Judg. 17 5) had begun with the Levite we might suppose that the filling of his hand consisted in his salary. He is not likely to have given his son a salary ; yet he 'filled his hands.' 2 [So Racon (Triple Tradition 0/ the Exodus, 137), who re- marks, ' In the story before us the consecration of the bene Levi to the priesthood is explained atiologically by their having filled their hand with the blood of their brethren.' It is doubtful whether 'they have filled your hand' is the meaning of the Heb. Theexpression, ' Fill your hands' (if this l)e the meaning), is admitted, however, by Baudissin (Gesc/i. des AT Prie.<iterih. 60) to be ' very suspicious." It is always another who fills the new priest's hand.s. Perhaps in an interpolation (see Kue. Hex. 247) the phrase may be conceivable.] • Can we suppose that if anybody was allowed to qualify Jeroboam found the qualification for all comers? ### 4. Of God The question whether ' holiness ' to begin with is nothing more than ' separateness ' bears very directly on the ' holiness ' of God. If holiness is originally a relation rather than a quality, if things and persons are holy to God as persons and acts are righteous before him, then God himself is holy simply as the centre of the circle of sanctity : if all that belongs to the sanctuary is holy, how much more he who dwelleth Ijetween the cherubim, who inhabiteth the praises of Israel (Ps. 223[4])? He is the object of worship whom his worshippers ' sanctify. ' He is the ' Holy One ' : ' I am God and not man, the Holy One of Israel in the midst of thee' (Hos. 119 cited Is. 126 : ' Rejoice and shout, O inhabitant of Zion, for gre.at is the Holy One of Israel in the midst of thee'). Yahw6 is the God, the Holy One of the prophet (Hab. I12). So Jacob (Gen.3l53, cp v. 42 [!;]) swears by the fear of his father Isaac i.e., the God whom his father feared. There are other texts, however, in which holiness seems to be absolute. The men of Ueth-shemesh (i Sam. 620) ask, 'Who can stand before Yahwe, this holy god?'^ In Am. 42 Yahwe swears by his holiness. Does that mean his character ? or the reverence due to him ? The answer will govern the sense in which his name is holy in 27. In Is. 5 16 (authoritative enough by whomsoever written) God's being exalted through judgment and sanctified through righteousness are closely parallel. The song ascribed to the mother of Samuel (i S. 2) is an unambiguous echo of the song of the seraphim (Is. 63) 'Holy, holy, holy is Yahwe Sftbaoth, the whole earth is full of his glorj',' where holiness and glory are clearly parallel. So, too, in Jer. 17 12, ' a high throne is the place of our sanctuary,' and in Ex. 15ii, 'Who is like thee, glorious in holi- ness, fearful in praises, doing wonders ? ' the holiness, the praises, the wondgrs, seem to belong to God's ex- ternal majesty. Throughout the OT God's worshippers rehearse his acts much oftener than his attributes. We find his 'righteous acts' as early as the song of Deborah (Judg. .')ii) ; but not till Jer. 12 1 do we read, ' righteous art thou, Yahwe, when I plead with thee ' ; where the sense is still half forensic, <as in Ex.927 (JE) Ps. 51 4 [6]. In Ps. 11 7 we have ' The righteous Yahwe loveth righteousness.' The parallel between holiness and glory is reinforced by the contrast between holy and profane, for profane certainly seems to mean what is cast down to be trodden under foot (E/.ek. 28 16, ' Cast thee as profane out of the holy mount'; Ps. 8939 [40], ' Thou hast profaned his crown to the ground ' ; cp 44). Israel, again (Dt. 2619), is made high above all people, that it may be a holy people. ### 5 Of Israel The demand that Israel shall be holy is common to every stage and aspect of the Law. In Ex. 22 31 [30] (JE) and Dt. I421, it is the ground on which Israel is to abstain from all meat not killed by men for human food ; in Dt. 14i/. Israel as a holy people is forbidden to make to the dead blood- or hair-offerings, intended, doubtless, to keep up a physical comnmnion with them (cp Escii.\TOLOGV). The spiritual tie between God and his peculiar people who are his children is not to be impaired by a rite the sense of which was still clear when the book which Hilkiah found was written, though in Jer. 166 the rite seems harmless and unmeaning, .\gain, the tithe of the third year is profane if any of it has been ' eaten in mourning ' or ' given for the dead ' (Dt. 2614). Are we to think of the mere unluckiness of .any thing connected with the dead (Hos. 94)? or of some form of worship, as in Is. 819? Consecration for one mode of worship would be a defilement for another. In I^v. I927 (cp 21 5) we have the law against cuttings for the dead pre- ceded by a law against an Arab tonsure, which probably marked consecration to an Arab god. This might go back to Hezekiah, who, according to Sennacherib [KB 294), entertained Arab mercenaries. Gratian adopted the dress of his Alan guard. If we suspect with Robertson Smith * an invasion of Arab totemism in the time of Kzek. (87-n), I^v. IQaS will forbid the tattooing of totem marks. t Holiness in the sarne sense is a.scribed to other gods ; Esh- munazar of Zidon on his sarcophagus (circa 400 B.C.) speaks of the holy gods in the same way as do Nebuchadrezzar and the queen-mother in the Book of Daniel, 2 [' Here, therefore, we have a clear ca.se of the re-emergence into the light of day of a cult of the most primitive tjtcm type which had been banished for centuries from public religion, but must have been kept alive in obscure circles of private or jocal superstition, and sprang up again on the rising of the national faith, like some noxious weed in the courts of a deserted temple' ^'. 357)' See the context, and cp Che. /ntr. Is. 368^] ### 6. In the Codes. In the Book of the Covenant and in Deuterononiy the holiness of the covenant people is demanded, so to speak incidentally, and without express reference to the holiness of the covenant (jod. If one were to try to find a keynote for the older book it would be 'Justice'; for Deuteronomy perhaps ' Loving-kindness. 'hesed,' the dutiful love of the worshipjxT to his (iod, which includes kindness for Gotl's sake to men (see also Li)VIN(;kinijnkss). ' Holiness ' is certainly the keynote of the oldest stratum of the l^vitical law (see Lkvitk i:s). Deuteronomy is clearly a development, as compared with the H<K)k of the Covenant ; a deeper insight into the vocation of the chosen people has \xxn gained. Is the Law of Holiness a development in the same sense, compareil with Deuteronomy? The interval between Kzekiel and Jeremiah is shorter than that Ixjtween Deuteronomy and the Book of the Covenant ; yet F.zekiel is almost as full of the ideas of H {i.e., the \j\\\ of Holiness) as Jeremiah of those of D. Has he inherited a relatively old tradition ? Short as H is, it is full of variations and repetitions. Would not an elder or a younger contemjxjrary of Ez.ekiel, giving expression to a ncsv religious movement that had grown out of Josiah's covenant, have imparted more unity to his work ? Again, in more than one way H seems to be older. No reader of Frazer (see especially Golden Boui^h, 1279 n. 2) would think the law which forbids the reaping of corners later than the law against gleaning (Lev. \9<)f.). Nor is the holiness required of priests yet extended to the whole j)eople ; thus if a layman eats .I'^aa he is defiled for the clay and must wash his clothes ; but for priests the prohibition is absolute. There seems, too, to be a recognition of other gods (Dt. 24 15/ ) : if a man curses his own god he shall bear his iniquity (i.e., he must not come to the priest of the God of Israel to make atonement for him). Certainly in D the demand for ' holiness ' is based on the more characteristic de- mand for monolatrj', whilst in H, though the demand for monolatry is not superfluous Israel, we are told, went after the Shedim (see Dkmons, 4) in the wilder- ness (Lev. 17 7) it is not fundamental. The giving of the seed to Moloch is treated as analogous to the moral abominations of the nations, for which the land spewed them out, rather than to turning away to idols or making molten gods. It was a profanation of God's holy name just Ixicause those under his wrath (Ezek. 20 25/) regarded it as part of his service. Upon the whole, the demand for holiness in H seems to be an intensification of the demand that worshippers shall sanctify themselves, which we may suppose the better priests to have insisted upon as long as there were feasts in Isr.iel. In many ways the holiness is still external : 'ye shall be holy, for I Yahwe am holy," appears (Lev. 20 26) as a sanction for the law against abominable food (cp 1144/}; in 19 2 218 the con- text takes off nothing from the text. These passages mark the culmination, not the starting |X)int, of a line of teaching. Generally the sanction of the precept is, ' I am Yahw6,' ' I am Yahw^ your god,' ' I am Yahw6 your god who brought you out of I'gypt,' ' I am Yahw6 who sanctify you.' Logically and theologically God's holiness is the source of all others : he is holy in himself and therefore what he takes for his must be holy too ; but possibly, as Koliertson Smith held, holiness may in the beginning have been regarded as a mysterious virtue inherent in things external to the worshipper in trees, in waters, in stones, in the mysterious animal life of well-wooded and well- watered sjwts, each of which may have served to suggest a higher power beyond the phenomena in which it was first recognised. Historically, however, the evidence that holiness is an attribute of the object of worship is neither so early nor so copious as the evidence that holiness is a relation bringing the worshipper and his holy things into a new sphere with something worship|x;d at its centre. ### 7 Clean and unclean animals Obviously ' holy and profane,' ' clean and unclean,' is a cross division ; holy things and persons are, or may be unavailable for common life as if they were unclean, though, on the other hand, holiness necessarily presupposcs and includes cleanness. Again, uncleanness often seems, like holiness, to have something supernatural about it : unclean animals often seem to be ' abominable,' like ' idols ' ; the uncleanness of the dead, and of women at certain times, is as likely to savour of awe as of disgust. ### 8. Quadrupeds. In historical times clean and unclean beasts are those which are fit or unfit for food rather than for sacrifice (see however below, 11): but the law of clean and unclean anmials is puzzling.* The law which limited the eatable quadrupeds to the old order of ruminants (with the exception of the camel) was valuable incidentally from the hygienic point of view. If this was the origin of the law, it must have rested rather on instinct than on observation ; at most, shepherds and herdsmen may have noticed what Ixsasts they found feeding in the pastures of the wilderness, and decided that these were as fit for food as their own flocks and herds. All the patriarchs have camels, and Rachel ((ien. 31 34 [L]) hides the teraphim in the camel's furniture : in later, perhaps more historical, times camels seem to Ix-long to aliens (cj) C.AMKL, 2_f.). In the oldest stratum of the story of CJideon (Judg. 825) we find the gold rings round the necks of the camels of the Midianites ; in the oldest stratum of the story of David (i S. 30 17) 400 of the Amalekites escaj^e on camels. As far as we know, camel-riders have always killed, eaten, and sacrificed their camels, though the meat is inferior to beef and mutton. Possibly the camel was unclean because it was the domestic animal of alien nomads. If so, the rule ' whatever divideth the hoof and cheweth the cud shall be clean ' may have been settled before the question of eating camels became practical. This question was decided by the observation that the camel does not strictly divide the hoof, or at least rests part of its weight on an undivided pad. The express prohibition of eating hares, rock-badgers, and swine, as food, is curious. No reason except a possible connection with totemism has yet been suggested why the rock-badger was forbidden ; and for the prohi- bition of the hare we have only guesses perhaps it is worth while to mention the idea that hares' flesh is unhealthy. The uncleanness of switie is at its height when they are kept in sties and left dirty ; but in O T and NT times they seem to have fed in herds out of doors. Compared with sheep and goats, they are fond of mud but so are buffaloes in mcKlern Palestine, which are not regarded with the same horror as swine. On the other hand, tribes of herdsmen and shepherds have much more in common with each other than with s\\ ineherds, and if we are to look for a natural explanation of the abhorrence of swine we niay look for it here : the droves of swine of the alien were abominable to the flocks and herds of the Hebrew. As for the actual feeling, whatever its cause, it is significant that in Harran, traditionally the last station of Abraham on his way to Canaan and the land to which Jacob returned, the land where he won his wives and his wealth, swine were sacrificed once a year and eaten only then. A sacrifice which is, for whatever reason, rare, is also mysterious, awful, and potent. Dogs too were sacred in Harran ; and both swine and dogs seem to figure in the profane sacrifices of Is. 65 and 66.1 See DOG, 4. 1 With regard to sacrifices it is men that are clean or unclean. When men sacrifice of the flock and the herd, only the clean may eat (when Saul misses David at table the first thought that occuni to him is ' he is unclean ') : that wa.s the_ common law till slaughter without .sacrifice was allowed in D in the interest of the one sanctuary. Of game, on the other hand, of the roebuck and the hart the clean and the unclean may eat alike though possibly there is a trace of a blood-oflTering by hunters in the rule in H (I^v. 17 13) that the blood is to be not simply poured out but covered with earth a prescription which might be either a survival or a development. [Cp Dr. Dt. 164 WRS OT/C<^) 366 ; Now. HA 1 116/:] Whatever the reason for the express prohibition of camels, hares, rock-badgers, and swine, the prohibition is as old as any part of the law which we can trace ; but the list of prohibited animals in Lev. 11 29^ (P) has integral relation to the rest of the law ; the weasel, the mouse, and different kinds of lizards are ' the uncleanest with you of swarming things' ; except dry sowing seed, everything that comes into contact with their carcase is unclean. The rule is meant to work: one of these abominations does not defile a whole cistern or fountain ; every earthenware vessel which they touch is to be broken ; other vessels are to be washed in water and lo be unclean until even ; the water which washes the vessels pollutes all meat on which it falls ; any drink in the polluted vessels is of course unclean. Two questions arise : Why should people wish to eat weasels, mice, and different kinds of lizards? and why are these charged with special uncleanness? The traditional answer to the second is that they are in a sense domestic vermin which haunt houses and are always getting into whatever is stored there, and so are worse than vermin out of doors ; but, as most com- mentators think that one of the lizards enumerated is an iguana or a land crocodile 3 or 4 ft. long (see Liz.vkd [i]), the explanation has to bear a heavy strain. If Robertson Smith's theory of totemism is established, much will become clear. ^ The elders of Israel who wor- shipped ' creeping things ' in ' chambers of imagery ' (Ezek. 810^) made it necessary to cultivate a special religious horror of their low-class totems : they were at the same stage as the Harranians, who are said to have worshipped field-mice. Indications of high-class totems, however, are not wanting ; see Leop.akd, Wolf. ### 9. Birds. There is neither a category nor a list of clean birds : of the unclean, as enumerated, most are uneatable either birds of prey or feeders on carrion. The lapwing is especially forbidden : the only possible reason yet discovered is that it haunts marshy places and that its flesh has sometimes a bad smell. Nothing is said one way or other of doves or pis^eons, which is remarkable, as they do not ap[)ear at Solomon's table, and, though they are the only birds which, as far as we know, were sacrificed, they were used for sacrifices of which the worshipper at least did not eat. In Syria, at any rate, they were always associated with the worship of Astarte, and, wherever that worship spread to the West, they went with it, and according to Lucian [Dca Syra, 14, 54) none of the worshippers at Hierapolis ventured to eat or touch them they were too holy, and whoever touched them was ivayq^ or ' unclean ' for a day, and it was a question whether swine were ' holy ' or 'abominable.' Probably the question of clean or unclean birds was only of secondary importance : it was not easy to keep ducks or geese ; there were no cocks (see Cock) or hens; the 'fowls of heaven' generally appear as feeding on sacrifices or corpses ; the ' fowler ' (who appears as early as Hos. 98) probably caught small birds for the rich.* 1 [See WR.S Rcl. Setn.Ci^ igojf. Were these sacrificiaLrites practised by the early Samaritans? Cp Che. /n/r. Is. 367.] 2 [Cp Stade, Th. LZC, i8g6, n. i, col. 10, who remarks against Nowack that ' W. R. Smith's hypothesis has the special merit of explaining why certain .^nimals are sacred, and why certain kinds of flesh may not be eaten. The theory that these animals were regarded as the property of the (iodhead only throws the question back. P'or how came people to embrace such a remarkable theory?' For Nowack's view see his HA 1 118.I 3 See Fowl, 81. In i S. 2'2o, if the text is right, partridge- hunting seeii to be beneath the dignity of a king. See Partridok*. ### 10. Insects. The prohibition of ' flying swarming things that go on all fours ' looks as if at first it included locusts, the only insects which anybody could wish to eat ; if so, subsequent scribes discovered that, as they leap on their hind legs and do not strictly go on all fours, they might be eaten in all stages of their growth. ### 11 Fish The law of aquatic food is clear : ' whatever hath fins and scales ' is clean ; this limits the dietary to true fishes, and among these, excludes eels and shads, popular and common articles of food in Egypt, Greece, and Italy. According to Pliny (//yVxxxii. lOi), Numa thought fish without scales unfit for funeral banquets ; Piankhi Meri-Amen thought well of a king of Lower Egypt who ate no fish ; according to Lucian {Dea Syra, 54), fish in general is forbidden food. The Law knows nothing of sacrificial fish. Perhaps the prohibition of fish was general, and the permission of what had fins and scales an exception ; see Fish, 8 _^ There is certainly a tendency to identify what is clean and what is fit for sacrifice. ### 8. Plants Thus Hosea (9 3) regards food eaten out of the land of Israel as unclean, because it cannot be purified by acceptable sacrifice to the God of Israel ; in Amos 7 17 a foreign land is polluted for the same reason ; and in H the fruit of all trees is to be uncircumcised the first three years (i.e., the fruit is to be picked off as fast as it forms while the trees are establishing themselves ?) ; for the fourth year the whole crop is to l)e holy to praise Yahwe withal [i.e. , to be used for sacrificial feasts). There is no distinction anywhere between clean and unclean herbs ; the first fruits of all are to be offered, though only corn and wine and oil figure in sacrifice. ### 9. Different periods In P (Gen. 1 29) every herb and tree that yieldeth seed is given for meat from the first ; so after the flood is all animal food ; ^ as sacrifice was instituted (according to P) for the first time at Sinai, the distinction between clean and unclean animals was still in abeyance. The distinction between clean and sacrificial animals which is presupposed throughout D is perhaps to be explained by the transition from the nomadic state. If Levi the sacred tribe be a metronymic formed from Leah the wild cow, wild animals must have been sacred once (see LEAH). The law of clean and unclean meats obtained special prominence in the Greek period : the first proof of the religious fidelity of Daniel and his companions is their resolution not to defile themselves with the king's meat ; when Antiochus Epiphanes resolved to alxjlish ' Jewish particularism ' eating swine's flesh was the test of con- formity. If we go back fifty or seventy years, Joseph, the enterprising revenue farmer, whom his namesake idealised (Jos. Ant. xii. 4 10) as Machiavelli did Ca-sar Borgia, had clearly no scruple of the kind ; ^ yet even he, though his kindred in the next generation [ib. 5i) were prominent on the heathen side and he himself fell in love with a pagan [ih. 8), was heartily thankful when his own niece was substituted for her in order to save him from polluting his seed among the heathen. A psalmist (see Ps. 141), who still instinctively draws his imagery from a time before the institution or revival of tlie evening burnt sacrifice, may be an older witness for the view (hardly to be traced in Ezra or Xehemiah) that the law of clean and unclean meats is given to separate Israel from the heathen : he appears to be thinking simply of fellowship at the table, not, like the author of Is. 6.'), of sacrificial communion. If so, a Maccabean editor may have revived a psalm which suited the times. Probably older psalms from 18 onwards lay the stress rather on cleanness of hands and innocency ; in Is. 6 5 the unclean lips of prophets and people are generally explained as relating to sins of speech, after the analogy of Zeph. 89 13. After the destruction of the temple, and still more after Palestine ce;\sed to be the centre of Jewish life, the law of clean and unclean was less zealously observed, though portions of it prove still to be of considerable sanitary value. See FOOD 1 Observe that in P's account of the deluge there is no dis- tinction between clean and unclean beasts ^Dhi.uge, 8 12 ^). 2 His son Hyrcanus (Jos. Ant. xii. 49) is the first person we know of whom they tell tlie story of the wise man wliose place at the king's board is piled with bones by enviou.s detractors. ### 14. Human uncleanness. Human uncleanness' is of two kinds. It may arise from external contact, or fron something in the man or woman who is unclean. The unclean- ness of (li-ath falls under both ; the dead is unclean and makes others unclean. Disciises like leprosy or issue, natural processes like menstruation and prob;ibly copulation, cause unclean- ness too. If, as W'ellhauscn holds (T// 151 ; but cp //(/ 108), Ix'v. 12a implies Lev. J.'iig, the law of un- cleanness after childlx^iring might lie an extension by analog)' of the older law of the uncleanness of menstrua- tion.' If so, as the Vendidad h.-\s much to say respect- ing the uncleanness of childbetl, we might sus|)ect Persian intluence the rather that there is no hint of it in the older Hebrew literature, w hile the ' menstruous cloth' apiK-'ars (Is. 3O22) in a passage still generally assigned to the .Assyrian period. Cp I'AMII.Y, n. Perhaps a common element in all cases of unclean- ness not caused by external cont.nct is that the unclean in .some way is disgusting or alarming. The law of leprosy is not to be e.\plained from the risk of contagion : ordinary sickness, even pestilence, does not occasion uncleanness ; the lejxT is ' unclean ' because he is smitten of God, just as the madman in Moslem coun- tries is ' holy," and epilepsy was the It pit viffoi in Greece. In general, [x-rsons who are in a state to make ordinary people shrink from them, because their ncighlKJurhood is uncomfortable or terrifying, are un- clean. ### 15. Purification Casual uncleanness, according to P in its final state, does not require an offering for its removal. It is enough to observe the prescribed term of seclusion, generally 'until the even,' and the prescrilK-d washing ; if either be neglected and the unclean negligently or ignorantly intrude among the clean, a 'sin-offering' is necessary. This is Dillmann's inference from Lev. 02. According to Nu. 5 2, the unclean is excluded not only from * the congregation,' but also from 'the camp,' i.e., not only from the temple, but also from, at any rate, walled towns. ### 16. Case of leper No offering is prescribed for the menstruous woman ; but after childbed and after issues a ' sin offering' is prescribed, whilst the leper has also to bring a ' trespass ' offering before he ' can come into ' the congregation,' though he is admitted to ' the camp ' after the performance of an (older?) rite with two birds, running water, cedar, hyssop, and scarlet. After he comes into the camp he must still wait several days before he comes to his ' tent. ' Here it is hard to doubt that the law has a sanitary purpose : it imposes a short quarantine to make sure that the cure is complete, and not improbably to guard against the hereditary transmission of the disease. The ' trespass ' offering of the leper looks like a ' development ' ; it is necessary to assert expressly that it belongs to the priest ( l^v. 1 4 33) ; the leper is anointed with the bl(jod and oil of the trespass offering, exactly as .\aron and his sons (Lev. 822) are anointed with the blood of the ram of consecration, whose flesh is boiled for Aaron and his sons to eat, while the ' wave breast ' falls to Moses as the sacrificer's fee. Possibly the re- consecration of the le[x.'r .is one of the holy people by sacrificial blood is older than the theory that he w.as not to eat of the sacrifice. The sin and the burnt-offering prescribed after all the graver kinds of uncleanness are to 'make an atonement,' which may imply that the uncleanness was a [x-nal infliction, though this is nowhere statel. The (older?) rite, which reatlmits the leper to the camp, is the only one prescribed for the cleansing of a house from the plague of leprosy, whilst 1 [Cp WRS Kfi. Sem.d) 428, 447/I 2 .-Vccoriling to surviving folklore, many things will not 'keep' if made or handled by a person in a state of Levitical ' uoclean- leprosy in a garment, if it ceases to spread, is sufficiently purged by two washings.' Much of the rite is still transparent. One of the birds is to be held over an earthen vessel full of living water into which the blood of the dead bird falls ; the living bird, the cedar, the scarlet, and the hyssop are to Ije dipjietl in the water and blood ; the leper who is to \>c cleansetl is to Ije s[)rinkled with lx)th ; and then the living bird is to fly away with the plague of leprosy, as the women with the wind in their wings (Zech. 59) fly away with the wickedness of the land of Israel, or as the goat for .Azazel (see Azazel) carries away the sin of the congregation into the wilder- ness. Probably the living bird is dijjix-d in the blood and water to establish a kind of bkxxl brotherh'xxl between it and the leper. If the blotnl and water were on the leper alone, the relc-:ise of the living bird might symbolise that he who was hitherto shut up in Israel was now free as the fowls of the air. Living water is, of course, a natural element of all purifications ; Hyssop iq.v.), certainly a popular means of purification (Ps. 51 7 [9]). ixccording to Pliny (/AVxvi. 7(1) is good for the complexion, and according to others is a sajx)- naceous herb. What are the cedar and the scarlet for ? Cedar wood is aromatic ; the bright c(jlour of scarlet may betoken strength and splendour. In the ancient domestic rites of India {SHE bO 281) children are made to touch gold and j^hi-e, that when they gr<nv up they may have riches and fo<xl. Remote as the analogy is, we may ask. Is the leper, in virtue of the rite, to dwell in cedar and be clothed with scarlet ? Sie Ci;u.\R. ### 17. Red Heifer, etc. The cedar, hyssop, and scarlet appear again in the mysterious rite of the Red Heifer whose ashes are used for the water of separation. It had a whole treatise to itself in the Mishna, where its qualifications were elaborated to such a point that at last R. Nisin said that no one since the days of Moses had l)een able to find one fit to Ix; slain. 'I'here is an analogous rite in D (Dt. 21 if. ) When the land is defiled with blood the ordinary way of putting away bloodguiltiness is to shed the bkxKl of the slayer. If he cannot be found the land is made clean again with the blood of an unyoked heifer killed, either by beheading or by breaking the neck (the meaning of the verb 'draph is not clear), in a barren valley with a running stream in it, where the elders of the city nearest the place where the dead man is found wash their hands of bloodguiltiness over the heifer. A barren valley is chosen, according to Dill- mann, Kwald, and Keil. in order that the purifying blood may not be uncovered and lose its virtue ; according to Robertson Smith (AV/. iV;//.<-' 371 ), to avoid all risk of contact with sacrosanct flesh. We might ask, Would running water in a fertile valley used for such a rite pollute the fields of offerings? The goat for AzAzel is sent into the wilderness. If the heifer is Ix-headed. her blood is almost certainly intended to 'cover' the blood of the slain. If not, are we to think of Sauls first muster (i S. 1432^)? Do the elders by implication invoke on themselves the doom of the heifer if their pro- testation is false ? What is the meaning of the obviously popular rite (see Covkn.wt, 5) of dividing victims when a covenant is made (Gen. 1.5 10 Jer. 34 18/. ) ? The rite of the Red Heifer is more general in its intention. Its principal use is not to do away blcxxlguilliness, but to cleanse those who are detiled by cont.act w ith the dead. Incidentally we learn that it w.as requireil for the purifi- cation of the vessels of all spoil which will not abide the fire (N'u. 3I33) ; and the Levites on their consecration are to \y& purified by what is probably the same, ' the w.ater of sin ' (it. 87). [.\aron and his sons (Kx. 'J94 and parallels) are washed at their consecration with common 1 Xeitherof these l.iwsl)clongs to the main stnck of P, though, if they were later developments, we should expect that the cleansmg of a house, at any rate, would have required an ofTcriiig. In I) the dedication of a house has all th*- look of a survivu, and was probably accomplished at one time by sacrifice. water.] Both texts are late, and represent the views of antiquaries rather than the claims of legists with practical interests to satisfy. The tendency to ascribe the whole law to Moses naturally brought with it an increasing zeal for the oldest rites that could be recol- lected ; it does not follow that the water of separation was invented in or after the Exile, because the occasions for its application were prescribed then. Possibly, as the Persians removed the uncleanness of the dead by elaborate ceremonies with ,i,^Si/i'-s, the priests thought that in similar cases water hallowed with the ashes of a cow would be specially efficacious. The law of a purification on the third and the seventh day (Xu. 19ii-i3 or 14-16?) looks older than the original law of the Red Heifer, which seems to end at v. 10 ; in v. \t ff. we have the rule for its application. The rite itself is as obscure as its history. . For one thing, at every stage its ministers must be clean, and they become uncle.in by their ministry ; the priest who su])erintcncls the burning is unclean till the even ; so is he who burns ; he who collects the ashes (though they must be laid up in a clean place) is unclean ; so is he who sprinkles or even touches the water, which is the one means which can make those defiled by contact with the dead clean. Naturally, we suppose that those who were ' unclean ' at the stage of the law implied in our records were ' sanctified ' at an earlier stage. Twice the heifer [vv. 9 17) is called a sin-offering. The ritual has interesting analogies with, and differences from, that of other sin-offerings. Like the sin-offering for the priest's own sin, and that for the sin of the congregation, it is to be burnt outside the camp hide, dung, and all. Unlike them it is to be killed, not in the place of the burnt offering, but without the camp. There is another contrast. The blood and fat of all sin-offerings, includ- ing the sin-offerings for priest and congregation and the bullock offered at the consecration of Aaron, is presented in the sanctuary ; the blood seems specially used there, as in the ritual of the Day of Atonement, to rehallow the altar profaned by sin. The heifer's blood is not brought into the sanctuary ; it is sprinkled towards it seven times. But for this we might suppose that the uncleanness of death was driven away from the camp or the city and burnt with the heifer ; but her blood is hallowing else why is it sprinkled toward the holy place ? Are all these rites compromises between the old custom of wor- shipping outside the city, which maintained itself as late as David (2 Sam. 1032), and the new custom of hallowing the city by a sanctuary ? As late as the As- syrian period (Is. 3:5 14, if this be Isaiah's), the close neighbourhood of an ever-burning altar made many uncomfortable.^ For this reason, among others, the rarer and more solemn sacrifices were still performed outside. Then perhaps the old rite in the old place took on a new meaning. Kings were, as a rule, buried in the city, and it was customary (Jer. 345) to make a burning for them.'^ In 2 Ch. 16 14 we read of a very great burning for Asa : the Chronicler, who may be quoting a relatively old authority, thinks of perfumes, at which Jeremiah does not hint. Were valuables Ijurnt in honour of kings? Have the cedar, the hyssop, and the scarlet burnt with the heifer any analogy to such burn- ings? Is the putting away of the heifer with something of a royal funeral an almost unconscious reminiscence of a well-nigh forgotten cultus of sacred animals? Is the red heifer the last trace of a cow goddess (see Calf, Goi.dk.n)? There are, of course, many instances .of mortal representations of the Godhead, honoured for a time, and then ceremoniously put away. In any case, the efficacy of the heifer's ashes seems to lie in the fact that they reconsecrate rather than purge the unclean. All Israel were originally hallowed (Ex. 248 JE) by the blood of the covenant ; so the priests are hallowed by the blood of the ' fill offering ' ; so the blood of the atonement rehallows the holy place and the altar that has been profaned ; so the leper is rehallowed after his uncleanness with blood, and the ashes of a peculiar sin-offering serve the same end. On the other hand, water and fire (except in Is. &$f.) seem simply to remove external pollutions, not to renew communion with a holy life.

1 Have we a trace of the same feeling in Is. 32 19? Is not a fenced city on God's Holy Hill at once superfluous when God delivers his people, and also in some sense profane ?

2 Cp Abodah Zarah, 1 3 and the Gemara.

### 18. Literature.

Robertson Smith {Kinshi/> ['85I, Kcl. Sft.Ci) ['94]), and Weilhau.sen (,/iesU Arai. Hi-idSi) [97]) are the Ix-st authorities for the Semitic world. The subject is best studied from a comparative point of view, for which Fr.-izer's Golden Bouk:h ('00) is indis- pensable. The critical treatment of the subject is of recent growth and is capable of further development. CpJ.C. Matthes, 'De begrippen rein en onrein in het OT," /"A. 7. 33 293-318 r99]. The only earlier work of importance is Spencer's he Lcgihus Hebrirorum Rituatihus (Cambridge 1727) see Robertson Smith's estimate in liel. SeiiiA'^) p. vi. g. A. Si.

## CLEMENT

(kAhmhc [Ti.WH]), a Philippian Christian who had taken an active part in building up the church at Philippi, in which he had the co-operation of Euodia and Syntyche (Phil. 43). In the allusion to him there is nothing to imply that he was a companion of Paul in his journeyings, or to justify his traditional identification (in the Western Church) with the Roman Clement.

In the list of the 'seventy disciples" compiled by tlie Pseudo-Dorotheus he is spoken of as having been the first of the Gentiles and ( Ireeks to believe in Christ, and as having afterwards become bishop of Sardica. The Pseudo-Hippolytus has Sardinia, for which, however, we should probably read Sardica.

## CLEOPAS

(KAeonAC [Ti. WH], abbrev. from KAeonATROc). according to Lk. 24 18 the name of one of the two disciples who accompanied the risen Jesus to Emmaus. The narrative in question, however, is one of the latest of those which attached themselves to the accounts of the resurrection of Jesus. Paul, who had spent fifteen days in the society of Peter (Gal. 1 18) and was strongly interested in establishing the fact of the resurrection, knows nothing of it. Byeira . . . fireira . . . iirura . . . eira . . . ^(txo-tov^ oi i Cor. 15 5-8 he unquestionably intends to enumerate exhaustively all the appearances of the risen Lord which were known to him ; and he had the most urgent occasion to do so, for the resurrection of Jesus had been brought in question at Corinth. The narrative of the third evan- gelist conveys in a highly concrete form the thought that it is from Jesus himself we receive the knowledge that his Passion and Resurrection had been foretold by Moses and all the prophets (2425-27). In reality, however, this conviction must have been gradually reached as the result of a prolonged and evcr-deeijening study of the OT by the whole church. That it is in the Eucharist that his presence is made known to his church is, in like manner, an experience still repeated in every renewal of the act. Here too, accordingly, the thought, that in the nearness of Christ as experi- enced in the sacrament which commemorates his death we have our most convincing assurance that he truly lives, finds concrete expression.

After what has been said, it becomes a question whether Cleopas is a historical person at all, though there is nothing in the mere name to suggest that he is not. There is no sufficient ground, philological or other, for regarding him as a veiled representation of the apostle Paul.

Several MSS of the Itala and Vg. , as also the Coptic and the Armenian versions, read K\e6iraj or KXfojTa? in Jn. 1925 also ; but if this were the original reading, the substitution of the more difficult form KXwTras would be incomprehensible. For the evidence that different [persons are intended in Jn. and in Lk., and that the confusion of the two is due to later writers, see Clui'As, 5/ P. W. s.

1 RV 'then . . . then . . . then . . . then . . . last of all," and AV ' then . . . after that . . . after that . . . then . . . last of all.'

## CLEOPATRA

(kAcottatpa [ANV]), 1, sister and wife of Ptolemy Philometor, Est. 1 1 1.

2. Daughter of no. i (i Mace. lOs?) : see PTOLEMIES.

## CLEOPHAS

(kAcohac [Ti.WH]). Jn. 19 25 AVf. AV'"k.' and KV C j.oi'.vs (</.v.).

## CLOAK

(ci.oKK).

For '^'VP, /<'//, ill Is. 59 17 see Tunic. In this passage the fMt'l/ was a milit.-iry over-garment, and cloak well expresses this.

Kor ifiartor (see cs|>ecially Mt. 840; in ^n. 19 a 5, AV 'robe,' KV 'garment'), the outside mantle {fiailtuni, as dislin|;uishcd from the \itviv or tunica), representing the Hebrew kuttdntth, see Mantlk.

Other garments rendered cloak are the Macedonian \ka.^.\)^, or military cluak of 2 M.ncc. 12^5 RV ('coat' AV), and the ^(Aotiff , or travelling cloak of 3 'I im. 4 13. See Man ILE.

## CLOPAS

(KAtonAC [Ti.WH]).

### 1. Name perhaps Greek.

This name cannot be derived from the same Hebrew (Aramaic) word as &A<t)Ai()C- In the first place, the vocalisation is not the same : Clopas would require some such form as 'S7n, while Alphxus pre-supposes 'oSn or 'Byn (see ALl'HiKUs). In the second place, as regards pji 'l that is certainly p 1^ known is that it beciimes k at the end and in the middle of certain words (2 Ch. 30i Nch. 36 [</>a<r.icl, C.en. 2J24 \tafitK\, Josh, li) 6 [laiuKa]). True, it l.ts lK.-eii conjectured that the same holds good at the beginning of words (H. I,ewy, Die Sent. Ftt-nuiivorter im Griech., 1895, pp. 17 27 51 1 10 119 137; add, conversely, K-nosSn as transliteration of icA(i//vipa). Ihis hardly conies into consideration, however, in the present case, for a Hebrew (or Aramaic) derivation is never probable in the case of a word beginning with two consonants. In Greek transliteration of Hebrew names, initial sli^nvd is always represented by a full vowel (e.g., /KIDtj', Sofiou^A) : tlie opposite instances given by Lewy(iiyr, 34, 45> 54. 59. 69, 98, 105, 118, 122 /., 129, 206, 211, 2467;) are more or less doubtful, and relate to words which were susceptible of such a modification in the transference as was hardly possible in the case of biblical proper names. Further, the Syriac versions of the NT betray no consciousness that both names are derived from a common Semitic source : with them the initial letter of 'oA^atot is always n(or ), of (cAwn-os invariably p.

It is not likely that cXwiray is derived by metathesis from Ks'^p ( ' club ' ) ; nor is there the least certainty that /(Xwiras is a contraction from K\ibira.%.

On purely Greek soil, .-it any rate, icAeo- when contracted would become either kAw- (e.g., KXfVKpdrq^, esi;cially in l)oric) or kAov- (as BtoSmfmi becomes 0ovSu>poi ; see Meisterhans, Granim. d. atlisclun Inschrr. 19, and cp Theudas). At the same time, the contraction of (cAtdn-a? into icAojjras must be admitted to be at least possible, inasmuch as we know of no Greek word from which the syllable icAa>- can come. In this case the original form of the name will be KAcoTrarpov. Fur this reason, the .nccentualion (cAuiiros is preferable to KAuiirat, especially as the accent is allowed to retain its original place in icAcbirat. '

### 2 Mary Of Clopas probably not = Jesus' mother's sister.

In Jn. 19:25, the only place where the name occurs in NT, Clopas is mentioned as somehow related to a certain Mary. Hegesippus ( Eus. HE 3:11:32:1-6, 4:22:4) informs us that Clopas w.is the brother of Joseph the father of Jesus. Whether this is the Clopas referred to in Jn. 19 25 depends, in the first instance, on the answer to the question, who is intended by the ' Mary of Clopas ' there. As there is no ' and ' before her name, she would seem to be not identical with the sister of the mother of Jesus who has been referred to immetliately Ix-forc ; but it is quite improljable that two sisters alive at the same time should have borne the same name, at least in a plebeian family.

1 [The name is possibly the same as the Palm. KElSp (Chabot, no. 12). In MH the name 'Cleopatra' usually appears under the form mcEdlSp-l

2 For a somewhat different account of these relations, see O.nias.

With a royal house the case is somewhat different. Of the sons of Herod the Great, two who never attained royal dignity lx>re the name of their father : one by his m.irriage with the second .Mariamme, and one by his marriage with Cleopatra of Icrus;dem (Jos. Ant. xvii. I3 A/ '284, \ 562). There uas, besidcn, his secoixl son by Mafthakc, who, however, as far as we know, took the name only as a reigning prince (see Lk.Si and frequently), whilst Ijcfore his acccssiuii he is in Joscphus invari- ably designated by his other n.inic, Aiitip;is. His first son by Malihakc, too, whom Josephus always names Archclaus, is adled Herod on coins and in Cassius lio (.>.'< 27 ; cpSchiir. GJV 1 375, KT i. 2 39). Thus the name Herod seems already, to some extent, to have acquired the character of a family name.

If (^lAin-n-ou be the correct reading in Mk.i7 (so also in Mt. H 3, though not .! cording to the western group), the son of Mariamme just mentioned, who, in ponit of fact, was the first husband of Herodias, must have borne the name Philip also, in addition to that of Herod, while at the same time this name, Pliilip, was borne by his biother, who is known to us from Lk. 3i as the tctrarch of NK. Palestine. As we are without evidence that the former Herod was called Philip, doubtless we must here conclude that .Mk. and Mt. have fallen into an error, which, however, has l>eeii avoided by Lk. (819).

Again, according to Jos. (Ant.iin.bi xv.3i xix.02), not only Onias III (high priest till 174 H.c, died 171 li.c.) and Jesus (Jason) his successor (high priest 174-171 B.C.), but also Onias (usually known as Menelaus) who came after Jason, were sons of the high priest .Simon 11.2 2 Mace. (84423), however, which is here very detailed, expressly speaks of .Menelaus as brother of a Benjamite named Simon, whilst the high priest Simon II. was of the tribe of Levi.

If, accordingly, one is determined to hold by the identity of .Mary of Clopas with the sister of the mother of Jesus, this must lie on the assumption not only that she and the mother of Jesus were not children of the same marriage, but also that they had neitlicr father nor mother in common that, in fact, each spouse had brought into the new household a daughter by a a former marriage, named Mary. It is no argument for the identity of the two to allege that we are not at lilierty to tiiul more women mentioned in Jn. IO25 than in Mt. 2756 Mk. lf)4o (Itii) and I,k. '2410;* for John mentions the mother of Jesus, though she does not appear in any of the synoptists. In other words, he did not hold himself bound by what they said, though, according to all scholars, their narratives lay before him. The only point on which he is distinctly in agreement with them is as to the presence of Mary Magdalene. If we will have it that he enumerates also the Salom6 of Mark (whose identity with the mother of James and John the sons of Zelxxlee cannot setiously l)e doubted), we can find her only in the sister of the mother of Jesus. Mary of Clopas nmst in that case bo distinct from the latter, and may possibly l>e identified with the Mary who in Mt. is called the mother of James and Joses (or Joseph), in Mk. the mother of James the Less and Joses, or, more briefly, Mary [the mother] of Jo.ses (so 1547) or Mary of James (so 16 1 and Lk. 24io). In this case, however, not only is it remarkable that the relationship of the apostles, James the (ireater and John, with Jesus as children of sisters is nowhere mentioned

 Mk. 15:40 Mk. 16:1 Mt. 27:56 Lk. 23:49 Lk. 24:20 Jn. 19:25 (At the cross) (At the sepulchre) (At the cross) (At the cross) (At the sepulchre) (At the cross) Mary Magdalene Mary Magdalene Mary Magdalene irai^cf oi yvtaimX Mary Magdalene Mary Magdalene Mary, the mother of James the Less and of Joses Mary of James Mary, the mother of James and Joses (or Joseph) airb T^ roAiAatas. Mary of James The sister of the mother of Jesus Mary of Clopas Salome Salome The mothers of the sons of Zebedee Joanna Mary the mother of Jesus

or in any way alluded to ; but also it is almost unthinkable that the fourth evangelist presupposes the presence of the mother of John when in 1926 he proceeds : ' when Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith, etc.' As far as the fourth evangelist is concerned, this scene furnishes a clear motive for thinking not only of the mother of Jesus as present, but also of the mother of John as absent. Lk. 24 lo (at the sepulchre) puis in the place of the mother of John a certain Joanna. If, as he often does, the fourth evangelist is here taking Lk. rather than Mt. or Mk for his guide, it would be impossible to identify Mary of Clopas with the sister of the mother of Jesus, whose name on this assum[nion must be taken to be Joanna. It is certain, however, that in Lk. this Joanna is identical with the Joanna who is mentioned in 83 as the wife of a certain Chuza and not stated to have been related to the mother of Jesus. Thus we may take it that it was not she, any more than any of the others, that was intended by the fourth evangelist, and that most protmbly his reason for mentioning the sister of the mother of Jesus is that, according to Lk. 2849, 'all his acquaintance' (yvucrroi) are standing by the cross. There is no evidence of any allegorising intention that he could have had in the enimieration of these four (or three) women. Apart from the mother of Jesus and her sister, therefore, the names of the women seem simply to have been taken over from the Synoptists.

### 3. Clopas = Alphaeus ?

Who was the mother of James and Joses, with whom, according to this view, Mary of Clopas would have to be identilied ? The James in question is often supposed to be the second James in the list of the apostles. With this it seems to agree that Mk. calls him James the Less. Now, this James was a son of .A-lphiieus. Thus .Mphajus would appear to be the husband of the Mary mentioned by the Synoptists as present at the cross. From this it is not unusual to proceed to the further combination that in Jn. Clopas is named as the husband of Mary and that he is identical with .\lph;tus. Phiiologically the names are distinct (see above, i) ; but the identification is possible if, according to a not uncommon Jewish custom (Acts I23 1225 13i9 Col. 4ii), Clopas had two names. A further step is to bring in at this point the statement of Hegesippus that Clopas was a brother of Joseph the father of Jesus. Over and above this, many proceed to the assumption shown above ( 2) to be untenable that his wife Mary was identical with the sister of the mother of Jesus.

In this case two brothers would have married two sisters, and the second James in the list of apostles would be a cousin of Jesus, and that both on the father's and on the mother's side. Even, however, if we regard Mary of Clopas as a different person from the sister of the mother of Jesus, her son, the second James, as long as he is regarded as the son of Clopas the uncle of Jesus, remains a cousin of Jesus, whilst, according to the identification of the sister of the mother of Jesus with the wife of Zebedee (spoken of above, 2), this honour would belong rather to the first James and John the sons of Zebedee as being sons of the aunt of Jesus.

### 4. The sons of Mary = brothers of Jesus?

The next question that arises is. Who was Joses, the second son of Mary, according to the Synoptists ? In Mk. 63 a Joses is named, along with James, Judas, and Simon, amongst the brethren of Jesus. This has given occasion for crowning the series of combinations which has been already ex- plained, and completing it with a hypothesis whereby it becomes possible to deny the existence of literal brethren of Jesus, and to affirm the perpetual virginity of his mother. Once it is admitted that James and Joses were sons of Clopas ( = Alphneus) and of Mary his wife, the same seems to hold good of all the ' brethren of Jesus. ' In that case they would be ' brethren of Jesus' only in the sense in which 'brethren' (d5eX<^oi) is used instead of 6,v{\piol (children of two brothers or two sisters) in 2 S. 2O9 (cp 11 2$). Finally, to this is added, not as a necessary but as a welcome completion of the hypothesis, the suggestion that of the ' brethren of Jesus ' not only James but also Simon and Judas were among the apostles. Both names, in point of fact, occur, at lea.st in Lk. \$/, Acts 1 13 (Simon alone \n iMk. 3 18 Mt. 10 'i/.). With regard to Joses, the fourth of the ' brethren of Jesus,' some have conjectured (carry- ing out the same hypothesi.s) that it was he who, according to Acts 1 23-26, was nominated (though not chosen) as successor to the vacant place of Judas Iscariot. It is true that all the belter authorities here read Joseph, not Joses (see Baksabas) ; but, on the other hand, this reading being accepted, it can be pointed out that according to the better MS.S (at least in Mt. 13 55) Joseph, not as in Mk. 63 Joses, is the name of the fourth brother' of Jesus.

This whole identification of the ' brethren of Jesus ' with apostles or aspirants to the apostleship, however, is quite untenable. According to Mk. 32i 31 Mt. I246/ Lk. 819 Jn. 75, the brethren of Jesus disbelieved his Messiahship while he was alive, and in Actsl 14 i Cor. 95 they are distinctly separated from the apostles.

Even if we give up the identification with apostles, Mary cannot be the mother of the cousins of Jesus.

Had she been so related to Jesus, Mt. and Mk., in seeking to indicate her with precision, would have named not two sons but four ; or rather they would have mentioned no names at all, but simply said 'the mother of the cousins of Jesus.' Moreover, it is only of Symeon, the second ' bishop ' of Jerusalem, that Hegesippus says he was son of Clopas and cousin of Jesus. If Hegesippus had regarded the four ' brethren of Jesus ' as his cousins, he would surely have designated Symeon's predecessor also (James the ' brother ' of Jesus) as son of Clopas, and Symeon himself, by whom in this case tbe Simon of ilk. O3 Mt. I355 would be meant, he would have designated as brother of James. This, however, is what he does not do : he calls James simply 'the Just' (6 SiKaios), and says (Eus. JfE iii. 3'2 6) that men 'of the race of the Lord ' (airh yeVous tov Kvpiov) had presided over the church (in Palestine) in peace until Symeon the son of Clopas, the uncle of Jesus, was arraigned and crucified ; cp iii. 206.1

Lastly, it is idle to deny the existence of actual ' brethren of Jesus ' : that is distinctly vouched for by the wpuToToKov of Lk. 27 an expression all the weightier because it has been already suppressed in Mt. 1 25.

### 5. Conclusion.

If James and Joses, the sons of Mary according to the synoptists, are thus no cousins of Jesus, we could all thee more readily believe that they were really apostles or at least constant companions (.\ctsl 21) of Jesus. Such an assumption, however, is not borne out by a single hint, and at the stage of the discussion we have now reached it has no more interest than the other which makes Clopas identical with Alphaeus and regards him as the husband of .Mary. The Mary in question, we are forced to conclude, was simply a woman not known otherwise than as the mother of a James and a Joses. Why is it, then, that the fourth evangelist designates her, not by reference to these sons of hers, but by calling her ' of Clopas ' ? That he here intends the Cleopas of Lk. 24 18 is quite improbable (see Cleopas) ; but neither is it likely that he can have meant a man named Clopas who was wholly unknown to his readers. His allusion must rather have been to the Clopas whom we know from Hegesippus as the brother of Joseph. There is no trace of any allegorising intention in this : we may take it that the evangehst is following tradition. It is possible, therefore, that Clopas was the husband of Mary, in which case James and Joses are cousins of Jesus, but not to be identified with his brothers of the same name, nor yet with the apostle James and the Joseph (or Joses) Barsabas of Acts 1 23. It is more probable, however, if the prevailing usus loquendi is to be taken as a guide that Clopas is designated as the father of Mary. In this case it is Mary herself who is the cousin of Jesus. In either case it is remarkable that in the synoptists she should be characterised not by her relationship to Jesus, but simply by mention of her sons ; and this on the assumption that it is the uncle of Jesus who is intended, suggests a doubt as to whether the mention of Clopas in this con- nection is correct.

1 In Eus. ///Tiii. 20 i Hegesippus speaks of oi anh -ytVou? roi) Kvpiov VLUvoi 'Iov6a, toO Kara (xapxa Ae-yo/xeVov avTOv a6cA<^oO ; and in iv. '22 4 he says that 6 tic 6fCov ai/Tov [Jesu] 2vjoteo)i' 6 row KAcojra was ifei/zibs toO Kvpiov fieurepos. Inasmuch as he does not regard James as aveijjio^ npuiro^, as has been .shown, the words Seurepos and Aeyo/ieVou can mean only that he regards Symeon as ' cousin ' and Jude as ' brother ' of Jesus in a modified sense. He ai)pears, then, to favour the assumption of the irapOtvCa of .Mary at Jesus' birth. .-Vll the more remarkable is it that he does not yet seem to have drawn the further consequence of denying other sons to her. His statement that Clopas was the uncle of Jesus, therefore, does not proceed upon any such theory as that in favour of which it has (as we have seen) been applied, and therefore in respect of trustworthiness is open to no suspicion.

The apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, following the combination mentioned above (8 4), for the most part identify .Symeon, son of ClopJis, the second bishop of Jerusalem spoken of by Hcgesippiis, with the apostle Simon the Canana:an (AV ' the Zealot ') ; some give him in addition the name of Judas, and some make the name of his father his own proper name also, but in the form Cleopas or Cleophas, so that he is identified also with the disciple mentioned in I,k. 24 18. He is at the same time enumerated among ' the Seventy ' of Lk. 10 i (Lipsius, Apokr. Ap.-gesch. ii. 2 142/^). According to the 'l'ieasure-cave(Schatz- hehU, ed. Hezold, 1888, p. 267, 5; see Tlies. Syr. ^A. Payne- .Smith, col. 3629), a Syriac collection of legends dating from the sixth century, he was brother not only of NicodemusCa statement made of the apostle Judas also in a Latin list of apostles given in Lipsius, 1 195), but also of loseph of Arimatha:a. p. w. S.

## CLOTH, CLOTHING

On these and similar words, see, generally, DRESS, i.

The words are used with considerable looseness and fre- quently interchange with others of similar meaning. ' Cloth ' (and 'clothes') occasionally render 1J3 (Drkss, l[i]), and nVpc' (Mantle), also once 1330, 2 K.'sis, AV (Bed, 3); for aivhuiv, Mt. 2759, see Linkn. ' Cloth ' to denote material or fabric is found only in Esth. 1 6, KVmg. For 'cloths of service' (Ex. 31 30, etc., AV ; Tlij-n '133) see Dkess, 3 n. For 'striped cloths' (Pr. 7i6 KV, niacn) see Linen. RV prefers 'cloths' in Kzek. 27 20 (1:13),^ Lk. 24 12 {oQoviov), where AV has 'clothes,' and 'clothes' otherwise recurs in Gen. 49 IS AV (niD, RV 'vesture'), i S. 4 12, EV (^a), Ezek. 2724, AV (diVji RV 'wrappings': see Dkess, g i [2]). 'Clothing' is used to render the general terms t^U'? (Job 24/), nj3 (ib. 22 16), noap (Is. 23 18), nc'3^ri (ib. 59 17), as well as the specific nSpif', Ls. 36 (Mantle).

## CLOUD. PILLAR OF

(|3rn niGr), Exod. 13 2i; see PILLAR OF CLOUD.

## CLUB

(nn'in, tothdh ; c(t)YPA Jol^ 4I29 [21] RV, AV ' dart '). Read tarlah 'javelin,' and see WEAPONS.

## CNIDUS

(kniAoc [AXV : Ti. WH]), a city on Cape Crio (anc. Trioiiium) in the extreme SW. of Asia Minor, between Cos and Rhodes. It was originally built upon the rocky island (v^(tos v\f/rj\T] dearponSr)^, Strabo, 656) forming the cape, united to the mainland by a causeway, thus making two harbours, one on the N. and the other on the S. of the isthmus (cp Mitylene and Myndus).

The inhabitants soon spread eastwards over the neighbouring part of the peninsula. 1 he moles of the large southern port are still in existence, as well as much of the ancient city. The situation of Cnidus was eminently favourable to its development as a commercial and naval power ; but, curiously like Cos in this respect, it played no part as a naval state probably owing to the repressive influence of Rhodes.

The commercial importance of the city was inevitable. It lies upon the maritime highway (cp Thuc. 835, irepl Tpidirioi' TOLS air' Alyvirrov 6X^'d5a5 Trpoa/SaXXoiyeras ^vWafi^dvfiv). Very early it had trade with Egypt and shared in the Hellenion at Naucr.atis (Herod. 2178). At least as early as the second century B. c. Cnidus had attracted Jewish settlers, for in i Mace. 1523 it appears in the list of places to which the circular letter of the Roman senate in favour of the Jews (circa 139-8 B.C.) is said to have been addressed. Paul must have passed the city on his way to Caesarea (Acts 21 1/); but its name occurs only in Acts 277 (lipa5vTr\oovvTei Kai /itoXis yevdfievoi Kara ttjc KvLSov) after Myra had been passed, on the voyage to Rome. The continuotis NW. (Etesian) winds had made the voyage over the 130 m. between Myra and Cnidus tedious ; and rendered the direct course from Cnidus, by the X. side of Crete, impossible (fxrj irpo<rtu>vTO% ij/xas rou dv^fiov).

1 For CSn n:33 Gra. reads j'Sn 33 ; but we should more probably emend to cn'no '333 'with young suhirs ' (cp Horse, Mizraim, 2 a end); '33 became 33, and from the transposition and confusion of letters B'Em easily arose (Che.).

The wines of Cnidus, especially the kind called Protropos, excelled any produced in Asia (Str. 637). '1 he best claim of the city to renown lies in the intellcctuar activity of its inhabitants and their encouragement of art. 'I'hey possessed, at the I/Csche at Delphi, two pictures by I'olygnOtus (middle of fifth century ; I'aus. X. 2.') lyC). They lx)ught the Aphrcxiite of Praxiteles (his masterpiece, quatii ut vidirent multi navigaverunt Cnidutii ; Plin. //A'xxxvi. ,'14 : the Cnidians especially worshipped Aphro- dite, Pans. i. 1 3). In addition, they had works by Bryaxis and Scopas. Eudoxus the astronomer, Ctesias the physician and historian, Agatharchides, and Sostratus the architect who built the I'haros of Alexandria, all belonged to Cnidus (cp Str. 119, 656).

For plan and views of the remains see Newton's Hist. 0/ Discoferiis at Halicarnassus, etc., 1861-63; J ravels and Visco7>crics in the Ln'ant, 2 1677: VV. J. VV.

## COACH

(nV), Is. 6620 AV-ne- See Littkk.

## COAL

The coal of OT and NT is undoubtedly charcoal.

### 1. Terms.

A piece of black charcoal was termed ens ( pehhdtn ; . fp___ cp perh. Ass. phttu [or pi'mlu*'\ ' fire ' ; j,^^^, 26 2, [ecrxdpa]. Is. 44 12, 54 i6t [dvdpa^ ; carbo\) ; pieces in process of combustion, 'live coals,' rhni, Q'hni [gahhilHth, gehlidllm ; cp Ar. jahima to glow, and perh. Ass. guhlu, a shining precious stone ; dvOpa^ ; pruna), and often, more precisely, E'K -hn} (coals of fire), Lev. 16 12, etc. In this distinction, which is not uniformly observed (cp Is. 44 12 54 16), lies the point of the vivid comparison Prov. 2621 (RV ' as coals are to hot embers,' etc. ).

Of the other words rendered by 'coal' in theOT it is sufficient to say that nSS"l,l rispcih (Is. 66) is rather a ' hot stone ' (so RV"'*,'- ; avOpa^', the D'E^T [nzy], r^sap/iim, of i K. U6 (fUKpvtfiCai oAiip[j]tn)s) being, in like manner, the hot stones on which Elijah's cake was baked (see Bkkad, 2[a]) ; that ffcn, reseph, identified by the Rabbins with l^'l, rctjeph, and twice rendered 'coals' (Ct.86 AV, Hab.35 AV,' RVihk-; AV'"K. 'burning diseases'), is rather 'flame' or fire-bolt (cp RV);2 and that lin;;', fehgr (Lam. 4 8; (l<r/3oAr) ; carbones ; EV, ' their visage is blacker than a coal'), is properly ' blackness' {so the margins; others 'soot' [fuligo]).

### 2. Fuel.

The Hebrews doubtless used for fuel as great a variety of woods as the modern Syrians now use (see 2 PiiPl ^'"^' '" PEFQ. '91. PP- 118^). Several are named in Is. 44 14-16. Ps. I2O4 (RV'K) mentions 'coals of broom (cni),' a desert shrub which, when reduced to charcoal, throws out an intense heat (on the text see JUNIPKR). The references to thorns as fuel (c'TD, D'^ip) are many ; particular mention is made of the buckthorn or perhaps bramble (icN, Ps. 589 [10]), of chaff chopped straw (tibn), the refuse of the threshing-floor (Mt. 812), and of withered herbage (Mt. 630 Lk. 1228). At the present time the favourite fuel of the Bedouin is the dung of camels, cows (cp Ezek. 415), asses, etc., which is carefully collected, and, after being mixed with tibn or chopped straw, is made into flat cakes, which are dried and stored for the winter's use. We may assume that this sort of fuel was not so much rcxjuiretl before the comparative denudation of the country, though Ezek. 4 12-15 certainly suggests that it was not altogether unknown.

• l^n. .IBSI. ' coal ' ( = Ar. mf/i">) is to be kept distinct from

nssi, ' pavement (cp verb in Cant. 3 10), which corresponds to Ar. rasa/a, 'to arrange side by side' : see Dr. Tensesi^}, 231.

' See Dr.'s elaborate note on Dt.3224.

3 For the arrangement of a modern S>Tian ' hearth,' sec Landberg's Prm'erbes et Dictons, 73/, 155 (with illustration).

### 3. The hearth.

The charcoal was burned in a brasier (nK, Jer. 36 22^ ; AV 'hearth,' RV 'brasier') or chafing-dish (rn "iVa, q TViB. ViooT^k Zech. 126, RV 'pan of fire'), at least in the houses of the wealthy. The 'fire of coals' (avOpaKid) at which Peter warmed himself in the high priest's palace was no doubt a fire of charcoal (so RVff) in a brasier =* (Jn. 18 18 21 9).

In the houses of the humbler classes, the hearth (mpiD, only of altar-hearih Lev. 62 [9]; mod. Ar. mawkiJa) was probably a mere depression in the floor, the smoke escaping, as best it could, through the door or the latticed window (^3^K, Hos. 183, EV 'chimney'). See Lattice. Chimneys there were none ; the AV render- ing, ' ere ever the chimneys in Zion were hot ' in 4 Ksd. 64, is based on a corruption of the Latin te.xt (RV ' or ever the footstool of Zion was established ').

### 4. Metaphors

Coal and coals supply a variety of metaphors. Thus to quench one's coal ' (n'^na 2S. 14? ; cp the classical , ^'^'^^" and see Dr. ad loc.) is a pathetic figure for depriving a person of the privilege of posterity, otherwise expressed as a putting out of one's candle (rather, 'lamp') Prov. 139 etc. To heap ' coals of fire,' or glowing charcoal, on an enemy's head must, it would seem, be to adopt a mode of revenge calculated to awaken the pains of remorse in his breast (Prov. 25 22^ (MT). Rom. I220). Again, ' kindle not the coals of a sinner' that is, do not stir up his evil passions is the sage advice of the son of Sirach (Kcclus. 810) ; cp Kcclus. 11 32, 'from a spark of fire a heap of many coals {ivOpaKid) is kindled,' which finds an echo in Ja. 85. A. K. s. K.

## COASTLAND

(Is. 20 6t RV; Is. 11 n 2826 24 15 5O18 Jer.2522 Ezek.3!'6 D.in. 11 18 Zeph.2ii; KV"ig-, in Jer. 474 ' sea coast ') ; a rendering of 'N (itjctos ; KV usually ' isle ' or 'island,' AVn't,'- occasionally 'country' or 'region '). See Islk.

## COAT

an inexact rendering :

(1) Of n:n3 (see Tu.sic) in Gen. 373 EV (RV'msr. 'long garment '), Ex. 284, etc. ;

(2) of V'VD in i S. 2 19 .W (RV ' robe ' ; see TUNIC);

(3) of ^37)0 in Dan. 821 AV (AV"itr- 'mantle', RV ' hosen ' ; see Breeches);

(4) of \i.tuiv in Mt. 540 EV (see Tunic) ;

(5) of vAa^iis in 2 Mace. 1235 AV(see Mantle). For ' broidered coat see Emuroidekv, i.

## COAT OF MAIL

occurs as a rendering of tonn, tahrd (E.X. 2832 3923 RV; AV 'habergeon'), jnc', i/>jvJ (Is. 59 17 RVnig., EV 'breastplate'), and C'iS'pi;',^ p-lC*, iS. I75 EV ; see Breastplate.

## COCK

(AAeKTa)p). Mt. 26 34 74 Mk. 1835 143 72 Lk. 223460 Jn. I838 I827. On the ' cock -crowing ' {a.\fKTopo(p(i}vla) spoken of in Mk. 1835 information is given elsewhere (see DAY, 4). Mt. , Lk., and Jn. speak of only this cock-crowing. The tradition preserved in Mark, on the other hand (though the te.xt in the MSS differs), refers to a second. Thus the cock had completed its journey to Palestine. Its home was in India ; thence it came to Babylonia '-^ and Persia. Homer indeed gives AXe/crwp as the name of a man ; but Aristophanes (Av. 438) considers the cock the ' Persian bird.' To the Jews, too, as well as (presum- ably) to the Egyptians, it was a Persian bird, even though the Targumic and Talmudic word for cock (Sunn) may have a Babylonian origin.^

Not improbably we have in Prov. 30 31 a reference to the impression which it produced not so long after its introduction into Palestine. The evidence of the versions * in favour of the rendering ' cock ' cannot be regarded lightly, and there is no proof whatever of the sense of 'well girt up' for tiii, or for the application of the term to the greyhound. The Talmudic -i-Tit also certainly means some bird (a kind of raven).' The

1 For another view of this passage, involving an emendation of the text, see Che. Jew. Rel. Life. 142, who follows Bickell.

2 There is said to be a representation of a cock on a cylinder seal of the reign of Nabu-na'id.

8 So, at least, Hommel, Hastings' DB \ 214.

4 BKAC (2466) oAeKTup ivTrtpi-na-Tutv OrjAeCai^ tvij/vxoi; simi- larly Aq., Theod., Quinta, Pesh. ^>^-s^ ; gallus succinctus lumbos (Vg.). Wildeboer ('97) speaks inconsistently, but favours the rendering ' cock,' if Q'jnD "n^V he altered. For ' greyhound ' he has nothing to say.

• See the Diets, of Levy and Jastrow: Rashi here renders

' starling ' (cp Syr. ) ^ > J* Ar. zurzur).

key to the difference of usage is supplied by Ar. sarsara, 'to make a shrill noise"; hence sarsar"" is used in Arabic for both the cricket and the cock. The kin- dred Hebrew word also might Ije widely used : ( 1 ) for the cock, (2) for the starling. The second element in the phrase o^Jno I'lii is seemingly a difficulty. The word is no doubt corrupt. Dyserinck and Gratz would read kb-jjio ; cp (S (virepiiraTwv. To keep nearer to the Hebrew and to find a more striking phrase, it is better to read cpjnp and render ' the cock who loves to take up a quarrel. ' EV rather uncritically gives GREYHOUND {i/.v. ) : cp Fowl, 2.

There is a word in Job 8836 ('i2r) which 'Vg. , the two Targs. , and Delitzsch render ' cock ' (AV ' heart,' RV 'mind,' mg. 'meteor'). As, however, it is evident that some sky-phenomenon is meant, we should almost certainly read for 'idb-, nrp, ' the bow star,' to cor- respond to nmn (so read for nino), "the lance star.' The bow star is Sirius, the lance star Antares. See Che. /BL, 1898. T. K. c.