Encyclopaedia Biblica/Council of Jerusalem-Crescens

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

Contents

COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM[edit]

This council, if not the most important occurrence of the apostolic age, is the one that bears the most official ciiaracter. The more contradictory the accounts of it which we seem to possess in Gal. 2 and Actsl5, the more necessary is it to adopt a careful method for its investigation. The first question that arises is whether both accounts really relate to the same occurrence. In order to answer this, it is needful to determine ,the times of Paul's journeys to Jerusalem after his conversion.

1. Paul's Journeys to Jerusalem in Gal. and Acts.[edit]

In Gal. 1 i8 '2 he protests, very solemnly (1 20), that he visited Jerusalem for the first tiine three years after his conversion, and for the second time fourteen years after his first visit or less probably, after his conversion). Unless we deny the genuineness of the epistle to the Galatians we cannot but give unqualified acceptance to this statement.

Paul was endeavouring to show how little he was dependent in his apostleship upon the original apostles. He was, therefore, bound in the interests of truth to mention all the occasions on which he had come into contact with them. Moreover, to p;iss over any such occasion would have been highly imprudent ; for his opponents naturally were aware of all of them, and would have promptly exposed the falsehood to the Galatians.

Now, the journey mentioned in Acts 926 must un- hesitatingly be identified with that in (Jal. 1 18, even though the narrative of Acts contains not the smallest hint that it was not made until three years after Paul's conversion, and had been preceded by a sojourn in Arabia and a second sojourn in Damascus.

a. It would seem, then, that the second journey re- corded in Galatians (2i) must coincide with the one in Actsllso, which, according to Actsl22s, did extend to Jemsalem.

The famine during the reign of Claudius (by which the journey was occasioned) occurred in Palestine - before 48, at the earliest in 44 i.e., as the i-.arrative of Acts appears to imply (12 23), at the time of the death of Herod .^grippa I. and, if the conversion of Paul occurred .shortly after the death of Jesus, and this Last not much more than a year after the appearance of the Baptist in the fifteenth year of Tiberius (i.e., 28-29 a.d. ; Lk. 3 i), there remains the interval of seventeen (or, at least, fourteen) years (lem.-mded by Gal. 1 i8-2 i between Paul's conversion and the famine, cp Chuonoi.ogv, 74^ Thus the account of the journey in Acts requires correction only in one point : the alms were sent not before but after the beginning of the famine.

Still, since it mentions no object for the journey besides the sending of alms, the narrative of Acts may be charged with having passed over in complete silence the conference mentioned in Gal. 2i-io.

1 The word is used in a concrete sense ('obedient ones') in Is. 11 14 : cp MI 28, nV2C"0 pn Sd, 'all Daibon was obedient.'

2 That it extended over the whole world (oiicouficVT)) is an error of Acts.

This is no trifling matter. It is remarkable that a conference upon the same subject should follow in Acts 15, for a repetition of the discussion within the next few years is not conceivable ; observe, too, that no reference is rnade in Acts 15 to an earlier decision. The journey mentioned in Acts at all events, as far as Paul is concerned may, on other grounds, be considered open to the suspicion of having been detached from the circumstances recorded in Acts 20 3 21 17 (cp i Cor. 10 4 Rom. 16 25yC), and of having been transferred, whether by mistake or purposely, to a far too early position in the narrative (see Simon Magus).

b. In order to avoid recognising the contradiction between Gal. 2 and Acts 15, a whole class of writers have assigned the Council of Jerusalem to the journey recorded in Acts l8:22. They ignore the objection that on this view Paul in Galatians suppresses important facts so far as to pass over two journeys to Jerusalem without mention.

c. On the other hand, it is a mistake to suppose that Acts 18 22 does not imply a visit to Jerusalem at all.

Although avafia.<; might signify the journey up from the shore to tge town of Caesarea, a ni.in could not possihiy be said to go down (icaTf'/3>)) from a seaport town to an inland city like Antioch. Thus we art- bound to supply 'to Jerusalem ' in 7i, 7.1a as is dune by many interpreters even when denying the historical actuality of the journey. On this last point, however, we cannot in fair- ness appeal to the negative evidence of Galatians. True, it i.s silent as to this journey ; but its historical review never reaches the point at winch mention of it would have come in ; instead of continuing such a review, after describing the occurrence at .\ntioch (2 11-21) the writer passes on to dormatic and thence to practical questions, entirely losing sight of his original purpose, which was to enumerate all his personal encounters with the original apostles. It may, indeed, be thought remark- able that Jerusalem, if intended, is not mentioned in Acts 18 22 ; but this does not warrant the assumption now to be mentioned.

d. Some critics have assumed that the Council of Jeru- salem was really held on this occasion (Acts I822), and not earlier the author, having purposely transposed it to an earlier date, would express himself as briefly and obscurely as ])ossit)le when he came to the point at which it really occurred.

This assumption h.-is the advantage of bringing not only the first (.Xctsi^yT) but also the second (l(Ji-18 22) missionary journey within the first seventeen years after Paul's conversion, thus providing materi.-il to fill up a period otherwise inexplicably barren of events. It cannot, however, be urged in its favour that Barnabas was personally know n to the (ialatians and the Corinthians, and that he cannot have been separated from Paul (Acts 15 35-40) until after the second missionary journey, during which the communities in Calatia i.e.. Old Galatia (see Oai.atia) and in Corinth were established; for the passages (jal. 'J I 9 13 I Cor. 06 are perfectly intelligible on the assumption that liarnabas was known to the readers by report alone.

The assumption of such a transposition is entirely wanting in probability.

The motive prompting the writer to transpose the Council of Jerusalem to an earlier date is supposed to have been the desire to bring the whole of Paul's missionary work from its beginning within the scope of the decree of the apostles (Acts 15 28 /T) ; but, had this really been the writer's intention, he would have introduced the council not before Acts 10, but before Acts 13. What should have hindered him from so doing, if it be assumed that he allowed himself to make free with his materials in this way at all, is not apparent.

e. Others actually transpose the journey described in Acts 13/ so as to make it come between the Council of Jerusalem and the separation of Barnabas from Paul, and therefore after Acts 1 5 34.

Their strongest reason is the fact that Paul mentions only Syria and Cilicia as his places of residence up to the Council of Jeru- salem (Gal. 1 21). This is hardly conclusive, for, although Paul was pledged to enumerate all his meetings with the original apostles, he was not bound to mention all the provinces in which he had resided without meeting them. In any case, even if the transposition of Acts 13 yC and Acts 15 1-34 be accepted, thi;, gives no support to the assumption mentioned under a, .since for that assumption the writer of Acts has put the two sections exactly in the wrong order : his supposed purpose, as well as the motive of historical accuracy, would have led him to put 16 1-34 before 13 i-14 28.

f. It is only by very bold treatment of the different sources of Acts, by which the accounts of Paul's journeys in Acts 11 y! 15 18 become inerely the result of an erroneous combination of the writer's authorities, that Clement [Chronol. d. Paulin. fir. 1893) contrives to identify Gal. 2 with Acts 21 . and Joh. Weiss (St. u. Kr. , 1893, pp. 480-540 ; 1895, pp. 252-269), on the contrary, withActsP and (at the same time) with Actsl5i-4i2. It is, in fact, quite impossible to deny the identity of the events related in Gal. 2 and in Acts 15. See Chrono- logy, 74.

2. Gal 2:11-31 : the primary passage[edit]

In view, however, of the doubts cast upon Acts, it is an error of method to make that book the basis for an investigation of the present question. It might even be seem well to begin by laying aside Acts altogether and ascertaining the facts from Galatians alone. That method, however, would prevent certain questions from receiving adequate consideration, and no harm need Ije apprehended in treating both accounts, circumspectly, together. It is, however, of unciualified importance to take Gal. 2ii-2i as the starting-point, Ixjcause that passage alone throws any really clear light upon the circumstances.

3. The dispute at Antioch[edit]

Peter was no uncompromising Judaiser. Before the dispute at Antioch recorded in Gal.2ii-2i he had eaten with Gentile Christians. If he abandoned this practice after the arrival of the followers of James, he could not, accustomed as he was to adopt the attitude of a Iwader, have been influenced in the least by the fear of the representatives of circumcision his alleged motive^ had he not himself recognised their position as the right one. He must in his inmost heart have still been continuing to attach some importance to the Mosaic laws relating to food. Thus, he could not yet have attained to that liberty in principle which belonged to Paul. This free- dom Paul conceivably assumed to be present in I'eter, as it was in himself; in which case he could attribute Peter's antagonism only to hypocrisy. Critics have softened the charge of hypocrisy into a charge of inconsistency, such as is very frequently to be observed at times of transition in natures that have no very firm grasp of principles.

Different from Peter's position was that of James. Whether the 'certain' (rives) were expressly sent by him in order to recall Peter to the Law, or whether tlicy attempted to do this on their own account without his commission (' from James,' a.Trb 'laKwfSov, in NT Cjreek does not go necessarily with 'came,' eXOt'iv, and it may equally well betaken with ' certain,' rivds), is inmiaterial. Peter, the leader of the apostles, would certainly never have submitted to their commands if they had not had behind them the authority of James. Now, the position of James as distinct from that of Peter can only have been that a man born a Jew was still under religious obligation even as a Christian to observe the whole of the Mosaic Law. It cannot be supposed that he upheld this obligation only as convenient for the time, or even merely as a beautiful custom ; a motive of the most serious kind must have been actually held out to Peter, if he was to submit to be driven to so absolute a renunci- ation of brotherly intercourse with the Gentile Christians.

As we are not informed of any answer from Peter to Paul's reprimand in Gal. 214-21, it is commonly (though very rashly) assumed that Peter admitted his error. That Paul should record an exculpatory answer from Peter, however, was hardly to be expected, if only for the reason that he must have thought it inconclusive. Still, even if Peter was thought to have yielded, the others who shared his opinion did not yield. Otherwise, v.hy is the scene at Antioch followed so quickly by the entrance of the Judaising party into the churches founded by Paul in (Jalatia and Corinth, in complete contravention of the agreement in Gal. 29, and by the nearly successful attempt to induce the Galatians to adopt circumcision (Gal. 52/ 612/. 4 10) and to alienate the Corinthians from Paul altogether (2 Cor. 11 4 12 16 43-5 5 13/ 75-16)? How could so important and persistent a movement it had already been encountered by Paul on two separate occasions, both in Galatia and in Corinth (Gal. 1963 1 Cor. 9 1 2Cor. II4) have been carried on if it had been opposed by the first apostles? Whence came the letters of recommendation which, according to 2 Cor. 3 i, these emissaries brought with them? As they formed the ground upon which the suspicion against Paul as one who had never known Jesus (i Cor. 9i) proceeded, what weightier credentials could they have contained than the statement that their bearers represented immediate disciples of Jesus? Would the sceptical Corinthians have been satisfied if the authentication had come (let us say) from Ephcsus, or from some other town outside Palestine?

How comes it, again, that even at the end of the second century the pseudo-Clementine homilies (ITio) represent Peter as reproaching Simon under whose name Paul is there attacked (see Simon Magus) for having called him a KaTeyvosafxivo^ (Gal. 2ii ; RV ' stood con- demned ' ) ? This shows how deep a wound was inflicted on Judaising Christianity by Paul's bold attack on Peter. For this reason, not a word is said in Acts about the scene ; though it is quite inconceivable that the author had no knowledge of it (see Acts, 6). F"urther, in the place in .Acts where this scene ought to have been mentioned there is recorded a similar dispute {irapo^vcr- fi6s ; Acts 15 39) between Paul and Barnabas (see Bar- NABAS), who, according to Gal. 213, had gone over to the side of Peter. This disi^ute, however, does not turn on any question of principle. It was merely a personal matter (Acts 1036-40). The conjecture is a tempting one that this scene, if not an invention, is at least an inter- polation, based on some written source, introduced for the purpose of effacing the memory of the more im- portant quarrels.

4. Occasion of the council.[edit]

We are now in a position to investigate the Council of Jerusalem itself. It was occasioned, on the part of Judaistic Christianity, by the appearance of the 'false brethren,' who had made their way unauthorised into the Pauline and other churches, seeking to spy out and to suppress the freedom from the Mosaic Law that had there been attained ((ial. 24). As this cannot have been in Jerusalem, we may accept the statement of Acts (15 i, cp 1426) that it was to Antioch they came. Up to that time no such intrusion had occurred, althoutjh the circumstances at .\ntioch cannot have long remained un- known to the leaders at Jerusalem. It is, therefore, not improbable that the new and sudden aggressive move- ment proceeded from recently converted Pharisees, even though the statement to this effect in Acts 15s is made without reference to 15 1, and therefore appears to come from another source. Paul was prompted to go to the council of the apostles by a revelation (Gal. 22). Probably it came to him not as a bolt from the blue, but only after the c|uestion to be decided by the council had already stirred his soul to its depths. No less than his entire life-work that of bringing the heathen to Christi- anity without binding them by the Mosaic Law was at stake. According to Acts (152), he and Barnabas were deputed to go to Jerusalem by the church at Antioch in consequence of a fruitless discussion there. This motive for the journey is not, of course, absolutely incompatible with the revelation mentioned by Paul ; but it is in any case significant that Paul speaks only of the revelation and Acts only of the delegation. Whatever the motive, what is it that Paul can have gone to Jerusalem in search of? A tribunal to whose verdict he would voluntarily submit, whatever its tenor? By no means. He had from a higher authority his gospel of freedom from the Law, and cared very little for the original apostles (Gal. 1 1 6-9 15-17 25/). Or did he e.xpect to find among them assistance against the ' false brethren ' ? We think that he did not ; if he did, his expectation was not justified by the event (see below, 7, 8). The purpose with which he went to Jerusalem was to discover the source from which the ' false brethren ' drew their support. He intended to take that support away from under them, and, in order to do so, it was necessary that he should appear in person. * Lest by any means I should be running or had run in vain ' (Gal. 22; fxriirijjs eis Kevbv Tp^x^ ^ iSpafxov) is not an interrogative ; Paul would never have made the justifi- cation of his work dependent on the judgment of the original apostles.

5. Public or private?[edit]

Were the conferences at Jerusalem public, or were they private? No clear picture of them is presented in Acts - perhaps because the account is compiled from various discussions?

A general as.sembly is set before us in Acts 15 4. We may suppose the private assembly mentioned in 15 6 to have been on another day (though the author says nothing as to this). Suddenly, however, in 15 12, 'all the multitude' (nav to irAijeos) is present ; and it reappears in 15 22 as responsible for the final decision, although in 15 23 this is attributed to the apostles and elders only. Paul, on the other hand, in the words (car' l&iav, ' privately ' (Gal. i 2), passes from a public to a private conference, as also probably in 2 6 for the discussion about the circumcision of Titus (2 3-5) can most easily be supposed to have occurred in a public assembly, in which expression was also given to the position which the original apostles did not themselves finally adopt.

So far there is no inconsistency between Galatians and Acts : both know of meetings of both kinds. The crucial question, however, is, Was any final decision arrived at in a public assembly ?

If the decision was not in Paul's favour, the claims of truth and of prudence alike must have led him to mention it. Much, however, of what is recorded in Acts ^.^., the speech of Peter (15 7-1 1) points very clearly to a decision in P.aul's favour ; and to pass this over in silence would have been folly.

The picture presented in Acts, therefore, of a decisive public assembly is entirely incorrect.

6. Paul's attitude to the original apostles.[edit]

The case is similar with what is said, or implied, as to Paul's attitude towards the original apostles. According to Acts, he holds quite a subordinate position. He is allowed to state his case, but not to take part in the debate : he has simply to submit to the decision.

According to Galatians, he debates as with his equals. Indeed, he even refers to the original apostles ironically as 'of repute,' 'reputed to be pillars,' 'to be somewhat' [01 SoKOVvres [crruXoi elvai or elvai Tt] ; 22 96).

Even if it be granted that the title, 'pillars' (oi o-tOAoi) may have been originally applied to them by their adherents as a term of honour, the phrase ' reputed ' (oi SoKovvm) cannot have been so used. It is e.xplicitiy derogatory. The most that can be done to soften the force of Pauls irony is to conjecture that he did not invent the expression until the incident at Antioch had diminished his respect for them.

7. Question of circumcision of Titus[edit]

Paul took Titus as his companion of set purpose. The uncircumcised assistant of his missionary labours would serve as an 'object-lesson' in support of his fundamental principle. An attempt was made to procure his circumcision; but, owing to the opposition of Paul and Barnabas, it had to be abandoned.

This is clearly the meaning of Gal. 2 3-5, and only the most violent feats of critical ingenuity can find any other explanation of the passage. One interpretation is that no atternpt whatever was made (ovk -qvayKda-Bri) to procure the circumcision of Titus. If so, why the opposition of Paul and Barnabas? Again, the attempt was made, yet not on grounds of principle, but in the interest of Paul, to save him from daily defilement. How did he avoid defilement from other Gentile converts, with many of whom he associated daily ? Perhaps, on account of the ' false brethren,' Paul did, after all, of his own accord, allow Titus to be circumcised. Did he hope thereby to maintain the truth of the gospel (Gal. 2 5) that no man need be circumcised? It has even been proposed to follow the Greek text and the Latin version of D with Irenasus, TertuUian, and other Western fathers, in omitting the negative (oiifie) in Gal. 25 (whether ' to whom,' ots, also be omitted is of less importance), as if Paul could have been so blind as to consider compliance at the most critical moment to be harmless, because only temporary (n-pbs topav). It is, on the contrary, probable that after 2 5, to complete the sentence beginning with 2 4, we ouijht to supply not ' we did not give place' (ovk eifa/u.ei'), as if, had the false brethren not appeared, Paul would have been prepared to comply, but '(on account of the false brethren) it was all the more necessary to offer a strenuous opposition.' For at the outset they had de- manded the circumcision of all Gentile converts even. As this is expressly stated in Acts 15 i 5, it is the more cert.iin that it is necessarily presupposed by the negative (ovSt) of Gal. 2 3 ; no- thing worse occurred, and not even Titus was compelled to be circumcised. The worst thing that might have occurred would, according to 2 2, have been that Paul should have run in vain (eU Ktv'ov eSpafnevfi.e., that a decree should have been p.issed prohibiting the admission of Gentiles into Christianity without circumcision.

Thus the demand for the circumcision of Titus appears as a compromise proposed for the first time when the original proposal for the circumcision of all Gentile con- verts met with insuperable opposition from I'aul and Barnabas. The very circumstantiality of a conference that passed through so many asjx'cts is enough to show that these projjosals could not possibly have been made without at least the moral support of the original apostles. Had the latter Ix-en on I'aul's side from the first (it has been held that they are to be included in the subject of 'gave place,' {[^afifv), any attempt of the kind must have been instantly frustrated by their authority.

It is, therefore, useless to construe Cial. 24 as a reason subse- quently introduced to explain "J 3, as though the circumcision of Titus was refused by all parties alike, for the reason that it was demanded by the 'false brethren' alone. Considerations of language also render inadmissiljle the other interpretation, which supplements so as to read 'and indeed on behalf of the "false brethren "... it was said that he ought to be compelled to be circumcised (iji/ayicdcrSr) without ovk).' The importance attached to the memory of the case of Titus is best shown in Acts ; his name is never mentioned at all, those who accompanied Paul to the conference being ' liariiabas and certain others' (rii/es oAAoi, Acts 15 2; see Acts, g 9). It is not going too far, therefore, to say that the original apostles were at the outset undecided in their attitude ; indeed, if we may judge by what occurred soon afterwards at Antioch, this understates the case.

8. The apostles and the mission to the Gentiles.[edit]

In harmony with this attitude was that which they adopted towards the subsequent mission to the Gentiles. Paul's practice of admitting Gentiles as members of the Christian Church without circumcision cannot have obtained the sanction of the other apostles at the outset. .Assent was wrung from them with lUniculty. Indeed, they did not give way on any ground of principle ; otherwise their behaviour in the dispute at -Antioch would have been impossible. They ga\ e way only because of the divine verdict as shown by the event (t'Scures . . . 'Yv6vTes rijv X'^^pi-" ^V" Soddadv fioL, (ial. 279; cp Actsl;")4i2), to which they submitted perforce, though without recognising its underlying justilication. Peter and James, therefore, cannot have expressed themselves, even api)ro.ximately, as in Acts 1 07-21 they are said to have spoken. Had what Peter (157/ ) enjoins in regard to Cornelius really occurred, there would have been no Council of Jerusalem at all (Acts, 4).

Peter is further said (15 9) to have declared that God had re- moved the difference between Jews and (jentiles by purifying the hearts of the Gentiles as though in the eyes ofa Jew the impurity of the Gentiles were impurity of the heart alone. He is, moreover, represented as saying (15 11) that his hope ofs.ilvation was through the grace of tiod alone, whereas at Antioch he maintained that the observance of the Law was necessary to salvation. Finally (15 10), he calls the Law a yoke intolerable even to the Jews ; yet at Antioch he again submitted himself to it. He calls it a tempting of God to put the yoke on the Gentiles also ; yet at Antioch he broke with the Gentiles because they did not take it on themselves, thus putting moral pressure upon them to Judaise ' (iouSaifeic : Gal. '2 14). In short, the speech of Peter is so eminently Pauline that Weizsacker found it possible to believe that the author of Acts took the speech of Paul against Peter in tJal. '2 14-21 as the foundation for its composition.

There is evidence on the other side that the author did to some extent correctly estimate the positions of the speakers in the fact that the speech of James is considerably more reserved. The reference to Cornelius in 15 14, however, is just as unhistoricalas that in Ibj/. James cannot possibly have employed the quota- tion from Amos unless it be maintained that the discussion was carried on in the language of the hated foreigners; for in the original it is not said that the residue of men and all nations to whom God's name had been made known should seek the Lord it is only said that the Israelites should again attain to political dominion over Kdom and the other nations that had at any time been under the dominion of God {i.e., of Israel).! And James pays his tribute to Paulinism if he implies that the impo.sition of the whole Mosaic Law upon the Gentiles is a burden to them from which, as being such, they ought to be relieved (15 19). Furthermore, he did not make the positive proposal of 15 20. See below, g 10.

' It was the LXX that first read ic'^T instead of i55n"i pointing Q-m instead of DIN, and making DIK nnxt:', etc., subject instead of object ; and only a few MSS of the LXX have gone so far as to supply the now lacking object, without any support from the original, by interpolating toi' xvpioi'.

9. Result of Council according to Galatians.[edit]

The result of the conference, according to Galatians, was a 'fellowship' (Koivuvla) (29). What the precise extent of this Koiviavia was can be learned only by inference from the incidental facts. A division of missionary districts was arranged. The reason why the original apostles desired to carry on their work only among the Jews can be gathered with absolute certainty from the situation of affairs which had Ik-cii brought about. The separation of the missionary districts had Ix-en the result of the conference concerning the circumcision of the Gentile converts. Had the circumcision of these converts lx.'en decided on, the original apostles need have felt as little cause to shrink from missions to the Gentiles as a Jew had to shrink from the work of winning proselytes. As the sequel at Antioch shows, what they found intolerable was the idea of that intimate daily association with uncircumcised brethren which would have become unavoidable if missionary work had been engaged in by them without circumcision of the Gentiles. That was the reason why they abandoned this part of the work to Paul and Barnabas. To look for the reason of the .separation of missionary districts in differences of aptitude for winning either Gentiles or natural Jews is to misapprehend the causes that were really at work. Such considerationc as those mentioned may have had some concurrent influence ; but how could the scene at Antioch have been possible if difl'er- ence of aptitudes had been the sole or even the chief cause of the separation ? Not a word is there said about Peter's missionary work : the only question is w hether he is prepared to eat at the same table with Gentile converts.

It is eciually certain that the separation of districts was intended in an ethnographical, not in a geographical, sense. Had the original apostles undertaken to labour for the conversion of the Gentiles as well as for that of the Jews in Palestine without insisting upon cir- cumcision, they would immediately there have found themselves face to face with all the difficulties which had caused them to avoid the Gentile countries and confine their efforts to the land of their fathers. The separation had no purpose unless missions to natural Jews were to be assigned to them as their province. Conversely, Paul and Barnabas were, of course, to go only to men of Gentile birth : Jews seek- ing salvation whom they met in Gentile countries they were bound to turn away, referring them for guidance to itinerant Jewish-Christian missionaries. This might have led to the further conseciuence that in one and the same town there would have ari.sen two Christian conmmnitics, one of Jews and one of tjentiles. Association at meals, as well as at the Lord's Supper, would have been impossible between them. 'Ihis intolerable state of affairs, however, was exactly what the Pauline churches had long ago contrived to avert ; and this success was regarded by Paul as the highest triumph of the view of Christianity which he advocated. It is very reasonable to ask how he could have had any share in an arrangement by which, in the churches he had founded, the wall of separation between Jewish and Gentile Christians, which it had cost so much labour to destroy, was again raised up. To fall back on the view that the separation was intended to be geographical would, liowever, be wrong. A separation on such a basis the apostles, as has already been shown, could not possibly have accepted. It would be necessary to draw the conclusion that the statement of Galatians must be pronounced unhistorical, and the epistle itself non- Pauline, were there really no other way out of the difficulty. Before taking this step, howevei , we shall do well to remember that men have often enough agreed upon a compromise without hav- ing formed any adequately clear conception of its consequences. The Christian church would speedily have fallen asunder into two separate communities, the one of Jewish and the other of Gentile Christians, had no agreement been reached. Neither of the parties was able to abandon its view : each felt itself under a strict religious obligation to maintain its own principles. There must, therefore, have been the greatest eagerness to grasp at any fcjrmula that presented itself as a solution. ' We to the Jews, you to the Gentiles,' appeared to be a fornuila of the kind, and joy in the renewed sense of brotherhood may have blinded men's eyes to the impracticability of the proposal. This would happen all the more readily if the formula was so loose that each party could understand it in a different sense. In the absence of more precise de- finition, the geographical interpretation must have seemed to Paul as obviously the correct one as the ethnographical interpretation appeared to the other apostles to Paul, who became not merely to the Gentiles a Gentile, but also to the Jews a Jew, that he might by all means win some, and, in order to save those belong- ing to his own race, would willingly have been accursed from Christ (i Cor. 9 20/ Rom. 93 ; cp B.^VN, 1). In the scene at .\ntioch the misunderstanding revealed itself only too clearly ; l)ut this does not prove that there was no misunderstanding at Jerusalem. Even in the aspect under which the matter had to be presented -A the con- ference at Jerusalem, the unity sought for was limited. The ' right hand of fellowship' (de^ia Koivuvia?) which they held out to each other was at the same time a parting handshake. According to their fundamental principles, the Jewish Christians neither would nor could have any very intimate communion, any really brotherly intercourse, with the Gentile Christians. It is worthy of notice that the support of the poor is represented in Gal. 2 10 less as being the only demand made upon the Pauline churches than as being the only bond by which the two halves of Christendom were to be kept together. There is, however, no necessity for assuming that these alms from the Gentile Christians were like temple dues, or intended to express a position of inferiority as com- pared with that of Jewish Christians. In view of the notorious poverty of the church at Jerusalem (see COMMUNITY OF GOODS, 5), it would have been unreasonable to require reciprocity, and doubtless Paul was glad to evince his goodwill on such neutral ground. For the rest, it was quite impossible that the Gentiles should be treated by the Jews as having equal rights and full citizenship in the kingdom of God. The OT promises applied only to the chosen race and to those who had been received into it by circumcision. The Jewish Christians had made the concession from their point of view a concession of real magnitude of sanction- ing the mission to the Gentiles without circumcision ; but it was not to be supposed that this could be granted except on the basis that this class of converts was to hold somewhat the same position as that of the semi-proselytes [ffe^bixevoi rbv debv) among the Jews ; they figured only as a ' younger branch in the kingdom of God. ' In no case could the original apostles have set the same value on the conversion of these Christians of the second class through the agency of Paul as on their own missionary activity. It is remarkable that Gal. 2&b does not run, on the analogy of 2 8rt, 'unto the apostleship of the Gentiles' (f^y airoaTo\r)v t2v idvuv). Freedom of construction is, of course, a characteristic of Paul's style, and thus ' unto the Gentiles' (etj tA idvi)) also may be explained ks a case of brachylogy. Still, it is noteworthy that ^.;-. , in I Cor. 9 1 he does not base any appeal on the fact that apostleship (dTrotrroXij) had been conceded to him by the original apostles. How effective if op)en to him this appeal would have been against the Judaizers at Corinth who called his apostleship in question, and set up those very apostles as the supreme authority I The truth is that he does not appear to have received any such recognition. Thus he would seem to have been recognised only as a fellow-worker, in the Christian field, not as a iully accredited apostle.

10. The decree in Acts[edit]

According to Acts, the result of the Council was the decree in 15 23-29. Nevertheless, as long as the words 'imparted nothing to me ' {i,.oi. . . ovoif irpoaaviOevTo), in Gal. 2 6, are allowed to stand, we shall be precluded from accepting this finding as a formal decree. "Whether the words mean ' The SoKovvrtt imparted nothing further to me ' (so according to 1 16), or that

' They made no further rejoinder to my communication ' (so according to 22), is immaterial. Their meaning is made clear by ' contrariwise ' (Tovvavriov) in 2 7 : ' Not only did they say nothing unfavourable to me, but also they pledged themselves to fellowship with me.' We cannot better convince ourselves of the certainty of this conclusion than by examining the attempts that have been made to avoid it.

Theologians have done their utmost to maintain that Paul was justified in using the words iiioX ovSev npo<ravt8evro, instead of mentioning the decree of the apostles, because the decree was known to the (lalatians already, or because he did not want to put a weapon into the hand of his opponents, or because the decree was only temporary perhaps, not binding at all, but merely having reference to a custom, the object of which has been even discovered to be the protection of the (lentiles against trichinosis. In the last of these methods of evading the interpretation stated above, all idea of a formal decree having been promulgated is ^iven up ; but even if the agreement on the substance of the decision had been only verbal, Paul could not have said, e/xol ovSev irpocraveBd'TO.

Apart from this, the dispute at Antioch conclusively disproves the historicity of the decision, whether in the form of a regular decree or not. It is clear that any such arrangement, had it been come to, would have had the effect of rendering it possible for Jewish and Gentile Christians to associate with one another at meals. If (as is stated in Actslt^) Paul and Silas continued to enforce the decree during their next journey, we are bound all the more to suppose that it came into force at Antioch innncdiately after its pronuilgation there. In that case, James and his followers had no reason for taking offence at Peter's eating with Cientile converts.

If, then, we are forced to admit that no arrangement of this nature was made at the Council at all, there are many who would like to retain the opinion that Paul was substantially in favour of such an arrangement. This, however is a mistake.

11. Its prohibitions.[edit]

The four prohibitions are taken, either from the seven ' Noachic precepts ' (as they are called in the Talmud), by means of which a modus Vivendi is said to have been arrived at between the Jews and the ' sons of Noah ' (the Gentiles), or directly from the original ordinances on which those are based (Lev. 1710-1830), which likewise were promulgated, not for the Israelites alone, but also for the foreigners in their midst. The latter source is the more probable, for the Talmud prohibits actual unchastity ; but it cannot be doubted that, had such a prohibition appeared to l)e at all necessar)' in Acts 15, the prohibition of murder and of theft would also have been adopted from the Talmud. In its association with ordinances so far from being common to all mankind, so peculiarly Jewish, as the prohibition of blood, of the flesh of animals that had died or been strangled, and of the flesh of animals sacrificed to idols, it is much more likely that the interdict upon what is here called iropvela refers to marriages within the degrees of affinity forbidden in Lev. I86-18 (cp Bastard). Moreover, as the passage in Leviticus lies at the foundation of Acts 15, in a general way only, it is possible that marriages with Gentiles also may have been included ; these were prohibited by Ex. 34 16 Dt. 73 Ezra 9 2, and would have made it quite im- po.ssible for a Jewish Christian to enter the house of a Gentile who had contracted such a marriage.

Now, as to Paul's view in regard to eating things sacri- ficed to idols, we have full and exact information. As a general rule (i Cor. 8 IO23-33 Rom. 14 14) he allows it : it is to be avoided only in cases where it might cause offence to a weak Christian who mistakenly thinks that the Levitical prohibition of it is of perpetual obligation. Paul does recognise, it is true, one exception, which he mentions in i Cor. 10 14-22, though, curiously, not in the exactly similar case in 810 (cp Dkmons, 8) ; but even this passage contains no prohibition of the practice excepting at a religious ceremony of this kind. In the decree of Acts, on the contrary, the eating of things offered to idols is, it need hardly be said, forbidden in all circumstances, just as to partake of blood, or of the flesh of animals that have died or been strangled, is forbidden. Here the prohibition turns on the nature of the thing itself (cp dXlayrifia, Acts 1.') 20) : the soul was thought to reside in the blood (Ixv. 17 u m). -ind to eat the soul would have been an abomination. Now, as Paul docs not concur in the decree of the apostles on the question of eating animals sacrificed to idols, it would not l)e wise to assume his agreement in regard to the prohibition of blood and of the fiesh of animals that had died or been strangled, about which we have no expression of opinion by him. As to the question of marriage, he carried on an uncompromising warfare against unchastity of every kind (i Cor. 5 612-20) ; but unchastity does not appear to have been what was intended in the decree of the apostles. Marriages with unbelievers, on the contrary, he did, it is true, advise against (i Cor. 739), but in no case on grounds of principle. Otherwise he could not have enjoined that a Christian married to an unbelieving spou.sc should continue the relation if the other consented ; nor could he have declared that the unlxjlieving spouse was sanclilied by marriage with a Christian, and that even the children of a mixed marriage were holy (iCor. 712-14). The children were not bapti.sed ; if they had been, their sanctity would have been a consequence of their baptism, and not deducible from their connection with their parents simply. Accordingly, if Paul dis- courages marriages with unbelievers for the future (739), his reason cannot have lieen that they were in themselves wrong, but only that they were incompatible with the deeper spiritual sympathy of true spouses. On these grounds we are obviously still less entitled to assume that Paul would have pronounced to be wrong all marriages within the degrees of affinity, down to that with a sister-in-law, forbidden in Lev. I86-18, except in those cases which are manifestly contrary to nature, as, e._^., that given in i Cor. 5 1-8. On no single point, therefore, does Paul even express substantial agreement with the restrictions imposed by the decree of the apostles. ^


1 Some scholars have upheld the modified view that these restrictions were at all events customarily observed at the time among the (ientile Christians, many of whom had previously been semi-proselytes to Judaism and would therefore have naturally continued to obey these ordinances as Christians ; and these would have been followed by the other Gentile con- verts. The only church, however, concerning which we have any information in this conneciion proves the contrary. In Corinth Paul had to contend with the very worst modes of unchastity, and with practices in regard to things offered to idols that went too far even for him ; and mixed marriages were quite usual. It is hardly possible to believe that things could nave been so completely different elsewhere, even if Corinth was exceptionally bad in these respects.

The last attempt to rescue some renmants of credibility for Acts connects itself with 21 25. Here Paul is acquainted with the decree of the apostles as if it were something new. It is absolutely impossible to reconcile this with the representation of Acts 15 ; but it is suggested that, if the latter has to be abandoned on account of Galatians, it may be possible to retain at least what is said in Acts 21. On this view the apostles issued the decree simply on their own responsibility, without consulting Paul ; and this version of the matter was derived by the author from one of his sources. Unfortunately, the source of this passage (at least, according to all attempts hitherto made to distinguish the sources of Acts) is made out to be the same as that of Acts 1 020, or of I528/. , or of tolh. those p?5sages. To avoid this conspicuous failure in the ar;Tunient, J. Weiss deletes from the account in 155-1113-33 (for 15 1-4 13, see above, i div. /.) all references to Paul and Barnabas (15 2225) as editorial additions, and assumes that in the original source I55-11 13-33 related only to the conference of the original apostles among themselves, which is then called to mind in 21 25. Apart from the extreme bold- ness of this assumption, it is to l>e remarked that this particular source is considered by W'ei.ss himself, as well as by all other critics of the sources of Acts, to be untrustworthy. In particular, the verse in question (21 25) has been actually taken to be an interpolation, and in fact is so little necessary to the context that if it were wanting its absence would not be noticed. Read with the context, it causes no difficulty ; but the context itself is not historical (see Acts, 7). In any conceivable view, therefore, suspicion is thrown on the verse by a critical examination of the sources. In the absence of any confirmation, it certainly does not possess enough of internal probability to justify its acceptance.

In fine, it appears that the Tubingen school is not without justification n maintaining that the decree of the apostles is a fiction invented by the author for the purpose of promoting a union of Jewish and Gentile Christians. Only, in the second century it would have been little calculated to secure this object. The as- sumption is that these regulations were new at the time of writing. Now, they contain very stringent restric- tions upon the freedom of the Gentile Christians in the interests of the Jewish ; but the Gentiles were at that time so largely in the majority and so full of the consciousness of their title to membership in the Church, that they would hardly have ac(|uiesced in such re- strictions then. Besides, the regulations contained in the decree of the apostles must, in their essence, have l)een actually in force at the time of the composition of Acts (see Acts, 16), however little they may have been so in the first century.

The Epistle of Barnabas (36 4 6) betrays traces of this in the complaint that Christians believed themselves bound to observe the Mosaic Law, and from the middle of the second century there is evidence of this on all hands (/?/</. f> 3 ; Justin, Dill/. 35 ; Luc. r/t* ii>r/. Pc'Cgr. 16 ; Epistle frovi Liigdunumo/ the year 177; in Kus. //A"v. I26; Irensus, artV'. Hirr.x.di [ch. I,i2]); Tertullian, .4/^/. chaps. 7 9 ; Min. Felix, Octav.y>\ Chut. Hoiii."! T,/. 8, and i^rrfijf. 4 36 ; Clem. Alex. }\rii. iii. 25 (ii. 8/, Strom, iqt), ed. Svlburg, 62, 98, ziq/.); Origen, c. Cels. 8(24)30; Orac. Si7'y//.2g6).

Possibly the first traces of such a custom or of an attempt to introduce it are to be found in Rev. 2 14 20-25. where the writer speaks only of meat ofifered to idols and of vopveicL.

The solution of the question would thus seem to be that the author of Acts, finding this custom in his own day, assumed in simple faith that it must date back to the time of the apostles, and (by a bold process of combination) represented its establishment as being the settlement of the dispute which he knew to have raged in those early times. His reverence for the apostles and the assumption (to him a matter of course) that complete harmony had prevailed among them supplied colours for the picture which differs so widely from the truth. In any case, the gradual rise of the custom itself finds its explanation in the effort to establish a modus Vivendi between Jewish and Gentile Christians. Only, it was due not to the demands of the strict Jewish Christians of the Council of Jerusalem men who could not have been satisfied by the observance of so small a portion of the Law but rather to the demands of the Jewish Christians of the Dispersion, who had on their own side long ago emancipated themselves from strict obedience to the Law, yet could not overcome their repugnance to certain extreme deviations from it.

12. Conclusion[edit]

In conclusion, we learn from our investigation of the subject that the Council of Jerusalem did not possess the importance which its comparatively official character appears to claim for it. It had far less influence upon the history of primitive Christianity than the dispute at Antioch, which speedily undid everything that the Council of Jerusalem had achieved. The discussion of the question has led to elucidations of the h'ghest value for a knowledge of the position of ]iartics among the early Christians. These were not, as the Tiibingcn Scliool assumed, only two. They were at least four^the parties (or, as they should rather be termed, the 'schools') of Paul, of I'eter, of James, and of the 'false brethren.' Thus, even from the earliest period, there were the intermediate positions between extreme parties, which, according to the Tubingen School, onlv arose from compromises in the second century. Prnnitive Christianity presents a picture far more rich in detail and in colour than that view supposes. Its critics must be prepared to take into account the finest distinctions of shade.

13. Literature[edit]

The critical discussion of the subject was initiated by the Tubingen school: Haur {/'aiiliis, 1S45); Schwegler (Xadi. a/>osfc<lfsr/,f Znta/Ur, 1846) ; Zeller(.J/.vA7'-, i^wc/;. 1854). The later phases of the critical position are represented by Lipsius (Sclicn- kel's Bib. Lex. s.7'. ' Apostelconvent,' and Handcoiiiiii. 2 2) ; Weizsiicker (//>/", 1873, pp. 191-246, .and A/: /.citalt.'); Pfleiderer(.//'7'. i383, pp. 7S-104, 241-262, and y'a//'VwM) ; Hohzmann (/.U'l'. 10S2, pp. 436-464, and 1883, pp. 159-165); Hilgenfeld(Z/;'/', in v.irious articles, the latest in 1899, pp. 138- 149, with a new edition of the text). Of an apologetical character are the contributions of I. Ch. K. v. Hofniann, Die heil. .SV/ir. NT 1 12J-140, 2nd ed. 126-145): Carl Schmidt (^Dc apostolorum tiixirti sententia, 1874, and in ri\Ey^\ s.7'. 'Apostelkonvent'); Zimmer (^Vj/a/tv/.;-. ;^. .)/,-,? VA,vv</r. 1882); Fr.-vnke (.S7. A';-. 1800, pi>. 659-687). Of the ' mediating ' school ; Keimirn/iri.f. i. 1,4.89 \'7^\): (Irimm (,S7. A>. 1880, pp. 405- 432). C"p M. \V. Jacobus (i'r,-s/'j'/. txmi R,/. Kfriew, 1897, pp. 509-528. P. W. S.

COUNSELLOR[edit]

EV twice Cf)rNCii,i,ou (4, below). I'retjucnt in l'.\' in a general sense, without any official meaning, or, mure si^ecifically, of the king's personal adviser or advisers, for which the technical term is T'STD (FA' Rkcokdhk) ; .see (iovF.KNMKNT, 21.

The following terms come into consideration :

I. rj-V, yoi's, as a title, applied to .Vhithophel (2S. I.'ii2 I Ch. il 33), and Jonathan (i Ch. 27 32 |i nSIDI ]-2:2 r'N). Why Zechariah [57.7'., <\ is styled ' wise counsellor ' (?pb' j'J,'V) in 1 Ch. 2()i4 is hard to say; the te.vt is prob.ably faulty, j'i^i" may mean 'giver of oracles' (see context); similarly in Is. 41 28 (cp l-t26) 2 Ch. J.'iiO. It is otherwise used generally; cp Is. l!>ii Pr. 11 14 Job 3 14, etc. <P"Na renders by /SovAevTjj? in Job;^i4 I-17: but more conununly <ru/ix^ouAos. In 2S. Sis (Bi:ai, incorrectly .applies the term crvn^ouAos to J'i;\.\iAii (i), apparently reading j-yv for yTin' ; i" <PBi.'s addition to i K. 2 46 h) on the other hand, 6 crv^^ouAos referring to Kaxoup(HP 93, ^a[<tl)(Oup) uib? Naeai/ inay rest upon old tradition. He can be no other than Zabud axoup [LI. HI' 93 ia.K\ovp)h. Nathan who is mentioned in i K. 45 as the 'king's friend' (so ,MT ; see Zabld, i). The Aram, equivalent "'yi'L:!*; (pi. with suff.) in Ezra 7 14^; is used in reference to the seven counsellors of the Persian king ; cp the seven princes of Media and Persia in Esth. 1 13.

2. K^'^?"'^, ii'-tliah<rayyn,x>\. Dan. 3 2 3, the Pers. data-bara, law-giver, hence a judicial authority.

3- '*^"!'?5!!', hadddbfrayya, pi. D.an. 82427 436133] f) 7 [s], an unknown .\ram. official title. No doubt a compound of the Pers. bara (cp above) ; the first part of the name is perhaps corrupt. The context plainly shows that the personal attendants of the king are intended. For 2 .and 3, see Comm. ad loc, and cp E. Meyer, F.ntst. 23.

4. /SouAeuTT)?,! Mk. i.5 43 Lk. 23 50, RV 'councillor,' applied to Joseph of .Vrimathaea (Joseph, 15), see GoveknmivNT, 31.

5. <riin3ouAos, used genenally, Rom. 11 34 (quoting Is. 40 13). crufijSouAos occurs also in the Apoc, cp Ecclus. 66 37 7y., and 42 21 (where Hcb. j'32).

1 In Palm. KBlS'3.

COURT[edit]

(iVn, ay^h). 'an open enclosure,' used commonly in EV with reference to the Tkmi'LE [^.f.] (Ex.279 Ezek. 816 and often) also of the court of a house (2.S 17 18), or p.alace (i K. 78) ; see Hou.se, 2. For the 'court of the guard" (RV, AV ' . . . of the prison'), n-^sD "i^n, Jer. 322, etc., see Jerusai.km.

' Court ' in Is. 34 13 EV, 35 7 EVniK-, is used indefinitely of an abode. The MT h.as the corrupt form "l>'n (a.v\i\ in 34 13 [BN-^QD). In 2 K 2O4 the AVm?. RV 'city' follows the Kt. TJ'> for which the I- r. correctly presents Isn ' court ' (of the citadel: see AV, RV"is.). Finally, 'court' in Am. 7 13 AV is used in a different sense, with reference to the royal ' palace ' (cp RV).

A later designation of the temple court is ,tiij?, 'dzdrdh (2Ch. 49, along with -isn, and 613! ; avXi)), a word Oi uncertain origin common in MH, not to be confused with the ecjually obscure .i-iij;, EV 'settle,' RV"'K-. better, ' ledge," viz. of the altar (Ezek. 4.314-20 45i9t).

In NT ai'Xj? is applied to the sheepfold (Jn. IO116), and the temple enclosure (Rev. 11 2). Elsewhere (in the Gospels) RV regularly reads ' court ' for AV palace' (<-.,^., Mt. 26369 Mk. I45466) or ' h.all" (Mk. ]."i6 Lk. 2255), and nowhere recognises (with Meyer, etc. ) the classical usage of ai'Xij, to denote a house or building.

The 'fore-court' (Mk. 14 68 RV"'e-, irpoavXiov) is the first of the two (or more) courts which the larger buildings contained : see HofSK.

COUSIN[edit]

(ANeyiOC; Col. 4 10 RV, .\V 'sister's son'), in classical Cireek a 'first cousin" or 'cousin' generally; also 'nephew," 'niece.' In Xu. 33ii it renders -i'n p. Tobit is called the autxpio^ of Raguel ( Tob. 7 2 ; also 96 [S]).

In I-k. 1 36 58 the word (ovyyenJ!, (Tvyyei'i<;) is quite gener.al ; RV in NT rightly aKvavs 'kinsman,' 'kinswoman,' pi. 'kins- folk.' In ii:sd.:i7 442 1 M.acc.1131 (RV 'kinsman') it is a title given by a king to one whom he desired to honour.

COUTHA[edit]

RV CUTHA (KOYeA[A\ om. BL), a family of Netliinim in the gre.at post -exilic list (see Ezra, ii. 8) i Esd. ,^.32|.\1 unmeniioncd in i:zra2 52 Neh. 7 54 whose name may possibly be connected with CuTMAU (2 K. 17.24).

COVENANT[edit]

1. Terms.[edit]

The word JT'IS (bi'rWi) probably occurred about 285 times in the original OT. Its constant rendering in is diadrjKrj (cn>vdi)KT] Dan. 116; ivroXai [Pj] or irpocTTd-yfjiaTa [.\], I K. 11 11). AiadrjKT] is used in a few instances for a kindred term. Vet it is safe to assume that in the original Hebrew texts of Ecclesiasticus, i Maccal>ees, Psalter of Solomon, Assumption of Moses, Jubilees, Judith, the .Apocalypse of Ezra, and Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, n"ia was used at least seventy times where our versions give biadr}K-r], ffvvdi)K-q, or an equivalent.

.V<iuila and Symm.achus usually, Theodotion frequently, rendered the word OMvOriKr). Hoth words are found in Wisdom o< Solomon and 2 Maccabees. The NT writers, fijllowing the Alex- andrian version, used exclusively 6iae>JKT), and this determined the usage in early Christian literature. The Targums translated

invariably c

a . f> , but in M.al. 24 Zech.Oii transliterates hiaey^Kr], the method adopted also by the Edessene versions of the NT. In Enoch t>06, Ethiopic viafjala probably represents Siafl^KT), originally p-p.

2. Early history of word 'berith'.[edit]

It is significant that the .Assyrio-Habylonian is the only cognate language in which the word has lx;en found. , ////-/7 means : (i) fetter; (2) alliance, covenant ; (3) firmness, solidity. Fetters were placed upon the culprit, the vanquished enemy, the representative of a conquered city or country, to hold him and to signify power over him ; in chains he received his own sentence or the decree touching his home and people (Sennacherib, ii. 71 ; 5 R. 2, 109 etc.). .\ fettered rival might be put under obligations and made an ally, and such an enforced sulwrdination might, by a simple metaphor, be designated 'enchainment.' This term was then extended to every alliance, even where the parties were in a position to decide upon a mutually binding decree, as in the ca.se of Kara-inda.s and .\sur-l)el-nisisu, 2 R 65 (K. 4406). .\s etjuals did not actually lay shackles upon each other, this is evidently a figurative use of the word ; and as the thought of mutual obligation cannot have lx:n immediately suggested by the iinposition of fetters, it is as clearly secondary. The royal word of judgment or assurance, particularly when strengthened by an oath, was the fetter that could not Ije broken. A ' fettered ' house was one firmly built, a ' fettered ' place one surrounded \>y solid walls, 2 R 38, 15-17 (ip birtu ; fortress, fortified town, from the same root, Shalni. ob. 34, and see Del. Ass. llWIi, 185).

3. Primary meaning in Heb.[edit]

From the Amarna correspondence we know that some time before the Hebrew invasion a Habylonian dialect was written, and undoubtedly also to some extent spoken, in Palestine. The Israelites may therefore have become acquainted with this term through the Amorites. 'In the nomadic state, the priestly oracle by the casting of lots, the ,iTn, probably sulficcxl. Agri- cultural and city life called for increased civil authority. It is possible that n""a in the sense of 'binding ordinance," 'sentence,' was adopted to supply the need of a corresponding word to designate the judicial decision of a ruler.

In the Elohistic narratives the denominative ,113 occurs with ihe signiricance ' to appoint ' (i S. 17k). The noun was still used l)y the author of Ecclcsiasticus to denote the sentence pronounced by a judge (3833). The fact that the dominant idea attached to the word at all times was that of u binding decree is better accounted for by this Babylonian derivation than by recourse to the Arabic banl 'to sever.' It also yields a satis- factory explanation of the early appearance of nna in the sense of 'alliance,' and its occurrence wiil> the signification of 'com- munity,' 'nation.' On the other hand, the sometimes-observed ceremony of passing between the severed pieces of an animal in making a solemn pledge may have been an inheritance from the nomadic period. In the phrase ri"i3 n"lD> possibly testifying to tl\is lite, the verb throws no more light upon the noun than in the Greek bpitta i4ii.vfi.v \ whilst the secondary meaning of rnr. 'to ilecree' (cp the gloss to Hag. 'J 5), bears witness to the jnimary and persistent significance of nns-

The classical distinction between diaOrjKT] {dialheki, will) and avvOrjKr] {syntheke, agreement) was not entirely lost in Hellenistic Greek.

av\'Sr\KTi\ is exclusively used of a political alliance in r and 2 Mace. A<iuila's preference for avvQr)KT\ cannot be explained l)y prejudice ; its use by Symmachus was evidently dictated by considerations of style ; even Tbeodotion's conservatism did not l)revcTit him from abandoning at times the uniform rendering of ilic- iilclcNi (ireek version. In view of this, the deliberate choice of huiOt'iKi} by the .Mexandrian translators can scarcely have lieen due to anything else than a consciousness of the funda- mental meaning of ri'l^- This likewise applies to the indepen- dent rendering of the word by c>p in the Targums.

4. Specialised significations.[edit]

(i. ) 0'7'//. In civil life the Hebrews seem to have employed the word to denote sentence, decree, ordinance, statute, law, pledge, testament, alliance, covenant, community, nation. A successful leader against the enemy was in early Israel designated a judge (csic), because the foe was regarded as a transgressor, the victory as a judgment, and the valorous chief as the natural arbiter in internal feuds (cpGovKKNMKNT, 17). Even the king was a judge as well as a warrior, i K. 3 xtff. fj], i S.820 [E]. \\'hen this unity of the judicial and administrative functions ceased, the old term designating the decision of a ruler remained in legal phraseology. A collection of judicial decisions (c'aECu!) was called a bfirith-book, Ex.247 ['*-] *'i6 Sentence was termed a bfirith (Ecclus. 3833). Hut it also continued to denote the victor's decree affecting the condition of a city that capitulates (e.g., Jalx'sh, 1 S. 11 1 [J]), a territory that is ceded [e.g., Ishbaal's, represented by Abner, 2.S. 812/. 21 [J]), a rival kingdom that is forced to come to terms (e.g. , Benhadad's, i K. 2O34 [E]), or a kingdom reduced to a state of dependence (e.g., Zedekiah's, Kz. 17 13-19) ; and it was applied to the ordinance, statute, law, or con- stitution imposed by a king upon his own people, as David's (2S. .53 pj), Josiah's (2K.233), Zedekiah's (Jer. 34 8j^), Anliochus's (Dan. 927: 'he shall imix)se severe regulations on the many during one week"). Such a royal declaration was considered inviolable ; a king would not go beyond his word in severity, nor fail to fulfil his promise. The Jalieshites regarded their lives as safe, if Nahash would solemnly declare his willingness to rule over them as his servants. Antiochus lutpator is severely censured (Is. 338) for himself violating the constitutional rights he had granted (i Macc. 659^; 2 Macc. 13 22_^). Thus the word assumed the meaning of ' pledge.' The captains jjlcdgcd them- selves to ol)ey Jehoiada (2K.II4), the nobles of Jerusalem to set their slaves free (Jcr. 34 8^), Zcchatiah and other citizens to drive away their wives (Ezral03).

(ii. ) Domestic. Applied to domestic relations the bfrith was at first simply 'the law of the husband* (Koni. 72). Since a wife was captured, bought, f)r given in marriage, her absolute subjection to a mans authority w;is i)roix-'rly characterised as 'enchainment.' Social development, however, without intrtKlucing the idea of eq Utility, tended to emphasise the obligations that go w ith power. The husbantl's bC-rith became a solemn pledge given before witnesses ( Ez. 1G8 Mai. 214). In this sense the word could be used ahso of the wife. In I'rov. 2 17 .t.-iVn ma seems to mean ' the promise by her God ' ; the same pledge of faithfulness is alluded to in Ez. ](J6i (' not for the sake of thy promise"), and pcjssibly also in 4 Esdr. 25. A father's decision was binding uponhis children. Especially the last paternal decree, the testament, was irrevocable. Whether it was a disposition of profx^rty or a dispensation of blessings and curses, deemed effectual in antiquity, it was termed a I)erith (Gal. 3 15 Heb. 'J16/; Test. xii. fair, passim), and had the nature of a promise.

(iii. ) International. Between nations equal in jx>wer a favour conferred or promised calls for <a gift in return. To perpetuate mutually .advantageous relations, pledges are exchanged. In this way political alliances may arise with mutual obligations. The l)est example of such a covenant is that lietween Solomon and Hiram (provided the Deuteronomistic note, i K. 526 r2], can be relied upon). Of this nature were probably .il.so the agreements l>etween Hezion and Abijah, Benh.idad and Asa, and Benhadad and Baasha, referred to in i K. ir>i9 [I]. The Ijerith with Assyri.i, Hos. 122 [1], was originally intended as an alliance of this kintl, though Hosca had reason to complain that out of such alliances there grew only new rights, i.e., demands (IO4). Simon's league with Rome was of the same character (i Mace. 14242640; Jos. Ant.\\\\.1 t).^

(iv. ) fictions. .Since the relations of nations were thus frequently regulated by a beritli, it is not strange that such a basis should sometimes have Ijeen assunied without sufficient foundation. When the once peaceful Arabic neighbours began to push the luiomites out of Mount Seir, Obadiah lookt-d upon this as a breach of covenant on the part of allies (v. 7). The simultaneous attack of several p>eopIes on the Jewish commonwealth described in i Mace. l\\ ff. , seemed to the author of Ps. 836 to l)e the result of an alliance against Yahwe i.e., Israel. If Amos 1 9^ is in its right jjlace (.see Amos, 9 a). Tyre is charged with forgetting the ' covenant of brothiTs' with some other city or people, probably PhoL-nician ; kinship is the basis of the assumption. Zech. 11 10/ probably descrilx-s a change in the policy of the reigning pontiff as regards the Gentiles, rather than actual alliances with neighlxjuring states, as the corise(|uent internal feud suggests. It is also natural that recourse should be hacl to the same fiction to justify or to condenm present conditions and demands. In the Negeb, tril>es of Israelitish and Iduma'an extrac- tion assured themselves of their rights, against the Philistines, to certain wells and oases, by virtue of a solemn pledge given by Abimelech of Gerar to their hcros eponymus, Isaac (Gen. 2628 fJ] 21 27 /T [E]>. Similarly, the torder lines Ix-'tween Arama;an and Israelitish territory in Gilead were regarded as fixed by an agreement between Eaban and Jacob, securing also the rights of certain Aram.tan enclaves on Israelitish soil (Gen. 1844 fJ]). Certain remarkable facts in the history of the Gilxjonites (see Gibkon), gave rise to the story told in Josh. 96/ 15/ fJ] 9ii [E] a story which shows how unobjectionable such alliances with the natives were considered in earlier tintes.

1 I Mace. 8 17 a Mace. 4 11 are scarcely historical.

When prophetic teaching had led to a recognition of the baneful influences upon the life of Israel of Canaanitish modes of thought and worship, the warning took the form of a prohibition of alliances projected into the period pre- vious to the invasion (Dt. 72 Jud. 22 [Dt. ] Ex.2332 [E] Ex. 34 12 15 [J]). Gen. 14 13, though found in a late Midrash, may retiect the memory of a long dominant Canaanitish majority in Hebron, since, with all the glorification of Abram, the three chiefs Mamre, Eshcol, and Aner are designated as nna.T 'SvD. ' holders of the pledge." To legitiniatise the Davidic dynasty, Jonathan was represented as having abdicated the throne in favour of David, while Saul was still alive, on condition of remaining next to the king in rank (iS. 23i7/. [E]). Such an action on his part was then accounted for by the story of a still earlier Yahwe-bCrith of friend- ship (i S. I83 [EJ). referred to again in i S. 208 16 [RJ. The friendship itself is sufficient to explain David's kindness to Jonathan's family ; but the passage testifies to the custom of pledging friendship by an oath and a solemn ceremony.

(v.) Birith = ' nation.' In Dan. 11 22 nna TJ3 is the title given to Onias III. This probably means prince or ruler of the nation. The cnp m3. Dan. 11 28 30, is the holy nation against which Antiochus Epiphanes directed his attention and his fury ; and rip nna '3iy are the apostates who abandoned the holy nation and lived like the Gentiles (cp i Mace. 1 15, also Judith 9 13 I Mace. 1 63). These renegades are called nna "vxna. Dan. 11 32; ' those that bring condemnation upon the nation," are responsible for its misfortunes. This significance should probably also be given to the word in Ps. 7420 (Hitz. , Che.). The n""i3 -]N'?a. Mai. 3i, may be the angelic representative of the nation. At a somewhat earlier period in some inserted passages in II. Is. (see IsAi.XH, ii. 16, Che. SBOT) nna seems already to occur in this sense. The context indicates that cy m:3. Is. 426 49 8, is meant to designate Israel as an independent organised community (lit. 'a commonwealth of a people').^ Until Israel had regained its status of indepencience it could not rebuild the ruined cities, or restore the land to its former glory. This meaning may possibly be traced still further back; B.'\AI.-BEKITH {'/v.), as the I'^lohist designates the god of Shechem, may mean 'god of the comnumity.' The word used of the city-kingdom of Shechem in the seventh century (cp .\ss. bir/u, i^Ituz, fortified town) may well have been applied to the ardently desired kingdom of Zion at the end of the sixth.

(vi. ) Metaphorical. Metaphorically nna is used in Job 31 1 of the law that Job has imposed upon his eyes that they shall not look upon a virgin ; in 4O28 [41 4] of the pledge which Leviathan is not likely to give, that he will allow himself to be captured and become a slave ; and in 523 of Job's agreement with the stones of the field that they shall not prevent the cultivation of his land.

1 Cp CHH K19 'a wild ass of a man,' 10 12. So in the main Duhm, though his conception of ri'ia is different. I)i., Kraetzsch::iar (/?/> Iiunden<orstellung, 169), and Kosters explain 'a covenant with the people' /.?., one in or through whom my covenant with the people is realised.

5. Religious[edit]

No important transaction was done in antiquity without religious sanction. The oath and the curse were extensively used in judicial proceedings, legislative enactments, and political treaties. Before passing sentence, the judge pronounced a curse or adjuration to arouse the conscience and elicit a confession (i K.831 [D] Nu.52i [I'] Lev. 5 1 [P] Prov. 2924 Mt. 2663). A pledge or promise was made more binding by a curse (,!*?, Ez. 1.7 16 Deut. 29ii [12] 20 [21]). To set forth symbolically this curse, animals were cut into pieces, and the person giving the pledge passed Ijetween the severed parts, signifying his readiness to be thus destroyed Tiimself, if he should fail to keep his promise. It is to be observed that in the only passages where this ceremony is referred to (Gen. 15 and Jer. 34 18/. ), there is no question of an alliance, and only one party passed between the pieces (cp Dictys Cretensis, Ephenuris belli Trojani, i. 15). Whether this custom was observed also in the conclusion of treaties, as was the case in Babylonia, if Ephrem was correctly informed {Comment, to Gen. 15), is uncertain, and there seems to be no justification for connecting this rite in particular with an agreement between two parties, or for supposing nna to have been the name of a ceremony of which it was an essential part. In most instances no doubt the oath sufficed. Sometimes the right hand was given in addition (Ez. 17 18, 2 Mace. 1822), or a handshake took the place of the oath ( Ezra 1 19 Prov. 61 17 18 2226). It is possible that during the oath salt was sometimes thrown into the fire to intensify by the crackling sound the terror -inspiring character of the act, originally to render more audible the voice of the deity in the fire, hence the salt-bOrith (Lev. 213 [P] Nu. 18i9[P] aCh. 135). As vows were taken and agreements made at some shrine, the numen dwelling in the sacred stone or structure was the chief witness (Gen. 31 48 [J] 52 [E] Josh. 242? [E]" 2 K. 1 1 4 283), and a sacrificial meal preceded or followed the act (Gen. 26 30 [J] 31 46 [J] Ex. 24 1 1 [J] 2 S. 32o[J]). The sprink- ling of sacrificial blood upon the worshipper, a survival of the custom of sharing it with the deity, appears to have disappeared early from the cult. But it may have continued longest in the case of persons taking a solemn pledge, as is suggested by its use in the installation of priests (Ex. 29 20 [P] Lev. 823 [P]). This would account for the term benth-t)lood (Ex.248 [E]). Where an alliance was desired presents were offered by the party taking the initiative ((Jen. 21 27 [E] : probably the sacri- ficial animals ; Hos. 122 [i]^).

6. Divine 'berith'[edit]

Since a decree, pledge, or compact was thus, as a rule, ratified by some sacred rite at a sanctuary, the word nna readily assumed a religious significance, and was applied to a solemn declaration of the deity.

(i. ) In J, E, and early Prophets. In the earliest Judasan narrative Yahwe gives to Abram a promise that his descendants shall possess Palestine and symboli- cally invokes upon himself a curse, if he shall fail to keep it (Gen. 15 18 [J] ; cp Gen. 24? [J]). When Moses is reluctant to leave the mountain-home of his god and pleads for an assurance that Yahwe shall go with him, a solemn promise is given him (Ex. 34 10 a [J] ; add, with <5'"> 1^)- The original context can scarcely have been anything else than a declaration that Yahwe will ac- company his servant, probably in 'the messenger," the ni.T "[xSd- This promise was no doubt also referred to by the Elohist, though the importance of the ark in his narrative (cp Nu. 10 33/ [E]) renders it probable that Yahwe's presence was here connected with this palladium. After the subjugation of the Canaanites by the first kings of Israel the question arose as to the justice of this deed. Israel's right to the land was then established by the fiction of a promise given to the mythical ancestor. A religious problem of grave importance was how Yahwfe, whose home was on Sinai, or Horeb, could manifest himself at the Palestinian sanctuaries. The solution was that he had pledged himself to go with Mo.ses in ' the messenger. ' The story of Elijah's visit to Horeb was probably written early in the eighth century ; in it nn3 occurs in the sense of commandment (i K. 19 14)- This is also the meaning of the term in Dt. 33 9^ (the Blessing of Moses), as the parallel -n"CJ< shows, and in Josh. 7 II [E]. Hosea uses the word to denote an injunction of Yahwe upon the beasts of the field not to harm Israel (22o[i8]), and a commandment of Yahwe in general (81; possibly also 67). It is noticeable that this prophet, who through a sad domestic experience learned to apply the figure of a marriage to Yahwe's relation to Israel, never employs bfirith in the sense of a covenant. The p-K.i nna was probably still simply the law of the husband, and the idea of a covenant with Yahwi had not yet been formed. The covenant with death, the compact with Sheol (Is. 28:15-18) appears to bc an alliance with the powers of the netlier world, implying mutual stipulations. Men who preached the destruction of Israel and Yahwr's intk'|x:ndence of the people, would not be likely to characterize the existing relation by a term current in necromancy.

(ii. ) Deitleronomiit. I'.ven the transformation of the Yahwistic and l.lohistic narratives of the Horeb-l)<^rith, in the reign of .Manasseh, by which the promise given to Moses l>ecame a solemnly imposed law (the IX-calogue of J, ICx. 31 15-26, and tliat of K, Ex. 'iOi-i?), and the judicial decisions of the Writh lxx)k, Ex. 20 23-2.3 33, Ix.-- came divine injunctions, does not contemplate an alliance. In the law promulgated by Josiah in 621 (not likely to be found outside of Dt. 12-26 ; but see Dkutkko.nomy, 5/.) tlie word does not occur. Hut this law was design.ated at the outset as a bCrith-lKX)k (2 K. 28221). It seems to have tx:en intended to take the place of Ex. 20 23 ff. The promise to Abraham is strongly emphasised by the Deuteronomistic writers and enlarged to one given to Isaac and Jacob as well (Dt. 431 7 12 8 18 2 K. 13 23 [Dt.]; cp also Dt. I835 6101823 78 81 etc.). At a time when Judah was in inuninent danger of losing its heritage, faith took refuge in this divine assurance, manifesting Yalnve's love, and justified by the otx-'dience of the patriarchs (Dt. 431 IO15 (k-n.'264 ^ [Dt.]). One writer of this school declares that Yahwi!; announced on Iloreb his bOrith consisting of the ten words (Dt. 4 13 b-iff.). and that this b<;rith Wiis written on tablets of stone (99) and placed in the ark (see Akk, i/. , 3, 9). Anotlicr author made the Josianic code the basis of a covenant concluded in the fields of Moab (Dt. 29 9 12 14 21 [811 etc.] 2617-19; cp the later gloss 29 1 [2869]). Here the idea of a compact between Yahw6 and Israel involving nmtual rights and obliga- tions is fully developed. Yahwe pledges himself to make Israel his own people, distinct from, honoured above all others ; Israel declares that it will make Yahw6 its god and ol)ey his conmuuidmcnts. This conception was subsecjuently transferred also to the Horeb-bCrith ; cp Judg. 2i^ [Dt.].

(iii. ) Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Jeremiah does not seem to have participated in this development. He used brith only to designate Josiah's law, which he regarded as having been given through Moses at the time when Yahw^ brought Israel out of Egypt (11 2/ 6810 34 13). It is evident from the context that nnn Tsn ( 1 1 10) indicates not the disannulment of a covenant, but the breaking of a law by disolx-'dience, the law still remain- ing in force. Ezekiel, on the other hand, not only employs nn^ in the sense of ' law ' (2O37 : ' the fetter of the law,' 447), but also applies it for the first time to the conjugal relation of Yahwe and Israel (168 59 60). Marriage is here Ixisedon mutual pledges: it is a covenant. According to Ezekiel's view of history, Yahwe had entered into such an alliance with Israel in Egypt, but the people had by a long career of unfaithfulness forced its dissolution (1659). Yet he hopes that in the future Yahwi will renew his intimate relations with Israel. There will lie no covenant, however (for Israel's pledge cannot be trusted ; I661), but a gracious dispensation of Yahw6 (IG62), everlasting (3726), and full of prosperity (3425), ushered in by the restoration of the Davidic rule and the temple-service (372526).

(iv. ) Exilic times. How ardently the next generation expected that the fallen tent of David would be raised up again, may be seen in the appendix to Amos (9ii^) and in the more pregnant form given to the promise 2 S. 7i6 [Ej] in 2 .S. 235 (nSiy nn:)- Such hopes may have l)een awakened by the honour shown to Jehoiachin by Amil Marduk in 561, and may have attached them- selves to his son Shkshbazzak {q.v.). They were naturally encouraged by the sympathetic tone of Eteutero- Isaiah's message (Is. 40-48), even though this writer himself knows no other Messiah than Cyrus. With the freer intercourse tietween the holy city and the Jews of the di.spersion, jjossible after the Persian conquest (cp Zech. 610), and the ap|xjimment of .Slieshlxizzar. and after him of Zerublxilx-1, as governor, the .Second Isaiah's evangel w;is brought to I'alestine and changed the comfortless lamentations of the native population (Lam. 3) into songs of redemptive suffering (Is. 42i-4 49i-6 5O4-9 ."<2ij-53i2), or of future restoration (the Zion songs in Is. 49-55). It was felt that by the accession of a king of the old dynasty, a living witness would appear of Yahwd's faithfulness to David (Is. 554 a), a restorer of the territory once jx)ssessed (Is. 554 ^ Mic. 4 8 13 5 1), a surety of the promised disiK-nsation of ever- lasting peace (Is. 54 10 553), and that Zion would thus become again an organised community (oy n'i3), able to build up what had fallen into ruins, to attract the exiles to their sj)iritual home, and to teach the nations the manner in which Yahwe should be worshipjx^ (Is. 426 498).

(v.) Haggai, Zecchariah, etc. The prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah Ix-ar witness to the strength of the royalist sentiment at Jerusalem. The hopes of the Jews proved illusory ; but in the midst of disiippoint- ment the belief in Yahwe's promises lived on. ' .Malachi ' felt assured that Yahwe would riturn, and accounted for his delay by the sins of the degenerate priestly descend- ants of the faithful and reverent Levi, to whom Yahwe's promise (n"i:) of life and prosperity w:is given (2i-g), and of those who, fascinated by foreign women, had forgotten the pledge (n't;) given to the wives of their youth (214). The author or authors of Is. 56-66 also deplored the marriages with aliens and the survival of forbidden forms of worship, but saw the remedy in the law : the keeping of Yahwe's conunandments (nna) would render the very euimch fit for memlxTship in Israel (064) ; the distinction of Israel lay in that gracious arrangement (nTi) by which Yahwe's law, proclaimed by men of the spirit and repeated by a mindful people, would be its peri^etual possession (59 ii), a divine dis- pensation involving prosperity as a rew.ard of olx;dience (618). ITie author of Jer. 30/, however, rises to a far greater height. He looks forward to a new regime based solely on Yahw6's love, which will take the place of the old and less fxjrmanent relation (Jer. 31 31 _^). This work may perhaps Ije assigned to the time of the Graeco-Persian war, when the writer confidently lcK)kcd for extraordinary proofs of Yahwe's pardoning grace (see Jerkmi.\h, ii. 7 [iii.] 8 [ii.]).

(vi. ) P. The conception of the bCrith as a gracious act on the part of God, by wliich he binds himself to a certain course of action in reference to Israel and the world, implying the l)estowal of blessings and the revela- tion of his will, becomes dominant in the Priestly Code. The bf^rith or engagement is here carried back to Abraham and Noah. Beside the Noah-Writh (Gen. 91-17) there is no room for an Adam-bi^rith ; beside the Abrahamic (Gen. 17 ; cp Ex. 224 64), no need of a Sinaitic. The Noah-bCrith secures the stability of earth's conditions and of man's life, and the accompanying law of blood is but a lieneficcnt provision for the preservation of the race ; the Abrahamic guarantees to Israel the land of Palestine and a large population, and the command of circumcision implies only a distinction conferretl upon this jKHiple from which all further favours flow. The sign in the sky and the sign in the body are constant reminders to the deity of these merciful engage- ments. Hy the use of '3 p: and '3 C'pn ('establish,' occasionally 'maint.ain') instead of '3 ni3 the nature of the Writh as a gift, a divine institution, is emphasised. Though the word has thus Ix;come a religious terminus technicus in this code, it still occurs with the sense simply of commanilment, Ex. 31 16 (the law of the sabbath), I^v. 248 (the ordinance of the shew-liread). Lev. 2 13 (the injunction ojncerning salt), or of promise, Nu. 25 12/. (the assurance to Fhinehas of an everlasting priesthood in his line).

(vii. ) Later writers. The author of Jer. 50/ (see Jkkkmiau, ii. 7, 8 [iii.]) refers to the Abrahamic dis- [wnsation in the spirit of the Priestly Writer (see that vividly expressed passage on tiie return of the men of Israel and Judah, Jer. 5O5) ; ' and Jer. 14 21 reflects the same concoption. Ps. 8929 lOuSio IO645 111 5 also show the influence of this idea.

On the other hand, in Ps. 25 10 14 132 12, nna is only a synonym of nny, and in 44 18 50 16 78 10 of mm- In Ps. 50 5, nai Vy 'nna "ma, ' those who pledge their troth to me by sacrifice,' are graciously told that Yahwe will not demand excessive offerings,^ and in 78 10 the men of the Mosaic period are charged with not being faithful to the pledge given to Yahwe. Besides the Abrahamic dispensation (i Ch. I615 2 Ch. 614 Neh. I5 9832), the Chronicler particularly emphasises the engagement made with David (2 Ch. 13$ 21 7), but also uses bOrith of a pledge in general (2 Ch. 29 10 3432 Neh. 13 29). The Prayer of Jeremiah (Jer. 3216-44) is quite after the fashion of the Chronicler ; in 32 40 the author has in mind 31 33, but interprets the bCrith vaguely as a promise that Yahwe will not cease to show mercy to Israel.

The author of Kcclesiasticus [circa 200) introduces for the first time an .Vdam-biJrith as an everlasting dispensa- tion (17i2), is led by his biographical interest to mention severally the divine promises to Noah (44 iB), Abraham (7'. 19/), Isaac (7 '. 22), Jacob ( 7/. 23), Aaron (4')7 15), Phinehas (v. 23/), and David [v. 25 47 n), and employs the term in the sense of law (2423 455), and of covenant (14 12, based on Is. 28 15, but Si^runderstood figuratively ; cp \Yisd. 1 t6). The thought of Ecclus. 45 15 [iv rj/x^pais ovpavov, c'Cti' "Cd) 25, is further developed in Jer. 3314-26 (wanting in (S"**'^, but translated by Theodot. ; see Jekkmi.\H, ii); the divine arrangements as respects the house of Le\ i and the house of David are as inviol- able as the divine arrangements in nature, the laws of day and night, of heaven and earth. Deutero-Zechariah (Zech. 9-14 after 198 B.C.; see Zkch.\ki.\h, ii. 5) promises deliverance to the Jews of the dispersion on the ground of the faithful observance of the sacrificial cult at the sanctuary by which Israel continually pledges its troth to Yahwe ("nna ci2. ' because of thy pledge- blood ' ; 9 II : cp Ps. 5O5). Dan. 94 ( 164 B.C. ) refers to God's merciful promise to bless his people. The nna cSiy, Is. 245 (c. 128 B.C.-') is most naturally understood in the light of Ecclus. 17 12, where the Adam-bdrith also involves the revelation of God's laws and judgments. In I Mace. 250 c2'nuK nna may be a designation of the holy nation, the theocracy, whilst 4 10 probably refers to the promise to the patriarchs, as 254 does to that to Phineh;is. In Ps. Sol. IO5, the law apjjears as a testimony of the eternal dispensation established with the Fathers (919). The author of Jubilees quotes (616) from Gen. 9 12/ and (15 19) from Gen. 177, but in his inde[)endent use of the term shows no trace of the conception prevailing in the Priestly Code. He introduces the Noah-borith as a pledge given by the patriarch (the original seems to have read "' '3B'? cSij; n'"i2 niD). 610, which is renewed by the jjeople every year through observance of the feast of weeks (617), and the Sinai-ljCrith as a pledge which Moses takes from the people (611); he employs the word as a synonym of 'law,' 'statute' (liol53424ii 30 21), and possibly uses it also in the sense of ' theocraoy ' (^35). where the feasts of the Jewish community are con- trasted with those of the (jentiles. ' Arbiter testament! illius ' (r^s diaOriKTji avrou /xeirirri^). Assumption of Moses [Charles] 1 14, seems to be a translation of 'inna n'3ic (tp Job 933), and represents Moses, not as a third party effecting an agreement between God and his people, but as the preacher proclaiming his law (cp Amos 5 10 Prov. 2 J 12 etc. ). This is to be inferred already from the suffix it is God's liC-rith and it is distinctly stated in 3ii ; ' the commandments in respect of which he was to us a mediator ' i.e. , which he was the means of revealing to us (cp 27). The Abraham-l)erith is mentioned in I2 3 10 4 12/. Enoch 606 is a fragment of a lost Apocalypse of Noah ; it presents the Noah-brith as the all-sufficient blessing of the elect.

1 Read with Co., ,ni^l and insert '3 before nns, 'Come let us join ourselves (anew) to Yahwe, for a lasting biritk cannot be forgotten.'

2 Cheyne, however, takes Ps. .50 to have been written as an expression of non-sacrificial religion.

3 Following Duhm. But cp Isaiah, ii., { 13.

7. NT[edit]

(i. ) Ciospels. Lk. I72, which refers to Cod's promise to Abraham, would seem to have belonged originally to a Jewish Apocalypse of Zechariah current among the Baptist's disciples. Jesus himself does not seem to have used the term in any sense. The thought of a new dispensation, so attractive to his disciples, may not have been foreign to his own mind. If it is not foimd even where it might most naturally be expected, as in Mt. 2I43, the reason may be that his favourite expression, the kingdom of God, was intended to convey a similar idea. His words at the paschal table have evidently undergone successive modifications and expansions ; and it is difficult not to trace Pauline influences. At any rate the declaration, ' This is the new BiadrjKrj in my blood' (i Cor. 11 25 Lk. 2220), seen\s to lie an expansion of the earlier, 'This is my blood of the SiadrjKri' (Mt. 2628 Mk. 1424). It is not inconceivable that Jesus actually said -cp DT \'-\n, meaning thereby ' This is the blood in which I pledge my loyalty ' (cp Ps. 50 5 Zech. 9 11). But the CJreek translation suggests an Aram. KZ-p >ci y-\n, in which the last word is likely to be an explanatory addition by a later hand, the original utterance lx.-ing simply 'This (is) my blood.'

(ii. ) Paul. In Gal. 3i5_^ Paul compares God's assurance to Abraham with a man's testament (Sia^^K?;), which cannot lose its validity by any arrangement sub- sequent to his d(;ath, and in addition seeks a proof of the inferiority of the law in the fact that it was given not directly by God himself, but through angels and a human agent {/jieffiTrjs, used as in Assump. Mos. 1 14 3 12). In 424 he contrasts the present Jewish common- wealth (t) vvv 'JfpovffaXrjfj.), deriving its existence as a theocracy {SLadrjKi]) from the legislation on Sinai with the heavenly society {ij (ivw 'JfpovffaXruj.) from which by spirit-birth the new theocracy derives its life (cp Heb. 1222). The new form of government {SiadrjKr]), accord- ing to Paul, was possible only through the death of Jesus abolishing the authority of the Law (hence the

change to ^v T

- tion of the often promised new constitution (SiaBr)KTi S&J". 10 16) ; but it is argued that, as a man's testament (diaOrjKTi) is not valid until after his death (9i6/. ), and as consequently the Mosaic constitution possessed no validity until a death had taken .place (that of the sacrificial animal), so the better Christian disjxinsa- tion could not be ushered in e.xcept by the death of Jesus (9isi8^); this departure of Jesus is, besides, regarded as necessary in order that he might be a priest as he could not be on earth (7 13/) in the celestial tcniplc (620 9 11), and as such bear the responsibility for the new arrangement {(yyvoi lii), and on God's behalf make it oix-rative (neairtj^ 86 9 15 1224) by sprinkling the blood on men's consciences, thus pledging and devoting them to the new priestly service (10 19, cp Kx. 292o [P] Lev. 823 [P]). The ' ark of the law' (oiaOriKj)) is mentioned in Heb. 94 (cp Kev. 11 19). In llph. "J 12 the one great promise is con- sidered as renewed by a scries of solemn assurances (al diaOiJKai ttJj iirayytXia^). Peter's contemporaries are represented in Acts325 as 'sons' i.e., heirs, who might enter into possession of the promise (StaOrjKrj) to Abraham, whilst in 7 8 the word hiaOi)Ki) is used to designate the ordinance of circumcision.' The most recent inquiry into the historical meaning of blrith is Kraelzxhinur's Die /{um/i'ST'ttrstf/Zun^'- im Aiten Testament ('96). See also Vaieton, /^.-l TU'Vi 1-22 224-26013245-279 l'92yri; Bertholet, Die Stellunf; d. Israeliten u. Juden zu d. Frnmien, 46, 87/ 176, 214 ['96I ; WRS Kel. .SVw/.(2), 269^ ^12 ff. 479//^, A7. A,(iJF.; \V. M. Ramsay, 'Covenant' in the 'K.x'posit.o, Nov. '98, pp. 321-336. N. S.

COVERLET[edit]

("1330), 2 K. 8 .st RV. See Bkd, 3

COVERS[edit]

(niL"i7), E.\-.37.6, etc. ; see Cup, 6.

COW[edit]

(H-IS), Is. 11 7. See C.XTTI.k, 2.

COZ[edit]

RV strangely Hakkoz (]*ip ; Kcoe [B'^A], etKcoe lee superscr.] [B-'->], kooc [I^:) of Judah (ic'li.4 8). The name is probably not connected with I^akkoz. As it occurs nowhere else, perhaps we should road TEKOA(i'ipp, QfKWi \ cp "'^). See HAKKOZ, TEKOA.

COZBI[edit]

('3T2, 'deceitful.' ; 79; cp .\s.s. kuzhu, ' lasciviousiH'ss,' Haupt, SHOT on Gen. 885), daughter of Zur (\u. 251518), a Midianite, who was slain by Phiiiohas at Shittim (Xu.256-i8, P ; XAcBiell [BAFL], X()cBia[Jos. Ant. iv. 610 12]).

COZEBA[edit]

AV CHOZKBA (n2T3), i Ch. 4 22t. See ACHZIB.

CRACKNELS[edit]

(D^i?:), i K. 143. See Bakemeats, 2.

CRAFTSMEN, VALLEY OF[edit]

(D-L'^nn >l), Neh. 11 35 1-',V See CHARASHIM

CRANE[edit]

(|-i:y; crpoyeiA [BNAQ]), Is.3S.4 Jer. 87+ \<\' , AV by an error [.see below] 'swallow.' In Is. 3814 there is no ' or ' between the first two names in MT, and (p'^N^Qr omits 'agur altogether, rendering the other word (a?n) correctly xf^'^ci" (see Swallow, 2) ; in the second passage where in MT the same two words occur (Jer. 87) the connective particle is again omitted, this time by . Hence it has l>een suggested that in neither place should both words occur ( Kloster- mann, Duhm, etc., omit nijj; in Is.) ; this receives some countenance from the fact that the M T order of the words is reversed in Targ. and Pesh. in Jer. 87. The transposition tuisled most Jewish authorities as to the real meaning of the two words respectively, and our translators followed them. That oiD (or rather d'D : see SwAi.i.ow, 2) means 'swallow' or 'swift' there can be no doubt, and so the words 'crane' and 'swallow' should at least change places (as in RV).

What 'iigur means is somewhat uncertain : * probably Griis communis or cinerca, which is the crane of Palestine. Once it bred in England. The passage in Isaiah refers to its ' chattering ' ; * and its powers of giving utterance to loud and trumpet-like sounds both when in flight and when at rest are well known.

1 On the meaning of tt.aAr\ia\, see Hatch, Essays on Biblical Gretk, p. 47.

2 I^garde suggested that it means ' bird of passage ' ^ j^ = J^ ' 'o turn back, return,' C'ebers. 59).

3 ' The Heb. CjIfES) properly signifies a shrill penetrating sound, and is therefore more applicable to the stridulous cr>' of the swift th.in to the deep, trumpet-like blast of the crane.' .See the rest of Che. 's note in I'roph. Is., ad loc.

Cranes arc migratory birds, spending the summer in N. latitudes and the winter as a rule in Central Africa and S. Asia ; but some pass the cold season in the plains of S. Juda.-a. While travelling they fly in great flocks, and at limes come to rest on the borders of some stream or lake. They appear to have fixed rixjsting-pl.ices, to which they return at night in large numbers. Jeremiah notices the regularity <>f their seasonal migrations.

N. M. A. E. S. !

CRATES[edit]

(kpathc i A ', -hcac [V]), the name of a former viceroy 'in Cyprus' (iwl tQv Kvirpiuv), who was left in charge of the citadel (of Jerusalem) by SosTKATUS in the reign of Antiochus Kpiphanes : 2 Mace. 4 29.

CREATION[edit]

1. Critical standpoint.[edit]

I. Accounts^ 0/ Creation.

It may regarded as an axiom of modern study that the descriptions of creation contained in the biblical records, and especially in Gen. 1:1-2:4a, are permanently valuable only in so far as they express certain religious truths which are still recogni.sed as such (see lx,'low, 25). To seek for even a kernel of historical fact in such cosmogonies is inconsistent with a scientific point of view. We can no longer state the critical problem thus : How can the biblical cosmogony lie reconciled with the results of natural science ? The question to be answered is rather this : From what source have the cosmogonic ideas expressed in the OT l^een derived ? Are they ideas which beloiiged to the Hebrews from the first, or were they borrowed by the Hebrew s from another people ?

2. Babylonian epic.[edit]

This question has passed into a new phase since the most complete form of the Creation-story of the Babylonians has become known to us in its cuneiform original. True, the story given in the tablets lies before us in a very fragmentary condition. The exact ntmiber of tablets is uncertain. Considerable lacuna, however, have been recently filled up by the discovery of missing passages, and there is good hope that further excavations will one day enable us to complete the entire record. At any rate we are now able to arrange all the extant fragments in their right order which was not the case a few years ago and so to recover at least the main features of the connection of the cuneiform narrative. Only a brief sketch of the contents can be given here.-*

1 On conceptions of creation, see below, g 25-29 ; on words, see 8 30.

2 It may be observed here that Gen. 24a was, originally, the superscription, not the subscription. Schr., in his reproduction of the two narratives of the primitive story, rightly restores it as the he.iding (Stud ten zur Kritik der Urgesih., 1863, p. 172). In that c.ise the priestly narrator axn hardly have continued with Gen.li. Restore therefore with Vh.iCenesis, '7. 39). 'This is the birth-story of heaven and earth when Elohim created them ' (cTl'^K CNi:r)- Then continue, ' Now the earth,' etc. (v. 2). ' Then God .said, Let light be ; and light was.' See Kautzsch's translation (Kau. IIS).

3 Cp Del. Das Bah. WeltschSp/ungsepos ('97); Jensen, Kosntol. 268-300; Zimmern, in Gunkel, SchSp/. ^01-41^; and Hall, Light from the East, i-2t ('99). The metrical divisions are well marked. The epic is mainly composed in four -line stanzas, and in each line there is a ca;sura.

  • [.Ass. .Mutntnu Tiamat. In line 17 of this first tablet we

meet (most probably) with a god called Mummu. The name corresponds to the Muvfxit of Damascius (see Iwlow, % 15, endX and is rendered by Krd. Del. in /. 4, 'the roaring.' "This is by no means certainly right ; for the grounds see Del. 1 19. Pinches renders. Lady Tiamat (Exp. Times, 3 166). But Jensen warns us that there is another mummu. .-Vt any rate, the supposed connection with oi.l must be abandoned.]

The 'Creation-epic' begins by telling us that in the beginning, before heaven and earth were made, there was only the primaeval ocean-flood. This is personified as a male and a female being (Apsu and Tiamat).

Long since, when above | the heaven had not been named,
when the earth beneath | (still) bore no name,
when Apsu the primaeval, the generator of them,
the originator Tiamat, | who brought them both forth
their waters in one | together mingled,
when fields were (still) unformed, | reeds (still) nowhere seen
long since, when of the gods | not one had arisen,
when no name had been named, | no lot [been determined],
then were made I the gods, [ . . . ].

Thus the world of gods came into being. Its harmony, however, was not long maintained. Tiamat, the mother of the gods, was discontented with things as they were, and from hatred (it would seem) to the newly pro- duced Light, relxilled against the supreme gixls, and drew some of the gods to her side. She also for her own l)ehoof produced monstrous beings to help her in her fight. This falling away of Tiamat called for divine vengeance. To reply to the call, however, required a courage which none of the upper gods possessed, till at last ^Iarduk (Merodach) offered himself, on condition that, after he had conquered Tiamat, the regal sway over heaven and earth should be his. In a solemn divine assembly this was assured to him. He then equipped himself for the fight, and rode on the war- chariot to meet Tiamat atid her crew. The victory fell to Marduk, who slew Tiamat, and threw her abettors into chains.

This is followed by the account of the creation of the world by Marduk. The process is imagined thus. Marduk cuts in two the carcase of Tiamat ' (the per- sonified ocean-flood), and out of the one part produces heaven, out of the other earth. ^

He smote her as a ... | into two parts ;
one half he took, | he made it heaven's arch,
pushed bars before it, | stationed watchmen,
not to let out its waters | he gave them as a charge.

Thus the upper waters of Tiamat, held back by bars, form heaven, just as in Gen. 1 the first step to the creation of heaven and earth consists in the separation of the upper from the lower waters by the firmament. Then follows a detailed description of the making of the heavenly bodies ( ' stations for the great gods ' ).

After this most unfortunately comes a great lacuna. We can venture, however, to state so much as this that the missing passage must have related the creation of the dry land, of plants, of animals, and of men. In support of this we can appeal (i) to separate small fragments, (2) to the account of Berossus, (3) to the recapitulation of the separate creative acts of Marduk in a hymn to that god at the close of the epic, and (4) to the description of the creative activity of Marduk in a second cuneiform recension of the Creation - story lately discovered (on the various Babylonian Creation- stories, see also below, 13^).

3. Relation to Gen. 1 1-24[edit]

What then is the relation between this Babylonian and the chief biblical cosmogony? We have no right to assume without investigation that the Hebrew myth of Creation appears in its original form in Gen. 1:1-2:4a. The present writer is entirely at one with Hermann Gunkel, whose work entitled ^chopfung u. Chaos in Urzeit uvd Endzeit'^ (95) contains the fullest collection of the relevant evidence, that this myth has passed through a long development within the domain of Hebraism prior to the composition of Gen. li-24. Only with a clear perception of this does critical method allow us to compare the latter document directly with the Babylonian Creation-epic. Then, however, our surprise is all the greater that in spite of the preceding development there is still in the main points, a far-reaching coincidence between the myths. For instance, both stories place water and darkness alone at the lx,'ginning of things, and persomfy the prinueval flood by the same name (Tiamat = TChom). Ill both the appearance of light forms the lieginning of the new order. Whether the production of light in

1 Jensen denies that Tiamat is anywhere in the Creation-epic represented as a dragon ; she Ls always, lie thinks, a woman. It is, however, not probable that the popular view of Tiamat as a serpent had no effect on the poet of the Creation-epic. .See Dra<;on, ^ff.

2 (pLsibly the head of Tiamat is referred to at a later point of the story by BCrossus. See below, 815.]

3 The sub-title of this work, which will be referred to again, b ' Kine relisionsefichichtliche Untersuchung iiher Gen. i. und Ap.Joh, xii. Mit Ueitragen von Heinrich Zimmern.'

the Babylonian account was specified as a separate creative act or not (a point on which complete certainty cannot as yet l)e obtained), Marduk is at any rate the god of light /car' ii,oxh^, and, consequently, his battle with Tiamat is essentially a battle between light and darkness. In both accounts the creation of heaven is effected through the divine creator's division of the waters of the primaeval flood, so that the upper waters form the heaven. In the Babylonian epic this division of the waters of the flood is in the closest relation to the battle with Tiamat ; nor can we doubt that a parallel description once existed in the Hebrew myth of creation, though it is but faintly echoed in Gen. 16/ The list of the several creative acts runs thus in the two accounts :

Babylonian. Gen. 1, in present order.^
1. Heaven. 1. Heaven.
2. Heavenly bodies. 2. Earth.
3. Earth. 3. Plants.
4. Plants. 4. Heavenly bodies.
5. Animals. 5. Animals.
6. Men. 6. Men.

There is much, however, to be said for the view that the present position of the heavenly bodies after the plants is secondary,'^ and that originally the creation of the heavenly bodies was related directly after that of heaven ; the order will then be the same in both accounts. Further coincidences can be traced in points of detail : e.g., the stress laid, in both accounts of the creation of the heavenly bodies, on their being destined to serve for the division of time (see also below, 6). Can we doubt that, between accounts which have so many coin- cidences, there is a real historical connection?

4. Distinctively Babylonian background.[edit]

We must now inquire how this connection is to be represented. There are two ways which are historically conceivable. Either the Hebrew and Babylonian accounts are independent developments of a primitive Semitic myth, or the Hebrew is borrowed directly or indirectly from the Babylonian. Dillmann proposes the former view in connection with a remark that the Hebrew story cannot have been simply borrowed from the Babylonians on account of the patent differences between the two narratives. ' There is no doubt a common basis ; but this basis comes from very early times, and its data have lx.'en developed and turned to account in different ways by the Israelites and the Babylonians. In reply we may concede to Dill- mann that the cosmogony in Gen. 1 cannot have been simply taken over from the Babylonians, and that there are strong a priori reasons for admitting the e.\istence of a common stock of primitive Semitic myths. Still, that the Hebrew myth, which is still visible in Gen. 1, was borrowed at a later lime from the Babylonians, i.s the only theory which accounts for the phenomena before us. There are features of the utmost importance to the story which cannot Ix; .satisfactorily explained except from the Babylonian point of view.

At the very outset, for instance, why, from a specifically Hebrew point of view, should the waters of the 'tehom' be placed at the Ijeginning of all things? Or we may put our objection to Di.'s theory thus, the question to be answered by a cosmogony is this, ' How did the visible heaven and earth first come into existence?' The answer given in Gen. 1 is unintelligible in the mouth of an early Israelite, for it implies a mental picture which is characteristically Babylonian. .As the world still arises anew every year and every day, so, thought the Babylonian, must it origmally have been produced. During the long winter the Babylonian plain looks like the sea (which in Babylonian is tidmiu, tiamat), owing to the heavy rains. Then comes the spring, when the god of the vernal sun (Marduk) brings forth the land anew, and by his potent rays divides the waters of Tiamat which previously, as it were, formed a whole, and winds them partly upward as clouds, partly downward to the rivers and canals. So must it have been in the first spring, at the first New Year, when, after a fight between Marduk and Ti.'tmat, the organised world came into being.' Or (for Marduk is also the gcS of the early morning sun), just as the sun crosses and conquers the cosmic sea (Tiamat) every morning, and out of the chaos of night causes to appear first the heaven and then the earth, so must heaven and earth have arisen for the first time on the first morning of creation. To imagine a similar origin of the myth from a Hebrew point of view, would lie hopeless. The picture rcijuircs as its scene an alluvial land, which Habyloni.i IS, and Palestine or the Syro-Arabi.in desert is not, and it requires further a sjieciiil god of the spring sun, or of the early morning sun, such as Marduk is and Vahwfe is iiot.^

In short, rightly to understand the Babylonian .iccount as, in its origin, a mythic description of one of the most fiimiliar natural phenomena of Haliylonia gives the key to the probienj before us. The Israelitish cosmogony must have Ijeen borrowed directly or indirectly from the Babylonian (cp also 5 and 1 1 ). H. I.

1 Most critics, however, reckon eight or seven creative acts. Cp Wellh. Cff x'&Tjpr. ; Bu. V,^rscii. 4?8jf. : I)i. dn. 16, 37.

2 See Gunkel, Schff>/. 14; 'this unnatural arrangement may be explained by supposing that when the framework of the seven days was introduocd, the plants, for which no special day re- mained, were combined with the earth, and so came to stand before the stars.'

3 Di. Gen. ('02), p. 11 ; cp his Ueher die Herkunft der urgeschichtl. Sngen (Berlin Acad. 1882), p. 427^, and Ryle, Early Narratives o/Gen., 12/.

5. Mythical basis of Gen. 1:1[edit]

The precetling sections contain (1) an account of the great Babylonian creation epic (sec. 2), (2) a comparison of this with the chief Hebrew cosmogony, and a criticism of Dillmann's theory (sec. 3), and (3) an explanation of the Babylonian myth antl of its pale Jewish copy (section. 4).

Of these sections 3 and 4 relate to subjects on which it is not unbecoming for the present writer to speak.- That there is more than one Hebrew cosmogony, will be shown presently ; we will l)egin with that in Gen. 1:1-2:4a. It is a very unfortunate statement of Wellhausen * that the only detail in this section derived from mythology is that of chaos in v. 2, the rest being, he thinks, due to retlection and systematic construction. Reflection, no doubt, is not absent e.i;. , the framework of days is certainly late but the basis of the story is mythical. Nor can we content ourselves with comparing the data of (ien. 1 with any single mj'thology, such as the Babylonian. Circumstanced as the Israelites were, we must allow for the possibility of Phajnician, Egyptian, and Persian, as well as Babylonian influences, and we must not refuse to take a passing glance at cosmogonies of less civilised {x-oples. For some elements in the Jewish Creation-story are so primitive that we can best understand them from the wide point of view of an anthropologist.

1 [The Babylonian New Year's festival called Z.ikmuk, which has clearly influenced the corresponding Jewish festival, stands in close relation to the ccsmogoiiic myth. For the ' tablets of destiny," on which the fates of all living were inscribed on New Year's Day, were taken by Marduk from Kingu, the captive consort of TiAmat (Tab. iv. 1 121). In its popular conception, Zakmuk was probably at once the anniversary of creation and the day of judgment. .So Karppe.j

'^ Cp Jensen, h'osmol. 307-309 ; (hinkel, Schdf/. 24-26.

3 The germ of what follows is to Ijc found in the Eli, art. 'Cosmogony,' 1877. The view of the history of mythological ideas among the Israelites is that which the writer has advocated in a series of works (some of them are referred to later), and which, with a much fuller array of facts, but with some question- able critical statements, has l)een put forward lately by Gunkel (ps). On the general subject of cosmogonies, cp Fr. Lukas, Crundhfgriffe su den Kosiiiogoniten dfr a/ten yelker ('93), pp. i-M, on the Babylonian myths and Genesis.

rrol. KT 2<j8.

S See the fragment in Del. Weltsch5p/ungsff>os, $i/. iti. The admonitions relate to purity of heart, early morning prayer, and sacrifice. The passage on the creation ("^man has not yet been found ; but there is an allusion to thU creative aa in the con- cluding tablet.

6. Parallelisms: Babylonian.[edit]

The Babylonian parallelisms may be summed up briefly (cp above, 3). The points of contact are

  • (1 ) The Primeval flood (mnn- Tiamat).
  • (2) The primeval light (Marduk was a god of light before the luminaries were created),
  • (3) the production of heaven by the division of the primeval flood,
  • (4) the appointment of the heavenly bodies to regulate times and seasons,
  • (5) the order of the creative acts (the parallelism, however, in the present form of Gen. 1 is imperfect),
  • (6) the divine admonitions addressed to men after their creation.*

To these may be added

  • (7) creation by a word (see below, 27), an idea which was doubtless prominent in the full Baby-lonian epic, and
  • (8) the creation of man in the divine image, and the participation of inferior divine beings in

the work. '

7 Phoenician.[edit]

Phoenician mythology is an embarrassing combination of Babylonian and Egyptian (possibly we should add Jewish *) elements, and is, moreover, known to us only from fragments of older works cited by Philo of Byblus and Damascius.' Still, distorted and discoloured as the myths presented to us may Ix;, the main features of them have a very primitive api)earaiice. The source of all things is descrilR'd in tlie first of Philo's cosmogonies * as a chaos turbid and black as Krebus, which was acted ujxjii by a wind (the nn of Gen. I2 [cp below, col. 944, n. 2]) which Ixcame enamoured' of its own elements (apxai). These d/>xa/ are the two sides or asjx^cts of the duine being referred to" the male and female principle, the latter of which in another of the Byblian cosmogcjiiies (Miiller, up. cit. iii. 500/) is called Baoi'. We may perhaps compare this Haai^ with BOhu^ in the Hebrew phrase tohu xvd-bohu (wasteness and wideness = chaos) in Gen. 1 2. Some would also connect it with the Baby- lonian Ba'u, the 'great mother.' True, this goddess was held to Ix: the consort of Xinib, the god of the rising sun, where.is Baai> is the spouse of d'e/ios KoXfl-iai and her name is said to mean ' night ' ( = chaos ?). The con- nection of Ba'u with Xinib, however, may perhaps Ijc of later origin. The result of the union of the two divine dpxa-i was the birth of Mujt i.e. , according to Halevy,' t6 Ma;T = m':nn (cp Prov. 824, nicnn-j'N2). Mwt, we are told, was egg-shaped. Here one may detect Egyptian influence, for Egyptian mythology knows of a world-egg, which emerged out of the watery mass (the god Xuii). This is confirmed by a reference in the cosmogotiy of Mochus (in Dama.scius, 385) to Xovcup 'the opener," whom it is tempting to connect with I'tah, the di\iiie demiurge of Memphis ; the name of I'tah ni.ay have Ixen explained in Phu'uician as the ' opener (nrs).' vi/.. of the cosmic egg. To the same cosmogony (Philo gives a different account) we owe the statement that this Xovcwp split the egg in two,* upon which one of the pieces vecame heaven, and the other earth. Here we have a point of contact with the Babylonian and also with the Hebrew cosmogony, for the body of Tiamat is, in fact, as Robertson Smith in his Burnett Lectures ^ remarks, ' the matrix or envelope of the dark seething waters of prini;t;val chaos,' and the separation of the lower from the upper waters in (jcn. 1 7 is only a less picturesque form of the same mythic statement. These are ' poor and beggarly elements,' no doubt; but then l'h(jcnicia lacked what Babylonia possessed, a poet who could select, and to some extent moralise, such parts of the tradition as were best worth preserving. We shall see later (55 28) that Juda;a had a writer who in some important respects excelled even the author of the epic.

1 .See the Rerossian story referred to below (5 15). In the epic the cre.-ition of man was ascriljed to Marduk (but cp Jensen, Koitn. 2()2/.)\ but it ispo.ssible(see Del. of.cit. no) that .Marduk committed some part of the creation of^ the world to the other greater divinities. May we thus account for the evolutionary language of some parts of (^>en. In?' Let the earth bring forth ' would then mean ' Let the earth-god (a divine energy inherent in the earth) cause the earth to bring forth.'

2 Considering the late date of the reporter, we cannot exclude this possibility.

3 Cp Baudi.ssin, Studd. zur sent. Rel.-gesch. L (Essay I.); Gruppe, Die giUxh. Ctilte u. Mythen, 1 351^

Aliiller, J-ragm. Hist. Gra-c. 8565.

8 The two later Targums explain C'riVx nn '" Gen. 1 2 by [CnTl Nnn 'the spirit of love' (cp Wisd. 11 24). The love expressed here, however. Is that called forth by the need of help.

  • De Vogiii, Milanges, bo/.

1 Holzinger (note on Gen. 1 2) objects to the combination of Boav and IJohu, that Boav appears as the mother of the two first men, which will not suit Ik'hu ; but the Byblian mytholo^Lst isinerror,asWR.S(Burnett Lectures[.1/.S"]) has pointed out. .Viwk is not properly a 'mortal man,' and itputjayovo'i is a late inven- tion based upon a wrong theory ; here as el.sewhere the dualism is artificial. S.\iav Ls identical with the OOAiu^ot of Mochus, the Xporof of Eudemus i.e., D^ij; 'the world ' (see Eccl. 3 1 1). The connection with Bab. Bdu is more doubtful. Cp Jensen, Kostiiol, 245 ; Hommel, Diesem. I'dlkcr, i. 370^, .4/1'/', 66, C/i.l, 255 ; Haupt, /Ititr. zur .-Issyr. i. 181 ; and see K/i,'iain. Whether Trihu (?np) also was from the first a mythic word, is uncertain. The combination of tuhQ and tx hQ may be artificial ; cp Jabal, Jubal, Tuba! (Gen. 4 20-22), .nwrCI nKip Oob 30 3), .lEPCI TOD^ (E7ek.(ii4).

  • .'/'/. 387 ; WRS in Burnett Lectures agrees.
  • Elsew-here Xov<7<o/>andhisbrothcraresaid to havediscovered

the use of iron, like the Hebrew Tubal-Cain, himself probably a divine demiurge (see Cainites, | 10). \VKS(Burnett Lectures) suggests that he may have invented iron to cut open the cosmic eggj (cp the arming of Marduk in the Creation-epic, Tab. iv.X This is clearly correct. K/M>ot in I'hilo's theogony makes apin| and I6(n> to fight against Ovpavo^. Originally, however, the weapon of the demiurge was the lightning ; see Jensen, A'otttui,

8. Egyptian[edit]

Egyptian mythology, which had perhaps an original kinship to the Babylonian ^ cannot be passed over, when we consider the close relations which long existed between Egypt and Canaan. The common E'gyptian belief was that for many ages the latent germs of things had slept in the bosom of the dark flood (personified as -N'ut or Nuit and Nun). How these germs were drawn forth and developed was a story told differently in the different nomes or districts.

At Elephantine, for instance, the demiurge was called Khnum ; he was the potter who moulded his creatures out of the mud of the Nile (which was the earthly image of Nun); or, it was also said, who modelled tlie world-egg. His counterpart at Memphis, the artizan god Ptah, gave to the light-god, and to his body, the artistically perfect form. At Hermopolis it was Thoth who made the world, speaking it into existence. 'That which flows fiom his mouth,' it is said, ' happens, and what he speaks, comes into being.' In the east of the Delta, a more complicated account was given. Earth and sky were originally two lovers lost in the piim;Eval waters, the god lying under the goddess. ' On the day a new god, Shu, slipped between the two, and seizing Niiit with both hands, lifted her above his head with outstretched aims.' Thus, among other less striking parallelisms, we have in Egypt, as well as in Babylonia and in Palestine, the primeval flood, the forcible separation of heaven and earth, and creation by a word, as elements in the conceptions of creation.-*

9. Iranian[edit]

The subject of Iranian parallelisms has been treated at great length by Lagarde,'* who argues for the dependence of the Priestly Writer as regards the order of the works and days, on a Persian system, against which, however, in the very act of borrowing from it, this writer protests. It is not probable, however, that the indebtedness of the Jews to Persia began so early ; it is not before the latter part of the Persian rule that the direct influence of Persian beliefs (themselves largely influenced by Babylonian) begins to be clearly traceable in Judaism. If we could venture to identify the .Vkta.xerxks (</.?'.) of Ezra with Artaxerxes II. , it would be easier to adopt Lagarde's view. In the present stage of critical inquiry, however, this course does not appear to be advisable. Nor is it at all certain that the Iranian belief in the creation of the world in six periods goes back so far as to the time of Artaxer.xes II. It is referred to only in the late book called Bundehish, and in one or two passages of the Yasna (19248) and the Vispered (74), which, on philological grounds, are regarded as comparatively late. Caland, indeed, has endeavoured to show^ that in the Yasht of the Fravashis (or protective spirits) a poetical reference is made to the creative works of Ahura Mazda, in the order in which these are given in the Bundehish.^ But what object can we have in tracing the Hebrew account to the Iranian, when we have, close at hand, the liabylonian story, from which the Iraniati is plaiilly derived? The reference, or at least allusion, to chaos in Gen. 1 2 is at any rate not Iranian ; why should the other features in the narrative be? It would no doubt be possible to give the epithet ' Iranian ' to the ascription of ideal perfection to the newly created world in the Hebrew cosmogony. But it is by no means necessary to do so. Such idealisation would tie naturally suggested by the thought that the evil now so prominent in the world cannot have lain within the purpose of the divine creator.* Besides, Jewish thinkers would inevitably be repelled by Zoroastrian dualism. The existence of the two primtfval antagonistic spirits is not indeed alluded to in the rock-cut inscriptions of Darius and Xerxes ; but the best scholars agree that it formed part of the old Zoroastrian creed; it is indeed expressly recognised in the Gathas (Yasna xxx. ). Ahura Mazda, the ' much-knowing Lord,' assisted by the six Amshaspands, is the creator of all the good things in the world. He is opposed, however, by Angra Mainyu, to whom the material and moral possession of the world is ascrilied. All that we can venture to suppose, is a possible indirect influence of the high Zoroastrian conception of .Ahura Mazda on the conce])tion of Yahwe formed by the Babylonian Jews. The tlctails of the Jewish Creation-story arose independently of Persia.

1 Second series (.l/.T).

2 Cp Hommel, Der bob. UrsprUng tier d^ypt. KuHur, 1892 (inter alia, the Egyptian Nun is connected with Bab. Anum, the god of the heavenly ocean).

3 See Btugsch. A't-/. u. My lit. der alten Aegypter, 22 107 161 and elsewhere ; Maspero, Dawn o/Civ. 128 146 ; Meyer, GA 74.

l^uriiii, ein Beitr. zur Ccsch. der Rel. ('87).

ThT-n 179-185 ('89].

6 The order is heaven, the waters, earth, plants, animals, mankind. Light, the light in which God dwells, is itself un- created an inconsistency due to Babylonian influence (see col. 950 n. i). In JobS87 there maybe a tendency to this belief (see 21 [<rD.

10. More primative mythologies[edit]

Points of contact with more primitive mythologies also are numerous. Abundant material will be found in Sir George Grey's Polynesian Mythology, and volume 6 of Waitz and Gerland's Atithropolos^ie der Naturi'olker. That dry land and animate life, but not matter, had a beginning, and that, before the present order of things, water held all things in solution, are opinions common among primitive races, and one of the most widely spread mythic symbols is the egg. The expression in Gen. 1 2, ' and the breath of Klohim was brooding'- (nsms) over the surface of the waters," has its best illustration (in the absence of the m3'thic original which probably represented the deity as a bird) in the common Polynesian representation of Tangaloa, the god of heaven, and of the atmosphere, as a bird which hovered over the ocean-waters, till, as it is sometimes said, he laid an egg-* (the world-egg). This egg is the world- egg, and we may suppose that ' in the earliest form of the [Hebrew] narrative it may have been said " the bird of ElGhim " ; " wind " appears to be an interpretation.* The forcible separation of heaven and earth (Gen. 1 7 10) is illustrated, not only by the interesting Egyptian myth mentioned above ( 8), but also by the delightful .Maori story told by Sir George Grey, and illustrated by Lang in a not less delightful essay (Cus/otn and Myth, ^^ ff. ). The anecdotal character of myths like these adds to their charm. It is only in the last stage of a religion that cosmogonies are systematised,

Greek endings, each the little passing-bell
That signifies some faith 's about to die,

though the death-struggle may be prolonged, and may issue in a higher life.

1 Gunkel less naturally thinks that in the formula, ' .\nd God saw that it was good,' there is an implied contrast to the evil state called idhu-hohii (chaos).

2 The word Pjm (Piel) occurs only twice, and both times (as in Syriac) of a bird's brooding. See Dt. 32ii, and Driver's note {^Deiit. 358, foot), also We. ProlA*) 395 (^EriTjer. 289, should be '^i^^ [Gratz]). Hence the Talmudists compared the divine spirit '\o a dove (cp Mt.3i6 Mk. 1 10 Lk. 822). The Phoe- nician myth, in the very late form known to us, h.is lost all trace of the bird-symbol ; it speaks only of a wind (nn).

3 Waitz-Gerland, --lM>rJ/^>/. 0241. In Egypt, too, the first creative act begins with the formation of an egg ; but it is the egg of the sun, and nothing is said of a bird which laid the egg (see Brugsch, Rel. n. Myth, der alten Aegypter, laijf.).

  • KB art. 'Cosmogony,' 1877. In i8v5 the same idea

occurred to Gunkel (SchUpf. 8). It is of course not a storm- bird that is meant; storm-birds are not uncommon : see, ?.^., the Babylonian myth of Adapa, in which the south wind is represented as having wings, and cp Ps. 18 10 [ii]). See WINDS

11. Fuller account of Gen. 1:1 -2:4a.[edit]

We have thus seen that the Creation-story in Gen. 1:1-2:4a is not, as Wellhauscn represents (above, 5), merely the pro<luct of reflection. It has a considerably mythic substratum. That substratum is mainly liabylonian ; but Egyptian and even Persian influence is not e.xcludcd. Indeed, for that singular passage Gen. 1 2, Egyptian influence, either direct or more probably (through Phoenician or Canaanitish mythology) indirect, seems to be suggested. We are thus brought face to face with a new problem. How is it that the Priestly Writer, with his purified theology, and his comparatively slight interest in popular tradition, should have adopted so nmch mythology as the basis of his statement that ' God created the heaven, the earth, and all that is in the e;irth, and hallowed the seventh day ' ?

12. Lost J. original[edit]

If the Yahwist had given a creation-story, corresponding to his Flood-story, the phenomena of Gen. 1 would not be so surprising. The Priestly Writer might thus Ixi taken to have acted consistently by giving an improved version of both traditional stories. But we have no Yahwislic creation-story, except indeeil in a fragmentary form, and though the lost portion of the cosmogonic preface to J's Paradise-story (based probably on a Canaanitish story) must have differed greatly from the cosmogony in Gen. 1, yet it is most improbable that P would spontaneously have thought of competing with J by producing a new semi-Babylonian cosmogony. In the next place it should be noticed that the Flood-story which J has borrowed, directly or indirectly, from Babylon, stands in Babylonian mythology in close connection with the creation-story ; the two events are in fact only separated by the ten antediluvian Chaldasan kings and an uncertain interval between creation and the foundation of a dynasty. The list of the ten kings is certainly represented, however imperfectly, by J's Cainite genealogy (see C.MMtks 3/!) ; it is probable therefore that J (as represented by the stratum called Js) originally had a creation-story with strong Babylonian affinities, and that P used this story as the basis of his own cosmogony.

Accepting this hypothesis, we are no longer surprised at the echoes of mythology in Gen. 1 i-'24<t. Underneath P we recognise the dc^bris of the cosmogony of Jo. The Priestly Writer did not go out of his way to collect Babylonian mythic data ; he simply adopted and adapted the work of a much earlier writer.

The hypothesis is due to the sagacity of Hudile,^ and the more clearly we discern the mythic elements in P's cosmogony, the more probable and indeed inevitable does the hypothesis become. That the old cosmogony has been lost, is much to be deplored ; but we can easily believe that it would have been too trying to devout members of the 'congregation' to have had before them in the same book the early and almost half-heathenish recension of a Can.aanitish- Babylonian cosmogony produced hyj.t and the much more sober but in all essentials thoroughly orthodo.f recast of this recension due to the Priestly Writer. Whether the latter found any reference to the sabbath in the older story which might seem to justify his insertion of the divine appointment of the sabbath, we do not know. Jensen finds a reference to the 17th and 14th days of the month in the fifth tablet of the epic (//. 17 yl), and Zimmern even inserts conjecturally 'on the sabbath ' (line 18) ; but whether any part of ihis obscure passage lay in any form before J._>, must remain uncert.ain.

1 P has in fact given his own Flood-story in which the tradi- tion of J is harmonised with P's theory of the history of cultus. See Deli GE, 4/

2 Urf:esch. 470-492; ZATW^yj ff. ['86]. Cp Bacon, Gtn. 335u^ r92]-

3 See, e.g., the legend of the (non- Aryan) Santals of Bengal in YinrAcr'i Rural Bengal, lyj/.


13. Development of the Epic.[edit]

The explanation given by Zimmern (above, 4) does justice, as no other e.vplanalion can do, to the circumstances and the ideas of the ancient Babylonians at a comparatively remote period. If it somewhat closely resembles the explanation of the Babylonian flood-story, this is no olijection. The post-diluvian earth may in a qualified sense lie called a new earth, and some mythologies expressly recognise that the present creation is rather a re-creation.' Still, it would be rash to suppose that even this explanation entirely accounts for the Babylonian myth. It may very possibly have Ijeen the theory of the most thought- ful of the Babylonian priests <jf those who did most for the systematising of the mythic details. The details, however, are themselves so [jeculiar that they invite a close examination and a fuller application of the com|)arative method. When this has iK-cn given we see that a long mythic development must have preceded the story of the creation epic, which is not like an isolated rock rising out of a vast plain, but like a tree which derives its sustenance from a rich vegetable mould, itself of very gradual formation. It is out of the mould of prinuL-val folklore that the great creation-myth lias drawn its life ; later ages recombined the old material, and gave the result a new meaning. Man invents but little ; the Babylonians, we may be sure, borrowed their dragon- myth, and much Ijesides, from earlier races, whose modes of thought lie outside of our |)resent field of study.

The comparative lateness of the 'epic' (the title is not inap])ropriate) which A.sur-bani-pal added to his royal library, is too obvious to reejuire argument ; liut it is plain also that it is based upon archaic materials. In particular the myth of Apsu and Tiamat can be traced as far back as to 1500 H. C. through inscriptions which refer to the ' abysses ' or ' seas ' of Babylonian temples (see Nkiicsiitan 2); these 'seas' were in fact trophies of the victory of the j'oung .Sun-god over the primaeval, cosmic sea, with which Tiamat is to be identified. In 1500 B.C. this myth was doubtless already of immemorial antiquity.

14. Parallel forms[edit]

Other less elaborate creation-stories are known to us - specimens of the very varied traditions which had at least a local circulation. Some are preserved in fragments of Berossus and Damascius, others have only lately been revealed to us by T. G. Pinches and his predecessor the lamented G. .Smith, whom Asur-bani-pal would certainly have recognised as worthy to have Ijcen one of the diipsiirri, or scribes, of his library, for it was he who was the discoverer and the first translator of Asur-bani- pal's great ' Creation-epic'

15. Berosian, etc.[edit]

The Greek-reading world owed its chief acquaintance with Babylonian mythology to a Greek-writing priest of Bel named Berossus (about 280 B.C.). It is unfortunate that we know his book XaXSaiVd only from very imperfect extracts ; but, considering his comijetence ami his unique oppor- tunities of consulting ancient documents, we cannot afford to neglect these extracts. One of the most important of them is a fragment of a cosmogony. Its resemblances to statements in both the creation-stories of Genesis, especially the first, are obvious. Among them we may mention (i) the description of the primaeval darkness and water, (2) the name Oa/ire - (cp. Ci.in), translated ddXoiCTtTa, which is given to the woman who ruled over the monsters of chaos,' and (3) the origin ascrilied to heaven and earth, which arose out of the two halves of the body of Gaure, cut asunder by Bel, while the creation of man by one of the gods (at Bel's connnand), who mixed with clay the blood which flowed from the severed head, not of Bel, but of the dragon Tiamat,* may be compared, or contrasted, with Gen. 2:7.

1 See Miiller, Frag. Hist. Griec. 2497; Budde, L'rgesck. 474-4S5 ; and cp Tieic, /i.AO n ; .Schr. COTlii/.

2 .\ccording to Kol)ertson Smith's happy restoration, ZA O33Q. The text h.as eoAarfl.

> Cp those monsters with the ' helpers of Rahab ' in Job 9 13 kV, and with the 'four beasts which came up from the ' great .sea ' (Dan. 7 2-4). The latter pas.sage is e.schatologicaI. The powers of evil will again be let loose and rule upon earth, but will at last be overcome (cp Antichrist, g 4).

  • The correction of iavrov (twice) in the text of BcrOs.sus (in

Syncellus, 52 y^) is due to Dindorf; but its importance was noticed first by Stucken {.istralmythcn 1 55). The text is translated by Lenormant, Lesorigittfs, 1 507, and Ciunkel, Schef>/. 19. Just before mention has been made of the formation of earth and lieaven uut (.f the two parts of 0/uop(w)(caT (with whom the reporter of HerOssus identities Tiamat). It stands to reason that the .severed head spoken of in connection with the creation of man must be Tiamat's, not that of the Creator, though Eusebius already had before liim the reading eawroO (see Hudde, Urgesch. 479). The passage is therefore not a statement of the kinship of God and man (WKS Kel. .9^w.(2) 43), though it is of course to be assumed that the god spoken of m.ide man in his own physical likeness (cp Maspero, Dawn of Cw. no). Strange to say, the name < Vop(")* .seems to liave come into the text of BerOssus by mistake. For most likely it is a cor- ruption of Marduk (Jastrow, AV'. 0/ Bab. and Ass. 5; cp J. H. Wright, /(AlOjijf.). The story, however, is only intelligible on the theory adopted in this note.


The theogony of Damascius' (6th cent. a.d. ) is at first sight of less importance. It shows, however, more clearly than the Iterossian fragment that the essential features of the story of the epic were well known, for the two cliicf mythic names mentioned by I )ama.scius viz., Tavdf and ATraiTWJ' are plainly derived from 'Piamat and Apsu, whilst the only begotten son of this couple is Mosvfiis. which corresponds to the obscure name Mummu in the epic (Tab. i, //. 4, 13 ; see above, 2, second note).

16. Three cuneiform stories[edit]

We now turn to the cuneiform records, among which the so-called Cuthaean cosmogony ( A'A'*-* 1 149^)- is not to be included,

{a} The chief of these is the great Creation-epic, of which the reader has already heard. Its place of origin was, of course, Babylon, as appears from the fact that its hero is the god Marduk, who was the patron of Babylon. Obviously this is only one of several kical ver.sions of llie primitive myth. In the original story Bel of NipiKir was, no doubt, the great god who overcame Tiamat, and prepared the way for creation. The jjriests of the other sacred cities, however, hud to protect the interests of their patron deities, and local Creation-myths were the result.

{b) In another version of the myth, the fight Ixjtween the divine champion and Tiamat occurs after the creation, and is waged for the deliverance of gods and men alike. ' Who will set forth (to slay) the dragon, to rescue the wide earth and .seize the royal power ? Set forth, O (jod SUH, slay the dragon, rescue the wide earth, and sci/e the royal power.' An extravagant account is given (in the manner of the Jewish Talmud) of the dragon's size, and it is said that when the dragon was slain its blood fiowcd night and day for three )-ear:s and three (si.\?) niontlis. Tliis may suggest the ultimate mythic origin of 'a linio, times, and a half in Dan. 127 Rev. 12 14.

(c) A much fuller and, if we assume its antiquity, more important narrative is the ' non-Semitic ' one translated by Pinches in 1890 from a bilingual text discovered by G. Smith.'* It is a mixture of creation- and culture- myth, and as a culture -myth we have already had occasion to refer to it (see Cainitks, 3). The creation-story is given only in allusions. It is stated that once upon a time ther-- was no vegetation, and ' all the lands' (of Babylonia ?) were sea. Then there arose a movement in the sea, and the most ancient cities and temples of Babylonia were created. Xe.xt the subordinate divine beings called Anunnaki were created, after which Marduk set a reed on the water, ' formed dust, and poured it out beside the reed. Then, ' to cause the gods to dwell in a delightful place,' he made mankind (cp Gen. 1 26 /'. ) w ith the co-operation of the goddess Aruru (whom we shall have to refer to again, col. 949, n. 4). We are allowed to infer that this waste of water had been converted into a fruitful plain by the industry of the newly created men. acting under the flirection of the gods ; and to these gods is ascril)ed the greatest of all human works, the erection of the sacred cities of Babylonia with their temples. Thus the most characteristic part of the Babylonian myth viz. , the fight of the sun-god with Tiamat is conspicuous by its absence. The reader should notice this, its it illustrates one of the two chief Hebrew cosmogonies (see lx;low, 20 [c]).


1 .See.Schr. COTl 12; Jen.sen, A'osnio/. 270^

  • See Zimmern, ZA, 1897, 317^ The .story relates to the

mythological history of a king of the primitive age, and is not cosmogonic.

i* See Zimmern's transl. in Gunkel, Schdfif. 417-419. The colophon a.ssigns this tablet also to the library of A5ur-bani-pal.

  • Pinches, !^/'(2; 109^ ; c^\\ov[\mfi\, Deutsche Rutidschau,

('91), pp. 105-114. A. Jeremia.s represents this and similar myths as artificial products, composed in a Babylonian interest (Beitr. zur Assyr. iii. 1 108) ; but the priests certainly did not invent altogether.

5 C"p the name ' land of reeds and canals," given to .S. Baby- lonia on the vases of Ksaganna, king of Erech, before 4';oo B.C. ; and see the illustration of gigantic Chaldican reeds, Maspero, Dawn o/Civ, 552.

17. Provisional result[edit]

The statement that the myth which underlies Gen. 1 is of Babylonian origin may now be supplemented thus.

1. The epic of .Asur-bani-pal's library stands at the height of a great mythic development. We cannot therefore presume that we have recovered the exact form of the Babylonian myth on which the narrative in Gen. 1 (or the earlier narrative out of which that in Gen. 1 has grown) is based.

2. Since there were several creation-stories in Baby- lonia, it is a priori probable that other stories tesides that referred to may, either as wholes or in parts, have inrtiienced tlic creation-stories in Palestine.

18. Date of naturalisation.[edit]

These reasonable inferences suggest two fresh inquiries. We have to ask, i. What is the earliest date at which the adoption of Babylonian myths by the Israelites is historically conceivable? and 2. What evidence have we of the existence of other Hebrew creation-myths than that in Gen. 1 1-24(7, some of which may even enable us to fill up incomplete parts of that narrative?

In reply to the first question it is enough to refer to recent studies on the Amarna tablets. The letters in Babylonian cuneiform sent by kings and governors of Western .\sia to Amen-hotep III. and Amen-botep I\'. prove that, even before the Egyptian conquests and the rise of the Assyrian kingdom, Babylonian culture had spread to the shores of the Mediterranean. ' Religious myths must have formed part of this culture."' It is therefore in the highest degree probable that Babylonian creation- and deluge -myths penetrated into Canaan before the fifteenth century B.C., and as soon as the Israelites Ixjcame settled in Palestine they would have opportunities enough of absorbing these myths.

At the same time it should hn noticed that there are also several other periods in Israelitish history when either an introduction of new or a revival of old myths is historically conceivable." The yfrj/ is the time of David and Solomon. The former appears to have had a Babylonian secretary (see SnAVSH.-\) ; the latter admitted into his temple a brazen ' sea ' (representing, as shown already, the primaeval tl'hom or tiamat) and a br.ozen serjjent (representing the dragon ; see N'khush- T.V.n). The second is the eighth and seventh centuries B.C., when Aramaean, Assyrian, and neo-Babylonian influences became exceedingly strong, and were felt even in the sphere of religion. The third and fourth are the exilic and post-exilic jjeriods, when (see e.g.. Job and Is. 40-55) there was a revival of mythology which the religious organisation of Judaism could neutralise but not put down.

1 Che. Nineteenth Century, Dec. 1891, p. 964.

2 This has been repeatedly shown by Cheyne (see e.g., fob and Solomon, 76-78 : Ot's. 202, 268-270, 279, 391); cp Gunkel, Schd/>/., which, in spite of some critical deficiencies (sec notice in Crit. Rev., July 1895), is too ingenious and instructive not to be recommended to ads'anced students.

20. OT references to other cosmogenies : pre-exilic[edit]

In replying to the second question (as to the evidence for other cosmogonic stories in the OT), we must of course be satisfied with very incomplete references. Such we can find both in pre -exilic and in post - exilic writings. Pre-exilic references occur in (a) Gen. 48:25, in (b) Judges 5:20, and especially in (c) the introduction to the Eden-storj- ; post-exilic in {d) Job 167/ (e) 3S4-11 (f) Prov. 822-31 (besides the passages on the DRAGON).

{a) The phrase in the Blessing of Joseph, ' the flood {tihom) couching' beneath ' (cp tien. 7"). is certainly the echo of a Tiamat-myth, and {b) the 'stars from their roads' (a Babyjonian phrase'^) in Judg. 6:20 of a myth like that in the fifth tablet of the epic.

(c) Gen. 2:4b-7 needs more special, even if brief, treatment. It runs thus, the original intrcxluction of the Eden-story having been abridged by the editor of J-E-P

'. . . when Yahwe [Elohim] made earth ami heaven. Now there were no bushes as yet upon the earth, and no herbage as yet sprouted forth, for Yahwc [Elohim]] had not causcd it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground, but floods used to come up from the earth and drench the whole face of the ground ; then Yahwe [Elohim] formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils breath of life, and man became a living being.'

Evidently this belongs to the second section of a mythological creation-story, and its details are all of Babylonian origin. Like Pinches' non-Semitic creation-story (alxave, 16 [(/J), it descriljcs, though with mythic exaggeration, the phenomena witnessed by the first colonists of Babylonia. The extremely small rain-fall in Lower Mesopotamia was remarked upon by Henxlotus (1 193) : conscc|uently, without the careful direction and control of the yearly inundation of the Euphrates and the Tigris the land would be either marsh or desert. Water-plants there must have been for a season even in the most desolate tracts ; but the myth-writers imagine a time when even reeds had not yet appeared, and when "all the lands were sea' (myth, /. to), since 'a flood used to come up (it seemed) from the earth' (Gen. 26). Ne.xt, the Hebrew writer tells us that Yahwe formed man out of dust (2?), just as, in the myth (//. 20/.), Marduk, with the help of the potter-goddess Aruru,-* makes man (no doubt) of clay, and somewhat as, in the story of Bcrossus (see alxjve, 1 5), one of the gods forms men out of earth moistened with Tiamat's (not Bel's) blood. The sequel in the Hebrew story has obviously l)een abridged. There must have been some reference to the peaceful subjugation of the yearly flood, otherwise how could Yahwe have planted a garden (or park) in Eden ' (v. 8) ? So in the old myth we hear next that Marduk made the Tigris and the Euphrates ' in their places," the reeds and the woods, and the green of the fields (//. 23-26). besides this affinity of its contents to the non-Semitic Creation -myth the Yahwistic passage has a striking resemblance in form to the first tablet of the Creation- epic, which, as it now stands, is of course a Semitic work.

t The name suggests a wild bea.st (Gen. 499). The same epithet {rdbis) is given to Nerjjal, the god of the nether world in the Gilgame$-epic (Tab. xii., in Jeremia.s, I'orsUUungen, 69).

  • ni'0.'2=Bab. alkdte, plur. of alaktu {^^ = ^^. Cp }a

kakkahiini samdtiie al-katsunu ' the way of the stars of heaven ' (Del. Ass. //ir/,' 63/.).

  • Ass. r/u ((du), 'flood, waves, high tide' (so Frd. Del.,

Lyon, Hommel). The cylinder inscription of Sargon states that he planned gre.it irrigation works for desert lands, opening the dams, and causing the waters to flow everywhere ki gitis edi, ' like the exuberance of a flood.'

  • Aruru probably means ' potter ' (Jensen). In the Oilgame.?-

epic (8 34) this goddess kneads Kabani out of clay (titu). The Yahwi.st puts 'dust' (tpy) for 'clay' (-en): but we find the latter word in Job 336, "Bsnp "OhO (the same root mji is used in the epic).

5 Cp Maspcro, Dawn o/Civ. 659^

21. Post-exilic.[edit]

On (d) JobL^.7/, (e) 384-11, (f) Prov. 822-31 we must l)e brief

In (d) we have apparently a reference to a more heroic irpuirbyovoi than the Adam of the Yahwist (like the Yima of the Avesta and the Maui of New Zealand mythology, and somewhat like the Adapa of a Babylonian myth),' who shared the privileges of the divine or semi-divine members of the council of Eloah. This first man was an embodiment of absolute Wisdom, and it is noteworthy that the same word S^^ 'to be brought forth,' is ased of this wondrous personage and of the Wisdom w ho is descriljed in Prov. 8, and that, equally with the Wisdom of Proverbs, the first man spoken of by Eliphaz came into existence l)efore the hills. This myth h;is a very Babylonian appearance, and m.^y conceivably Ijelong to the same cycle as the myth of i;noch ( - .Noah, the ' first man * of the second age of the world), who was said to have derived his wisd<jm fronj his intercourse with angels.

In (e) Job:i84-ii we find the singular notion {v.^) that the stars are older than the earth. In the creation-epic the creation of the stars as ' stations for the great gods' (see Sr.\KS, 3 </|, follows on the subjugation of the dragon of chaos and the creation of heaven and earth (out of the carcase of Tiamat). The Hebrew poet, however, does not jxirhaps consider this story, or even its purified offshoot in (ien. 1 , to Ix- a worthy representation. Heaven and its stars must always have existefl for Yahwe and the ' holy ones ' to dwell in (cp Is. 2619 'dew of lights' and the endless lights' where .-Vhura dwells, Hn the Avesta). He admits, indeed, that the ocean once on a lime resisted Yahwe, and was forced into oljedience (cp Ps. IOI6-9). Of a separation of upper and lower waters, however, he has nothing to say.

In (f) Prov. 822-31 we find the same careful restriction of the mythological element. The mysteri<jus caprices of the ocean still suggest a prima-'val rebellion on its part against Yahwe ; but this is descril)ed in the simplest maimer. Of a tiiue when chaos reigned supreme we hear nothing. Yahwe and Wi.sdom were together Ix^-fore the earth was.- In fact the new qu;isi-mythic representation of Wisdom was incompatible with the antique Babylonian cosmogony.

22. Prophetical and historical writers[edit]

These passages seem to show that there was a great variety of view in the post-exilic period respecting the best way of imagining creation. Some writers seem to have have refused the dragon-myth (except in the palest form) ; others seem to have found it symbolically useful. To this we shall return presently ( 23). There is a remarkable phenomenon respecting the pre-exilic time which has a prior claim on our attention. Though both J1 and J2 have a cosmogony (g 12), there is an almost complete silence respecting such myths in the pre-exilic prophetic literature. There is, in fact, only one passage (.Am. 93) that remotely suggests the existence of a creation-myth. This obscure p;issage has been considered elsewhere (.see SERPENT, 3/ ), and it may suffice here to point out that mythology did not come naturally to the early Israelites, and that one great aim of the prophets was to recall their countrymen to old Israelitish ways : Solomon who affected foreign fashions was no true Israelite. We need not ve surprised, therefore, at the scanty references in the greater prophets to such figures of tlie Babylonian and Canaanitish myths as the Dragon, the Cherubim, the Seraphim. It is to a historical writer that we are indebted for the information that there was a brazen serpent, symtx)lising proliably the Dragon (see NEHUSTAN, 2), in Solomon's temple. At a later period (post-exilic) references to the Chaos-dragon, to the subjugation of the prim;eval sea by Yahw^, and to some other features of mythic tradition, alx)und. Nor was the spring of mythic imagery dried up even in still later times, as the apocalyptic writings show. .See DRAGON, RAHAB, SERPENT, Antichrist, Akomination of Desolatio.n, Abyss, Armageddon, Apocalypse.

1 So, in Babylonian mythology, the sky-god Anu dwells in the highest region of the universe, in the north towards the pole, where no storm can dim the perpetual brilliance (see Jensen, Kosiiiol. 651). It is the ' heaven of Anu," in which the inferior gods take refuge at the Deluge (Deluge-story, /. 108).

2 The text of this fine passage is not free from corruption. See Che. Jewish Rel. Life, Lect. iv., and cp Gunkel, Schdjif.

23. General result.[edit]

If the above presentation of facts be correct, it is a mistak<3 to assert that the Israehtes had, from their entrance into Canaan onwards, a fairly complete creation-myth, in which Yainve tooit the place of Marduk, and tflioin, liwyathan, tannin, rahab, etc., that of the dragon Tiamat. This theory has indeed l)een vigorously defended by CJunkel ; but it is liable to grave critical objections. It is a significant fact that .\nios (see last ) has little if any comprehension of the mythical serpent (dm), and that the Israelites who worshipixxl in Solomon's temple completely misunderstood the true meaning of ' Nehush- tan,' while from the time of the Babylonian ' e.xile ' un- mistakable references to the dragon-myth abound. This implies, not of course that there was not previously a Hebrew dragon-myth, but that a revival of mythology had brought tlie old mytli into fresh prominence. It is probable that lx.'fore the 'exile' the cosmogonic myths of the Israelites at large were in a very fragmentary state, and that if the myth on which the creation-story of Gen. 1 is based then existed (as it most probably did), it was uncomprehended by the people, and had no influence ui)()n their thoughts. It appears, however, that, from the last pre-exilic century onwards, increased contact with Syria and (especially) Babylonia brought about a reawakening of the mythological interest, and that the mytlis which at a very early date had been derived by the Israelites from the Canaanites, were revived by religious writers (not prophets, at any rate in the proper sense of the woril) and adapted to general use. This was done, sometimes with a rougher, sometimes with a gentler hand, but always without any dangerous concession to anticiuated, naturalistic religion a grand result, which the Babylonian priests, noble as their own higher religion was, never accomplished. To inquire into the cause of this success Ijelongs to the history of Jewish religion.

24. Gen. 1:1-2:4a a poem?[edit]

The question has been raised whether Gen. 1:1-2:4a is, or is not, a poem. The theory was first propounded by d'Eichthal, Texte primifif du premier recit de la Creation ('75), who found a true poem, composed of perfectly regular strophes, which had Ixjen distorted by the editor {2,2 f.). Briggs (Old Test. Student, April '84) added to this the discovery of a metre (five tones in each line with ca;sura). The possibility of this is established by the undoubted existence of metre in the Babylonian creation-epic (see Del. W'eltschopf.) \ but unless we had before us Jj's form of the creation-story, how could we expect to restore without arbitrariness the true Hebrew metre?

25. Doctrine of creation late.[edit]

II. Conceptions of Creation. It has l)een shown above that there circulated in Judah in the regal period at least two mythic stories of creation (s 22), both of which were directly or indirectly of Babylonian origin. It is still with the former that we are specially concerned for the present. That there is no clear reference to this myth in the fragmentary remains (cp below, 29) of the pre-exilic prophets, is, no doubt, a fact which has to Ix; accounted for ; but when we consider the Canaanitish- Babylonian origin of the myth we cease to be surprised at it. Certainly Isaiah and the other great prophets believed in the creatorship of Yahwe ; but they could not have given their sanction to even a simplified edition of any of the grotesque and heathenish myths of the Canaanites and the Babylonians. Why, then, it may be asked, did they not, like the Second Isaiah (Is. 40-48), preach the creatorship of Yahw6 without any mythic ornamenta- tion ? The answer is, that their object was not to teach an improved theology, but to dispel those illusions which threatened, they believed, to involve good and bad Israelites alike in one common ruin. The pre-exilic prophets were preachers of judgment : the truth the\- had to announce was that Yahwe was not merely the god of Israel, but also the moral governor of the world, who would punish all guilty nations, and more especially the most favoured nation, the Israelites. It was for the late exilic and the post-exilic prophets and other religious writers, whose function was, not so much threatening, as edification and consolation, to tlraw out the manifold applications of that other great truth that Yahwe is the creator of the world.

26. Pre-exilic traces.[edit]

On the pre-exilic conception of creation, therefore, not much can be said. There were, no doubt, hymns to Yahwe as the creator ; but the divine creatorship was not a central truth in that early age, and could not have been expressed in a form congenial to the later worshippers. We have, however, a fragment of a song in the Book of Jashar (1 K. 8:12-13), which the narrator who quotes it ascribes to Solomon. With the help of the LXX we may restore it thus :

The sun did Yahwe settle in heaven.
But he said he would himself dwell in dark clouds.
I have buih a lofty house for thee,
A settled place for thy perpetual habitation.!

Here Yahwe is descrited as the creator of the sun. He is therefore greater than the solar deity Marduk, the creator in the Babylonian cosmogony. None of the heavenly bodies serves Yahwe as a mansion ; dark clouds are round about him (cp Ps. 972 18 ii, Vsi;; again). It is of his condescension that he dwells in Solomon s temple, which will therefore be as enduring as the sun in the firmament (cp Ps. 7869). Considering that Solomon (it would seem) put up in the temple a trophy of Yahwe's victory over the Dragon of chaos (see Nkhlsii- tan), it is conceivable, though scarcely probable, that a hymn to the creator which contained these four lines was actually written for use at the dedication of the first temple. At any rate, even if not of the Solomonic age, the fragment is presumably pre-exilic, and confirms the idea that the creation of the world ( /. e. , the world know n to the Israelites) was early spoken of as a proof of Yahwe's greatness. Nor can we be surprised that some scanty reference to Yahwe as the Maker kot' i^ox^v is traceable in pre-exilic proper names (see N.XMK.s, 30, and cp the Bab. and Ass. names Sin-bani. Bel-bani, Bel-ibni).

27. II Isaiah[edit]

It was the Second Isaiah, however, so far as we know, who made the creatorship of Yahwe a fundamental Jewish belief. Is. 40 gives the key to the later doctrine of creation. Living after the collapse of the ancient state, and amidst new scenery and other men, gifted moreover with a tenderly devout spirit and a rich poetic imagination, the Second Isaiah felt what was needed to regenerate Jewish religion a wider view of the divine nature. To him Yahwe was far too high for the common sacrificial cultus, far too great to be merely a local deity ; both nature and mankind owed their existence to Yahwe. He had indeed chosen Israel for a special possession ; but it was for purely moral ends. There- fore Israels fall could not be for ever ; Israel's and the world's creator would certainly, for liis own great ends, restore his people. Let Israel then look up to him as the creator of all things, and therefore also as the Redeemer ('?i<i) of Israel. However the Second Isaiah does not stop here. He rectifies some of the notions which were presumably current among the Israelites old notions, now awaking to a fresh life under Babylonian influence. Israel was, no doubt, one of the youngest of the nations ; but Yahwe was not, like Marduk, according to the old myth, one of the youngest of the gcxls ; ' before me (Yahw6) no god was made' (Is. 43 10).

1 The passage is given in a fuller form in bal after v. 53 (than in MT), with an introductory and a closing formula. The former runs, ' Then spike Solomon concerning the house when he had finished building it"; the latter, 'Surely it is written firl ^i/3Aio Tijt i(i5^9.' In line i read e(rn)<r'= j'2.n, with l-, rather than iywopiatv which Klo. prefers, and in line 2 iv yi^w t.\L] rather than yvi^v. Cp Jasher, Book of, 3.

Nor could it be right either to make an image of Yahw6 (as if he were no better thaii the sun-god Marduk), or to say that other KlOhim hel[>ed Yahwe (as they were said to have heljxid Marduk) in the work of creation (Is. 40 i8, etc. 4424). Whether there was really a chaos at the beginning of all things, he docs not expressly say. He does tell us, however, that there is nothing chaotic (tuhu) in the earth as it came from Yahwe ; the inference from which is, that lK)th in history and in prophecy Gods dealings are clear and comprehensible, and de- signed for the gofwl of man ( Is. A'> 18/. ). I Ic ])oinledly declares that Yahwi not only formed light but also made darkness (Is. 457), whereas the old cosmogony of J2 (see 12) ascrilxjd only light, not darkness, to the creative activity o( IClohim.

The Second Isaiah does not assert that the creator- ship of Yahwe is a new truth. .Ml that he professes to do is to \mfold the meaning of one of the great truths of priin;Kval tradition (Is. 40 21 ; see SHOT). His view of creative activity is a large one. (rcatorship consists, he thinks, not only in bringing into cxister.ce tliat which before was not, but also in the direction of the course of history (41 20 458 487). He affirms that both men and things are "called' into existence by Yahwe (41 4; cp 4O26 4426 4813) ; but he dfx;s not refuse to speak also of Yahwe's hand (4813 cp 4022, etc.), or of his breath (443 cp 40 24), as the agent of production, l^ase and irresistibteness are two leading characteristics of Yahwe's action, and hence it is that the Second Isaiah prefers (though less distinctly than the I'riestly Writer) the conception of creation by the voice to that t)f creation by the hand. Creation by the voice is also a specially characteristic idea of Zoroastrianism ; ^ but the Jews prob- ably derived the idea, directly or indirectly, not from Persia but from Babylonia. No more striking expression of it could be wished for than that contained in the following lines from the Creation-epic (Tab. iv. ) :

Then in their midst they laid a garment,
To Marduk their first-born thus they spoke :
Let thy rule, O Lord, surpass that of the gods,
Perishing and becoming - speak and let it be !
At the opening of thy mouth let the garment perish ;
Again command it, then let the garment reappear !
He spoke with his mouth, and the garment perished ;
Again he conmianded it, and the garment reappeared.2

28. P.[edit]

Did the Priestly Writer really Ixilieve in a pre-existent chaos, out of which the world was made? Or is the retention of chaos in his cosmogony simply due to educational considerations? Considering the line taken by the Second Isaiah, and still more by the later wise men, we may venture to class the reference to chaos in Gen. 1 2 with those other concessions to i popular superstition which make Ezra's law-book an ecclesiastical compromise rather than an ideal standard."* A similar remark applies to the other mythic features in the cosmogony ; all that the Priestly Writer really cares for are the religious truths at the base of the story, such as the creatorship of Yahwe, the divine image (surely not, according to P, physical) in man, and the fundamental cosmic importance of the sabbath.

1 The Avesta, however, connects creation with the recital of a certain potent formula called Ahuna-vairya (Honover). Gen. 1 knows nothing of sp>ells.

2 Del. M'eltschSf/., 104 ; Zimmern, in Ounkcl's SchSp/., 410/ > But cp Smend, A T Rel.-gcsch.'^) 457.


29 Later writings.[edit]

The later writings show that the teaching of the Second Isaiah and the Priestly Writer was not thrown away. Two of the most beautiful psalms (8 104) are suggested by the priestly cosmogony, and in Ps. 339 1485 creation by the word of Go<l, without any mention of chaos, is affirmed with emphatic conciseness. The fragments of the older prophetic writings were deficient in references to creation ; the post-exilic adapters and supplementers of prophecy have remedied this defect (see r ". , Am. 4 13 Jer. 423-26 .')22^ 10 12 31 35-37), whilst the Book of Job is pervaded by the belief in the Creator. The Praise of Wisdom, too (Prov. 822-31), gives a grand picture of the activity of the CJreator, who re<)uires no sabbath-rest, for he cannot lie fatigued.' Nothing is s;id here, or in the Hook of Job,'- of chaos or pre-existent matter. The first of the late didactic writers who distinctly asserts the creation of the world out of matter is the author of the Hook of Wisdom ' ( 1 1 1 7 Kriaaaa. ibv Kba\u>v i^ d/i6p<pov D\r}t). He may no doubt be said to I'lato- nize ; but Philo Ix-'fore him, not indeed without some hesitation, held the Ijelief of the eternity of matter,* and he appears to have been influenced \>y contemjxjrary Jewish interpretations of Gen. 1 2. In 2 Mace. , however (a Pharisa.'an record), we find the statement that the world and its contents were made oiiK (^ 6vtwv (72E). a guarded phrase,* which reminds one of Hcb. 11 3, and is at any rate incompatible with a belief in i/xop<pos i\r] ; and, in two fine passages in A/>oc. Bur. (Charles), Go<l is addressed thus, ' O I hou . . . that h:u>t called from the begimiing that which did not yet exist, and they obey thee' (lil4). and 'with a word thou quickenest that which was not' (488). Parallel passages in NT are Rom. 4 17 Heb. II3 (where, however, fii] tie (paivofUywy is not to Ix" confused with (k fxi] <f>aii>ofi(vwi>).^ We nmst not, however, overlook the fact that in one of the latest books a distinct reference to chaos occurs. In 2 Pet. 85 the earth is described as ' conjpacted out of water ... by the word of God. ' Here " water ' obviously means that portion of the chaotic waters which was under the firmament ; out of this, accortling to ( Jen. 1 6, the dry land emerged at the fiat of Yahw^. The importance given to the Logos in Jn. 1 3, and to the Son of God in Heb. I2, as the organ of the divine creative activity, is best treated in another connection (see Logos). On the doctrine of the re-creation of heaven and earth, see Delugk, 19.

30. words for 'create'[edit]

K"13 (of which Ass. banu, 'to make, create,' is a phonetic modification)^ is a characteristic word of P (Gen. 1 often, 2 ^/. __ , -'i/.; <P TTOielv [.\K1,1, but in 2 4 ot tyeVero [AEI,]); also cp Is.40.0ii (twenty times; tp various renderings). Di. (</. 17) wishes to claim K13 for J-E ; but Ex. 34 10 Nu. 1(5 30 have been manipulated by R. In Gen.67 'riJ<"l3 (f^"" 'n"C"i") is assigned to R by Di. himself. Is. 4 5 and Am. 4 13 are interpolations (see Amos, 8 12, Is.mah, ii., 5). Jer. 31 22 occurs in a section written or rewritten late. 1)1.4 32 (where }<^3 staniis of the creation of man) is hardly pre-e.\ilic (cp Dkctekcj.no.mv, $ 19). In spue of these facts, it would be unwise to say that the narrative in J (see above, g 1 2) cannot have contained the word K-13, correspond- ing to Ass. hani'i.

."!jp 'to f;ibricate, make, create,' Gen. 14 19 22 ('creator of heaven and earth ' ; ix; e<cTi<Ti' |.M >I.l), Dt. 32 6 (' thy father that made thee"; but (C7TJ<TaTo [li.M' LJ); Prov. S 22 (Vahwes creation of Wisdom, fKTKTfv (Hn.\]): Ps. 13i 13 ('thou didst create my reins'; but itTTi<rai [Hk.XRT]). All these passag-.s are late; but yp is probably a divine title (see Cain, 5), and Eve, in Gen. 4 I, says (probably) ' I have produced, created (but <cn}<ra- /it).- [ADEL]), a man like (the Creator) Yahwe' (nin* nS^S?). npy, ' to make,' Gen. '24 18 (I), Is. 437. i^' 'to form,' Gen. 2 7 19 0) l.s. 43i7 Jer. 10 16 Am. 4 13 Zcch. 12 i.

H. Z. , s 1-4 ; T. K. C. , 5-30.

1 Cp Jn. 5 17, and contrast Gen. 2 2.

2 Except in the faint allusion (Job 38 8). The same wTiter would almost seem to have believed in pre-existent light (v. 7). See above, 8 21 ()

' See Drummond, Philo Judtrus, 1 188, who also refers to 4iTV7roOTo (l'J6) as implying the same doctrine.

Drummond, o/. cit. 1 2tyijf.

8 Vg. boldly renders here ouic f ovntv by ex nikilo. So in Pastor Jitrmtr, 2i, the old translator gives ex nikilo for ck ToO fit) a\rt<n.

Vg. boldly, ex intnsibilibus (cp (jen. 1 2, ).

7 Barth, ZD.MG, 18S7, p. 640.

8 Cp Frankel, PaldstiH. Exegete, 36 ; Geiger, Urschrt/l, 343^

CREDITOR[edit]

(HL"]), 2 K. 4 i. See LAW AND JUSTICE, 5; 16.

CRESCENS[edit]

(kphckhc [Ti. WH^}, a companion of Paul who had gone to Galatia (2Tim. 4:10). In the Ap. Coitstl. (746) he is named, as ' bishop of the churches of Galatia,' among those bishops who had been ordained in the lifetime of the apostles. There is some authority (X C, etc. Ti. ) for reading raWi'av instead of FaXaTia^ in 2 Tim. 4 10. Gallia is a natural emendation, possibly a right interpretation, of Galatia ' in accordance with the later usage as regards Gaul, both Galatia and Gaul having in St. Paul's time usually, if not always, alike been called TaXaria by the Greeks ' (WH). Cp GALATIA.

In the list of the seventy apostles compiled by the Pseudo-Dorotheus (see Chron. Pasc/i., Bonn Kd., 2 121) Crescens is enumerated as ' bishop of Chalcedon in Gaul ' {\aX.Kr)66vo<; rrj^ iv TaAAio); in that drawn up by Pseudo-Hippolytus he appears as "Crisces bishop of Carchedon in Gaul.' According to the Pseudo-Sophronius, who enumerates Timothy, Titos, Crescens, and the Ethiopian eunuch immediately after the twelve apostles, he was founder of the church of Vienne in Gaul. The Latin church commemorates him on June 27 ; the Greek on July 30 (along with Silas, Andronicus, and Epaenetus). See Lipsius, A/'ol.-r. . l/'.-Crsr/i.