Encyclopaedia Biblica/Destruction (mount of)-Doe

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

Contents

DESTRUCTION, MOUNT OF[edit]

(n'n;**?2n-nn ; TOY opoyc TOY ArncoAO [!'>] x. o. t. mocoG r-^*'"'-]' t. O. AAACCCOiO [I-]. 2 ^s- -3ij, R\'"'.' ), a name so read by the later Jews on account of the idolatrous ' high places ' spoken of. Tradition identified the mountain with the Mount of Olives (so Tg. . followed by AVe). and the name has been supposed to have a double meaning ' mount of oil ' (cp -\ram. ntrc) and ' mount of destruc- tion ' (so Rashi, Buxtorf ). A much better explanation can be given.

Hoffmann (Z.-f 7"/?' 2 175) and Perles {AnaUkUn, 31) prefer to read "nc'^rtnii, 'mount of oil," with some MSS; D'ncs will then l>e a deliberate alteration of the text. Considering, how- ever, that we have no evidence for a Heb. word ,-ircD 'oil,' it is better to suppose that the 'mount which is on the east of Jeru- salem' (i K. 11 7) was anciently called, not only 'the ascent of the olives' (2 S. I&30), and in a late prophecy 'the mount of olives ' (Zech. 14 4), but D'inne'3n~in (' mount of those who worship'), of which flTiC'pn'ln would be a purely accidental corruption. Cp 2 S. 15 32, 'And when David had come to the summit, where men are wont to worship the deity' (mmc" '\CK C'^'I^N'? CC')- which comes near proving that this view is correct. Observe, too, that the Mt. of Olives appears to be once referred to as the ' hill of God ' (Is. 10 32 emended text). See Nou.

Brocardus (1283 A.D. ) gives the name A/ofis Off'cn- sionis (cp Vg. ) to the most southern eminence of the Mt. of Olives, because Solomon set up there the image of Moloch ; on the northern summit, afterwards called Mons Scandali, he placed the idol of Chemosh. Quares- mius, however (^ciixa 1630 A. D. ), calls the southern ridge Alons Offcn ionis et Scandali. Grittz, after a full dis- cussion, pronounces in favour of the northern summit, i.e., the ' Viri (ialihei ' {MGWJ, '73, p. 97 J^.) ; so also Stanley {SP 188, n. 2). No doubt this view is correct ; Solomon would certainly prefer an eminence already consecrated by tradition.

The phrase 'mount of destruction' is found also in Jer. .'il 25 as a symbolic term for Babylon (EV 'destroj'ing mountain'). , T. K. C.

DEUEL[edit]

(PS-iyi), Xu. 1 14 ; see Rklkl (3).

DEUTERONOMY[edit]

1. Name and contents.[edit]

The name comes ultimately from the Greek translation of Dt. 17:13, in which the words ^ ^^'""^is nx-TH minn nrj'o. 'the duplicate {i.e. , a copy) of this law', are rendered t6 SevTepovj/jLiof tovto. ' As a title of the book, SfVTepovo/niov (without the article) occurs first in Philo.- Philo takes the word to mean 'second or supplementary legislation,' and more than once cites the book as 'Eirivofjiis.^ Others, with Theodoret, explaiit the name, ' repetition, recapitulation of the law.' Criticism has shown that Deuteronomy is neither a supplement to the legislation in E.xodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, nor a n'suiiit! of it ; but to modern critics also it is the Second Legislation, an expansion and revision of older collections of laws such as are preserved in Ex. 21-23 34.

Deuteronomy contains the last injunctions and admonitions of Moses, delivered to Israel in the land of Moab, as they were about to cross the Jordan to the conquest of Canaan ; and, with the exception of chaps. 27 31 34, and a few verses elsewhere, is all in the form of address. It is not, however, one continuous discourse, but consists of at least three distinct speeches (1-4 40, 5-26, 28, 29/.), together with two poems recited by Moses in the hearing of the people (32/.). The narrative chapters record doings and sayings of Moses in the last days of his life, and are more or less closely connected with the speeches. Besides this unity of situa- tion and subject there is a certain unity of texture ; the sources from which the other books of the Hexateuch are chiefly compiled (JE, P) are in Deuteronomy recog- nisable only in the narrative chapters, and in a few scattered fragments in the speeches ; a strong and distinctive individuality of thought, diction, and style pervades the entire book.

1 Cp also Josh. 8 32.

^ Ltx- Alleg. 3, g 61; Quod Deus imtnut. % 10. See Ryle, Philo and Holy Scripture, xxili/ The corresponding Hebrew title, ,Tiin rwi'a "IBp. is found occasionally in the Talmud and Midr.ish as well as m the Massora.

3 Quis reruvt div. heres, % 33. See Ryle, as above.

Cp Hbxatflch, Law LrrERATURE, Israel, g 37/

6 Athanas., Chrysost., Jerome.

2. Book found in Temple.[edit]

It was observed by more than one of the fathers that Deuteronomy is the book the finding^ of which in the temple gave the impulse to the reforms of the eighteenth year of Josiah (622-621 B.C.).' In conformity with the prescriptions of the newly discovered book, the king not only extirpated the various foreign religions which had been introduced in ancient or recent times, together with the rites and symbols of a heathenish worship of Yahwe, but also destroyed the high places of Yahwi, desecrating every altar in the land except that in the temple in Jerusalem (2 K. 22/ ). In Deuteronomy, and there alone, all the laws thus enforced are found ; the inference is inevitable that Deuteronomy furnished the reformers with their new model. This is confirmed by the references to the book found in the temple as ' the law-book ' (2 K. 228 II ; cp 2324/ ) and ' the covenant book' (232/ 21),

The former of these names is found in the Pentateuch only in the secondary parts of Dt. (28 6i 2Si 20 30 10 31 24 26), and, like the phrase this law' (48 2738 '29 29), signilies \)l. or the deuteronomic legislation exclusively; 'covenant book' is an appropriate designation for a book in which the covenant of Yahwe with Israel (see Cove.nant, 6) is an often recurring theme (5 2/. 17 2 2'J i 4 13 23 21*9 12 14 21 25, etc.).'

That the book read by Shaphan before Josiah was Deuteronomy has been inferred also from the king's consternation (2 K. 22ii _^), which seems to show that the law was accompanied by such denunciations of the consequences of disobedience as are found especially in Dt. 28.

The opinion, once very generally entertained, that the book found by Hilkiah w,as the whole Pentateuch, is no longer tenaVjle. In addition to arguments of more or less weight drawn from the narrative in Kings, that the whole Pentateuch would hardly be described as a law- book ; that a book as long as the Pentateuch could not be read through twice in a single day (2 K. 228 10); that, with the entire legislation before him, the king would not have based his reforms on deuteronomic laws exclusively, recent investigation has proved that the priestly legislation in the Pentateuch was not united with Deuteronomy till long after the time of Josiah. 2 Modern critics are, therefore, almost unanimous in the opinion that the law-book, the discovery and the intro- duction of which are related in 2 K. 22/ (see next g), is to be sought in Deuteronomy ; and they are very gener- ally agreed, further, that the book was written either in the earlier years of Josiah, or at least under one of his next predecessors, Manasseh or Hezekiah (see 16).

3. Account in 2 K. 22-23[edit]

The soundness of these conclusions has recently been impugned by several French and German scholars (Seinecke, Havet, d'Kichthal, Vernes, Horst),^ on the ground, partly of sweeping doubts concerning the trustworthiness of 2 K. 22/, partly of peculiar theories of the composition of Dt. These theories cannot be discussed here ; but the great importance of 2 K. 22-23, in the modern construction of the history of Hebrew literature and religion, makes it necessary to examine briefly the historical character of those chapters. _ It is generally agreed that the account of Josiah 's reforms, as it lies before us, is the work of an author of the deuteronomic school, who wrote after the destruction of Jerus.alem. If this author h.-xd drawn solely upon oral tradition, he might well have derived his informa- tion from eye-witnesses of the events of 621 ; but it seems to be demonstrable that in 223-2824 he made use of an older written source, a contemporary account of Josiah's reign, which was probably included in the pre-exilic history of the kings. This narrative was wrought over and enlarged by the exilic writer ; in particular, the origmal response of Huldah, which was not con- firmed by the event, w.xs superseded, after the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 B.C., by a wholly diff"erent one, in which the judgment is represented as inevitable (22 15-20 ; cp 23 26/) ; 23 15-20, also, is generally recognised as a legendarj- addition ; but, notwithstanding these changes, the outlines of the origin.al account can be reconstructed with reasonable confidence, and it appears to be in all respects deserving of credence.4 See Kings.

1 Ex. 21-23, often called by modern scholars 'The Covenant Book '(see 24 7), cannot be meant; for, so far from putting the high pl.ices under the ban, these laws assume the existence and legitimacy of many local sanctuaries (see 21 6 23 14 ^ ; cp 26 24).

2 See Canon, 23/, and the articles on the several books of the Pentateuch ; also Hkxateuch, Law Literatcre.

8 For the titles, see below, 33 (2).

  • See St. GVI 1 649^ ; Kue. Ond.!^) 1 417/, cp 407.

4. Josiah's Dt. chaps 5-26:28[edit]

The historical evidence proves only that the law-book which was put into force by Josiah contained certain deuteronomic laws concerning religion, not that it comprised the whole of the present Book of Deuteronomy. A superficial examination of the book shows that the latter cannot have been the case.

Chaps. 31-34 are composite. Besides the two poems, 821-43 and 33, they contain the links which connect not only Dt. but also the narralives of J, E, and P, in Nu. with Josh. Chap. 27. also in narrative form, may, both on external and on internal erounds, with equal conlidcnce be set aside.' Wh.it remains (l-Ji! is-aO) is all in the form of address; but even this is not n unit, a-s is shown by the fresh superscriptions in & i 1*2 i 20 a, and the formal closes in 20i6-ip and 21i I2869); in particular, 1 1-4 and 444-49 ^re completely parallel introductions, which strictly exclude each other. Ckips. &-'J0 contain no allusion to a former discourse such as 1-4 40 ; nor do the latter chapters form a natural introduction to f>--'l or TJ-l'li. Chaps. 1-4 are dls- tinBuishcil also by sliyht, but not insiKnific.-int, jKCuliarities of style, and more decisive dilTerences of historical representation. The short prophetic discourse, '^^/., l>ears all the marks of a later addition to the Inxik ; 21 i [2S69) is a formal subscription ; the following chapters have their own brief superscription ; the tone of 'ifif. Is noticeably different from that of the exhortations and warnings in the body of the lK>ok.

Most recent critics conclude that the original Deuteronomy contained only the one long speech of Moses, 5-2G "JS, to which 445-49 is the introduction and ii9i [2869] the conclusion.

5. Not simply chaps. 12-29.[edit]

Others, urging that the Ixxik put into the hands of Josiah is uniformly described as a law-book, infer that it is to be sought in Dt. 12-26 alone ; 5-11 as well as 1-4. is an introduction subsequently prefixed to the original Dculerotuimy by another hand. This conclusion is confirmed by tlie way in which the author of 5-11 dilates on the motives for keeping the laws, as though the laws themselves were already known to his readers.'-^

Against this view, which would limit the primitive Dt. to 12-26, it is argued that the law-book itself presupposes some such introduction as is found in 5-11.

In I'.'-'-'ii thi-re is nothing; to show when or by whom the law was i)romul>;.itcd ; '.> 1 supplies precisely the information which l-'i presumes; Ui-t-i recites the covenant at Uorel>, with the Decalogue, its fundamental law; biT,ff. explains tin- relation of the laws now alxiiit to lie delivered to that li inner law and covenant. To this answers 29 i [28 69], which is tli'- siilisLription, not to 28 alone, but to the whole law-book : ' TIrsc are the words of the covenant which Yahwc commanded Moses to make with the Israelites in tlie land of Moab, besides the covenant which he made witli them at Horeb.'

The situation supposed in 12-26 is throughout the same as that dcscrilx.-d in 5-11. The language and style of the two portions present just that degree of resemblance and of difference which, rcmemlx^ring the difference of subject matter, we should exjject to find ill the writing of one author ; nothing indicates diversity of origin.*

In regard to chap. 28 also, critics are divided. Well- hausen finds in 285861 where, as in 30 10, the law is already a book evidence that 28, as well as 29 f. , is secondary ; these three chapters formed the conclusion of an enlarged edition of the law-lxjok, to which 5-11 was the introduction.* On indeix;ndcnt grounds, however, 2847-68 is to be recognised as a later addition to the chapter, and with these verses the only reason for con- necting 28 with the two following chapters disappears. Not only are they separated by 29 1 /. (2869 and 29 1], but also the whole attitude and outlook of 29/. are different from those of 281-46. On the other hand, it would be natural for the atithor of 12-26 to conclude his book by urging as strongly as he could the motives to obedience, and solemnly warning his readers of the consequences of disotedience. Similar exhortations and warnings are foimd at the end of the so-called Covenant Book (F,x. 2820^), and at the end of the Law of Holiness (I^v. 26). the latter passage being strikingly parallel to Dt. 28; and such a peroration was the more appropriate in Dt. , because its laws are all in the form of address. The profound impression made upon the king by the reading of the l)ook is most naturally explainecl if it expressly and emphatically denounced the wrath of God against the nation which had so long ignored his law.

1 See below, f 21.

See Wellh. CH 191-195 ; Valeton, Stud. 6 157^ ; St. GVI 1 61/

See Kue. Hex. | 7, n. 5-1 1 ; Di. Comm. 263 yC; Dr. Dt.

^ CI! 192 195. Chaps. 1-4 and 27 were the introduction and conclusion, respectively, of another edition.

6. Later pieces in chaps. l2-26.[edit]

The Deuteronomy of 621 B. c. has not come into our hands unchanged. Not only have the exhortations and workings amplified and heightened, but also in all probability, many additions have been made to the laws. At the very lx?ginning of the ctxle in 12, and in connection with the most distinctive of the Deuteronomic ordinances the restriction of sacrifice to Jerusalem there are unmistakable doublets; cp 12 5-7 with 11/., and especially 15-19 with 20-28. In the following chapters a g<x)d many laws are suspected, because of their contents, or the unsuitable place in which they stand.

Thus, the detailed prescriptions of 143-ao are foreign to the usual manner of Dt. (cp 24 */.), and appear to be closely related to Lev. n ; the law of the kingdom, IT 14-20, represents the law as written (thus anticipating 31 9 -.-6), is in conflict with the legiti- mate prerogatives of the monarch, and is clearly dej>endent on I S. 84^^. IO25; the rules for the conduct of war in 20 are not reconcilable with the necessities of national defence, and can hardly have been dreamed of before the 'exile.' 'I'o others, how- ever, the Utopian character of these laws seems not a sufficient reason for excluding them from the primitive Deuteronomy.'

While many of the instances alleged by critics are in themselves suscejjtible of a different explanation, there scents to l)e sufficient evidence that the Deuteronomic code received many additions l)efore the book reached its present form. Certain supplementary provisions may have been introduced soon after the law was subjected to the test of practice ; others in the l-;xilc ; while still others probably date from the period of the restoration ; cp Hist. Lit. 6/.

7. In chapters 5-11, 28[edit]

In 5-11 also, it is evident that the original contents of the chapters have been amplified, and their order and connection disturbed by later hands.

The story of the sin at Horeb in ^/. is a long and confused digression. Chap. V 1625 y. repeats 1-5; 1-5 is separated from 12-15 by 6-11, which h.xs no obvious appositeness in this place ; 17-24 intrudes in the s;inie way between 16 and 25./ ."similar pnenomena may be observed in the following chapters.2 Nor nas 28 come down to us unaltered. Verses 457; plainly mark what was, at one stage of its historj-, the end of the chapter of comminations. The two pieces which follow, 47-57 and 58-68, are shown by internal evidence to be additions, presupposing the destniction of leritsalem and the dispersion of the miserable remnant '"' ' ' sequence of neglecting ' the words of this law which are written ' in this book' (58; cp also 61). Verses 1^^ which threaten the deportation of the king and people in phrases derived from Jeremiah (with 35, which repeats 27^, are probably glosses.-i

1 For a list of passages in 12-26 which have been challenged bv critics, see Holz. /;//. 263 ^ ; cp also Horst, Krt: de ['nut. dfs Kfl. '27 i35#. ('93]. Analyses of the legislation have recently been attempted by Staerk, Dns Dcut., 1894, and Steuernagel, Die Kntstih. d. dfut. (.'.tselzis, 1P96. For a sketch of these theories see Addis, Documents oj the Ilexateuch, 2 1 5-19 [98]. The sul)stantial unity of the laws is maintained by Kue. Ilex. 14, nn. 1-7. Against Horst, see especially Tiepenbring, Re7: de CI list, des Rel. '2'. libff. \\a\.

2 Valeton (Stud. C 1:7-174) and llorst (Re7'. de tllist. des Rel. It) 39 ff. 18 3?o^., cp 27 174) have gone farthest in the attempt to eliminate the secondarj- elements in .5-11. .See Kue. Ilex. 7, n. 6; Piepenbring, Rer: de rilist. des Rel. 2i' 165^ A formal analysis has recently been attempted by Staerk (see the last note), and Steuernagel, Der Rahmen des Diiit., 1894.

  • For attempts to restore the primitive brief form of the bless-

ings and curses, see Valeton, .Stud. 7 ^^/. (cp Kue. Hex. ( 7, n. 21(2]); Horst, Re!>. de rilist. des Rel. IS 327 i?"., cp 1(159^^ ; Staerk, 71 f. ; Steucrn.'igel, Rahmen, 4044- ^ee also Steinthal, Zeit./. I'Slkerpsych. 11 \\/. The substantial unity of the chapter is maintained by Kue. and Dr.

Cp._ Hexajeuch. It is not hereby denied that many of the institutions and customs embodied in P are of great antiquity ; nor that in particular instances they may be more primitive than the corresponding titles of Dt. ; nor that .some of them may have attained a comparatively fixed form, oral or written, before the ' exile.'

8. D's laws : relation to P and JE.[edit]

In the Hebrew legislation three strata are to be recognised : the collections of laws incorporated in JE (Ex. 21-23, often called the Book of the Covenant ; Ex. 34) ; the Law of Holiness, contained (in a priestly recension) in Lev. 17-26 and cognate pa.ssages (H); and the rest of the laws in Exodus. Leviticus, and Numbers, predominantly liturgical, ceremonial, and sacerdotal, which, though not all of the same age or origin, may here be treated as forming a single body of priestly law (P). The result of modern criticism has been taken to establish more and more conclusively that V , as a whole, is later than Deuteronomy. On the other hand, it is agreed by all that the little collections of laws in JE are older than Deuteronomy. The most convincing proof of this is given, of course, by the Deuteronomic laws restricting the worship of Yahwe to the one temple at Jerusalem. It may confidently be inferred also from the prominence given throughout Deuteronomy to motives of humanity, and the way in which old religious customs, like the triennial tithe, are transformed into sacred charities, as well as from the constant appeal to the memory of God's goodness as a motive for goodness to fellow-men. Where the provisions of Deuteronomy differ from those of the Book of the Covenant, they sometimes appear to be adapted to a more advanced stage of society ; as when the old agricultural fallow-year is replaced by an experiment in the septennial remission of debts. The many laws dealing with contracts of one kind or another also are to be noted.

9. To Ex. 21-23[edit]

Most recent critics are of the opinion, further, that the author of the Deuteronomic law-book was not only acquainted with Ex. 21-23, but also made this code the basis of his own work ; Deuteronomy, it is said, is a revised and enlarged Covenant Book, adapted to some extent to new conditions, but with only one change of far-reaching effect, the centralisation of worship in Jerusalem. It may be questioned, however, whether the evidence will sustain so strong a statement of the dependence of Deuteronomy on the Book of the Covenant.

Verbally identical clauses are very few, and in some instances, at least, have probably arisen from sul)seqiient conformation, There is no trace of the influence of the Covenant Book either in the gencr.il arrangement of Dt. ]2-2i) or in the sequence of particular laws. To fully one half of the Covenant IJook (after the subtraction of the religious precepts), viz., the title .Assaults and Injuries, Ex. '21 iS-2--' 17, there is no parallel in I)t. ; while the subject of Authorities in Dt. U)i8-18 has no counterpart in Ex. 21-23 ; of thirty -five laws in Dt. 21 io-2.0 16 only seven have parallels in the older code. Finally, in the corresponding laws 1 the coincidences are hardly more frequent or moie nearly exact than we should expect in two collections originating at no great distance in place or time, and based upon the same religious customs and consuetudinary law ; the evidence of literary de- pendence is much less abundant and convincing than it must be if Dt. were merely a revised and enl.-irged Book of the Covenant.'-^

10. To H[edit]

Certain laws in Deuteronomy have parallels also in H ; but, whilst the provisions of these laws are often closely similar, the formulation and phraseology are throughout entirely different.* In some points H seems to be a stage beyond Dt. ; but the differences are not of a kind to imply a considerable interval of time so much as a diversity of dominant interest, such as distinguishes Ezekiel from Jeremiah.

Dt. 14 3-21, compared with I^v. 11, h.is been thought to prove that Dt. IS dependent upon H ; but the truth .seems rather to be that both are based on a common original, a piece of priestly Torah, which each reproduces and modifies in its own way.-*

1 They may be conveniently compared in the synoptical table in Dr. Dfu/. p. iv^, or in Staerk, Veui. t,^ff., where they are printed side by side.

2 See also Steuern.igel, Enistchung, %i ff.

3 Dr. Deut. p. iv_^ ; Baentsch, Dat lleiligkeitsgcsetz, 76 _^ 103. See also Leviticus.

  • Kue. Hex. 14, n. 5 ; Paton, JBL 14 48^ ['95].

11. D's history and JE's[edit]

References to the history of Israel are much fewer in Dt. 12-26 than in 1-3 4; they are of a more incidental and allusive character, and the author exercises some freedom in the use of his material ; but, as far as they can be certainly traced, they appear to be all derived from JE, or from the cycle of tradition represented by that work. That the author did not have before him JE united with P is proved by his reference to the fate of Dathan and Abiram (116) ; if he had read Nu. 16 in its present form, in which the story of Dathan and Abiram (JE) is almost inextricably entangled with that of Korah (P), he could hardly have failed to name the latter, who is the central figure of the composite narrative (cp, Nu. 269/ 2/3 Jude II, and see KORAH and DATHAN AND ABIRAM). But even if he had possessed P separately, it would be almost inexplicable that he so uniformly follows the representation of JE. where it differs from P or conflicts with it. The instances which have been adduced to prove that he was acquainted with P are too few and uncertain to sustain the conclusion ; moreover, they are all found in the long digression, 99-IO11, which probably was no part of the primitive Deuteronomy.'

12. Date : not pre-monarchic.[edit]

The traditional opinion among Jews and Christians, that Deuteronomy was written by Moses shortly before his death, though resting on the testimony of the book itself (3l9# 24/:), is contradicted by both the internal and the external evidence ; the contents of the book and the entire religious history of Israel prove that Deuteronomy is the product of a much later time. The legislation qf Jli (in the main, doubtless, merely the b<Joking of an ancient consuetudinary law) is without exception the law of a settled people, engaged in husbandry. Deuteronomy retlects a still more advanced stage of culture, and must be ascribed to a time when Israel had long been established in Palestine. The fundainental law for the Hebrew monarchy, Dt. 17 14-20, presumes not only the existence of the kingdom, but also considerable experience of its evils. Solomon appears to have sat for the portrait of the king as he ought not to lie.'^ In the prohibition of the multiplication of horses and treasure we may recognise the influence of the prophets, to whom the political and military ambition of the kings seemed apostasy (see, e.g., Is. 2;). The constitution of the high court in Jerusalem (Dt. 1 7 8-13, cp 19 17) is thought to be modelled after the tribunal which Jehoshaphat (middle of 9th century B.C.) established (2 Ch. 198-ii)."^

13. Idea of one sanctuary[edit]

More convincing than the arguments derived from these special laws are the ruling ideas and motives of the whole book. The thing upon which Deuteronomy insists with urgent and unwearied iteration is that Yahwe shall be worshipped only at one place, which he himself will choose, where alone sacrifices may be offered and the annual festivals celebrated. Although no place is named, there can be no doubt, as there was none in the minds of Josiah and his counsellors, that Jerusalem is meant.

Jerusalem was not one of the ancient holy places of Israel. It owed its religious importance to the fact that in it was the royal temple of the Juda;an kings; but this was far from putting it upon an equality with the venerable sanctuaries of Bethel and Shechem, Gilgal and Beersheba. The actual pre-eminence of Jcrus;dein, without which the attempt to assert for it an ex- clusive sanctity is inconceivable, was the result of the historical events of the eighth century.

The fall of the kingdom of Israel (721 B.C. ) left Judah the only ' people of Yahwe.' The holy places of Israel were profaned by the conc|uerors proof that Yahw6 repudiated the worship offered to him there, as the prophets had declared. A quarter of a century later Sennacherib invaded Judah, ravaged the land, destroyed its cities, and carried off their inhabitants ; the capital itself was at the last extremity (see Hkzekiah, i ; I.SR.XKI., 33/. ). The deliverance of the city from this peril seemed to be a direct interposition of Yahwe, and Jerusalem and its temple must have gained greatly in prestige through this token of (iod's signal favour.

1 See Dt. 10 3 6 22; and, on these passages, Kue. Th.T. ^S^if- ['75]; IJr- >eut. p. xvi. On 99-IO11 cp also below, i8 (small type),

a CpDt. lVi6y:withTK.4 26l0228/ 11 1-8 928 10 Mi?:

3 A critical examination of the history of the reign of Jehosha- phat in aCh. 17^?: does not, however, inspire us with much confidence in the account of bis judicial reforms.

This of itself, however, would not give rise to the idea that Yahwe was to be worshipped in Jerusalem alone. The genesis of this idea must be sought in the mono- theism of the prophets. At a tiine when monotheism had not yet become conscious of its own universalism, men could hardly fail to reason that if there was but one true (?od, he was to be worshipjied in but one place. And that place, in the light of history and prophecy, could only be Jerusalem. The way in which Dt. attempts to carry out this principle, by simply transferring to Jerusalem the cultus of the local sanctuaries with their priesthoods, W.1S only practicablo within narrow territorial limits, such as those of the kingdom of Judah in the seventh century. Wc have the explicit testimony of the IV)oks of Kings that there was no attempt to suppress the old Ux;al s;inctu- aries in Judah until the reign of Hezekiah ; the most godly kings left the high-places unmolested (i K. 15i4 2243 2 K. 124 143 15435). The deuteronomist author of Kings, to whom the temple in Jerusalem was, from the mom<'iit when Vahwt tof>k up his abode in it ( I K. 810/), the only legitimate place of sacrifice, condemns this remissness as a great sin ; but there is no evidcncx; that the religious Ic-aders of Israel down to the end of the eighth century so regarded it. IClijah is in despair over the sacTilegc which threw down the altars of Yahw6 ; when he goes to mt^et Go<l face to faci;, it is not to Jerusalem, but to Iloreb, the old holy motnitain in the distant S., that he turns his steps. Amos and Hosea inveigh against the worship at the holy places of the Northern Kingdom lK'cau.se it is morally corrupt and religiously Hilse, not Ixicause its seats a-e illegitimate ; nor is their repudiation of the worship on the high-places more unqualified than Isaiahs rejection of the cultus in Jerusalem (Is. lio^). The older law-books, far from forbidding sacrifice at altars other than that in Jerusalem, formally sanction the erection of such altars, and promi.se that at every recognised place of worship Yahw6 will visit his worshippers and bless them (i:x.2024).

According to 2 K. I84 22 21 3, Hezeki.ih removed the high- places, demolished the standing stones, hewed down tlie sacred posts.l The false tenses prove, however, that 18 4 has been in- terpol.ited by a very late hand ; the original text said only that Hezekiah removed the bronze serpent which was worshipped in the temple (see Nkhushta.n); nor can much greater reliance l)e put upon the reference in the sjKech of the Rabshakeh(18 22). It may well be that Hezekiah, after the retreat of .Sennacherib, took vigorous measures to suppress the idolatry against which Isai.ah thundered in both his earlier and his later prophecies (_' 8 18 20 30 22 31 7), perha])s including the s.icred trees and other survivals of rucle natural religion (Is. 1 2g).^ In any case, the reaction of the following reign swept away all traces of his work. Cp Hkzekiah, i ; Isaiah, i., g 15.

14. Foreign cults etc.[edit]

Another very distinct indication of the age in which Dt. was written is found in the foreign religions which it combats. The worship of ' the whole host of heaven' (Dt. 173 cp 4:19), an Assyrian cult frequently condemned by the prophets of the seventh century (Jer. 82 19 13 .'5229 Zeph. 1 5),^ but not mentioned by any earlier writer, was probably introduced by Manasseh, during whose reign Assyrian influence was at its height in Judah. The sacrifice of children, 'sending them through the fire' to the King-God (I)t. I810 I231), also belongs to the seventh century (see MOLECH) ; neither Isaiah nor any of the other prophets of the eighth century alludes to these rites.

A relatively late date has been inferred also from the laws against the erection of steles and sacred poles {mas-slholh and Ashirim) by the altars of Yalnv6 (Dt. 16 21/.).

The ohier laws only enjoin the destruction of the Canaanite holy-places with all their appurtenances (Kx. 34 13 23 24 ; cp Dt. 12 3). The prophets of the eighth century, especially Hosea and Isaiah, assail the idols of Yahwi, but not'the more primitive standing stones and posts ; the polemic against the latter begins with Jeremiah.

1 Cp the much more extended account of these reforms in a Ch. 29-31.

2 If it were established th.-it Hezekiah put down the high- places, it would not follow that Dt. is older than Hezeki.ah ; the more probable hypothesis, in view of all the testimony of tbc prophets and the historical books, would be that the I )eutero- nomic law wa.s in the line of the measures .adopted by the king.

3 Cp also the worship of the Queen of Heaven, Jer. 7 1 44 1 7. See Queen of Heaven.


15. D. and other writers.[edit]

The age of Dt. may be determined also by its relation to other works of known date. From the time of Jeremiah, the influence of Dt. is unmistakably to be recognised in the whole prophetic and historical literature, whilst we look in vain for any trace of this influence in the prophets of the eighth century ; neither the impressive ideas nor the haunting phr.ases of Dt. h;tve left their mark there.' The inference that Dt. was unknown to the religious leaders of Israel before the seventh century is hardly to be avoided.

On the other hand, in all its ruling ideas, Dt. is dependent upon the prophecy of the eighth century. We have alre.ady seen that the deliverance of Jerusalem from Sennacherib pre|Kired the way for the lx;lief that the temple on Mt. Zion was the only sanctuary at which Yahw6 should Ix: worshii)[x;d, and that the mf)notheism of the pro[)hets was the theological basis of the same belief. The lofty theism of Dt. , which exalts Yahwe, not only in might and inajestT. but also in righteousness, goodness, and truth the moral transformation of the old conception of 'holiness' (see Ci.KAN, i) is of the same origin, whiLst the central idea of the book, that the essence and end of true religion is the mutual love of (jod and his jK-oijle, is derived from Hosea. In general, the theology of Dt. is an advance ujjon tliat of the prophets of the eighth century, whose teaching it fuses and assimilates, and approximates to that of Jeremiah and Isaiah 40-;).

To the same result we are led by the literary character of Dt. Its style is more cofdous and flowing than that of earlier writers ; but it lacks their terse vigour, and is not free from the faults of looseness, prolixity, and rcix'tition, into which a facile pen so easily glides. In these resixicts it exhibits the tendencies which mark the literature of the seventh century and the I^xile. The diction, also, is distinctly that of the same period, closely resembling that of Jeremiah. ^

16. Result as to date of D.[edit]

Evidence of every kind thus concurs to prove that the primitive Dt. was a product of the seventh century. The fact that it combats foreign cults which were introduced by Manasseh militates against the opinion entertained by some scholars, that it had its origin in the last years of Hezekiah, jx^rhaps in connection with the reforms of that king. A hypothesis which commends itself to many critics is that I)t. was composed in the reign of Mana.s.seh as a protest against the evils of the time and as a programme of reform. Its authors died without Ixiing able to accomplish their object, and the book was lost, until, many years after, it was accident- ally discovered in the temijle by Hilkiah. To others it seems more probable that Dt. was written under Josiah, shortly lx.'forc it was brought to light, by men who thought the tiiue rii>e for an attempt to introduce the reforms by which alone, they Ijelieved, Judah could be saved, and hatl intelligently planned the way in which this should be effected. ^

1 This is equally true of the older historians ; but their works have been preserved only in deuteronomistic rccension.s.

- On the diction of Dt., see the commentaries of Kn. and Di.; Kleinert, Dcitt. 214^; Kue. Ilex, f 7, n. 4: Holz. Finl. iH-iff.; Dr. /v. p. Ixxviii ^ On the .style, Di. 611; Holz. ^95 J^- l'""- P- Ixxxvi^

8 .So Dc Wette, Reuss, Graf, Kue., We., St., Che., and others.

  • The suggestion that Jeremi.ih w.-is the author of Dt. (von Bohlen, Colenso) is for various reasons untenable.

17. Place[edit]

Everything points to Jerusalem as the place where Dt. was written : a work whose aim was to exalt the temple to the position of the sole sanctuary of Yahwe can hardly have originated anywhere else. The Torah of the priests is throughout so intimately united with the religious teachings of the prophets that we are constrained to believe that both priests and prophets were associated in its prcxluction, or at least that its priestly authors were thoroughly imbued with the spirit of the prophets. Who these authors were cannot be more definitely determined.*

17a. Sources of D.[edit]

That the authors of the primitive Dt. freely used older collections of laws h.as Ix-cn generally recognised. Beside Ex. 2l-23 (on which see above, 9) remains of another collection are found in Dt. 22-25). Staerk and Steuernagel have recently undertaken to show by minute analysis that both the hortatory and the legislative parts of Dt. are in a stricter sense composite.

According to Steiiernagel, the book discovered in the temple in the eighteenth year of Josiah (Dt. 5 26 28) wa-s the work of a redactor, who combined with considerable skill but meclianic- ally, and without substantial additions two oliler works of like character, each consisting of a hortatory introduction and a body of laws. One of them (.Sg.) is marked by the direct address to Israel in the second person singular ; the other (PI.) tises the plural. The older of these works (Sg.) is assigned to the early years of Manasseh's reign (shortly after 700 n.c), the other (PI.) was composed about 670. The union of the two by the redactor (Dr) falls in the middle of the century, twenty-five vears or more before the discovery of the book in the temple. \ioth .Sg. and PI. made use of older .collections of laws, and these sources can still in part be recogni->ed. One of the chief sources of Sg. (the ' Grundsammlung ') was put out in support of Hezekiah's reforms, probably not long after 722 B.C.

18. Additions: chapters 1-3 related to E[edit]

Chaps. 1-3, in the form of an address of Moses to Israel, contain a review of the principal events of the migration, from the departure of the Israelites from HOREB, to the moment at which he is speaking to them.^ This retrospect throughout follows the history of JE, from which its material is drawn and many phrases and whole clauses are borrowed. ^ Upon closer examination it appears that the chief source of the chapters is E, which the author had before him separately ; whether he made use of J is doubtful ; of dependence on P there is no trace.

The retrospect begins .^bruptly with the command to remove from Horeb (1 6-s), and it has been conjectured that 99-IO11 (or at least i> 25-IO 11), which recites the transgression at Horeb, and brings the narrative to the precise point where it is taken up in 1, once stood before 1 7. More probably, however, 99-IO11 is not a misplaced fragment of the retrospect, but the product of successive editorial amplifications. S The review ends as abruptly as it begins ; the words, ' And we abode in the valley in front of Heth-peor' (829), must originally have been followed by an account of the sin at Baal-peor (Nu. 2j 1-5 ; cp Dt.43/).

The chapters (1-3) are not by the author of 5-"26. The resemblance in language and style is un(|uestionably very close, though there are some noticeable differences ; but the diversity of historical representation is decisive ; cp 229 with 23 3-6 7/., I35/; 2 14-16 with 11 2/: 02/ The opinion of some critics, that 1-4 was prefixed to the primitive Dt. to connect it with the history in Ex. and Xu. , is improbable ; for such a purpose a recapitu- lation of the history was more than su{>erriuous. Others, with better reason, suppose that the historical risumi was intended as the introduction to a separate edition of Dt. The way in which it t)egins and ends (see above, small type) suggests that it was not composed for the purpose, but was extracted and adapted by the editor from some older source. Conclusive marks of the age of the chapters, further than their dependence upon E and the general affinity to the deuteronomistic school, are hardly to be discovered.

1 Chap. 1 1-5, which now forms the introduction to the speech, is not homogeneous, and glosses have been pointed out in the discourse itself.

2 .See particularly Dr. Dt. on these chapters, where the rela- tion is well exhibited.

3 Cp above, 11.

19. Chap. 4 : post-exilic[edit]

Chap. 4:1-40 has generally been taken with 1-3, as a 'hortatory close to the historical introduction. There is however, neither a formal nor material connection between them. The historical allusions in the exhortation are to events related, not in 1-3, but in 5+; 4:10-11 32-35 differ from the retrospect (1 39/ etc.) and agree with l>if. W-iff. '-'^^ff., in making the speaker's audience witnesses of the scenes at Horeb ; the greater part of 4 is only a homiletical enlargement on 5 i^ff.

In other points 4 goes beyond 5-11 ; its monotheism takes a loftier tone, like that of Is. 40-55 (see 43539 15-19). In 425-31 deportation and dispersion are inevitable ; the prediction that in the far country Israel will return to Yahwe and find forgiveness takes the central place which it has in the exilic prophets.

The language resembles 5-11 more closely than 1-3, but has peculiarities of its own : 4:17-18 are full of words and phrases which remind us of Ezekiel, H, and P (cp also 32) ; 28 seems to be directly dependent upon Jeremiah (I613 ; cp ). Chap. 4 thus appears to be a secondary addition to Dt. , composed in the Exile, and closely akin to 29, if not by the same hand.'

20. Chap. 4:41-43, 44-49[edit]

Chap. 4:41-43, the designation by Moses of three asylum cities east of the Jordan, has no connection either with what precedes or with what follows. In phraseology the verses agree closely with Dt. 19:1+, after which they are probably modelled. They may originally have stood after 3:17 or 20, or perhaps after 29.

Chap. 4:44-49, the title and superscription to 5+, like the corresponding superscription l:1-5. appears to be the product of successive additions and redactions by scribes or editors ; the oldest form of the title may have been simply, ' This is the law which Moses laid Ixjfore the Israelites on the other side of Jordan, in the land of Moab' (cp 1 5).

21. Chap. 27 : four pieces.[edit]

Chap. 27, in narrative form, stands entirely disconnected in the midst of the speeches of Moses, separating 28 from 26. Graf, accordingly, regarded it as an interpolation, introduced when Dt. was united with the older historical book (JE), whilst Wellhausen sees in it the conclusion of a separate edition of the Deuteronomic law-book (I-440 12-20 27). The chapter (27) consists of four distinct parts: viz., 1-89/ 11-13 14-26. Vv. 9 f. may, as many critics think, have originally connected 26 with 28. In 1-8, where there is much repetition, 5-7a has long been recognised as a fragment of the ancient source to which Ex. 20 24 -26 [21-23] belongs. Vv. 12/ seem to be the sequel of 11 29/, the whole being a liturgical embodiment of 11 26-28, and plainly secondary. Vv. 14-26 cannot be by the author of 11-13 ' the things on which Dt. lays the greatest stress are lacking in this decalogue, which is a cento gathered from all strata of the legislation, especially from Lev. l5-20.

22. Chap. 29-30[edit]

Chap. 29 contain a new address of exhortation and warning, introduced, like 5+, by the words, 'And Moses convoked all Israel.' The standpoint of the writer is similar to that of 4:1-40, and differs in the same way from that of 5-26 28:1-46 ; cp in particular 30:1-10 with 4:25-31. The author had before him the deuteronomic law, with its blessings and curses, in a book (29 20/ 27 30 10, cp also 29 9 2858 61). The diction differs considerably front that of 5-26, and approximates more closely to that of Jeremiah, upon whom the author is evidently dependent. Chaps. 29/ are, therefore, like 4, an exilic addition to Dt. The movement of thought in these chapters is far from Iseing orderly or coherent: 29 16-28 [15-27] docs not naturally follow 10-15 [9-14]. and the latter verses have no obvious connection with 2-9 [1-8] ; 30i-io cannot originally have stood between 29 and 30 11-20. The position of these chapters is difficult to explain. Chap. 281-46 is the proper conclusion of the long speech of Moses, 5-26 ; 29 1 [28 69] is a formal subscription, marking the end of the book. The only natural place for fresh admonitions to observe the law would be after the law had been committed to writing (31 9-13 ; cp 24-27) ; and it has been conjectured, not without probability, that this was the original position of the parting charge.-

1 On this point see further below, f 23. 2 See next section (23), on 31 24-29.

23. Chap. 31[edit]

Chap. 31, which takes up the narrative again, is composite, and presents to criticism, most difficult problems.

Verses 1-8 are not the sequel of 20-21 or of 28 ; they take up the story at the point which the historical introduction reaches in 8:23+; they are deuteronomistic in colour, and Dillmann surmises that once they followed 8:28 immediately. A parallel to 1-8 is found in !4-5, 23, in which Yahwe himself gives the charge to Joshua at the sacred tent ; these verses are probably derived from E. The intervening verses, 16-22, are an introduction to the ' Song of Moses,' 32:1-43, to which 32:44 is the corresponding close. This introduction is not deutcronomic, as the lannunKc proves ; it is equally clear that it is not by the author of 14/. a^. 1 he question of the source of the verses will recur in connection with the age of the [Kiem itself (next t, second par.)- 'f. 9-11, relating how the law was comniitleil to writinK and preserved, form an appropriate conclusion to the account of the KivmR of the law, and are by many critics coiniccted with &-'J! 'JS. 1 he preservation of ihe law is the subject of 24-27, which the repetition and the different motive prove to be by another hand; aS A seems to l<e a preparation for the recitation of the ' Song ' ( <o), and is as much out of place after 19-22 as 24-27 after 9-13 ; the whole passage, 24-29(30), is, therefore, ascribed toa rtdacior. iJillmann conjectures that 28/ (in substance) oriKinally consti- tuted the introiluction, not to the Soiij: of Moses, but 10 a speech the close of which is to be found in 3'J45-47. This speech, containing the last exhortations and admonitions of Moses, was removed from its place after :U 9-1 3 to make r<x)in for the Song, and is preserved, though worked over and extensively inter- polated, in 4 '.'it/ For re;usons which have already been indicated, we should not, however, with Dillmaiin, attribute this s|>cech to the author of &-'.itJ -8, but to a later dcuteronomistic writer.

24. Song of Moses.[edit]

Chap. 32 1-43 ; 'The Song of Moses.' The theme of the Ode is the goodness of Vahwe. the sin of Israel in rejecting him, and the ruin which this apostasy entails. The poem contains no definite allusions to historical events by which its age may be exactly determined. The coiujuest of Canaan evidently lies for the writer in a remote past (7/:); and he has h.id ample e.\ix?rience of the propensity of Israel to adopt foreign religions, and of the national calamities in which the prophets saw the judgments of Vahwe upon this defection. The language has Ix-'eii thought to indicate that the author was a native of the North ; and many scholars Ijclieve that the situation rertected in the poem is that of the kingdom of Israel in the reign of Jehoash (797-783 H.C.) or the early years of Jerolxiam 11. (782-743), when, after the long and disastrous Syrian wars, Israel was beginning to recover its former power and pr()s|)crity.- Others, understanding by the 'no people' (cy N*'). the 'foolish nation' (:: 'ij 21), the Assyrians, to whom such terms would Ix; applied more naturally than they could be to the Syrians (cp Is. 3:J 19,^ 5 26 j^ ), ascriln; the jxiem to the latter half of the eighth century. The words may. how- ever, with even greater probability, Ik; interpreted of the Habylonians (cp Jer. l>\iff. 622/, esixjcially Hab. \tff., l)t. 2849 7f). In the vocabulary of the Song there are several words which are not found in writers of the eighth century, but are common in the literature of the seventh and sixth ; the Aramaisms in word and form which have lieen looked upon as evidence of Kpliraimite origin may equally well lie marks of a later age. The poem contains many reminiscences of the older projjhets, especially of Hosea and Isaiah ; but in its whole spirit and tone, as well as in particular expressions, it is much more closely akin to Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Is. lO-fi.'i. It has a strong resemblance, also, to the exilic additions to Dt. (429/ ) ; its theology is that of these chapters and of Is. 40 [ff. Its affinities to the Psalms and the ])roducts of Jewish Wisdom are to Ix; noted. It is, in fact, a didactic p(x.-m, emlxxlying in lofty verse the prophetic interpretation of Israel's history from lx;ginning to end. Kucnen and others ascrilx; the Song to the end of the seventh century (say 630-600 H.C.) ; but the considerations last adduced, and others which might be mentioned, point rather to an exilic or post-exilic date.

1 On the Song of Moses see Ew. JEW 8 41-65 ("57]; Kamph. Das Liiul Moses, 1861 ; Klo. 'Das I.ied Mose's u. das t)eut.; St. Kr. 44 249^ ['71], 45 230 if. 450 ^f. ['72]; reprinted in Der Pent. 223-367 ('93] ; St. /.A TW 5 297-300 [8i;l. For the older literature see Di. Comm. 395; Reuss, GA T, S 226.

2 .See 2 K. 1823-25 1425-27.

3 This verse is, however, probably not from the Assyrian period.

4 See 1/ 3/ 6 28^:, etc. 8 Kue. attributes it to Rje.

3.1 1089


It has commonly bt^en assumed that the introduction to the Song (.3116-22) is pre-deuteronomic (J or E) ;'^ not so much, however, upon internal evidence as in consecjuence of general theories aVxDut the age of the poem and the composition of the last chapters of Dt. It is intrinsically at least equally probable that the introduclion is ix>st-deuloron<imic ; and this hypothesis is strongly commended by the fact that the Song itself has apparently beeen put in the place of the last discourse of Moses (29/ ). which is itself a product of the 'exile'

Chap. 32:44 is the closing note to the |KH:m, cor- resixJiuling to 31 30 at its lieginning. \'erses 45-47 are the close of the six-ech, answering to 31 28/;* they contain no allusion to the Song ; their literary affinities are to 31 28/, not to 31 16-^2 or 3244- (-hap. 3248-52 Ix-longs to the |)riestly stratum ; the same command is given somewhat more briefly in Nu. 27.2-14 (P).

25. Blessing.[edit]

Chap. 33 : ' The Blessing wherewith Moses the man of God blessed the Israelites before he died.' ' Beyond this superscription, no attempt is made to connect the poem with the history of Moses' last days ; from which it may be inferred that it was not introduced by a deuteronomistic editor. The opening verses (1-5), which are very obscure, in part through corruption of the text, descrilie the coming of Yahwe from Sinai, the giving of the :aw, the acquisition of the territory t)f Jacob (?), and the rise of the kingdom in Israel.'-* Thereupon come, without any transition, blessings on eleven trilies. following a geographical order from south to north, and differing greatly' in length and in character.

26. Its date.[edit]

The Blessing of Moses is a coposition of the same kind as the so-called blessing of Jacob (Gen. 49 1-27), though not a mere imitation of it. The historical situation reflected in the blessings of the sexcral tribes in Dt. is that of a time considerably later than that in (Jen. ; cp particularly Levi (Cjen. 495-7 Dt. 338-ii) and Judah ((Jen. 498-i2 Dt. S^?). On the other hand, the situation is entirely different from that re])resented in the Song of Moses, Dt. 32. While in the latter, apostasy has drawn ujwn Israel the consuming anger of Yahwe, and the very existence of the [Xiople is threatened, the Hlessing breathes from end to end a national spirit exalted by jx)\\er and prosperity and unbroken by disaster. The author was a memix;r of one of the northern trilx?s. or a I.evite at one of the northern sanctuaries. The blessing of Joseph (13-17) was written at a time when the kingdom of Israel, in the pride of its power, and jx;rhaps tlushed w ith victory, was thinking of foreign concpiests (17K Recent critics have generally followed Graf in ascribing the poem to the time of Jerolxwm II. (782-743 RC. ), when for a brief space Israel seemed to have regained all its ancient power and glory ; 20 is then referred to the recovery of the territories of which (jad had Ix-^in strip|x'd by the Syrians of Damascus in the disastrous pericxl which preceded.

The prayer in 7, ' Hear, O Yahwe, the vo!ce of Judah, and l)ring him to his people,' h.is been understood as the wish of the Kphraimite poet that Judah mi^ht be reunited to Israel, and is thought by many to point to a time soon after the division of the kingdom, when the desire for the restoration of the national unity- was still strong. This obscure verse, however, cannot Iw allowed to outweigh the clearer testimony of other p.irts of the chapter. The Hlessing of Levi (8-ii) describes the privileges and omces of the priesthood, and the fidelity of Levi to its sacred trust. There is nothing to indicate th.it the author was a priest of the temple in Jerusalem 3 the priests of other temples also were Levites, nor any cogent reason for thinking that 9 it are Jewish interpolations. Verse 11, however, is hardly a blessing for the priestnood, and would unquestionably be more appropri- ate to one of the other tribes ; but that it was the original sequel of ^f<, as has l)een conjectured, is not evident.

1 See above, $ 23.

- On the I^lessing see HoflTm. in Keil and Tzschirner's Ana- UK-ten (1822), iv. i j.92 continued in a series of Jena Pro- grams, 1S23-1841; Graf, Der .Set;en Mose's, 1857; Volck, Der Seren Afose's, 1873; A van der Flier, Deut. S3, 1895: Ball, The Hlessing of Moses,' P.'iliA 18 118-137 ('96]. See also St. GVI 1 \'~/o ff. The older literature in Di. Cotittn. 416, Reuss, f;.-/7-, 216.

3 The meaning of these versos is much disputed.

4 In 12 it is not certain that Jerusalem is meant (cp Ben- JAMl.N, $ 8).

On the whole, the age of Jeroboam II. seems best to satisfy the implications of the Blessings. Verses 2-5, 36-29, have no connection with the Blessings, and it is not improbable that they are fragments of another poem. Whether the Blessing of Moses was contained in J or E is a question which we have no means of answering : neither the short introduction, nor the titles of the several Blessings (which alone can be attributed to an editorial liand), offer anything distinctive; nor do the reminiscences of the earlier history.

Chap. 34. The story of the death of Moses is highly composite, elements from JE and P, as well as the hand of more than one etlitor, being recognisable in it.

27. Religious character of Dt.[edit]

Deuteronomy is the prophetic law-book, an attempt to embody the ideal of the prophets in institutions and laws by which the whole religious, social, and civil life of the people should be governed. We recognise this aim in the treatment of the older right and custom of Israel, and more clearly in those provisions which are peculiar to Deuteronomy, alxjve all in the fundamental law, chap. 5^ It seeks, not to regulate con- duct by outward rule, but to form morality from within by the power of a supreme principle.

28. Monotheism.[edit]

The dominant idea of Deuteronomy is monotheism. The first sentence of the older Decalogue, ^ repeated in 5:6-7, expresses, indeed, only a relative monotheism ; but the fundamental deuteronomic law, ' Yahwe our God is one Yahwe ' (5:4-5), declares, not only that there are not many Yahwes, as there are many Baals, but also that there is no other who shares with him the attributes of supreme godhead which are connoted by his name. He is ' the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the great, mighty, and awful God' (10i7), to whom belong ' the heavens aTid the heavens of heavens, the earth and all that therein is' (10 14), 'the [only] God in the heavens above or in the earth beneath ; there is no other' (439, cp 35).- The unapproachable majesty of Yahwe (5i# 22^ 'igjf-). his constancy to his purpose, and his faithfulness to his word are often recurring themes (78-ioi2^ 95, etc.). He is a God who re- quites his enemies to the full (7 10) ; yet a compassionate and forgiving God to those who under his judgments turn to him again (429-31, cp 30 1^).

29. Objects of worship.[edit]

Idolatry is strictly forbidden. The images and emblems of the Canaanite gods are to be totally destroyed (122/ 75 25)- The Decalogue prohibits the making of images of Yahwe in the likeness of any object in heaven, or on the earth, or in the sea; and in 4 15^ where this prohibition is emphatically repeated, Israel is reminded that at Horeb, when Yahwe spoke to them out of the midst of the fire, they saw no form a lesson to them not to image him in any form. The more primitive standing stones and sacred poles are included in the prohibition (I621/ I23/.). All kinds of divination, sorcery, and necromancy are condcnuied as heathenish (I89-14) ; Yahwe's will and purpose are made known, not by such signs as are interpreted by the mantic art, but by the mouth of his prophet (ISisi^).

1 On the various forms of this code see Decalot.uk.

2 See also 3 24 4 7/. 32 Jf. It has been observed above that the theology of 4 1-40 approximates more nearly to that of Is. 40#.

30. Exclusiveness[edit]

Yahwe is to be worshipped, not at many sanctuaries, but at one only, in the place which he chooses to fix his name there {12 pass., 14 23 LI 20 16 pass. , etc. ). The unity of the sanctuary is a consequence of the unity of God. The suppression of the high-places, which is so strenuously insisted on in Dt. , was primarily dictated, not by practical considerations, but V)y the instinctive feel- ing that their existence was incompatible with mono- theism : as long as there were many altars there were as many local Yahwes. It is doubtless true that, for the religious consciousness of the great mass of worshippers, the Yahw6 of Dan was not just the same as the Yahwe of Bethel or of Beersheba. But the great doctrine of Dt. is, 'Yahw6 thy God is o<r Yahw6. ' The exclusive principle, 'Thou shalt have no other gods beside me,' is strongly reaffirmed (612-15 IO20-22 11 16/. 28, etc.) ; the worship of other gods is punished by death (17 2-7, see also 13), the aposta.sy of the nation by national ruin (614/ 74 819/ 425-28 '3O17/, etc.) ; for Yahw^ is a jealous Go<l (615 424). Not only in Israel, which is Yahwe's people, but also in Canaan, which is his land, there shall be no other god or cult. Lvery trace of the old religi(}ns of Palestine is to be obliterated. The Canaan- itcs themselves must Ijc exterminated, lest, in intercourse with them, Israel be infected with their religion (7i^ 16 93, cp 1229/ '20i6^).i Alliance and intermarriage with the heathen are stringently prohibited (73/ . etc. ) ; and many sjiecial laws are directed against heathen customs and rites : see, e.j^. , 225 23 17/ No less urgent warnings are given against the religions of remoter peoples (136/).

31. Principle of love.[edit]

The essence of the religious relation between Yahwe and his people is love. He has loved Israel from the beginning (10 15 77/ 23 5), and if they keep his commandments he will love and bless them in all the future (7 13, cp 437/ ). They are the children of Yahwe their God (14i) ; his discipline and his care are parental (85131). All good things are from him; but the signal proofs of his love to Israel are the deliverance from Egypt (fussim, e.g., 814^), and the law which he has given them (45-832^). The love of Yahwe to his people demands, as it should inspire, their love : ' Thou shalt love Yahwe thy God with all thine he.art, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might' (65) is the first commandment of the law, the first principle of religion (10x2/ 111 1322 134 199 306 16 20). Love to God con- strains to do his will ; to love God and to keep his commandments are inseparable. His commandments are not remote or incomprehensible : they are in men's hearts and on their lips (30 11-14. cp Jer. 31 31-34) ; nor are they difficult and burdensome (10 12/, cp Mic. 68) : to keep them is for man's own good (C24 10 13). It is a religion of the heart, not of outward observances or of formal legality. Observances are not rejected ; a religion without worship and distinctive ceremonial is not contemplated ; but festivals and sacrifices are only the expression of religious feeling atxjve all, of loving and joyful gratitude for God's love and goodness.

32. Moral oasis.[edit]

The relation of Yahwe to Israel is not a natural and indissoluble relation, such as subsists between a tribal god and his people ; it is a moral relation which has its origin in his choice of Israel to be his people. He chose it, not for any good in it (7 7 94/- ). but because he loved its forefathers (10 15) ; and love and faithfulness bind him to their descendants (78 95). The election by which Israel alone of all the nations of the earth is made the people of Yahwi is Israel's glorious distinction ; but it imposes the greatest obligation. Sin, in this light, is more heinous, judgment more necessary and more severe ; but in God's constancy to his purpose and his promise faith finds the assurance that the severest judgment will not be utter destruction.

The bond between Yahwe and Israel is the covenant which he made with them at Horeb {b^ff.) and renewed on the plains of Moab (29 1 [2869]). The deuteronomic law sets forth the obligations imposed by Yahwe and accepted by Israel (I72) ; strict observance of the law is the condition of the fulfilment of the promises of Y.^hwi. the obligations which he voluntarily took upon himself in the pact (79-13 1122^, etc.).

1 At the time when Dt. was written this sanguinary proscrip- tion of the native population can hardly have had much practical significance.

Israel is to be a holy people (76 14 221 2619) that is, one set apart to Yahwe in all its life. The stringency of the laws which are to preserve the purity of the people nnd the land from false religion and immorality is thus explained and justilietl : ' 'rtiiiu shalt exterminate the evil from the community' (l^s and pais.; see 22 13-30 'Jl i8-ai ly i6-ai etc. ).

Notwithstanding the sanguinary thoroughness with which it demands the extirpjition of heathenism, and the severity of many of the special laws, the distinctive note of the deuteronomic legislation is humanity, philanthropy, charity. Regard not only for the rigiits, but also for the needs of the widow, the orphan, the landless Ixvitc, the foreign denizen, is urged at every turn.' The in- terests of debtors (232o 24 10-13 15i-ii)' slaves (.114 15ii-i8), and hired labourers (2I4/. ) are carefully guarded. Various provisions protect the rights of the wife or the female slave (24 1-4 2213-19 21 10-1415-17). Nor arc the animals forgotten (2r)4 226/ ). The spirit of the legislation is seen not least clearly in the laws which appear to us altogether Utopian, such as 20 (cp 24 5 17 14-20 l.'ii-6).

In conformity with its prophetic character, Dt. pre- sents itself not merely as a law-lxjok, but al.so as a book of religious instruction. Its lessons are to be diligently rememtx;red, and not forgotten in times of prosi>erity (66-12 8ti-i8 etc. ). Its fundamental precepts are to be repealed daily, to Ix; worn as amulets, to be inscribed in public places (67-9 11 iS-ai). They are to be taught to children, that each succeeding generation may be brought up in the knowledge of Yahwe's will (6720-25 11 19 49) ; and every seven years the whole law is to tx; publicly read in the hearing of the assembled people (3l9-'3).

Taken all in all, Dt. will ever stand as one of the noblest monuments of the religion of Israel, and as one of the most noteworthy attempts in history to regulate the whole life of a people by its highest religious principles.

1 See 10 18/ 18 i8-ao IT 8-13 2417/ 2719 121218/ 1427-29 16 11 14 24 19-23 26 11^

33. Literature[edit]

1. C V/z/wrw/rtr/cj. Of the older works, Drusius (1617), Gerhard (1657), and Clericus (1696) may often be consulted with profit. The principal motlern commentaries , are Vater, Pent, in., 1805 ; M. Baumgarten, 1843, 1844; K. W. Schultz, 1859 ; Kn., 1861 ; Schroeder, 1866 (Lange's liihekocrk), KT with additions by Gosman, 1879; Kcil, 1862,2nd ed. 1870, ET 1807; Lspin, 1871 (Sf>eaktrsUomt.). Di., i8i6 ; Montet, Le Diut., 1891 ; Oettli, 1893 ; Dr., 1895 ; Steuernagcl in Nowack's //A', 1898.

2. Criticism. \'MCT,Commeni. ul-fr din Pent, iiiit. Ilinl.Z, 'Abhandhing iiber Moses und die Vcrfasser des Pentateuchs,' 391^; De Wette, Dissert, crtt. exeget. (1805); Beitr. z. Einl. in d. .4 T 1 (1805), i63 ff. 265 ff., 2 (1807), 385 ff. ; J. F. L. George, Die alt. jUd. Juste C^^); W. \ alke, Die Kel. d. AT 504 /jr (35); Einl. 384>^(>^); E. Kichm, Die Gesetzgeb. .^fos., etc. ("54) ; St. A r. 165-200 ('73) (review of Kleinert); Colenso, Pent, and Josh., Pt. 3(03), cp pt. 7 App. 85-110; Graf. Die gesch. BiUh. d. AT i^tt); Kosters, Die historiebesclwmuingvan den Deuteronomist Ctb); Klo., ' D.xs Lied .Moses 11. d. Deut.' .S7. A>. ('71, '72): ' Beit rage zur Entstehungsgesch. des Pent.' Ante kirchl. kt., 1890-92, re- printed in Der Pent. ('93); Kleinert, Das Deut. u. d. Deuteronomiker ('72) ; Reinke, ' Ueber das unter dem KOnige Josia aufgefundene Gcsetzbuch,' Beitr. zur Erkl. d. A T 8 ('72). 131-180; Kayser, Das vorexil. Buck der Vrgtsch. Isr. u. seine Krtveiterungen ('74); J. Hollenberg, 'Die deut. Bestandtheile d. Huches Josua,' St. A'r., 1874, pp. 462-506; We. C//, y/^T, 1876, 1877; reprinted separately, under the same title, 1885, and with Nachtriige, Pie Comf>. des Hex. u. d. hist, liadur des A T ('8.,) ; Gl ('78), 2nd td. called Prol. z. Gl ('83), 4th ed. 1895, liT, Prolegomena to the Hist. 0/ IsraelCZi); S. J. Curtiss, The Lrriti^al Priests Cjj); WRS, Additional .Anyn>er to the Libel (^'fi), Ans7oer to the Amended Libel {-yi)): OTJCi^Ai; 2nd ed. '02); E. Reuss, L'hist. sainte et la. loi, I 154^ ('79); Die lieil. Geseh. y. d. Geselz, 106 jf. Cgj), {Das AT, Bd. 8); Steintbal, ' Da.s fiinfte Buch 'i\o-x,' Xt./ur \'6tkerpsych. u. S/>rochuiissens, 1879, pp. 1-28; 'Die erzahlenden .Stucke im fiinften Biiche Mose,' ib. 1880, pp. 253-289, also separately (Berlin, '80) ; Valeton, Theo. Stud. 5 (79), pp. 165-206,291-113: 6('Eo),pp. 133-174,30^.720; 7('8i), pp. 39-56, 205-228; F. Del. ' Pentateuch-kritische Studien,'^A"//X

1 ('80), 445^ 503^ SS^j^- Castelli, La legge del f^polo Lbreo ntl sua sTolgimeptto storico, 207-320 ('84) ; Chcyne, Jeremiah, his life and times ('88), chaps. 5-7 ; Baudissin, Gesch. des A r Priesterihums ("89) ; .\. Westphal, Lts sources du Pent.

2 32 ff. ("92); Staerk, Das Deut. sein Inhalt u. seine literarische Form (94) ; Steuernagel, Per Rahmen des Deut. ('94); Entsteh.desdeut.Geselzesi:^); Havct, LeChristianisme

  • / tti tripnet, 8 3a ff. ("78) ; d'Eichthal, MfL dt cril. hii.

('86), and Atude sur le Deut. 81-350 ; Verne*, Vne twuv. hyfoth, tur la comft. et Corigint du Deut. ('87), reprinted in Etsais bibliques ('91); L. Horkl, 'Etudes sur le Dcul.' Krtme d niist. des Kelig. 16 28-65 C^l\ 17 1-22 (88), 18 320-334 ('86), 23 1J4-200 Coi), 27 119-176 (Ji); cp Kucnen, ' Dc jungttte pliascn drr Critiek van den Hex.' //i. /, 35^. ("Efe); C. Piepenbring, A'rt'. dt CHist. des Reiig. 24 ab ff 37 ff. ('90, ' La rdformc et Le code de Joi Documents 0/ tite Hex. 2 ('98). ib. -0 123- ^"^JU- 37 8o('94); Addis, .See also Introductions to the OT : Eichhorn, 4th ed. ('23); De Wette (17, 7th ed. "52, 8th ed. by E. Sehradcr, '69); Itleeic i'6o), subst.intially unaltered in later edd., E'l' by Venables '6,>); S. Davidson ('62); Kuencn, Hist. krit. t^nd.{'fii; 2nd ed. entirely rewritten, '85); ET by Wicksteed, The Hexatcuch, ('86); Reuss, (.Vir/j. des W7' ("81 ; 2nd ed. '90) ; C'ornill ('91 ; anded. '92); l^river, httrod. ('91 ; 6lh ed. '9-), cp ' Deuteronomy ' in Smiths /)//(-') (y j) ; Kdnig ('93) ; WildelxK:r, De Lettetkunde desOuden I'erboiids (a-,); Holzinger, Einl. in den Hex.('^p. On the relation of Dt. to Jeremiah, see Kueper, Jeretniat lihrorum sacrotum i>iter/>res et vindex, 4-45 ('38); Kdnig, 'Das Deut. und der Prophet Jeremiah," W 7' Studien. 2('^v); Zunz, ZDMG 28 669-676 (73) ; Colenso, pt. 7, App. pp. 85-110, cp ;: 563.^ 572 A . ,, .

In defence of the Mosaic authorship: Hengstenberg, Authentie des Pent. 2 159^. ('19), ET Genuineness 0/ the Pentateuch, 2 130^ (47); Hiivcrnic'K, Einl. in das AT 1 601 ff. (^f), ET Jntrod. to the J'cntateiuh, 410/ ('50); Keil, Einl. in das AT, 1853, 3rd ed. 1873, ET by C. C. M. Dougl.ns, Introd., etc. 1869; Bis<.cll, 'The Pentateuch, its Origin and Structure ('85); G. V'os, The Mosaic Origin 0/ tlu I'entateuchal Codes ('66); Martin, Introd. ,i la crit. gin. de TAnc. lest. 1 295^ (87); A. Zahn, Das Deut. ('go)-

G. V. .M.

DEVIL[edit]

For Dt. 32i7elc. (cnr). Lk.433 etc. (5at- /idi/tof), Mt. 8 31 etc. (&aCnuiv), see Demons, 8 4 ; for Lev. 17 7 etc. ("I'i"^"), see Satyr ; and for Mt. 4 i etc. (6 fia/3Ao?), see Sata^ ,

DEVOTED[edit]

AV sometimes, RV usually, for Din, henni (Lev. 272i KV, i K. 2O42 RV, etc.). See BAN. 2.

DEW[edit]

("Pp ; Apococ)- 'Dew' is a theme which kindles the enthusiasm of the OT writers; but what does 'dew' mean in the OT? and are the common explanations of the biblical references altogether correct ?

1. Meaning of the term.[edit]

During the spring and autumn the phenomenon which we call dew is, at least in the intervals of fine weather, ^^ familiar in Palestine as in western countries: the moisture held in suspension in the atmosphere during the day is deposited, in cloudless nights, owing to the cooling of the surface of the ground, in the form of ' dew.' It is not, however, simply this phenomenon of spring and aiitimin that excites the enthusiasm of the Hebrew writers ; for it is not the dew but the former and the latter rains that are in these seasons of vital importance to the agriculturist (see R.\IN). During the summer season, however, from the beginning of May to the latter part of OctoIx:r, there is an almost unbroken succession of cloudless days, when vegetation becomes parched, and would altogether perish but for another phenomenon which has a prior claim to the descriptive Hebrew name /<;/ ('sprinkled moisture') uniformly re- presented in the EV by the word 'dew.' During the summer, but more especially (when the need is greatest) in the latter part of August and during Septemlx.'r and Octot)er, westerly winds bring a large amount of mois- ture from the Mediterranean (see Winds). This moisture becomes condensed by the cool night air on the land into something not unlike a Scotch mist, which, though specially thick on the mountains, is yet abundant enough everywhere to sustain with its moisture the summer crops, and to keep some life in the pastures of the wilderness.^

1 The true meaning of tO is most clearly set forth by Neil, Palestine Explortd (,'83), pp. 129-151, to whom this article owe* its central idea.

Coming only in the night, and being so much finer than ordinary rain, this beneficent piovision of nature received a special name, tal, to which the .Arabic tall"n, 'fine rain," corre- sponds. _ The Greek poetical terms jpoirot iroiTio and BaXavaia, tpovtpai fci^f'Aai, seem more adequate than the simple ipotro^, and, but for the shock to our associations, 'night mist'l would be a preferable rendering to 'dew.'

This explanation clears up certain otherwise obscure passages. It also enables us to identify with consider- able probability the season to which any important passage nietitioning fal refers. The miracle of Gideon's fleece, e.g. , w;xs presumably placed by the writer in the summer. At the same time, when perfectly general language is used respecting /<:/(' dew'), it may be oix-n to us to suppose that a confusion exists in the writer's mind between the genuine ' dew ' of winter (spring and uutumn) and the ' night mist' of summer, which is not, in our sense of the word, dew at all, since the vapour be- comes contlonsed in the air before it reaches the ground.

In illustration, see Lane's Arahic Lexicon, s.v. tafia. One example given is, ' The sky rained-small-rain (taltaf) upon the earth.' Tall"" is defined as ' light or weak {i.e., drizzling) rain, or the lightest and weakest of rain ; or dew that descends from the sky in cloudless weather.' Cp also Koran, Sur. 2267, 'And if no heavy shower (jvdbilu") falls on it, the mist {tall"") does.'

2. Biblical and other references.[edit]

(a) Where the ' dew' comes from. Job 38 28 is, probably enough, a scribe's insertion (Bi. , Duhm) ; but, if so, the scribe gives an invaluable early summary of what precedes. He states that what is said of the rain in vv. 25-27 refers not only to the wuiter rains or to the occasional thunderstorms but also to the ' night mist.'

Has the rain a father?
Or who has begotten the streams 2 (not 'drops') of 'dew'?

To this question a wise man replies (Prov. 820),

By his (God's) knowledge the depths were opened (i.e., at creation).
And the sky drops down 'dew.'

So Gen. 2728 Dt. 332$ Hag. 1 10 Zech. 812; cp also Judg. 54 ((5" and Theod. ).* A more complete answer is given in ]-'noch, where the 'treasuries' of snow and hail (Job 38 22) and also of dew and rain are described. If Job did not ' come to those treasuries ' Enoch did, according to the current legend. The statements are important : ' The spirit of the dew has its dwelling at the ends of the heaven, and is connected with the chambers of the rain, and its course is in winter and summer ; and its clouds, and the clouds of the mist are connected, and the one passes over into the other' (6O20, Charles). In chap. 70 the twelve portals of the winds are described. From eight of them dew and rain are said to proceed ; the winds are not, however, always beneficial. The author is by no means a good observer, and his statement is of value only as confirming the statement of t)0 2o that 'dew' and 'rain' are connected.

{b) Preciousness of ' dezu.' The land of Israel is called a land of corn and wine ; yea, his heavens drop down dew' (Dt. 33 28). The blessing of Jacob says: 'God give thee of the dew of heaven, and of the fatness of the land' (Gen. 2728; contrast 7'. 39, RV'2). Yahw6 himself resembles ' dew ' ; 'I will be as the dew for Israel ' (parched up, desolate Israel), IIos. I45 [6]. The preciousness of the ' dew ' is shown by its effects, which are next descril^ed.

Perhaps, however, fal here includes rain. Dew is an emlilem of resurrection ;' ' A dew of liglits is tliy dew, and to life shall the earth liring the shades' (Is. 2{i ig, S/IO I"). From the world of i)erfect light where Vahwe dwells a supernatural 'dew' will descend on the dead Israelites. 'The dew of resurrection' (rrnn Sc '72) 's a Talmudic phrase based on this prophecy. In the Koran, also {e.er-, Sur. 41 39), rain is referred lo as a sign of the resurrection. Probably, too, Micah 5 7 [6] also should he mentioned here. The traditional text, as it stands, is unin- telligible. The 'remnant of Jacob ' among the nations cannot be at the same time like showers of night mist on the earth and like a lion. The upright line (Pasek) placed after 'And shall i>e ' (iTH) warns us (as so often) that there is something doiibtfitl in the text. Possibly /V, ' upon ' has dropped out. The passage then reads thus, ' And there shall be on the remnant of Jacob . . . as it were "dew" from Yahwfe . . . which tarries not for man,' etc. i.e., which is independent of human effort. Reluctant as one may be to deviate from an unquestioned tradition, it becomes necessary to do so, when even the acute Wellhausen admits that the jwint of the comparison in the present text is unintelligible to him.

1 This is the first rendering of 7t? in P.DB. It had been adopted by Che. in his Prof-hecies 0/ Isaiah and Book of J'salinsih, who followed Xeil, o/>. cit.. 14O.

2 MT reads '^J*, generally rendered 'drops' ( /3<iAovs). Reservoirs' would be more defensible; but this does not suit 'begotten.' The obvious emendation is '^.'?2. Rain is called D'n^K jVb '" Ps- C5 10. The scribe is thinking of the 'channel ' tl^yn) in T. 25.

3 Heb. text has only ' dropped.

(c) Other illustrative passages. The dew (night mist), like the rain, comes by the word of a prophet (i K. 17 i). It falls suddenly (2 S. 17 12), and gently, like jjersuasive eloc|uence (Ut. 322); it lies all night (Job '2919), but early disappears like superficial goodness (Hos. 64). Such a night mist is to be exjxicted in the early summer, in the settled hot weather of harvest (Is. 18 4 ; but, on text, see Vim:, i). It has a healing effect on vege- tation (I'-cclus. 18 16 4322) ; but for a man to Ix; exposed to it is a trying experience (Cant. 62). It is all-pervading; hence Gideon asks, as a sign of his divine mission, first, that the fleece which he has put on the threshing-floor may be wet with a night mist [tal) when the floor it.self is dry, and next, that the fleece may be dry when the floor is wet. So abundant is the moisture of the night mist that in the morning after the first exi^erience Gideon is able to wring out of the fleece a whole bowlful of water (Judg. 636-40).

(d) Two doubtful passages. \n Ps. 110 3, if the scribes have correctly transmitted the text, there is a condensed comparison of a king's youthful army to the countless drops of dew : a highly poetic figure, adopted by Milton in speaking of the angel- hosts. The words, however, ' thou hast the dew of thy youth ' ('dew' is not attested by the LXX, though the other Greek translators all have ipotros), are probably corrupt (see Che. Psal)ns(->). The other passage (I's. 133 3) appears to state that it is the dew of Hermon that comes down on the moun- tains of Zion. Some (so Del.) have thought that a plentiful dew in Jerus.alem might be the result of the abundance of vapours on Hermon ; others (so Baethi;.), that 'dew of Hermon ' is a proverbial expression for a plentiful dew. Robertson Smith {O'/yO-) 2i2)suggests that the expressions may be hyperbolical ; the gathering of pious pilgrims from all parts at the great feasts at Jerusalem w.as ' as if the fertilising dews of great Hermon were all concentrated on the little hill of Zion ' ; but the p.assage, as it stands, is incapable of a natural interpretation. The text came into the editor's hand in an imperfect condition. Hermon and Zion can by no possibility be brought into connection either here or in the equally corrupt passage, Ps. 42 6 [7]. T. K. C.

DIADEM[edit]

Strictly SidSr]/iia (SiaS^w, to bind round) is no more than a rich fillet or liead-band. It was worn around the Persian royal hat (see MITRE, 2), and, as distinguished from ffTi(f>avoi (see CROWN"), is the badge of royalty; cp i Mace. I9 615 814 etc.. Rev. 123 13i 19i2 (RV, AV 'crown,' and so YJV in i Esd. 4 30). It is probable that fillets of a more or less ornate character are referred to in the Heb. -itj, rri^^' (see Crown) and ]"s (see Mitre).

1. AiaSrjfitt is used by to render nri3, kether, Esth. 1 11, and "113, ni-zcr, 2 S. 1 10 [ L, Sym. Theod.] (see Ckown, 2), ~'^:J?, takrik, Esth. 8 15 (see Mantle), and ]>:s, santph. Is. 623 (cp Ecclus. 47 6): see 4 below.

Diadem, in EV. represents the following words :

2. ii.irpa, 15.ar. 62 (EV, in Judith 10 3 10 8, EV 'tire,' AVmg. ' mitre ').

3. nsjsn, viiinepheih, Ezek. 21 26 [31] .W ; see Mitke, i.

4. ^^'Vi, santph, Is. G23 EV, Zech. 85 RVniff. (EV 'mitre'). Job 29 14 EV (RV'ig. ' turban ') ; .see Turban, 2.

5. nTli, siphirah (properly ' a plait ' ; \/to weave), Is. 28 5

(II niay. TrAexeis or jrAo/tcis, etc. [P.K.\Qr], irA'y/ma (Aq. Theod.J, iciVp'lSym.l). InEzek. T 7 10 (RV 'doom'), according to Co., 5,y//;/vf/! means 'crown' (cp RVmt.'- ' crowning time ') ; text perhaps faulty, see Co., BertholeU

DIAL and SUN-DIAL[edit]

(ni"?l?p, literally 'steps,' ANABaBmoi ; Tg. NTB' pN*. 'hour-stone' ; Sym. in Is. 388 copoAoriON ; horologiinn). 2 K. 20ii Is. 388. The term occurs in the account of Hezekiah's illness.

In point of fact, however, the narrator says nothing of a ' dial ' and of ' degrees ' but only of ' steps ' ; where AV says, ' 1 he sun returned ten degrees,' RV more correctly .says, ' The sun returned ten steps.' though immediately afterwards it uses the incorrect term 'dial' (with a marginal note, 'Heb. steps'). Hence both in AV and in RV the accoimt is more obscure than it need have been. It is true, the parallel accounts in 2 K. 20 and Is. 38 differ, which produces some difficulty.

On the whole, Is. 887/ is probably nearer to the original text than 2 K. '208-ii. It is not, however, free from awkwardness. Explanatory words have evidently btx-n introtluceti, after removing which we get something like this : ' lichold, I will cause the shadow to go back as many steps as the sun has gone down on tlie steps of Ahaz. So the sun went back as many degrees as it had gone down." ' The dale of this part of the narrative is long after the age of Isaiah, who was ordinarily no worker of miracles (see Isaiah, ii. 15, and c|j i for. I32) ; and, if Duhm is correct, the phrase ' on the steps of Ahaz is the awkward insertion of an editor. The reference is, therefore, of very small archa;alogical value. Still, we may fairly ask what the late writer meant, and the most usual answer is that the steps were those which led u]) to the base of an olx.-lisk, the shadow of which fell on the upjxir steps at noon, and on the lower in the morning and the evening. We may suppose the monument to have Ix-en near ent)ugh to the palace for Hczckiah to see it from his chamber. This, however, is ciuite uncertain, and, nothing being said of such heathenish objects elsewhere,'- it is sca:cely probable. (see Is. 388, and cp Jos. .////. x. 2i) thinks that the stei)S were those of the palace. This has been too hastily rejected. It is perfectly possible that n'3. ' house (of),' fell out of the text before inK, 'Ahaz.' We must at any rate abandon the view that a dial with concentric circles and a central gnomon is meant. Ahaz might no <l(Hibt have borrowe<l this invention from Assyria (cp Herotl. 2109). There is no evidence, however, that ni^'iO can mean 'degrees,' and it must be rei)cated that the narrative appears to Ix; a glorification of Isaiah (cp Ecclus. 4823), b,ased on no ascertainable tradition of fact,-' either as regards the wonder or the 'ste|)s. ' ' Steps ' was the siniplest word to use in such a context, in six;aking of a comparatively remote age. T. K. c.

DIAMOND[edit]

("1'pr, D^n^ ; see IxjIow, 2).

1. Unknown to the Hebrews[edit]

The name diamond is merely a modification of adamant, though, unlike the latter word, it has a definite meaning, designating the well-known gem composed of crystallised carlxjii, with traces of silica anti earths. It is usually colourless, but is often tinged white, gray, or brown ; more rarely yellow, pink, etc.

The diamond does not apjxMr to have become known to the (jreeks till the time of Alexander's successors, when the (jreek kings had much intercourse with India, the only place in the ancient world where diamonds are known to have been obtained. Delitzsch has, indeed, ascrit)ed to the Assyrians an acc|uaintance with the diamond (comparing eliiit-su with Ar. 'a///tiis) ; but this is precarious. Xor is it any more likely that the diamond was known to the Egyptians ; the cutting point used by them in working hard stones was more probably corundum (Pctrie, Pmiif/ii/s and Tcmpks of Gizeh, 173). We need have little hesitation, therefore, in deciding that it was not one of the stones known to the Hebrews of the sixth century B.C. (l-"zck. 2813 EV). Much less could it have been an inscrilied gem in the high-priestly ' breastplate ' of P (Ex. '28i8 = 39 11 EV) ; for neither Greeks nor Romans could engrave the diamond.

It was not until the sixteenth centiirj- a.d. th.it the wonderful skill of the cinque-cento engravers succeeded in producing intagli upon the diamond. No doubt, even many of the works celebrated under this name may have lieen in reality cut in the white topaz or the colourless sapphire ; but C'hisuis, a most competent iudge, declares not only that Clement Hir.iKO h.-id engraved on a diamond the portrait of Don Carlos as a betrothal present to Anna, daughter of the enii)eror Maximilian I!., but also that he had himself seen it during his stay in Spain in 1564. Uirago h.-id enjjraved thearms of .^pain as a seal. Paolo Morigi.i, too, says that Torezzo discovered the method and engraved the arms of Charles V. on a diamond, whilst Jacobus Thrunus is said to have engraved on a dutmond the arms of England, for (jueen Mary of England, Philip's consort.

1 Cp Duhm, Cheyne.

2 Olx-lisks were characteristic of Eg>'ptian sun-worship (cp Jer. 43:3).

3 Hos.-inquet (T".?^,-! 3 37) explained the allesed phenomenon as the disturbance of the shadow during the solar eclipse of 1 1 th Jan.eSgB.c. It is needless to discuss this. Cp Chronology, 17.


2 The Hebrew Terms[edit]

Diamond occurs four times in EV once (Jer. 17 1) to translate the Heb. tcc {sJi,imir), which was almost certainly corundum (see Adamant, 3). the only substance used by the Greeks to engrave gems down to the end of the fourth century B.C., and thrice (Ex. 28 13 39 1 1 Ezek. 2813) to translate the Heb. c%l(yahiUCm).

See PRECIOUS STONES. w. r.


DIANA[edit]

(&pT/wic [Ti. WH], Acts \9^^f.).

1. The Goddess and her worship.[edit]

The characteristic feature of the early religion of Asia Minor was the worship of a mother-goddess , in whom was adored the mystery of Nature, perpetually dying and perpetually self-reproducing. She had her chosen home in the mountains, amitl the undisturbed life of Nature, among the wild animals who continue free from the artificial and unnatural rules constructed by men' (Ramsay, I/ist. Phryir. I89); the lakes with their luxuriant shores also were her favoured abode ; and, generally, in all the world of plants and animals her power was manifest. It was easy to identify such a goddess with the Greek Artemis, for the latter also was originally the queen of nature and the nurse of all life ; but from first to last the Ephesian goddess was an oriental divinity.

Under diflferent names, but with essential identity of character, the great goddess was worshipped throughout Asia Minor, and the various modifications of the fundamental con- ception often came into contact with, and influenced, one another, as though they were originally distinct. In northern and eastern Phrygia the great Nature-gixldess was worshipped as Cybele. In Lydia Katakekaumcne she was invoked as .\rtcmis, and also by the Persian name Anaiiis, introduced perbaps by Asiatic colonists planted in the Hermos valley by Cyrus (Rams. Hist. Ccogr. 0/ As. Min. 131). She was known there also as Leto, which is her title at Hierapolis and Dionysopolis. As Leto she is traceable through Lycia and western Pisidia to the Pamphylian Perga, where again sbe is also called Artemis (Str. 667). The name Leto is the Semitic ."M-lat (pSKi cp '.\AiAaT, Herod. 1 131), and points to Semitic influence, radiating perhaps from Cyprus (Rams. Hist. Phryg. I90).

The world-renowned scat of this worship was Ephesus (Acts 1927 ^v 6\r] rj 'Atrta Kal i] o'lKovnivi) a4,i(Tai : the festival in her honour was called OiKovfifviKO.). The fame of the ICphesian shrine was primarily due to the fact that ' the Asian mead by the streamsof the Cayster' ( I lom. //. 2461) was the natural meeting-point of the religious ideas brought westwards by the expansion of the pre- Aryan kingdom of -Asia .Minor (Sayce, Anr. Emp. 430K and of the foreign, Semitic, intiuences which iK'netratcd the peninsula at various points on the coast where intercourse with the I'hojnicians was active. Thus nuist we explain the peculiar composite features of the hierarchy which early grew up round the temple on the bank of the Cayster. It consisted of certain vestals [irapdivoi)^ under the presidency of a eunuch-priest, Ix-'aring the titular name Mcgabyzos (Str. 641). Some have understood the passage in .Stralx) to assert the existence of a College of Megabyzoi ; but probably merely a succession is meant (one only in Xen. Anah. S3> 6/. and .App. liCh^). Persia was probably the source of supply. There were three grades among the vestals, who seem to have had, besides, a female superintendent (Plut. An sent. 795 34 Reiske). There is no evidence (Hicks, Inscr. Brit. Mus. 82, p. 85) that they were called fdXiaaai, though the statement is usually made (after Guhl, F.phesiaca, 108) ; certain priestesses of the Great Mother were so called, however, according to Lactantius {Inst. \i2), and the bee was the regular tyjie on the coins (Head, Coins of Fph. ).

1 For the meaning of this word in connection with the Anatolian system, see Ramsay, Hist. Phryg. 1 96.

There was also a college of priests ('Eaff^vej). The popular derivation of the name was from iayJ)% = swarm ' (so Curtius, Ephesos, 36) ; but it is perhaps wrong to follow Lightfoot [Coloss. Intro, p. 94) in denying all connection with the name of the Jewish sect of the Essenes. These priests were the connecting link between the hierarchy and civic life e.g. , they cast the lot which determined the Thousand and Tribe of a newly created citizen (Hicks, i.e., no. 447, etc.). Neither their numlier nor the mode of their appointment is known, but they held office only for a year and superintended the feasts at the Artemisium following the sacrifices at the Artemisia, or annual Festival (Pans. viii. 13 1). Tor minor sacred oflicials see Hicks, I.e. 85/

The analogous establishments of the goddess Ma in the remote K. of Asia Minor, at the two Komanas (Cappadocia, Str. 5^5 ; Poitus, /</. 557), show us the system in a more thorou^h-goiiig form ; Straho's words (wvl &i ra fiiv tfivKdrreTai xiav vofj.inuiv to. 6' ^rroc) imply that the grosser features of the cult had been got rid of at Kphesus. In the eastern shrines we have a presiding priest allied in blood to the reigning family, and second only to him in honour, ruling the temple and the attendant Up6Sov\oi (6joo in number), and enjoying the vast revenues of the sacred


2. The image.[edit]

The cultus-statue was thoroughly oriental in form, being a cone surmounted by a bust covered with breasts (Jer. Prit-/. Eph.). Like the most ancient image of Athena at Athens (Paus. 2G6) and the statue of Artemis at Tauris (ICur. Iph. T. <)Tj), and that of the allied Cybele of Pessinus, it 'fell down from Jupiter' (so .W and RV in Acts 19 35 : toO SioTreroiis, ' that fell from heaven '). Such was her form wherever she was worshipped as ICphesian .Artemis ; but on the coins we find mostly the purely Hellenic type. The ' silver shrines ' (Acts 19 24 vaoi) were offered by the rich in the temple : poorer worshippers would dedicate shrines of marble or terra-cotta.

Numerous e.xamples in marble, and some in terra-cotta, are extant (.!//(. Mittk. 249, Arch. Zcit., i83o) ; the series .shows continuous development from the earliest known representation oitlie Mother-godde.ss (the so-called ' Niobe' at Magnesia near Mt. Sipylus) to such as that figured in Harrison, Myth, and Mon. 0/ Athens, 48 (cp Rams. in///.S", 1882, p. 45). Such .shrines w-re perhaps also kept in private houses (Paus. iv. 31 8 di'Spes i5i<f Bemv liaXifrTa. ayovariv ey Tt/nij). Similar shrines were carried in the sacred processions which constituted an important part of ancient ritual (Ignat. ai Eph. q avvo&oi Trai'Te?, 6(oi>6pOL xal vaofpopoL ', Metaphr. I 'it. Tintoth. 1 769 : ctfiajAa 6ta ;(cipbs i\ovri(i in the festival called Karayioyiof ; Inscr. Brit. Mus. i n >. 481, referring to the thirty gold and silver awfiicowV^aTa presented by C Vibius Salutaris in 104 a.d).

In the manufactiu'e of these shrines many hands and much capital were employed (.\cts 1924 Trapeixfo foh Texvirais ouk dXiyrju ipyaaiav).

The characteristic formula of invocation was ixeya.\-q "Apre/jLis (whence we must accept the reading of D as aijainst the fieydXr) r; 'AprefJ-is of the other MSS). The epithet is applied in inscriptions {C/(t 2963 C, ttjs yu -yiXT/s Seas 'Apr^/utSoj ; ifi. 6797, 'Ei^ejoi/ "Avacrcra). Its use in invocation has been detected at other centres of the allied cults.

This was the case, for example, at the shrine of .\rtemis-Leto and .\pollo-Lairbenos at Dionysopolis (Rams. ///>.'. Fhryg. 1 151, n. 49, fieya? ' KtroKKia Aepni^fos, see /. Hell. Stud., 1889, p. 2i6y| ; cp Hist. Phryg. 153, n. 53, fv^a-piarui Mijrpt AjjtoJ on f a.h\)va.ru>v h\>va.-ta. Troiei). In an inscription from the I.imnai (mod. I'.girdir Geiil and Hoiran G.), where Artemis of the lakes was revered, we have the formula MeyiXij 'Aprtfjii^ (kams. i/ist. Geoerr. 0/ AM, 410). The Artemis of Therma in Lesbos is invoked by the phrase 'Great Artemis of Therma' which appears on a stone .still standing by the road between Therma an i Mitylene {B 'II de Corr. Hell.. 1880, p. 430). The Artemis of Perga also affords a parallel (Rams. Church in K. Emp. 138 ; cp also id. His!. Geog. 0/ AM, 292).

All these e.xamples show that \}nG power ol the goddess was a prominent idea in the cult, and give point to the' reiteration of the formula by the mob (Acts I934). Cp Xen. Eph. In, b^vixj rk ffoi riiv virpiov rifiiv 6e6v, Tr)y fieyiXrjv 'Ecpecriwv 'Apre/uv.

3. The temple.[edit]

One of the secrets of the popularity of the temple was its right of asylum. Whatever the fate of the town, the temple and all within its precincts were safe (Paus. vn. 28 rots 5^ irepl rb lepbv oiKou<n belfia. Jji/ ov54v. Cp also Herod. 1 26 ; Cic. Verr. ii. 1 33 ; Strabo, 641). The peribolos-area was several times enlarged by Alexander the Great who extended it to a radius of a stade from the temple, and again by Mithridates. Antony doubled it, taking in fiipoi ri rrjs ir<iXews i.e. , part of the suburbs. This extension worked in favour of the criminal classes (Stralx), /.c, Tac. Ann. 36o), so that .Augustus in 6 B.C. narrowed the sanctuary area, and surrounded it with a wall (Hicks, /.r. no. 522 /. ). There was a further revision by Tiberius in 22 A. I). (Tac. Ann. 36i). Connected with this security was the use of the place as a national and private bank of deposit ( Dio Chrys. J^/wd. Or. 595 ; see also Ca;s. Be//. Civ. '633 105; Strabo, 640). I'Yom the deposits, loans were issued to individuals or communities ( Hicks, Alanua/ Gr. Hist. Inscr. no. 205).

It is noteworthy that the opposition to Paul did not originate among the priests (see Ephesus). The energies of the priests of the great shrines must have been largely directed to the absori)tion of kindred elements in the new cults with which they came in con- tact, or at any rate to the harmonising of the various rival worships. In this they were assisted by the tendency of the Greeks to see in foreign deities the figures of their own pantheon. That very definite steps were taken in Ephesus to avoid conflict with the cult of Apollo is proved by the localisation there of the birth- place of Apollo and Artemis (.Str. 639, Tac. Ann. 36i ; cp Pauly's Realenc. 1373). The teaching of Paul would seem but another importation from the E. , likely to effect a revival redounding to the advantage of the temple. This blindness of the priesthood to the real tendencies of the new teaching is well illustrated at Lystra, where the priest of Zeus Pr.opoleos is foremost in doing honour to Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14 13). Not until a later period was this attitude exchanged for one of hostility ; the earliest pagan opposition was based on lower grounds than those of religion (Rams. Church in R. Emp. 131, 200). [See especially Zimmermann, Ep/icsos im crstcn christl. Jahrhundert, 1874.]

, VV. J. w.

DIBLAH[edit]

(nri75'=]; AeBAaGa [HAQ]), Ezek. 6.4 RV. See RIBLAH.

DIBLAIM[edit]

(Q'^^T), Hos. I3 : see Gomf.r (2).

DIBLATH[edit]

(nn^ni in Ml"; the statement that the true Palestinian reading is '2"1 is weakly attested [Ha.] ; AcBAaGa [B.\Q]), Ezek. 614 AV (RV Diblah), where the ' toward ' of EV demands an emended te.xt. See RIBLAH.

DIBLATHAIM[edit]

(HO^n^aT), Nu. 3346; see BETH-DIBLATHAIM.

DIBON[edit]

(fn-l ; so thrice [Bii. ad Is. I52] ; elsewhere in OT and on Moahite stone p"'T. and so AaiBcon [B.\FL] whence the true pronunciation is probably Daibon, Meyer, ZAW 1 128, n. 2 but in Josh. 13i7 AAiBcop [A], AeBcoN [L]).

1. A citv of Moab (Is. 1.^)2, \r^^u>v [BS<:<'"P'], Aai^-nduif [N*], Af,^. [nV], Jer. 481822 St^wv [X], [a]5at/ia)v [Q]), the modern Diban, about 3 m. N. from .Aroer and 4 from the Arnon. -A fragment of an ancient song preserved by JE in Nu. 21 commemorates the conquests of the Amoritc king Sihon over Moab 'from Heshbon to Dibon ' [v. 30). According to Nu. 3234 [E] it was ' built ' by the Gadites, and it is alluded to as Dibon-Gad in Nu. 3345/ [P]- Josh. 13. 7 [P] gives it to the Reubenites. In Is. lag the name is written Di.mon \qv.\ It was at Diban that the famous stone of King Mesha was discovered in 1868.

2. In list of Judahite villages (Ezra, ii. 5 L*^] ^5 [i] a). Neh. 11 25 (Ai/Swv [S<= ]. om. BA) ; perhaps the DIMONAH ['/.'] of Josh. 1022.

1 So MT. The original text no doubt had ' Vahwe.

DIBRI[edit]

(n^T ; AABp[e]i [BAF], zamBri [L] ; DABKi], father of Shki.omith [q.v., no. i] ; Lev. 24ii.t P's story of the son of Shelomith who blasphemes ' the Name ' ^ bears a close family likeness to the incident in Nu. 25 14/^ There the marriaKC of Zimri (a name not unlike Dibri)' with a Midianitess is the cause of sin, and here the offentlcr is the son of a mixed union. Zimri belongs to the tribe of Sinieon which, according to Gen. 46 10, had Canaanitc relations, and in the person of Dibri the tribe of Dan is pilloried (see Dan, 8). In both stories the prevailing principle is the necessity of cutting off Israel from all strangers ; cp Neh 9 a 1830, and see liertholot. Slellutig J. Isntel. 147.

DIDYMUS[edit]

(AiAymoC [Ti. WH]), Jn. 11.6 etc ; see Thomas.

DIKLAH[edit]

(n7|5"n; AckXa [AEL], in Ch. AckXam [A]; om. R; decla), son of Joktan ((icn. IO27 i Ch. I21). The name is obscure; it has leen supposed by Rochart and others to designate ' a palm-l>earing district ' (cp Ar. dukal"", a sort of palm tree, and see BDH). Hommel connects it with the name of the Paradise river Hid-dckcl (sec I'akadisk).

DILEAN[edit]

KV Dilan (iv'?^ : AaAaA [I^] : -A&A [A] : -AAan [I'l. !> ^='^?). an unidentifi<xi city in the ShephClnli of Juilah (Josh. 1.138). It occurs with Mizjxih (Tell cs-.Sfifiyeh) in a group apparently N. of the group comprising Lachish and Eglon.

DILL[edit]

(to anhBon). Mt. 2823 KV">n- ; KV Anise (,;.:. I.

DIMNAH[edit]

(HJPT ; Aamna [ALT ; CA\A [B]K one of the cities of Zebulun theoretically assigned to the Levites (Josh. 21 35! I'). It is mentioned together with Naiiai.AI, (r/.f. ). The form, however, .seems incorrect ; we should rather read Rimmonah, with Di. , IJerth. , Ik-nnett. Cp Rimmono (i Ch. 662 [77]). and see RiMMON, ii. 3. T. K. C.

DIMON[edit]

(P!3*'l ; AeiMCON [B twice] ; peMMCON I^X'^ ' "^ twice, .\r once, Q* once] ; ACMMCON [once m i sup ras N' ; AepMCON N* fort] ; AlMOON [once (J'"b] ; NeMMOJ [once N*]), a town of Moah mentioned only in Is. 159 (twice). According to Che. jic'i is a corniji- tion of c'"CJ NiMKi.Nf ['/.*'.]; it is no olycction to this view that Nimrim has already been meiuioned in t-. 6 ; Mad.mkn' in Jer. 482 is still more plainly a corruption of Nimrim. Those who adhere to the traditional text suppose that Diiuon = Dibon, the former with ;// lieing cho.sen on account of the assonance with </<////, ' bUxxl," or else that some unknown place is referred to (accord- ing to Duhm, on the border of Iklom ; cp l(5i and see 2 k. 822). The former view is the more prevalent one. If Alxxna = Amana, may not Dimon be equivalent to Dibon ? Jerome in his conuncntary says, ' Usque hodie indifferenter et Dimon et Dibon hoc oppidulum dicitur," and in the O T it.self we find Dimonah [-/.f.] and Dibon (2) used for the same place. If Dilx)n lje meant in Is. 15, ' the waters of Dimon' may, according to Hitzig and Dillmann, be a reservoir such as many cities probably possessed (cp Cant. 74(5]. hut see HESmi(J.N). The Arnon flowed too far off from the town to \y& meant. Still the text may Ix; admitted to be doubtful. II. \v. H.

DIMONAH[edit]

(n3iD*"1 ; pepMA [B], Aimcona [AL]). a Jiid.iliite city on the Ixsrder of Edoni (Josh. l.')22). I'eriiaps the DiKON (2) of Nch. 11 25 (cpDilxm and Dimon in .\Ioab). Knotxjl and others suggest the modern Kh. edh-Dheib or et-Teiyibeh, 2 J m. Ni:. of Tell'Arad ; but this is quite uncertain. Pesh. |LfOJ0i presupposes a form rz-ST \ cp the variation given under Dannah.

1 Note L'.s rc-iding .ilxjve. _ Zimri in okl Ar. (Sab.) com-

rjunJs is liimri (see Zi.mki, i., n.); and for interchange of and m cp Zabdi, n.


DINAH[edit]

(nj-^ ; A[e]iNA [AL]), 'daughter' of Leah and 'sister' of Simeon and Levi.

1. Gen. 34.[edit]

Whilst Ben-oni left behind it some memorials (see BEN-ONI), the disappearance of Dinah, to judge from the absence of all later traces, seems to have been absolute. In J's story, however, when Simeon and I-cvi fell upon the people of Shechem, as the Danites fell upon Laish, their attempt to carry Dinah away w.as successful. Two explanations are possible. Dinah may have disappeared as a trilie later along with its rescuers ' there is, howe\er, a difference: the brother tril^es left traces (see Levi, Simko.n) or the success of the raid m.ay be an element of exaggeration in the story: Dinah may ha\e been absorl)ed into Shechem. Indeetl the question suggests itself, as it does in the case of the other ' wives' in the patriarch stories (see Zii.pah, HimiAM, Raciiei., Leah), Have we here ri-ally a di.stinct trilx:? or does Dinah simply mean Israelitish families (of whatever clan) that settled in .Shechem?

Unfortunately J's story is incomplete : we are not told what the dowry demanded of Shechem was, or why the city was attacked. A later age forgot that in Canaan only the Philistines were uncircumcised (see ClKCfMf isioN, 3), and thought that Israel could never h:!ve consented to settle in Shechem unless that town adopted the circumcision rite. J cannot have meant this.

2. Motive.[edit]

Unlike the raid on Laish, that on Shechem seems to have been condemned by public sentiment. 'Cursed be their anger,' says the * Blessing of Jacob,' 'for it was fierce, and their wrath, for it was cruel ' ; but according to J the chief reason of this disfavour was that the safety of Israel had been imperilled. The judgment that overtook the perp<-tration of the raid is clearly indicated in the Blessing : they should tx; divided and .scattered. One instinctively asks. How does this 'judgment' stand related to the name dinahl Does one explain the other? and, if so, which ?

The Dinah story may be regarded as an explanation of the 'judgment' either on Shechem or on Simeon-Levi. It is also, however, fitted to serve as a popular explanation of the name Jacob, which it assigns to the immigrant people : Jacob was a wily people ; and he paid back an injury done him. Stories are easily worked up so as to explain several distinct points.

3. Meaning.[edit]

It was a common belief in the days of the monarchy that the Leah trilx's had been in the highlands of Ephraim before they settled in the south (see ISRAEL, LEVI, SIMEON, DAN, 2). The point that concerns us here is whether some of them settled in Shechem. Unfortunately the earliest traditions that have come down to us Ixloiig to an age w hen there was no distinct memory of the real course of events. Every one knew that there was a time when Isr.aelites had planted themselves in the hill-country but had not yet incorporated .Sliechem the belief of a later age, that it was the resting-place of the remains of Joseph, had not arisen but as to how it Ix-came Israelite there were already various theories. One story told of deeds of sword and bow ((Jcn.4S22 Judg. 945) ; another made more of a treaty or coiuract of some kind (connubium? circumcision? a sale of pro])erty? an alliance [nn:] ? ; 831934). It might jx-rhaps be sug- gested that the f7<//'>t(/-alliance with the Shechenutes (Judg. 831) points to a third story, a story of an Abiezrite settlement in Shechem. The idea of the covenant, however, may be simply a popular attempt to explain the name Baal-berith ('/-v.), like the story connectcd with the name Jerubbaal (see Gideon). The warlike story, though early, may have to be classed with others of the same type. The jxiaceable settlement theory is historically the most probable ; but it is hardly necessary to question the occurrence of a Dinah raid, less success- ful than the Danite. See, further, Lkvi, .Simko'n,

JUUAH. H. \v. !!.

1 Prof. Cheyne thinks that the disappearance of the tribe is actuallv reortlec! in .15 8: that what E wrote w.-is not 'and there died Deborah,' but 'and there died Dinah.' There are certainly, as he urges, difTiculties in the text .is it stands : the connecting of a famous tree with a nurse ; the preservation of the name (contrast Ccn. 2459, where moreover read ."tjro for .irpjD ' T* v-aa^xovra. auTi7 : cp 31 18); the presence of the nurse in the train of Jacob; the whole Jacob-clan making a solemn mourning over her ; the geographical discrepancy between Gen. 35 8 and Judg. 43. jle tlicrcfore proposes to emend r\^z-\ ppj'D m3T into nn'ra.i a-j.': na nan and to read : ' And Dinah, Jacob's eldest daughter, died, and was buried at the foot of (the hill of] Bethel, and was buried under the Tree ; so its name is called Ailon-fjakuth ' (see Ai.i.on-baccth). The de.struction of a tribe would certainly fully account for the mourning (hikuth). Both J (Gen. S73O and P (Gen. 467) re- present Jacob as having more than one daughter.

DINAITES[edit]

(N^J*!), mentioned with the APHARSATHCHITES, TARPELITES ['/./.t'.], and others, in the Aramaic letter from Rehum to Artaxerxes (Ezra 49). It is improbable that the word is an ethnic name (so <S"'^, dlejivaioL, dinaei [Vg. ]), and we should rather point N":n ' judges ' (so - ol Kpirai). It is the Aramaic translation of the Persian title ddtahhar. Cp Hoffmann, Z.4, 1887, p. 55; Schrader, J/U'B'-^; Andreas in Marti, Bifi/. Aram. Gram. 59*.

DINHABAH[edit]

(nnn^; AeNN^B<\ [ADEL]), the city of the Edomite king I^ei.a ((/.2'.), Oen. 8632. Almost beyond a doubt nznzi is a corruption of pz^nf (cp V. 37). See lii.LA, and cp Che. OLZ, May '99. It is a mere accident that several names can be quoted somewhat resembling Dinhabah. Thus in the Amarna tablets Tunip or Dunip is mentioned as in the land of Martu. Tunipa also occurs in the list of the N. Syrian places conquered by Thotmes III. (Tomkins, /^/'('^) 529). There was a Danaba in Palmyrene Syria (Ptol. V. 1524; Assemani, Bid/. Or. 82, p. 595 /i 606, quoted by Kn. ), and a Danabe in Babylonia (Zosim. //is/. 827). 'I'here was also a Dannaba in N. Moab (05 11431). A Toneib(/'i5"/^ map) or Thenib (Tristram) is to be found NK. of Hesban ; the F/iF map calls it Hodbat el Toneib, but the Beni Sakhr ' knew not Hod- bat ' (Gray Hill, /'/-/'Q. 1896, p. 46). With this place Dinhabah is identified by v. Riess, Bibel-Atlas, and Tomkins, PEFQ, 1891, p. 322/ T. K. c.

DINNER[edit]

(apicton), Mt. 224 etc. See Meals, 2, n.

DIONYSIA[edit]

(AiONYCiA [VA]), 2 Mace. 67 RV"'S- ; ICV P.acciius.

DIONYSIUS THE AREOPAGITE[edit]

(AiONycioc [o] ApeonArlellTHC ['H- ^VIIj), one of Paul's Athenian con\crts (.Acts 1734)- See Dam.VKIS.

Eusebius (///; 34 423) tells us on the authority of Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, who flourished about 171 A.D., that Dionysius the Arenpagite became first bishop of Athens. In ecclesiastical tradition he is sometimes confounded with St. Denis, the first apostle of France, a confusion which was greatly fostered by Abbot Hilduin of St. Denis (834 A.n.) in his Arcopai^itica, which made large use of spurious documents. The important writings of the Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita, first mentioned in the sixth century, do not fall within the scope of a Dictionary of the liible.

DIONYSUS[edit]

(AiONYCOC [VA]), 2 Mace. 67 RV>"g-; EV BACCHUS.

DIOSCORINTHIUS[edit]

(Aioc korinGioy FA], *;jilwkiJk,/. [IV-sh.]; 2 Mace. Il2it); see Month, 4.

DIOSCURI[edit]

(AioCKOYPOl [Ti. WH]), Acts 28ii R\'"'^'- ; AV Casiok and Poli.ux.

DIOTREPHES[edit]

(AiOTpecl)HC [Ti. WH]) is the .subject of unfavourable comment in 3jn. <)f. Beyond what is there stated, nothing is known concerning him.

DIPHATH[edit]

(nS^'l), iCh. I6t AV^e- and RV; Av' and R\"*>'- RIPHATH.

DISCIPLE[edit]

One who learns (cp Gk. maBhthc from manGano)) As opposed to one who teaches (AiAackaAoc); see Rabki, Teaciier.

1. OT usage[edit]

AV and RV both give 'disciples' in Is. % 16 {d{sci/>uli[V%.y), and RVmj;. in 5O4 and 54 13 (7ra<[]ta, iiSaxTO? [BNAQ]). In each case this represents C"1157, ' those who taught or trained.' A synonymous word from the same root is "I*?; ?, common in late Jewish writings (cp esp. D'C^n 'I'cSn, ' disciples of the wise '), and found once in I Ch. 258, where the contrast between 6 jaa^T>)S and 6 fit5a(TicaAo5 (for which cp also Mt. 10 25) is expressed by |'22 TC^n'CJ? 'as well . . . the teacher as the scholar' (reAeicoi' Kai tiavda.v6vTij>v [BAL], [<rvi'iu' (xera /iiai-fldi'Oi'Tos, b], doctus pariter et indoctus [Vg.]). The apparent parallel in 'master and scholar ' Mai. 2 12 AV (MT iuyi IJ? niagistruni et discipu- lum) is untrustworthy ; the passage is rendered in many different ways, and is certainly corrupt. 1 In the LXX/maftjT^s occurs only in A, for C'SlVx 'friends' (as if from j'TN 'to teach'), viz., in Jer. 1321, and in Jer. 20 11 4t>9 where B (and in 4i>9 Al^', see Hatch-Redpath, Concordance) correctly reads fxaxi7T^s. On the subject generally see EnuCATioN.

2. NT usage.[edit]

In the NT ixad-qTrjs (fem. fiadyjTpia, Acts 936), though limited to the Gospels and Acts, is of frequent occurrence. Here it sometimes agrees with the usage in Attic (cp especially Plato) and designates merely the pupil, one who is taught by another (Mt. 1024 = Lk. 640). It is then applied to the followers of a particular teacher, or sect : as, for example, of Moses as opposed to Jesus (Jn. 928), of the Baptist (Mt. 9 14 Mk. 2 18), of the" Pharisees (Mt. 22 16 Mk. 2 18); it is also used of Jesus and his teaching (Jn. 666 and often). As referring to the followers of Jesus we find that fiaO-rjT-^i is applied {a), widely, to all his adherents and followers (Alt. 10 42, and esp. in Acts 627 etc. , only once followed by rou Kvpiov, 9i), including, even, those who had been baptized only 'into John's baptism' (Acts I91-3) ; and (6), in a more restricted manner, to denote the nucleus out of which the Twelve were chosen, who, themselves, are also called fiaOajTai in addition to the more familiar name of airlxrToKoL (Lk. 613 compared with Mt. 10 1, cp also Mk. 827 IO24 etc.) ; see Aposti.e.^

3. Later Christian usage[edit]

Finally, in ecclesiastical language, the term ' disciple ' is applied (jn the jjlur. ) more particularly to the Seventy who were sent out by Jesus to preach the Kingdom of Heaven (Lk. IO1-17). The number varies between seventy (so Text. Rec., Pesh.,^ NACL) and seventy-two (Vg. Cur. B, D etc. ; see more fully Varionim Bible and ( "omm. ). Lists of the names are extant in various forms and are ascribed to Dorotheos, Epiphanius, Hippolytus,^ and Sophronius. They comprise the names in the Acts and Pauline Epistles ; but variations are to be found in each list. See Lipsius, Die Apokry- phen Apostelgescli. ti. Apostellegend. 1 193-206.

DISCUS[edit]

(AlCKOC [VA]), the Greek game played at the palaestra introduced by Jason among the Hellenistic Jews of Jerusalem (2 Mace. 4 14) ; see Hellenism. 4 ; also Cap. It is mentioned alone, either as the chief, or perhaps only as an example, of the games played.

On the discus (a circular plate of stone or metal [cp 'dish']); see Class. Diet. s.v. 'Discus,' 'Pentathlon.' 'The indignation which the writer displays towards this Hellenizing innovation is paralleled in later limes by the abhorrence the Jews felt at the introduction of the f Grecian game of 'dice' (N'3ip, icu/Seta) ; see Shahb. 232 and cp Schiir. Gl'l 233, n. 154.


1 Torrey's correction is plausible to read i^jyi enc ' root and branch ' (cp 819 [4 1 ]).

2 For the same usage cp Tertullian, ad7'. Marc. 4 24.

3 Cp Ante-Nicene Library, i.\. Hippolytiis, 2132^

1 For these we have to acknowledge obligations to Dr. C. Creighton.

DISEASES[edit]

OT terms for diseases afe, as might be expected, vague (it is still a widespread practice in the East to refer euphemistically to any illness of a severe nature rather than to give it a name), and the nosological explanations * which will presently be given are but plausible or probable conjectures. Not to spend time on general terms such as >Vn, ^X^y^> vbao^ (rendered 'sickness, disease'), or on terms implying a theological theory of disease, such as j'lj, ^jJ3, ncjo, .irp (words which are often rendered ' plague,' but properly mean ' stroke,' cp Is. 684), we pass to special terms for pestilence.

Such are (a) niO, (3) na^i, (f) 3:i5 and 3ep, (</) icn. (a) niD inaweth (cp Ass. mtitanu), e6.va.T0<! (properly 'death'), is used for a fatal sickness, such as the plague, in Jcr. l.'>2 I821 43ii Jol)27i5. Cp theuscoftfai/oTotin Rev. 68 188. (*) 13^ dM'ker (perhaps originally a hoil [Socin)), O6.varo^, is the mos' distinctive term (see, e.g., Ex. i3 Dt. 2S21). Possibly, too, in the phrase ^ySa ^3^, rendered 'an evil disease' (I's. 41 8), we should point naT (with Lag. Che.), {c) 3Bp, ketebk and Jjfflfebh, 'cutting off' (Dt. 3'.>24 Ps. 9l6 Hos. 13 14), and (</) 'j^y'i, n/f/A (properly 'flame,' cp Reshei-h ; Dt. 8224 Hab. 3 5lp3;i) are poetic.-il words. See Pestilenck.

The follovk'ing terms, which are of a more specific character, occur chiefly in the threalenings of Lev. 22 26 Ut. 28 :

. ^^n^, harhUr (ipeeiafio^), Dt. 28 22t, 'extreme burning,*

RV ' fiery heat,' m.iy refer to some special fever, such as typhus or relapsing fever.

2. njjVn, dalUketh (fiiyo<;), Dt. 28 22t ; probably inflammation.

3. Dnn, /teres (<ct}<^i)), Dt. 2827!, the itch, probably some eruptive disease, such as the lichen tropicus.

4. nS^l, yalle/>/iet/i ('accretion'? kfixnv). Lev. 21 20 222-?t, EV ' scab(l>ed),' is, according to Jewish tradition, nnsD n'nn the Egyptian herpes.

5. rh^l, yai>/>eleth (ji.vpii.-i\Ki.u>VTa), 'one suffeiing fromw.irts' (so Jew. trad.), Lev. 22 22!; AV 'having a wen'; RVmtr- 'having sores' (ulcers); from n/S^', 'to flow,' hence 'a sup- puration ' ; see translation of Lev. in SBO'f.

6. rn'^i^, Ifadiiahatli (jruperds), Lev. 20 16 Dt. 28 22t, fever (AV in Lev. ' burning ague ').

Under the kist of these [kaddahath) may t)e included malarial or intermittent fevers, which are met with in the Jordan valley, but are not specially a disease of Syria and l^alestine, owing to the etiuable climate and the moderate variation of temperature. It was at Cajjernaum (a place liable probably to malaria) that Simon's wife's mother was ' taken with a great fever ' (Lk. 438) an expression which is thought to indicate medical knowledge.^ Certainly C3alen and Hippocrates use the phrase, as Wetstein has pointed out. There are parallel cases in Acts 1228 288 (see 9 10). Accord- ing to kamsay (.S7. Paul the Traveller ; cp Expositor, July 1899, pp. 20-23) the 'thorn (stake) in the flesh' spoken of in 2 Cor. 12; means the severe headache ("like a hot bar') which follows an attack of the malarial fever of Asia Minor.

7. riBnc', Iahe/>heth, Lev. 20 16 Dt. 2822t, 'consumption,' perhaps to be understood as the wasting of marasmus, which may attend various sicknesses. Pulmonary consumption is not, however, frequent in Syria (Pniner, 283).

8. 3T:,^,m?M,2 Lev. 21 20 22 22 Dt. 2827, 'scurvy' (but AV in Dt. ' scab '). The reference seems to be to some chronic skin disease such as eczema ; a sense in which ' scurvy ' and ' scor- butic ' were once used.

9. hv(Tevr4pi.ov (so the best MSS), Acts 288; RV 'dysentery.' The last of these terms, 'dysentery,' occurs in Acts

2828t, where the combination of relapsing malarial fever (irvpeToh) with dysentery is carefully noted. According to Josephus (Ant. vi. li) the disease of the Philistines in i S. 5 was dysentery, a view which, if the traditional Hebrew readings of the text may be accepted, has some plausibility. The more usual biblical ex- pression for dysentery is the falling out of the Ixiwels, implying either painful straining as if the bowels would fall out, or some shedding of the mucous membrane, or a degree of prolapse, such as occurs normally in the horse, mule, etc.

There is a singular combination of the idea of bursting asunder with that of falling out in Acts 1 18 ; but the second part of this pass.^ge will not bear the stress of critical treatment : It is the conventional fate of traitors in .ipocryphal legends that is assigned to Judas. The statement must, if this view is correct, be classed with the less historical portions of Acts. Cp ACELUAMA.

10. <7K03\r)K6pp(t}Toi ('eaten of worms') gives us the only detail as to the disease by which Herod Agrippa L was carried off (Acts 12 28). It reminds us, however, of the disease of which, ace. to Josephus (Ant. xvii. 65), Herod the Great died, one feature of which was fl-^^ts <!KtJ)\y)Ka.% ifi-Koiovca, and of that which 2 Mace, (ix. 59) asserts to have caused the death of Antiochus Epiphancs. One is almost led to think that, in the deficiency of evidence, narrators imagined such a fate as this for wicked kings. Sir R. liennett conjectures, partly on the ground of Josephus' statement (Ant. xix. 82), that the cause of Herod Agrippa's death was perforation of the bowels by intestinal worms (Diseases of the liible, 103).

On aflections of the sight, see EYE ; on other diseases see BOIL, LEPROSY, LUNATIC, PESTILANCE, THORN IN THE FLESH, etc. ; cp MEDICINE.

1 Wetstein (1752) remarks, ' Lucxs medicus morbos accuratius describere solet.' Cp Hobart, 'J'/te Medical Language 0/ St. Luke, Dublin, 1852.

2 Cp Kx.jarab, a contagious eruption consisting of pustules.

DISH[edit]

See Bowl (sephel). Charger (k'\irdh), Crusk (sallahath), and Meals, 9.


DISHAN[edit]

(\&'^; p[e]icu)N [AUEL], see Dishon). I. A Horite clan, reckoned as the seventh and youngest son of Seir. The name occurs in Gen. 3t;2i (om. B, AlCAN [L]) and I Ch. I38. Gen. 8628 (pHCCON [li]). iCh. I42 (MT pe^T; A&ICCON [IL\]), Gen. 8630. The name is practically identical with DiSHON, and should perhaps be emended after '- to pi:'n.

2. Gen. 30 26, RV">K-, EV Dishon (g.v.).

DISHON[edit]

(\\&\ [i Ch. I41]; |b""n [i Ch. I3B]; wrongly pointed j^""! [Gen. 8626] ; jit'T [Gen. 8621]; ibn [z'7'. 2530]; 68; ^HCCON [HADEL]). Twice reckoned as the fifth son of .Seir (Gen. 3<i2i i Ch. I38), but once (Gen. 8625 [Aaitrtoj' (E)]) as the son of Anah the son of Seir. His sons are enumerated in Gen. 8626 (RV'i-'- Dish AN, following present .MT), i Ch. I41 (\ai(jwv [BAL]). Cp Dlkk, i.

In spite of his genealogical phraseology, the writer is fully conscious that he is dealing not with indiviihials but with clans. Dishon, like LOTAN and the other names, belongs to a Horite clan, Its meaning seems to be some sort of mountain-goat (see PYGARG. A^ Di. and WRS agree, the Horite genealogy is full of animal names.

DISPERSION[edit]

A I AC no PA. so rendered by RV of 2 Mace. I27 Jn. 735 Ja. 1 i i Pet. 1 i, is used partly to denote the process itself, the gradual distribution of Israelites among foreign lands, and partly as a collective term for the persons so dispersed or for their surround- ings. In the present article it is proposed to treat briefly of the origin of the Jewish Dispersion ( 1-14). its legal standing ( 15), and its inner and outer life ( 16-22).

Siao-iropa occurs in (B of Dt. 2S25 Jcr. .34 [41] 17 for Heb. niyi, ' tossing to and fro ' (?). In Jer. 13 14 6. [X*] is apparently a corruption for Siaij>8opa. [so B.\, etc. ]. It renders JTIJ (a collec- tive) in Dt.304 and Neh.lg, and C"n^: in Ps.l472 ('outcasts' 'dispersed ones'), .and in Is. 496 Siainropa tou 'l<Tpari\ "llsj (Ktb. 'Ti'j) '^.Xnr', 'the preserved of Israel." It also occurs in Jer. 157 Dan. (cod. 87) 12 2.

1. Origin[edit]

I. Permanent settlements of Israelites in regions outside Canaan had their origin in one or other of two causes - the exigencies of commerce and the chances of war. The regular commercial relations into which Solomon and his successors entered with Egypt, Phajnicia, and the countries of Middle and Northern Syria (i K. 1028/) must of necessity have led to the formation of small Israelite colonies outside of Palestine. These enjoyed the protection of the foreign prince under whom they lived, and had in the city of their choice a sei)arate quarter of their own, where they could follow their distinctive customs with- out disturbance or offence (cp i K. 20 34. and see Damascus, 7; Israel, 23^). Prisoners of war, on the other hand, either remained under the power of their captors or were sold as slaves all over the world (.\ni. 16). Obviously it was only in the first of these cases that the prisoners could by any possibility have formed the nucleus of a permanent Israelite community living abroad; but we know of no actual instance in which this happened.

2. Tiglath-pileser and Nebuchadrezzar[edit]

The forced migrations arising out of the conquests of the Assyrian and the Babylonian kinjjs were of a quite different character. The first was brought about in 734 by Tiglath-pileser III. (2 K. 15:29), at a later date Sargon deported 27,280 inhabitants of Samaria to Mesopotamia and Media (2 K. 176). These large colonies seem to have become completely absorbed ; history furnishes no clear trace of their continued separ- ate existence. Still, there is'no improbability in the supposition that many of the banished Israelites sub- sequently became united with the later exiles from Judah. These later exiles were transported by Nebuchadrezzar II. to Babylon in 597, 586, and 582, according to Jer. 5228-30 to the number of 4600 souls.

3. Feelings of Israelites[edit]

They did not readily accommodate themselves to the arrangements made by the king in their behalf, having been led by their prophets to expect a speedy return to Jerusalem (Jer. 2i) Ezek. 13. This view, as we know, was not shared by Jeremiah and Ezekiel ; and hence it is that the first-named prophet has left us a clear utterance with regard to that (for Israel) perplexing event the 'exile.' For him the Babylonian Exile is a prolonged punishment from God. It must be submitted to with resignation and patience, and relief will come only to those in whom the chastisement has fulfilled its pur- pose. Hence he admonishes the exiles to settle quietly down in Babylonia, to think of the welfare of their families, and to seek their own good in that of the foreigners among whom their lot is cast (Jer. 294-7). On the other hand, in his view the intention of those men of Judah who were proposing of their own proper motion to forsake the land of Yahw6 and remove to Egypt was against the will of God : it was the road to ruin (Jer. -12/). This view of the prophet did not, however, turn them from their purpose (see Jere- miah). Nor did the distinction made by the prophet between involuntary and voluntary exile, however ob- vious in itself, affect the theorists of a later age, whom we find expecting the return of the Israelites indis- criminately from all the lands of the dispersion (Is. 1112 435/.)-

4. Disapora in Babylonia[edit]

Let us now seek to trace the subsequent history of the diaspora in the various lands of its abode. The Judahites deported to Babylonia constituted, alike in numbers and in worth, the very kernel of their people (2 Kings. 24 12-16 25 II Jer. 52x5). They carried with them, accordingly, as we learn from the Book of Ezekiel, into their new home all the political and religious tendencies of the later period. In particular, there was in Baby- lonia no want of persons who cherished and developed the ideas of the prophets of the eighth and the seventh centuries. For i)roof we have only to look at the great zeal which was shown in preserving and adapting the older historical and legal literature, or to call to mind the many prophetical utterances belonging to this p>eriod. Those who cherished these ideals did not constitute any ' close ' community ; they mingled freely with those who were opposed to them, and the pro- phetic conception always had much to contend with. Still, there were certain centres for Israelitic piety at which fidelity to the Law and hope in the return of the exiles were sedulously and specially cherished. TEL-ABIB (Ezek. 815), the river Chebar (Ezek. I3), Ahava (Ezra 8 15), and Casiphia (Ezra 817) are the only, names of such places that have come down to us ; but doubtless there were others. When we find Ezra fetching Levites from Casiphia we have evidence enough to mark the place as a centre of deuteronomistic legalism.

5. Few returned to Judah.[edit]

The Babylonian Diaspora was by no means entirely deprived of these devoted religious workers in the sixth and fifth centuries. The return under Cyrus must not be construed exactly as we find it represented in Ezra 1-3 (see Israel, 50^1?:; Ezra, ii.; Cyrus). The command of Cyrus to rebuild the temple of Yahw6 in Jerusalem and the mission of .Shcshbazzar in 538 led to the return of but few families to the ancestral home ; the tidings that the restoration of the temple had been accomplished (5'9-5'5) le^ only to the sending of deputations and of gifts to Jerusalem (Zech. 6g^); it was not more than some 5000 or 6000 fiersons that Ezra led back to Judaia alx)ut 430 . c. All this abundantly proves that the inclination to return was not very strongly felt by the exiles.

For this there were various causes. Many of the exiles were indifferent in religious matters ; some had in the interval adapted themselves too closely to the new conditions in which they found themselves ; others held the return to lie premature, deeming that the times of fulfilment had not yet come. In accordance with prophecy, the last-mentioned were expecting some special divine interposition to put an end to the ' exile ' and to give the signal for the beginning of the glori- fication of Israel (Jer. 3236/: Ezek. 34 n/: Is. 403^ 9^ Mic. 52). Just as, in Jerusalem, men hesitated as to whether they should proceed with the building of the temple and not rather wait for Yahwes manifesta- tion of himself in glory (Hag. 12^), so in Babylonia they hesitated as to whether they ought to return forth- with and not rather await some special divine inter- position. It is possible that a few additional families may have migrated to Jerusalem after the post-exilic community there had been reconstituted under Nehemiah and Ezra (430 B.C.) ; but in any case it is certain that a very considerable body of Jews who still adhered to the law remained behind in Babylonia, and thus that the same tendencies which had led to the great changes in Jerusalem brought about through the help of the Persian kings continued to be influential in Bab3'lonia also. The Babylonian Diaspora received an accession under the reign of Artaxerxes III. Ochus (358-338) when he transported Jews to Hyrcania and Babylonia (Georg. Syncell. ed. Dindorf, I486).

6. Babylonia a radiating centre[edit]

The Persian overlordship may be assumed to have helped to open the way for the Jews of Babylonia towards the E. and the N. (The case of Nehemiah [.\eh. 1#] is a clear example of the kind of thing that must have often happened ; compare also Tobit I9-22. Wherever a Jew had established himself in some advantageous position there were never wanting others to press forward and follow this up for themselves.) From Babylonia (and Hyrcania) the Jews advanced to Elam (Is. 11 11), Persia, Media, Armenia, Cappadocia, and the Black Sea. The relations which Herod the Great had established with the princes of the Upper Euphrates were utilised, we may be sure, by the Jewish Diaspora. Their centre of radiation for the whole of these Eastern countries, however, continued always to be in Bnbylonia, where the Euphrates and the Tigris begin to merge. Here was situated Nehardea (xynnj, NaapSa), where the temple tax levied in these parts was annually collected (see below, 16). In the same neighbour- hood two Jews named Asinasus and Anilasus, in the time of Caligula, founded a sort of robber state which held its own for sixteen years (Jos. yini. xviii. 9i). Another important focus of Judaism was the city of Nisibis (pa's:), in the upper basin of the Chaboras. The Jewish community in Babylonia could boast of the conversion of King Izates of Adiabene (3"nn), on the upper Tigris, along with his mother and the rest of his kindred, in the reign of Claudius (Jos. An/, xx. 2-4).

7. Diaspora in Egypt[edit]

The development of the Diaspora in Egypt followed a quite different course from that which has just been sketched. Whilst the Judaism of Babylonia maintained its Oriental character with considerable strictness, in Egypt, or (to speak more precisely) in Alexandria, it entered upon that remarkable alliance with Hellenism which was destined to have such important effects on the history of religion. WheUu-r I'samclik I. (663-609 B.C.) actually had Jewish mercenaries in his service (letter of Aristeas) may be left an open question! We know, however, that in 609 Necho 11. condemned King Jehoahaz to exile in I'-gypt, and that in 586 a bo<ly of Jews, including Jeremiah the prophet, under the leadership of Johanan b. Kareah, migrated to Taiii-anhks ( 7V// /-</<://<, cp Jer. ,4'2/). According to Jer. 44 1^ (an insertion dating from alxjut the fifth century) Jews settled also in MIGIK)!.. NoPU (Mcntphis), and I'ATHKus (Upper Kgypt). Their settlement in Alexandria is a.ssigned by the Pseudo-Hecata-us, by Aristeas, and by Josephus to the period of Alexander the Great or Ptolemy I. It has been shown by M. VN'illrich,' however, that the state- ments of these writers must be taken w ith great caution. In his own view there was no considerable Jewish clement in Alexandria until the second century B.C. Against this theory two objections can be urged. First, the statement of Apion that the Jews settled to the K. of the harlxjur of Alexandria (Jos. c. Af>. 24) can be understood only with reference to the time of the rise of the city. Secondly, the statement of Josephus (ib. ; cp /y/ ii. 18 7) that the Jews in Alexandria received the honorific name of Macedoni.in can hardly be doubted. Josephus indeed exaggerates ; the Jews in Alexandria were in the first instance under the protection of the ' phyle ' of the Macetloninns, and the Jewish quarter formed a part of this ' phyle' ; in the limited sen.se only can>e they to Xtc called Macedonians. As the later I'tolemies, esixxially. from the time of Ptolemy \I. Philometor onwards, favoured the Egyptian more than the (jrecian element in Alexandria, it is not to lie sup- posed that the Jews reached this privileged |x)silion so late as the second cei'tury.'^ This being so, they can have obtained it only under the first Ptolemies, and in that case it is very far indeed from improbable that Jews were inc'uded among the earliest inhabitants of Alexandria and thus acquired special privileges there. They had a separate c]uarter of their own, known as the A (Delta) quarter (Jos. UJ ii. 183). The repeated struggles between Ptolemies and Seleucids, and the preference of the Jews for the former dynasty, may Ije presumed to have led in succeeding generations to further Jewish migrations into Kgypt, especially to Alexandria, partly even as prisoners of war (cp Jer. in Dan. 11 4).

We are told of Ptolemy II. Philadelphus (Jos. Ant. xii. 2 i) that, as a fitting prelude to the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, he redeemed some 120,000 Jewish prisoners of war. The story is doubtless a fiction ; but it throws light on some of the circumstances which had to do with tlie increase of the Jewish population in Egypt. Ptolemy VI. Philometor (181-145) also is mentioned in history as a friend to the Jews; Ptolemy VII. (see Ki'ERGEtes), as a relentless enemy. For the former see Jos. AnI. xiii. 3 i/. ; for the latter Jos. c. A^. 2 s. We may take it that Euergetes for some years regarded the Jews as his political opponents, siding as they did with his rival Ptolemy Philometor ; but we have evidence of papyri and inscriptions that he also showed them various marks of favour (Willrich, <>/. cit. U2^.).

In Philo's time (40 A. D. ) the Jews in Alexandria were so many as to occupy two entire quarters, besides furnishing a sprinkling over the rest of the city {in Flaccum, 8, ed. Mangey, 2525).

1 Juden u. Griechtn vor d. makkaiiischeH Erhtbung, 1-43, 1267^. I'QSI.

  • Cp Lumbroso, L'Egitto dei Greet del Romani ['95I ;

Mahaffy, Th* Empire of the Ptolemies, 359^. 383^ ['95).

8. Leontopolis[edit]

An exceptional position was taken by the Onias colony in the nome of Heliopolis. The high priest Onias {q.v.), son of Simon the Just, had taken refuge from his adversaries, the children of Tobias, and from Antiochus IV. Epiphanes, in 173 or 170, by Flight into Egypt. He was accompanied by a body of his adherents among them DOSITHEIs (4), who is named in the subscription to the Greek version of the Book of Esther. From Ptolemy VI. Philometor he and his people received permission to settle on the eastern Ijordcr of the Nile delta in the nome of Heliopolis. Here Onias built a fortress, and within this a sanctuary (on the pattern of the temple of Jerusalem), in which he eslablished a legal worship of Yahwi-. Philometor endowed the temple with land (cp Jos. /// i. 1 i ; vii. 102^; Ant. xii. f>i ; 97 ; xiii.3i^ ; also the recent discu.ssions of the date of this exodus and the jxirsons engaged in it in Willrich. op. cit. 64^ 136 f.; Wellh. GGA. 1895, p. 9A7 f. ; also IsKAKi.. 7).

The temple of Onias. however, did not receive universal recognition even in Egypt (not to speak of Palestine). It had, indeed, the legitimate high priest, of the family of Aaron ; but it did not occupy the legitimate site. Thus the Diaspora in I'gypt was brought to a state of schism, which is alluded to in a veiled manner in Ant. xiii. 84 and elsewhere, as Willrich (op. cit. \2() ff.) has conjectured, no doubt correctly. At the same time, the antagonism ljetwc<-n Ix-ontopolis (as the city of the Oni.as-temple was called) and Jerusalem does not seem to have been ver)' intense : otherwise the allusion to the temple of Onias in Is. 19 18/. (but cp Hekk-S, ( itv of) would hardly have lieen allowed to pass. Moreover, national feeling appears on repeated occasions to have overridden religious or ecclesiastical differences (Jos. Ant. xii. 1^2; xiv. 81; lij \. 94). Peculiarly noteworthy is the readiness for war and the ability for self-defence to which Josephus frecjuently calls attention in the followers of Oni.as [c. Ap. 25 ; Ant. xiii. IO4 ; 1:5 1/ ; liJ i. 94 ; Ant. xiv. 81). The temple at Leontopolis was destroyed in 73 A. D. by Lupus and Paulinas by order of Vespasian (Jos. lij vii. 102^ ).

9. Upper Egypt, etc.[edit]

Jews penetrated also into Upper Egypt and Cush (Is. 11 11), as we learn from lately published papyri. They were strongly representtd in Cyrenaica also [c. Ap.1^\ Jer. on Dan. 11:14). Strabo (^^|j j^g .,/ xiv. 72). writing of 85 B.C., divides the inhabitants of the city of Cyrene into four classes citizens, peasants, settlers (metceci), and Jews. In the city of IJerenice the inscriptions show a special iroXfTfi'/xa of the Jews dating from 13 B.C. (cp CIG iii. no. 5361).

The Diaspora in Egypt did not owe its origin entirely as, in the first instance, did that of Babylonia to external compulsion. It owed its growth and its reputable standing mainly to the great changes producwl throughout the i:ast generally by the conquests of Alexander. The greatly enlarge<l channels of com- merce, especially by sea-routes, attracted many from the interior to the coasts. The newly-foundetl (Jrecian cities, rendere<l attractive by all the achievements of Greek art and civilisation, Ijecame fiivourite resorts. Henceforth trade relations, the desire to see the world, soon also political considerations and (we may well suppose) a certain conscious or unconscious craving for culture, became operative in promoting the dispersion of the Jews over the civilised world.

10. Attractions of civilisation[edit]

Such things seem to have been specially influential in bringing about the settlement of Jews in Syria. It is quite possible, indeed, that the old Israelite colony in Damascus (see above, s 1) may have maintained an uninterrupted existence and gradually developed into the Jewish community to the largeness of which Josephus bears witness (Z// ii. 2O2 ; vii. 87). In some of the Phoenician cities also, as, for example, in Tyre (cp Ezek. 27) and Sidon, Israelites may have settled from a very early period ; as at the main points on the great trade route between Jerusalem and Mesopotamia, such as Hamath (Is. 1 1 11). The Syria of the Seleucid;e, however, seems first to have become thoroughly accessible to Jews only after the reign of Antiochus IV. Epiphanes. It was his successors, for example, who first conceded to them the right of free settlement in Antioch (Jos. Ant. vii. 83). The later Seleucidae had abundant occasion for showing consideration to the resident Jews : in the frequent struggles for the crown, the support of the Maccat)ees became important (Jos. Arif. xiii. 53). The opposite statement of Josephus that it was Seleucus I. (306-280 H. c. ) who granted to the Jews the rights of citizenship in Antioch (r. A/>. 24), or even equal rights with Greeks in all the cities founded by him in Asia and Lower Syria {An/, xii. 3i), is probably to be understood only as meaning that the Jews ultimately received the rights of citizenship in all the places named. It is easy to under- stand how the astonishing increase in numbers, power, and influence, which the Jewish conmionwealth gained under the rule of the Maccabees, should first have made itself felt in the neighbouring kingdom of the Seleucidng. The Maccabees had subjugated and converted the Idumaeans in the south as well as the Iturneans in the north ; Galilee and Pertva also became Judaised during their supremacy. What was the little connnunity founded by Ezra and Nehcmiah, either in extent or in numbers, in comparison with this ? Jerusalem had become so strong that reversing the prophetical prediction it could lend to the Dispersion from the abundance of its own forces. From this time forward it was, we may plausibly conjecture, that the Diaspora in Syria became so strong as to exhibit the largest admixture of the Jewish element known anywhere (Jos. B/ vii. 3 3). Precise details regarding the individual localities are, however, lacking.

12. In Asia Minor and the West.[edit]

The immigration of Jews to Asia Minor and its islands was partly overland by way of Syria and Mesopotamia, and partly by sea from Egypt and Phoenicia, but for the most part not before the Grecian period. It is possible, however, that Jews may have been sold as slaves into these regions at an earlier date (cp Ezek. 27 13 Joel 3 [4] 7). It is interesting that Clearchus of Soli {circa 320 B. C. ) speaks of a meeting between his master Aristotle and an already Hellenised Jew (Jos. c. Ap. i. 22). In the passage in question the Jews are represented as descendants of the Indian philosophers ; which shows that at that time and place the Jew was looked upon with wonder as a new phenomenon the educated Jew, at least. Josephus {Ant. xii. 84) will have it that a colony of 2000 Jewish families was trans- ported by Antiochus III. the Great (224-1S7) from Mesopotamia and Babylonia into Lydia and Phrygia. The form and the substance of the statement alike arouse suspicion (Willrich, 2)9 ff-)- Here again we are in ignorance as to the details of the migration. In any case, it was to the advantage of the Jewish Diaspora when Greece and Asia Minor in 146 and 130 B.C. became Roman provinces and the kings of Eastern Asia Minor accepted the supremacy of Rome. From the days of Simon, the Maccabees had been in friendly alliance with Rome, and the Jews very soon began to realise that under the Roman rule they enjoyed greater freedom in the exercise of their religious customs than they had found in the Grecian kingdoms (cp Jos. Ant. xvi. 24, and below). Accordingly, as early as the first century B.C., we find them making use of their good relations with the Romans to secure any doubtful or disputed rights in the cities of Asia Minor and Syria by decisions of the supreme authority (cp decrees and the names therein mentioned as given in Jos. Ant. xiv. 10, xiv. 123^, xvi. 23_^, 'o-iff. ; for Cyprus, Ant. xiii. IO4, Acts 134^ ; for Crete, DJ ii. 7 1 ; also Acts 13-21 passini).

13. In Greece and Italy.[edit]

Jews arrived in Greece and Italy in the second century B.C. if not earlier. Between 170 and 156 we find an emancipated Jewish slave named in a Delphi inscrip-ion (Willrich. 123/), and Valerius Miximus (1 32) mentions that in 139 B.C. certain proselytising Jews were ex- pelled from Rome. The fabulous assertion of kinship Ijctween the Jews and the Spartans (i Mace. 12 21) presupposes for the time of its origin (see SPARTA) a mutual acquaintance. Jewish inscriptions, moreover, occur in Greece, and the apostle Paul found firmly organised communities there (Acts 17/.). In 63 B.C., Jewish captives were brought to Rome by Pompey and sold as slaves. Soon emancipated, they acquired the Roman citizenship and founded the Jewish colony upon the right bank of the Titer (Philo, ed. Mangey, 2568). Caesar conferred upon the Jews many favours : compare the decree of the senate in Jos. Ant. xiv. 85, and the immediately preceding narrative. Herod the Great, who always interested himself in the welfare of the Jewish Diaspora {Ant. xvi. 22-s, 61-8), cultivated relations with Rome assiduously, and greatly promoted the Jewish settlements there. Thus in the course of the first Christian century the Jews had already been able to establish themselves on the left bank of the Tiber beside the Porta Capena (Juv. Sat. 3 12-16), and at a some- what later date on the Campus Martius and even in the Subura. In connection with events in the year 4 B.C. Josephus {BJ ii. t)i) speaks of a Jewish embassy to Rome as having been supported by more than 8000 Jews there. Under the same year he incidentally mentions {BJ ii. 7 i) the existence of Jews in Dicasarchia (Puteoli). The friendship of the two Agrippas with the imperial house, the relations of Josephus with the Flavii, the love of Titus for Berenice, all testify to the progress which Judaism had made in the highest Roman circles ; and no one will imagine the Jews of that day to have been so self-forgetful as not to utilise such favouring circumstances, as far as they possibly could, for their own advantage.

To comjjlete the present survey, Arabia also ought to be mentioned as one of the fields of the Jewish Diaspora. From Acts 2 n and Gal. 1 17 the inference that in the first century there were Jewish connnunities there is certain ; but as to their origin we are left entirely to conjecture.

14. Approximate numbers.[edit]

Philo {in Flacc. 6, ed. Mangey, 2523) estimates the number of Jews living in Egypt alone in the time of Caligula at a million. If to this figure we add the total of the other groups mentioned above, we shall not be far wrong in putting the figure at three or four millions. The violent breaking-up of the Jewish population in Palestine in consequence of the war of 66-70 A. D. (cp Jos. BJ vi. 82, 93) raised this number still further ; and thus the expression of Dio Cassius (693) in speaking of the Jewish insurrection under Hadrian thatall the world, so to say {y\ olKovfievrj), was stirred is intelligible enough.

15. Legal standing[edit]

II. The legal standing of the communities of the Diaspora at first varied in the various lands. The colonies in the Assyrio-Babylonian empire were crown possessions, under royal protection (Ezra 4:14). The lands they tilled were grants from the king, on which they were free to live in accordance with their own laws and customs (cp the counterpart in Israel 2 K. 1724^). If the colonists flourished they gradually established their independence ; if otherwise, they ultimately lapsed into a state of serf- dom (cp Gen. 47i3#)- In this respect it is not to be supposed that any considerable change came about under Persian or Greek supremacy as long as the aliens continued to be members of the colony. In Egj'pt the same course was followed by the rulers or pharaohs, as Gen. il -iff. shows : to shepherds a pastoral region was assigned, and the pharaoh was their master {v. (>b ; Ex. III). It must be borne in mind, however, that in this case Israelites came into Egypt not only as prisoners, but also as refugees.

Brighter prospects opened up before Israelites in foreign parts as Alexander and his successors founded new cities in the east. In Alexandria they received important privileges ; they came into a fellowship of protection with the Macedonians the 'phyle' which probably was considered the foremost of all and was therefore named after Dionysus (see above, 7). What use the Jews made of this privilege is shown by Josephus, who asserts that they had equal rights {Ifforifda, Icrovo/xla, iffoiro\iT(ia) with the Macedonians and even the light to txiar this honorific nanje (f. ,-//. 24 ; Ji/ ii. 18 7). As Alexandria never attained the characteristic constitu- tion of a Greek city with a /SouXr). but continued to be governed directly by royal oflicials, it is probable that the s(jecial administration and special jurisdiction in civil matters which the Jews enjoyed within the bounds of their own quarter of the city were of ancient standing. At a later ijeriod, as the Ptolemies came to take more account of the I*2gyptian population, it is possible that many of the Jewish privileges may have been curtailed (cp Mahaffy, T/u- Empire of the Ptolemies, 76, ZS9ff< 381 J/".; Lumbroso, L'Egitto dei Greci e dei Romani, 1895, 140^). In Stralx)'s time, however, they still had an administration of their own under the special jurisdiction of an ethnarch (Jos. Ant. .\iv. 7 2). In any case, they again received full rights of citizenship in Alexandria from Caisar (Jos. Ant. xiv. 10 i ; c. A p. 'la,). In Cyrenaica also they enjoyed special privileges (Jos. Ant. .xiv. 7 2), The Onias colony doubtless enjoyed the special protection of the sovereign (see above, 8).

In the (ireck cities properly so called the Jews were not so favourably situated. In these a group of foreigners could kfep up the observance of its ancestral customs, especially its religious customs, only as a private society or club {B[a.ao%, t(ta.vos ; cj) E. Ziebarth, Das i^riechische Vereinswesen, 1896). The Jews in this respect followed the lead of the Phcrnicians in Athens and Delos. We do not possess definite evidence of the fact, though it is interesting to note that in the Roman decree preserved in Jos. Ant. xiv. 10 8 the Jewish com- munities without prejudice to their privileges are placed upon a level with dia<xoi. In particular cities, such as Ephesus and Sardis, they no doubt sooner or later acquired the rights of citizenship (Jos. c. A/>. 24 ; Ant. xiv. 10 24) ; but whether they already had it un<ler the Seleucidce, as Josephus asserts, or whether they first received it from the Romans, is not (juite clear (see above, 11). It frecjuently happened that their citizen- ship became in turn a source of embarrassment. In the Greek cities, by ancient custom, community of place was held to imply community of worship ; in many places the fact of citizenship found its expression in some special cult, svkIi as that of Dionysus. Ilence a demand that the Jews slioiild worship the local god a demand which they were compelled by their creed to resist (Jos. t". Ap. '26). Even in Ctesarea Palajstina their laoiroXiTeia did not secure them full protection (Jos. Ant. xx. 879 Z;/ii. 13? 14 4-5 18 i).

It was not till the time of Julius Coesar and Augustus that the Jews of the Diaspora received a general recogni- tion of their legal standing throughout the Roman Emjiire. Josephus (Ant. xiv. 85 10 12 3-6 xvi. 62-7) quotes a series of enactments from 47 B.C. -10 B.C. by which the Jews had secured to them the enjoyment of religious freedom, exemption from military service, special rights in the administration of property, and special juris- diction (in civil matters). Nicolaus Damascenus, in his apology for the Jews before M. Vipsanius Agrippa in Lesbos, in 14 B.C., says: "The happiness which all mankind do now enjoy by your means we estimate by this very thing, that on all hands we are allowed each one of us to live according to his conviction and to practi.se his religion" (Jos. Ant. xvi. 24). In Roman law the Jewish communities came under the category of collegia licita (Tertullian, religio licita). After 70 A.i). this held only for the Jewish religion, not for the Jewish nation. From cases covered by these general regulations we must distinguish those in which individual Jews had obtainefl for themselves the Roman citizenship (.\cts 22 25-29 ; Jos. Ant. xiv. 10 16 17/ ). See Govern- ment, 30/.

16. Inner and outer life.[edit]

III. The great difficulty of Jewish social life in the Diaspora lay in the fact that community of place and community of worship no longer coincided. The case had been quite otherwise in Palestine, and the Jewish laws in their original framing had contemplated Palestinian conditions alone. Communities of some sort, however, had to be formed abroad, if Judaism was to maintain itself there at all. Thus the attempt to secure local separateness was abandoned. Attention w;is concentrated on the effort to maintain the bond of union by means of a separate, if restricted, jurisdiction, and administration of property ; the sacrificial worship was given up ; and the means for a new spiritual worship were sought in regularly recurring meetings for prayer, reading of the scriptures, and prejiching (see Svna- gogi'k). l"or the central sacrificial worship there re- mained the high honour of being the expression of the connection still subsisting between Jerusalem and the outside communities ; every Jew of twenty years old or more had yearly to pay a half-shekel or didrachma to the temple for the maintenance of the sacrificial system still carried on there. This tax was collected yearly in the various districts, and transmitted to Jerusalem by the hands of jjersons of repute (Philo, de Mon. 23) under carefully fjfamed regulations (Jos. Ant. xyiii. 9i). Further, the pilgrimages to the three princi[)al feasts, particularly that of Tabernacles, annually brought vast crowds of Jews of the Diaspora to the religious capital. Jose[)hus \BJ vi. 9 3) gives the number of persons natives and strangers together present at the Passover, according to a census taken in the time of Cestius Gallus (63-66 A.D. ), as having been 2,700,000. After the sacrificial system had been brought to an end in 70 A. D. , it was by the forms of religious fellowship which had been developed in the Diaspora that the continued existence of Judaism was rendered possible.

17. Synagogues[edit]

The individual community was called n3:3 (lit. 'congregation' ; (}vva.yijy^ri). In towns with a large Jewish population (.Alexandria, Antioch. Rome) there were many synagogues. The heads of the communities are usually spoken of as dpXO's- In Alexandria an e6fdpxv^ ^^'^s at the head of the entire Jewish community (Jos. .^/. xiv. 72): it may be added that he had nothing to do with the ofTice of the Alabarch or Arabarch (cp Ai-E.\anukia, 2). Under Augustus the direction of affairs was handed over to a yepovffia. with Apxcvrts at its head. In Rome each of the many synagogues had its own yepoiKTia with dpxovres and a yepoi'aidpxv^ over all. The building in which the meetings were held on sabbaths and feast days especially was called [n'3] n???:"", in Gr. ffwayuyr] or Trpoaevxr), less fre(|uently crvvaytlryiov, irpocyfVKTrjpiov, aafi'^aTfiov. See, further, Synagogue.

18. Contact with Hellenic world.[edit]

The contact brought about by the Diaspora communities between Judaism and the Gnvco- Roman culture was of great consequence to the history of civilisation. Here again it is the Western Diaspora that principally claims our attention ; the Eastern, in Mesopotamia and Babylonia, had little share in this movement, and indeed hardly comes under observation at all. It was not until comparatively late in the day, it would seem, that the Greeks began to take any but the most superficial interest in Judaism and the Jews. Willrich (43-63) has collected all that Greek writers had to say about them dow n to the time of .\ntiochus Epiphanes, and remarks (170): 'In the period l^efore Antiochus Epiphanes the Greek regardetl the Jew with feelings of mingled curiosity and wonder, astonishment and instinctive antipathy.' In these circumstances it is not surprising that, down to the date in question, the intellectual importance of the Diaspora was slight. Traders, freedmen, and prisoners of war constituted the majority of the Diaspora of these days ; that such jieople should excite the interest and attention of educated Greeks was not to be expected. An educated Jew acquainted with Greek is spoken of as a rarity by Clearchus of Soli (c. Ap. 1 22).

19. The Septuagint.[edit]

The question of the rapidity or tardiness of the change in this respect that ultimately came depends on whether we date the production of the Greek translation of the Pentateuch from the reign of Philadelphus (285-246 B. c), or, as has recently been done by Willrich (/ sup. 154 ff.), from that of I'hilometor (181-145 B.C. ). Whatever its date, this attempt to make the Law speak in Greek conclusively shows that when it was made the Jews of Alexandria had already assimilated so nuich of what was Greek that they could no longer get on with Hebrew alone, either in their synagogues or in their courts. Their sojourn abroad made it imperative on Jews everywhere to complete their rapprochement with Hellenism. In the process many may well have become lost to Judaism altogether. The Greek version of the Pentateuch, however, evinces the fixed determination of the majority not to allow themselves to be robbed of the old faith by the new culture. As the influence of the Jews, on trade and public life gener- ally, advanced in Egypt and S)Tia in die first instance it became increasingly necessary for the Greeks to decide definitely what their own attitude towards them was to be. This led to struggle, but also to friendly dealings.

20. Foreign antipathy.[edit]

Antipathy to Judaism manifested itself both in coarse and in refined ways. The uneducated masses scoffed at the Jews for their outlandish customs, plundered them at all hands, and occasion- ally gave expression to their hatred in massacres. Civic authorities tried to infringe Jewish privileges or to hinder the transmission of the temple money to Jerusalem (see the decree in Jos. Ant. .xiv. 10). Roman emperors even more than once sanctioned measures that pressed hardly on the Jews. Tiberius in 19 A. D. e.xpelled them from Rome, and forced 4000 of them upon military service to Sardinia (Jos. Ant. .xviii. 85; similarly Tac. Ann. 285 Suet. Tib. 36). They seem soon afterwards to have been restored to the enjoyment of their rights. Caligula gave free course to a bloody persecution of the Jews in Alexandria in 38 A.D. I'etitions and embassies (Philo, Apion) to the emperor proved of no avail. It was not until Claudius had come to the throne that the old privileges were again restored to the victims of persecu- tion (Philo, in Flacc. and I^g. ad Caium ; Jos. Ant. xviii. 8 I xix. 52). Later, Claudius intervened in Rome in a hostile sense (Acts 18 2 Suet. Claud. 25 Dio Cassius Ix. 6). The Jews defended themselves as best they could, not so much by force as by money or writings, and by cultivating friendly relations with those in high places.

21. Literary controversy.[edit]

The controversy carried on with the pen is worthy of remark. Gentile writers made it a reproach that the Jews as a people had done nothing for civilisation and had produced no men of distinction (so Posidonius, Polybius, Strabo, Apion). These and similar charges the Jews answered in innumerable apologies some of them (such as those of Nicolaus Damascenusand Philo) with atlignity and earnestness worthy of the cause, though others (such as that of Josephus in many cases) showed a disposition to confound the convenient with the true, and others did not hesitate to resort to misrepresentation and positive falsoJiood ( Pseudo - Hecataeus, Eup)olemus, - Artapanus, Aristobulus, Aristeas, etc. ). The most incredible fables were gravely set forth.

Abraham was the founder of astronomy ; Joseph the founder of geometry and the inventor of agriculture ; Moses the author of the division of Egypt into nomes, ahd even of the Egyptian animal worship. Jews and Spartans exchanged salutations as descend- ants of Abraham (1 Mace. 12 2oy; ; cp Ant. xiv. 10 22).

Such things could be written only by Jews who had become familiar with the activities and intellectual life of Hellenistic circles, by men for whom the Graeco-Roman culture had become an indispensable element of everyday life. They were only unconsciously proving the respect which they themselves cherishetl for foreign culture when they tried- to trace the origin of culture to their own forefathers. Such literary phenomena could not be produced in Jerusalem, the home of Judaism ; they prove that Judaism abroad, although still wearing the garment of the Law, carried a very different nature under that old-fashioned vestment. It had now found a large range of activities which it shared with con- temporary humanity at large.

22. Friendly contact.[edit]

This struggle - itself an evidence of the power to which the Judaism of the Diaspora had attained - does not exhaust the history. There were many points of friendly contact between Judaism and the outer world. For the more educated circles of the Gentile world the Judaism of the Diaspora had, in fact, a great attraction. In it men felt themselves face to face with a power which had developed new forces unHinching self-sacrificing fidelity in the maintenance of religious customs which seemed to the outsider meaningless sabbath observance, cir- cumcision, laws of purity. Through Judaism they became acqtiainted with a conception of God which, strange in its severity, enlightened by its simplicity, and attracted religious natures by its purity and its sincerity. The popular polytheism of Greece and Rome had been shattered by philosophy ; in the Oriental religions, which at that time were advancing in triumph westward, the idea of a supreme God found many supporters ; Judaism in its monotheism presented the explicit conception for which so many were looking. Inseparably connected with it was the thought of a divine creation of the world, of the original oneness of the world and the human race, as well as that of the providential ordering of the world thoughts which promised to provide fi.xed formula; for the cosmopolitan tendencies of the time, and were welcome on that account. No one has set forth the contents of Judaism from this point of view more nobly than Philo, the contemporary of Jesus in Alexandria. The confidence with which he handles these conceptions makes it probable not only that he had literary predecessors in this style but also that an appeal to practical experience gave a powerful support to his teaching (cp Strabo ap. Jos. Ant. xiv. 72 ; also Jos. c. Ap. I22 2363941 BJ iv. 52 Koa-fjuKY) OprjaKela ; also Proselyte, 3). The Diaspora of the Mediterranean, and especially in Alex- andria, thus not only led the way to the breaking of the narrow bonds of the Jewish Law, but also was the first to make the heathen world acquainted with a spiritual conception of God and a spiritual worship presented in a positive religion, and thus paved the way for the coming of Christianity.

23. Literature.[edit]

Schiirer, GV/ '1 493-548 ; O. Holtzmann, Etuie des jiid. Staat^.vcsens u. Entsicli. d. C/tr!stinthums('SZ)= B. Stade, CI '[ 2 2-70jff'.\ O. Holtzmann, NTliche Zeitgesch. (95): \\.\4\\\r\c\\,Judenu.Griechenvorder makkabdischen Erhebung, 1895 (.see also We. in GGA 1895, p. 947^ and Schurer in TLZ, 1896, no. 2); Th. Mommsen, Riim Gesch, 5 4S9_^ ['85]; Th. Reinach, Texies dauteurs grecs et roinains relatt/s au Judaisme, reunis, traduits, ct annates, 1895 ; Cless, lie Coloniis Juda-orum in Mg. deductis, i. ('32); Schiirer, 'Die Alabarchen in Agj'pten ' in ZWT, 1875, p. 13 ff. (cp Alarquardt. Rdm Staatsveni'iil-tungi^), 1 446 y:) ; Pauly-Wissowa, Real Encycl.^ d. class. Alterthums'.viss. (s.t. ' Arabarch ') ; Lumbroso, L'Egitio del Greet e dei Romanil.-), 1895, ' Ricerche Alessandrine' in Mem. d. Accadem-a d. Scienza di Torino, ser. ii. t. 27 ['73], sc. mor. e filol. 237-24S : J. P. Mahaffy, Ttu Empire 0/ tke Ptolemies, 1895 ; r'/u Flinders Petrie Papyri, ed. by /. P. Mahaffy, i. and ii., 1891, 1893; Ulr. Wilcken, ' Alexandrinische Gesandtschaften vor Kaiser Claudius' in Hermes^ 30481^ [95]; Th. Reinach, ' L'Empereur Claude et les anti-semites Alexandrins dapres un nouveau Papyrus' in REJ 31 i6x^ ['05]; B.P. Grenfell, An Alexandrian Erotic Fragment and other Greek papyri chiejiy Ptolemaic, 1896; Revenue Laws 0/ Pto.emy Philadelphus, ed. B. P. Grenfell, introd. J. P. Mafiaffy, 1896: Schurer, Die Gemeindet<erfassung der Jud n in Rom in der Kaiseri.eit mich den Inschri/ten dargestellt, 1879; A. Berliner, Gesch. {ierjuden in Rom von de*- tiltesten Zeit bis zur Gegenwart ("95): Erich Ziebarth, Das griechische V'ereins^uesen ('96); Alf. Bertholet, Die Stellung der hraeliten u. derjuden zu den Fremden, 1896 : E. Schurer, ' Die Judcn ira bosporanischen Reiili u. Uic Ci<:iiu^si:i>sclutrtcii dcr o-c/So^icoc 8*6v v4ii<TTof tlK.nii;i!iclbl ' in SJiA U' 1897, p. tooff. H. G.

DISTAFF[edit]

See Flax.

DISTRICT[edit]

I. nV?!* nepiXtopOC; vicus [once pa_i;us 315J; Neh. 39iai4-i8t RV), the name given to certain administrative divisions of Juda-a in Nehemiali's time, each of which was under a ' ruler ' or 'chief (ifc'). These 'districts' comprise Jerusalem and Keilah (each with tw(j rulers), Bcth-haccerem, Beth-zur, and Mizpah (BN.\ om. [L /x^/m ; for V'g. see above]). It is not impossible th.it the list was originally much fuller. From the character of the names of the ' rulers ' Meyer ( Entst. ibd ff.) has con- cluded that they were Calcbites (see Calicb, 4). The organisjtiion of the Calebites in the genealogies I Ch. '2 4 suggests further that the pelek was a tribal subdivision,- the head of which would correspond to the iOvdpxv^ (' <Jr. inscr. from the Hauran) of the later Nabata;an kingdom (cp 2 Cor. 11 32, and see Ethnarcu).

2. ' District' in Acts 16 12 RV also translates fitpli, which here represents, apparently, the Latin reifio. See Mac IDOMA. I'hii.ihi'I. s. a. C.

DITCHES[edit]

{Ll*2i). 2 K. 3 16. etc. See Co.NDurrs, I (3, 5), and I'lT.

DIVINATION[edit]

1. Divination.[edit]

Men instinctively wish to know the future, aiul among all [xjoples there have been those who have, from certain omens, claimed to be able to predict it. Such knowledge could only come from supernatural beings. When beasts or birds, by their movements, or other- wise, gave men intelligible signs, it was because they were ' indwelt ' by beings that were supernatural, or because they were supernatural themselves. ' Omens are not blind tokens ; the animals know what they tell to men ' (WRS /^e/. SemS^) 443).

Necromancy is a kind of divination, not a thing distinct in itself (see below, 3). It is difficult, if not impossible, to indicate the boundary line between divination and prophecy. In both the same general principle obtains intercourse of man with the spiritual world in order to obtain special knowledge. In divi- nation, this knowledge is usually got by observing certain omens or signs ; but this is by no means always the case, since sometimes the beings consulted [xissessed the soothsayer. Divination, as practised in this last method, does not differ from prophecy of the lowest kind that of the ecstatic state as distinguished from that higher species of prophecy which in Riehm's happy phrase is ' psychologically mediated. "^ See PkoI'HECV.

1 The word is no doubt the Ass. pulug{g)u, fiilku, pulukku, 'border,' 'district'; cp probably Phocn. px'? jSSi 'district of Laodicea,' CIS 1, no. 7. On the Heb. '3, see also Dr. on aS. S39.

  • Cp n'lJ^S, Judg. 5 15-5 (if correct, see Moore), r\\ir^ uSsO, a Ch. 86512.

' JHetsianic Prophecy, 45 tt peusim.

2. Methods.[edit]

The ancient Greeks, Romans, Arabs, etc., had modes of divining that apparently were unknown to the Hebrews of the OT e.g., by observation of the flights and cries of birds, inspection of the entrails of animals, etc. (see Freytag, Einl. 159/:); but there are mentioned in the OT many signs or omens that resemble or are identical with those in use among other nations.

i. Rhabdomancy (divination by rods) appears to be referred to in Hos. 4 12, ' My jjeojile ask counsel at their " wood, " and their "staff" declares unto them' (cp Herod. 46;). The higher prophets of course forbade this ; but we may perhaps assume that it was uncon- demned in earlier times.

ii. Belomuncy (divination by arrows), a development of rhabdomancy, is mentioned in Ezek. 'l\*iff. [19^]. where the Babylonian king is said to have stood ' at the parting of the way,' and to have ' shaken the arrows to and fro.' The doubtful point was whether he was to march from Babylon to l^gypt by Jerus;ilem or by RabUtth-Amnujn. .As I'ocock (quoted by RoscnmUllcr) long ago jxjinted out, Ijelomancy was much in use among the Arabs (see also \N'e. //</</. l 132). For the Babylonian practice, see I^normant. l.a Dninalion, chap. 2 ; as this able though sometimes uncritical writer truly j)oinls out, belomancy had Ijut a secondary im- portance. Nebuchadrezzar had certainly consulteil the stars and the regular omens in order to ascertain whether the right time had come for the campaign against ICgypt. Arab tradition tells how Imra-al-Kais practisetl Ijelomancy liefore setting out against Asad. He did .so ' by shutlling Ixjfore the image of the god a set of arrows. These were here three in numlxrr, called respectively, " the Commanding," "the Forbidding," and " the Waiting." He drew the second, and thereupon broke the arrows, and flung them in the face of the idol. ' Mohammed forbade the use of arrows, as ' an abomination of Satan's work' (Koran, .Sur. 692). The arrows were sfiecial, pointless .arrows (originally rods).

iii. The Babylonian king, however, did more than shake the sacred arrows ; the passage continues, ' he looked in the liver' {' hepa/oscopy'). (We omit the reference to the toraphim Ijecause no new point is indicated by it ; the king consulted the teraphim [sin^^iar], by shaking the arrows bejore it, as was always done also by the heathen .Arabs. ) The liver, which was regarded as the chief seat of !ife(I'rov. 723), was supposed to give warning of the future by its convulsive motions, when taken from the sacrificed victim (see Livkr). That an application for oracles was accompanied by sacrifices we know from the story of Balaam. Lenormant (op. cit. 58/. ) refers to two Babylonian fragments relative to the inspection of the entrails, giving some of the features which had to Ije watched for. The Greeks, too, practised yyno.ro(jKovia.

iv. The objects used for lots in Arabia were, as we have seen, jxjintless arrows. Among the Israelites, however, the principal objects employed were probably stones of different colours, one of which gave the affirmative, the other the negative answer to the question put (so Wellh. , Bu. , H. P. Smith, in connection with the classical passage, i S. 1-1 41). Other passages in the historical books in which the phrase 3 ^xr (' to inquire of) occurs should probably be explained on the analogy of this passage. Cp EPHOD, URIM AND THUMMIM, TERAPHIM.

v. Passing over such omens as Gideon's in Judg. 636 and Jonathan's in i S. 14 8^, and reserving astrology for subsequent consideration (see Staks), we pause next at the most important of all the modes of divination that linked the Hebrews with other peoples

(vi. ) The methoti oi dreams (oneiromancy). Jacob may have sufficient reason for making good his escape from Laban ; but he will not take the decisive step without a direct revelation ((ien. 31 10-13). In other cases the divine communication is such as exceeds the power of human reason to discover ; instances are the dreams of Abimelech (Gen. 2O3 tf. ), and especially those of Joseph (Gen. 375 cp 408 41 1/). Other noteworthy instances of divinely sent dreams are (jen. 2812^ 31 24 Judg. 7 13 I K. 35/ Mt. l2o 2 12^ 2719. Notice E's fondness for relating dreams. The author of the speeches of Elihu also attaches great importance to dreams as a channel of divine communications (Job 33 14- 16). It would almost seem as if the belief in the symbolic character of dreams should be reckoned among other revivals of primitive beliefs in the jieriod of early Judaism (cp the dream-visions in Enoch chaps. 83-90, and the dreams in the Book of Daniel ; also Jos. lij ii. 74 iii. 83). Men were oppressed by constiint anxiety as to the future, and there \sas no prophet in the great old style to assuage this. They looked about, therefore, for artificial means of satisfying their curiosity. Prophets like Isaiah, however, never refer to their dreams, and it is even a question how far the visions of which they speak are to be taken literally (see PROPHECY).

vii. On a possible divination by means of sacred garments, see DRESS, 8.

3. Terms.[edit]

We must now consider briefly the various terms applied to divination and diviners, and endeavour to define their application.

1. CD?, kcseiit, a general term for divination of all kinds (cp the Ar. kdhin, and see Priests), on the derivation of which see jSIagic, 3 (i). Thus EV renders j,-,^,^ divination ' (once ' witchcraft,' i S. 15 23 EV), Cr'p, 'diviner' (iS. 2Zech. 10 2), also 'soothsayer' (Josh. VA 22 EV) and ' prudent ' (Is. 3 2 AV) ; and gives the more general terms /xacTis, /iaj'Tevo/uai, (xafreia, ixavTflov. Ezek. -'1 z6 [21], however, shows plainly enough that the word had the distinct sense of obtaining an oracle by casting lots by means of arrows (see above, 2(2]).' The one selected by chance was supposed to represent the divine decision ; on the other liand, in i S. "288, Saul is made to ask the witch to divine for him by means of the 'ob (qin) ; see below, 4 (ii.) ; and cp iMa(.;ic.

2. I^.U'P O"'"'""'")- The etymology of this word is much disputed (cp Del. on Is. 2 6). Two interpretations deserve mention : (a) M^'onl'n is one who divines by observing the clouds (denom. from jJ]^), a mode of divination well known among the ancients ; or perhaps, one who brings clouds, or causes storms (tafowinancy). In the passages in which the word occurs, however, there is nothing to suggest that the vif'oncn has an>;- thing to do ith the sky. (b) One who smites with the ' evil eye ' (denom. from ['!') ; but, apart from other considerations, the Targ. rendering JJi' appears to be decidedly against this view. In the absence of further evidence it is best to follow Ewald {Bib. Theol. 1 234) and WRS (,loc. cit. ; cp also Dr.), who compare the Arabic g-anna, 'to emit a hoarse, nasal sound.' The fact that so many of the words connected with magic and divination denote low subdued mournful speaking, favours this last surmise, though there must ever remani much doubt about the ex.act origin and meaning. rejiders by a word which means primarily to take an omen from the flight of birds, examples of which practice may be found in Arabia (cp We. Niic/A'^) 202/.). The word is usually rendered by 'observers (once Judg. i> 37 AV>g- ' regarders ') of times' (AV), or 'augurs' (RV) (Dt. 18 10 14 Lev. 19 26 2 K. 21 6), in Is. 2 6 Mi. 7) 12 [1 1] EV ' soothsayers ' (so also Jer. 27 9 RV, where AV 'enchanter'); once (fern.) 'sorceress' (Is. 573). An oak near Shechem, famous in divination, bears the name 'Oak of MEONENIM' (Judg. t' 37). For other examples of sacred trees cp IDOLATRY, 2, and see NATURE-WORSHIP'.

3. V~i (m'/iCf), 'to use enchantment' (2 K. 21 6 = 2 Ch. 336 Lev. li 26 ; cp cm, ' enchantment ' Nu. 23 23 24 i), or ' to divine' (Gen. 445 15 EV ; and Gen. 30 27 RV, whereAV 'to learn by experience ' ; cp i K. 20 3 j ' diligently observe,' RVnitj-' take as an omen '), is probably used to include any kind of divination (WRS). In Gen. 445 15 the same word is used for divination by a cup'-^ i.e., probably by hydromancy , where a vessel is filled with water and the rings formed by the liquid are observed. Was [nj originally used in a special sense, and connected with C*, 'a serpent'? So at least Bochart, Lenormant, and I?audissin {Siudicn zur sent. Kel.-scsch. 1 2S7) ; see Serpent, 1, 3, Magic, 3, 3.

4. I '113., gaz'rln, is found only in Daniel (227 4 4 [7] T) 7 11, EV 'soothsayers'), and may be rendered ' prognosticators,' properly ' those who determine [what is doubtful]' ; cp Bev. eui lac. The root means ' to cut ' ; but whether the ' cutting of the heavens ' by Babylonian astrologers is meant, is uncertain (see Stars, 5). Perhaps (cp Ar. jazara, 'to slaughter') the gaz'r'in originally offered a sacrifice in connection with the art (cp \'g. hanisfiicis). See 2, iii.

5. f-fi-H {'assii/>/t) and fjC'K ('dsa//i) occur in the Heb. (1 20 2 2) and the .\ram. (2 1047 [4], etc.) parts of Daniel respectively, and are rendered '.astrologer,' RV 'enchanter.' The word is of Assyrian origin (Stars, 5). It is difficult to say whether ^TJ, TX ^"d th^ other terms found were meant to represent a separate class, or whether the writer employed these terms' indiscriminately (Bev. Dan. 63).

6. D'N^i:'? {kasdd'im) in Dan. 1 4 2 10 (5 7 1 1) means the caste of wise men. This usage (well known from classical writers) arose after the fall of the Babylonian empire, when the only Chaldjeans known were astrologers and soothsayers.

7. For 13 (Gad) and '3D (M'nf) in Is. CSiif, see FORTUNE AND DESTINY. See also other terms under MAGIC.

1 Possibly the Teraphim were similarly employed ; see Teraphim.

2 The so-called (cvAiicofiavTet'o. Cp Toseph's divining-cup with the famous goblet of Jemshld, and see Lenormant, La Divination, 78-80. For a parallel French superstition, see

B. Thiers, TraiU des superstition^), Paris, 1697, 1 187^

4 Necromancy[edit]

Necromancy, to which we turn next, is, as the etymology implies, divination by resort to the spirits of deceased persons. Three terms or expressions fall to be noticed, all of them met with in Dt. 18 11.

i. We shall begin with that which occurs last in the verse, viz. c'nan-VN v-f\ (one who resorts with an inquiry to the dead), rendered by EV 'necromancer.' It is clear from Is. 819 that this is a general description embracing the kinds of necromancy indicated by the two words next to be considered and other kinds (see Dr. on Dt. 18 11): the conjunction with which it is introduced is simply the explanatory ' 7uaw,' answering to the Gk. epexegetic (cat.

ii. 3iN VKb (sho'il 'ob), one who consults an 'od. The word 'ob is generally found w'Whyidd^'oni (see below, iii. ), like which, from meaning the spirit of a departed one, it came to stand for the person who possessed such a spirit and divined by its aid. The full phrase nSj,;3 3iK (the possessor of an '6b) is found in i .S. 287, where it is applied to the ' witch of Endor. '

(S explains the expression by eyyaffTpLfivOos, 'ventriloquist ' (i.e., in the O'V passages, one who, ' by throwing his voice into the ground, where the spirit was supposed to be, made people believe that a ghost spoke through him'), and Lenormant {Dtv. \b\ ff.), Kenan {Hist. ET, I347), and others so explain the phenomenon ; but the writer of Samuel, and other biblical writers who sjjcak of this species of divination, evidently regard it as being really what it claimed to be. Lev. 20 27 is the only possible exception.

The etymology of the word is very uncertain. Other sug- gestions may be passed by, for the field seems to be held by two principal views, H. P. Smith's viewl (Sam. 239 yT) being not very probable, (a) Ob has been connected with Arab, aba = amaba, and explained 'a soul which returns (from ,She5l)'; cp French rcvenant. So Hitz. and Kij. (on Is. 819), St. (GVI 1 504), and Schwally (Das Leben nach dem Tode, 69). Schwally also suggests a connection with 3N 'father' (note plu. of both in otii). Van Hoonacker (Exp. T. 9 157^^) objects that in Dt. 18 II the 'ob is distinguished from the dead (viethtui); but if the latter clause of the verse is simply a generalisation of the two foregoing clauses, this objection falls.

(b) The other view (Ges., Del., Di.) connects the word with 'ob, 'a bottle,' literally 'something hollow.' A similar word in Arabic (wdba) means ' a hole in a rock,' a large and deep pit i.e., something hollow.-

On the assumption that the fundamental idea of the word is hollowness, many explanations have been suggested (see Van Hoonacker, as above). Of these, two may be noted as probably approximating most nearly to the truth.

1. Bottcher(Z'<- in/eris, loi), Kau. (Riehm, MIVB^-), 'Todten- beschworer '), and Di. (on Lev. 19 31) hold that the spirit is called 'ob, on account of the hollow tone of the voice such a tone as might be expected to issue from any empty place. Other terrns for practising magic and divination lend some support to this view.

2. The idea of hollowness has been held to apply in the first place to the cave or opening in the ground out of which the spirit speaks. Among the Greeks and the Romans, oracles de- pending on necromancy were situated among large deep caverns which were .supposed to communicate with the spirit -world. If the Hebrew 'ob is parallel to the Greek chthonic deities and to the Arabian ah! al-ard or 'earth-folk,' with whom wizards h.ave intercourse, it is conceivable that, by a metonymy con- tained for container, and vice versa \\ie. hollow cavern may have come to be used for the spirit that spoke out of it. See WRS Rd. Satt.^'^) i9'5-

1 Namely, that the 'db was originally a skull prepared by superstitious rites for magical purposes ; H. A. Redpath, on the other hand, suggests that the 'ob was one who spoke out of a hollow mask or domino.

- In Job 3219 niax seems to mean 'bellows' (<8 ia<nTtp ^uoTjrijp [-T^'s >**] x"^w5)-


iii- 'Jl'y (yidde'O/ii). The English word 'wizard,' by which this Hebrew term is rendered, means 'a very wise one,' and agrees with <S yvuXTTiji (in Dt. 18 n TfparoffKdiros), Syriac yaddud, Arabic 'arrdf, and with Ewald's rendering ' viel-wisserisch."

Like 'ob, yidd^'Cmi is used, in the first instance, for the spirit of a deceased person ; then it came to mean him or her that divines by such a spirit. Roljcrtson Smith (/. Fhil. 14 127), followed by Driver (on Dl. 18 11)n distinguishes the two terms thus :

YiiiddHi is a familiar spirit, one known to him that consults it. The 'ob is any ghost that is called up from the grave to answer questions put to it (cp i S. 28). The yiddflni speaks through a personal medium ; that is, through the person whom it possesses. The 'flb speaks directly, as for example out of the grave (cp i S. .*). Kashi (on Dt. 18 11) says that yiddt'fni differs from aiK ^ya (Mai 'db) in that he held in his mouth a l)one which uttered the oracle. It is hard to establish these distinctions, the data lor forming a judgment being su slight.

Is it quite certain, however, that the words arc to be held as standing for distinct things? Why may we not have in them dift'erent as[x;cts of the same spirit ? So regarded, 'ob would convey the notion that the spirit has returned from the other world, while yidddni would suggest that the spirit so returned is knowing, and therefore able to answer the (juestions of the inquirer. The fact that in all the eleven instances of its occurrence yidddni is invariably preceded by 'vb is in favour of its being a mere interpretation of it. 'Oh, on the other hand, is often found by itself (i S. 2878 i Ch. 10 13 etc. ). It is probable, therefore, that these two characters are at bottom one, the 'and' in Dt. 18 11 joining 'ob and yidW'dni in the way of a hendiadys : ' he who seeks a departed spirit that is knowing," just as the remaining part of the verse is, as we have seen already ( 3, i. ), simply a repetition in different words of the same thought. This is in complete harmony with the usages of Hebrew parallelism. The whole compound expression might be rendered as follows : ' He who inquires of the departed spirit that is knowing, even he who seeks unto the dead. '

iv. To the expressions considered already may be added c"t3K. iUim, Is. 19 3!, EV 'charmers.' R'\'"'k.'- prefers ' whisperers ' ; cp Ar. attd, ' to emit a moaning or creaking sound ' ; or perhaps rather Ass. eti'i, ' tlark- ness." (S apparently renders by to. dydX/xaTa avrdv.

Though condemned in the OT (i S. 1%i ff.; Is. 819 ; cp Lev. 1931 20 6 27 Dt. 18 n), necromancy among the Israelites held its own till a late period. The leaders of religious thought were opposed to both witch- craft and necromancy ; but the influence of habit and of intercourse with people around was too strong to be wholly overcome. See Schultz, OT Theology, 'l-^-i-2 (ET). Winer!-*' ( A' U li s. v. ' Todtenbeschworer ' ; see refer- ences) shows that in the ancient world divination by calling back the spirits of the dead w;is very widespread among the Greeks, the Romans, and the other ancient nations. Cp B.MiVi.uMA, 31^, and see M.\gic. For the literature see .Ma(;ic. X. W. U.

DIVORCE, DIVORCEMENT[edit]

(ninn? ; ^no- CTACION [HNAQ]), Jer. 38 Is. 50 1. See MARRIAGE, 6.

DIZAHAB[edit]

(nnr^, kataxPYCCA BAFL), ubi auH. est pluiHmum i.e., QHT *^ [Vg.]), in the topographical description Dt. 1 1. ' If it be the name of a place in the "stepixis of Moab " the situation is unknown' (Dr. in Hastings' DB, s.v.)\ on the identifications, cp Dillmann. The explanation ' place of gold ' is difficult to justify (see Dr. Dcut, ad loc.). The name corre- sponds to 'Me-zahab' in Gen. 8639 (as Sayce, Acad. (3ct. 22, 1892, and Marcj. Fund. 10, have observed), and like ME-/.AU.\B[r/.i'. J is no doubt a corruption of onso ( n came from c) i.e., the N. .Arabian land of Musri or Musur, which adjoined Edom (see Mi/.k.MM, zb, and cp Che. Or. LZ, May 15, 1899). It was i)erhaps premature to identify ' Di-zahab,' before the correctness of the reading had been investigated. T. K. C.

DOCUS[edit]

RV Dok (AcoK [ANY]), called by Josephus Dagon tA<\rt*>N ; Ant. xiii. 81 ; /'/ i. 23), a small fortress near Jericho, in which Simon the .\Iaccabee was treacherously murdered by Ptolemy his son-in-law (i Mace. 16 15). The name, doubtless, still survives in the mod. ' Ain ed-Duk, 2.^ m. N. of Jericho, where there are traces of ancient substructions and remains of a fine aque(luct (Koh. UK '2i'^', I'T.F Mem. 3:73190; Haed.'" 152 ; v. Kastcren, Ncv. liibl. 1897, p. 93^).

DOD, NAMES WITH[edit]

This group of compound names comprises with certainty only Dodavah and Dodiel (sc>e Daniel, i), and virtu;illy David, Dodai, Dotlo. To these Gray {HFX 60-63) would add -n^K (Eldad), TlVa (Bild.-id). In all these names he interprets Ti as meaning ' uncle on the fathers side,'which is no doubt a perfectly legitimate setise of ni or n'n (see 2 K. 24 17).

(a) First, as to Eldad and Bildad. The objection to admitting that these names are compounded with the divine name Dad is obviously provisional. The god Ramman was so well-known in Canaan that we may expect to find at any rate isolated names compounded with Dad, which was one of the names of this deity (Wi. AT Untersuch. 69, n. i). In the Amarna letters, it is true, the form we find in comixjund proper names is Addu ; but the etiuivalence of Addu and Daddu is admitted.

(b) Next, as to the other names. That Dod is not the nanie of some one special deity, is admitted ; but whether it is, or is not, a term designating some degree of kinship, is disputed. It is undeniable that in ( = Ass. dadu) means ' beloved,' and also, by a natural transition, 'divine patron' (cp ni'i, used of God, Job I621). The present writer contends that it is more natural to give this second sense to Dod in the few Hebrew names compounded with it than to adopt the theory (Gray, HFN 60) that -n as well as cj? i" proper names has the sense of ' uncle ' or ' kinsman. '

This is not affected by the discovery that there are some S. Arabian names compounded with Atiimi, and some others with Khali, both meannig ' uncle.' Nor need we enter into the question whether the S. .-Xrabian name Dadi-kariba (so Homniel gives the name) really means ' My cousin hath blessed ' (Honuuel, Aim^). See Douo, Dodavah. t. K. C.

DODAI[edit]

("in, nM, 52 ; but Ginsb. in 2 S. 289 points Kt. "H/T), another form of Douo [i'.f. ], pre- sumably shortened from a form n'l'n : see under Dodavah ; ' Yahw^ is patron' (Marquart, Fund. 16), 2 S. 289 (RV following Kt. ; but .W Dodo ; coycei [B*]. COOC. [A], AoyAei [B^'"- L]) and i Ch. 274 (AV and RV; AcoAeiA [B*]. -XeiA [B]. -AiA [A], -Aa! [L]), where the words ' Eleazar, son of,' found in i Ch. 11 12 are wanting, but are supplied by Kittel (5.507") from I Ch. 11 12 ; see Dodo (2), Eleazar.

DODANIM[edit]

ID'J"!'^). or RODANIM (n'jni"').

Sn, Gen. U)4, \^.^ DOn.tXJ.M (cp Pesh.), so EV, AV"ik'- Roilanim' after po6ioi [pA"iii-], and Sam.; St!, i Ch. I7 AViiig. RV 'Rodanim' after poSioi l(pi'Al, but many MSS Tin, cp i<u5ai'in IL], /'0P.7.\/.1/[V>;.], whence AV * Dodanim." In Is. 21 13 .Vq. Sym. fujactfi for D'H"!.

A son of Javan [q.v.], son of Japheth, Gen. 104 = I Ch. I7. The same name i.e., either Dodan (|nq) or Rodan (jii) should possibly be restored for ' Dedan ' {yn) in Ezek. 27 15 (poSujv [\M> ; adnot. podioi opa<rii Kpiaeiiii Q"-], apadidjv [.\] ; so Pesh. but .At]. Sj'm. Theod. 5a5av). The merchants there referred to brought to Tyre the ivory and ebony which they had themselves procured from Africa or India. Two views are held.

{a) Stade, Cornill, Bertholet are strongly for ' Rodan," and naturally hold a similar opinion as to the reading in Gen. IO4. It is, however, by no means certain that MT is not right in reading p-i '32, 'sons of Dedan," in Ezek. , I.e. ; Edom (so all [e.xcept Aq.] read for 'Aram') follows in v. 16. As to Gen. IO4, the most prevalent opinion certainly is that Rodanim is the better reading, and that this term designates not only the Rhodians properly so-called (on whom cp. Horn. //. 2654//^), but also ('many islands' being also mentioned) the people of other .'Egean islands. (So Di., Hal., K.tu., Holzinger, Ball, GASm. HG 135.) This view is geographically plausible, but the short o in 'P65oj must not be overlooked.

{b) Another view, so far as the name goes, is more satisfactory. The Rothinim of the text of Clironicles (if we follow most MSS and 0) may be as inaccurate as the ' Diphath ' which it gives for Kiphath ' (i Ch. 16), and Dodanim itself may be incorrectly given for Dardanim (Tg. Jon., Luzz;itlo, Ges. , Knob., Franz Del.). The name Dardan, as inscriptions of Rameses II. show, comes down from early times; it designates properly a people of jVsia Minor, not far from the Lycians (see W.MM, As. u. Eur. 354/.). It is not impossible that for D'3^n (Ch. reads i) the original source of P's information read D'jm (t-'P Tog.\rmah), and it would be natural for writers and scholars of the Greek period ( and perhaps Ch. ) to convert Dardanim into Rodanim, and to understand the Rhodians. It has been proposed elsewhere to j identify another son of Javan (Tarshish, or rather ] Turus) with another pixjple mentioned in the Egyptian inscriptions (see Tiras). The author of the list used by P may have known Dardan as well as Turus. If pT is the correct reading in Ezek. we should jjerhaps pronounce it Redan, not Rodan. Recent critics may, however, have been too hasty in rejecting MT's reading Dedan. The ' islands ' are not necessarily those in which the merchants spoken of resided ; they may very well be the coast-lands with which Dedan had com- mercial dealings. Cp Deda.n, and, on Ezek. 27 15. see Ebony. ' t. k. c.

DODAVAH[edit]

as AV, or rather Dodavahu as RV (inn'n, perhaps for -"inn'n, Yahw6 is friend or patron.' 47 whence come the abbreviated forms Dodo, Dddai [y^/.r.'] coA[e]iA [l^A], AoyAiOY [L] ; Dodoa : Pesh. implies the reading 'Dodo'), the father of a prophet called Eliezer (2 Ch. 20 37)- T. K. C.

DODO[edit]

('n'n, 52, with which cp HH, Dodai, and *7n, David). The fuller form is probably -innn [cp Dddavah], which means ' Yahwe is friend or patron' [so Marq. Fund. 16]. HT, genius loci, is rightly restored by Wi. in Am. 8 14, and there appears to be an allusion to the ' divine friend ' in Is. 5i (where note that nn and <in' are parallel). The Dodah (nin) of .-Vtaroth is mentioned in the Mesha inscription /. 12. May we also compare Dudu, the name of a high Egyptian official in the Amarna tablets {Am. Tab. 4445 52i5. cp Wi. AF 194)? T. K. C.

1. .\ Bethlehemite, father of the renowned hero Ki.hanan (y.7'); 2 S. 2324 (ouS[]i [BL], Aou. [A]), iCh.1126 (6(o6u)<: [BN], -ai [Al, -5t [I,]).

2. (.\V following Kre ; but see Dodai.) An Ahohitr (?.?'. ), father of David's warrior Kleazar, 2 S. 23 9 (vibs na.tpa.MX^ov avToO [BA], see Ahohitk, iouSet [L]) ; i Ch. 11 xi (ScoSai [BAL], -S [**] > patntus ejus).

3. An ancestor of Tola of Issachar, one of the Judges, Judg. 10 I, if we should not rather follow eight cursive MSS of > and read, for ' son of Dodo,' ' son of his (Abimelech's) uncle K.-ireah.' See Hollenberg, Z.4 T/f-', 1881, p. 104/ ual has vib9 na.Tfta.hiKi\>ov aiiTOv (so Pesh. Vg.). See Tola.

DOE[edit]

(H^;;:), Pr. 5i9t. RV. See Goat.