Encyclopaedia Biblica/Esdras-Evi

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



(or Second Book of). This important apocalypse is included in the Apocrypha of the EV. For this reason it is better known, by name at least, to the English-reading public than any similar book ; although it is not now, and never has been, read in church. The Roman Church does not regard it as Scripture ; but it is printed as an appendix to the authorised edition of the Vulgate, along with i Esdras ( = 3 Esdras) and the Prayer of Manasses.

1. Name, Language, Versions.[edit]

Probably the Greek text bore some such name as AiroKd\v\J/is "Ecrdpa (Westcott), *Ecr5pas 6 TT/XX^TTTTJS ( Hilgenfeld) or Bi/JXor "Ecr3/>a rov irpo^rov. In almost all the versions in which we have it a number forms part of the title, in order that it may be distinguished from the canonical Ezra or from the Greek form of that book known to us as i Esdras. These numbers range from First to Fourth Book. The title Second Book is found only in some late Latin MSS, and in the Genevan Bible, whence the AV took it. It is now commonly referred to as 4 Esdras.

All the versions of the book are derived from a Greek text which has been lost. Of late years the view has begun to find favour (e.g. with Wellhausen, Gunkel, and Charles) that the original text was in Hebrew. We have the following versions: (i) Latin: from this the EV is made. (2) Syriac : extant only in the great Peshitta MS in the Ambrosian Library at Milan. (3) Arabic : two independent versions from the Greek ( Ar. f 1 ) Ar. < 2 > ). ( 4 ) Ethiopic. ( 5 ) Armenian : perhaps made from the Syriac.

Latin translations of nos. 2-5 (except Ar.f 2 ) are given in Hil- genfeld s Messias Jud(?orut, Leipsic, 1869. Ar.R was edited separately by Gildemeister in 1877. (See APOCRYPHA, 22 [13].) Hilgenfeld has made a retranslation into Greek (in Mess. Jud.) which is of great value.

2. Contents.[edit]

The fullest form of the book is given in the Latin version, which alone contains four additional chapters 15 /) which formed no part of the original work. They may be treated separately. The real apocalypse thus consists of chapters 3-14 of the book found in our Apocrypha. The general complexion and arrangement remind the reader of the apocalyptic portion of Daniel, to which indeed reference is made in 12 n. The apocalypse falls into seven sec tions containing separate revelations or visions.

First Vision: 3 i-5 13. In the thirtieth year of the spoiling of the city, Esdras, who is also Salathiel, is disturbed by the thought of the desolation of Sion and the prosperity of Babylon. In a long prayer he reminds God of his special choosing of Israel, and of their present misery, and asks where is the justice of this dealing? The angel Uriel is sent to him and sets forth the unsearchableness of God s ways and the inability of man to judge them. Esdras asks how much time remains before the filling up of the number jf the righteous. A vision shews him that a very short time remains. He asks, and is told, what will be the signs of the end.

Second Vision : 614-634. In a kind of interlude (5 14-19). Phaltiel the chief of the people comes to reproach Esdras for forsaking his flock. Esdras after fasting seven days (as Uriel had bidden him) addresses God again on his dealings with Israel. Uriel consoles him with thoughts which are very much like those of the First Vision : the weakness of man s judgment, the nearness of the end, and the signs of its approach.

Third Vision : (5 35-9 25. A fast of seven days is followed by an address of the seer to God, and a return of Uriel. This time the main discussion is on the fewness of the saved, and the main revelation is a long description of the final judgment and the future state of the righteous and the wicked. 1 The inter cession of Esdras for the human race is carried on at great length, and he is promised further visions after a period of seven days.

Fourth Vision : 9 26-10 59. The interval is spent in the plain of Ardat (see ARDATH), and after it Esdras as usual pleads with God. He sees a mourning woman, who tells him how she has lost her only son. He tries to comfort her by reminding her of the greater desolation of Sion. When he has ended, she suddenly becomes transfigured and vanishes, and in the place where she was he beholds a city. Uriel now comes to him and explains that this woman represented Sion ; and further visions are promised.

Fifth Vision: lli-123g. Two nights afterwards, Esdras dreams of a monstrous eagle with three heads, twelve wings, and certain supplementary winglets. This creature is rebuked and destroyed by a lion. The eagle is explained to be the fourth kingdom seen by Daniel, and the lion is the Messiah. Esdras is bidden to wait seven days more.

Sixth Vision: 1240-1858. In a second interlude (1240-51) the people come en masse and beg Esdras to return. He sends them away. He sees a vision of a wondrous man who first annihilates all his enemies and then welcomes to himself a peaceful multitude. The man is the Messiah. In the peaceful multitude whom he receives we recognise the Lost Ten Tribes, whose history is shortly given. Esdras is commanded to wait three days more.

Seventh Vision : 14 1-48. After the three days Esdras, sitting under an oak (Abraham s oak is no doubt meant), is addressed put of a bush by the voice of God, which warns him that he is shortly to be translated from the earth, and that the end is near. He pleads for the people who are left without teacher or law. God bids him procure writing materials and five scribes (who are named), and bid the people not approach for forty days. Next day he receives a wonderful drink in a cup, and thereafter he dictates continuously for forty days. Thus are written ninety-four books, of which seventy are to be hidden and twenty-four (i.e., the Books of the Hebrew canon) pub lished. According to the Oriental Versions Esdras is then taken up or translated.

In the Latin Version the words describing the translation of Esdras have been cut out because two other chapters (15 f.) have been added (see above).

In the episode just described Ezra appears as the second Moses ; like the lawgiver he is addressed by God out of a bush, like him he writes the law, and like him he disappears in a mysterious manner from among men. On this famous legend of the restoration of the law by Ezra see, further, CANON, 14, 17-

3. Date, Place, History.[edit]

In considering the origin of Fourth Esdras the chief passage that comes into question is the Fifth or Eagle Vision - That Rome is represented by the eagle is not doubtful ; but what particular persons are signified by the various heads, wings, and feathers it is much harder to say. The vision has been held by several critics either to be wholly an interpolation (an untenable view) or to have been altered in order to make it fit in with the events of later times. On the whole, the theory that the heads stand for Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian has been most widely accepted. It is also generally held that the destruction of Jerusalem, to which such constant reference is made, can be none other than that by Titus in 70 A.D. , though Hilgenfeld pleads strongly for a date nearer 30 B.C. On the whole, a majority of critics are in favour of placing the book between 81 and 96 A.D.

The book is possibly quoted in the Epistle of Barnabas (end of ist cent. ), certainly by Clement of Alexandria and by Hippolytus (irepl rov iravr^). In Latin, perhaps by Cyprian, and very copiously by Ambrose.

1 Of this a great part 736-105 was missing in the Latin Version (and consequently in the AV) until Professor R. L. Bensly discovered at Amiens a MS which contained the complete text.

4. Integrity of chaps. 3-14.[edit]

A theory that Fourth Esdras is a composite work, made out of several earlier apocalypses, has been set forth with great ingenuity by R. Kabisch (Das Buck Esra auf seine Quellen untersucht, Gottingen, 89). He postulates five documents ranging in date from 20 B.C. to 100 A. D. , and a redactor of 120 A.D. : see Charles(^4/0c. of Baruch, pp. xxxix. -xli. ; ESCHATOLOGY, 79), who has carried the analysis still farther. Dillmann has advanced the proposition that the Eagle Vision has been manipulated by a Christian editor. His hypothesis has found more support than Kabisch s ; but neither can yet be regarded as proved.

5. Additions in Latin Versions.[edit]

The additions in the Latin versions (\f. 15/. ) are translated from a Greek original ; but they have no connection with the original book of Esdras.

(a) Chaps. 1-2 are Christian. Their principal topic is the rejection of the Jewish people in favour of Gentile Christians : They probably date from the second century, and seem to be connected with the apocalypse of Zephaniah (APOCRYPHA, 21), of which we have fragments in Coptic.

The only Greek quotation from them as yet known is in the Acts of St. Silvester. It is from 2 34/1 that the name Requiem (requiem zternitatis dabit vobis . . . lux perpetua lucebit vobis) as applied to the Office for the Dead is derived. The Latin text is preserved in two forms, of which the best is that contained in a group of Spanish MSS.

(b) Chaps. 15-16. are Jewish. They consist of a long monotonous invective against sinners, with predictions of wars and tribulations modelled principally on the prophecies of Jeremiah. They refer probably to the conquests of Sapor I., and the rebellion of Zenobia and Odenathus (242-273 A.D. ). See CARMANIANS. The first certain quotation is in the works of Ambrose. Gildas, the first of British writers, quotes from them copiously.

6. Character of Book.[edit]

The Fourth Book of Esdras (3-14) is one of the most interesting of all apocalypses. Unsuccessful as its attempted solutions of the problems of life are, as marked by a noble confidence in God's justice. The writer shows himself in his best light when he addresses God and dwells upon his power and mercy. The thought which is present to him throughout in this connection is well put in 847. Thou lackest much before thou canst love my creature more than I." On the other hand it is im possible to deny that the book is exceedingly prolix in form and exclusive in spirit, and that the apocalyptic portion, the Eagle Vision and the like, are tedious and obscure, not possessing in any way the imaginative power of the Johannine Apocalypse.

The general complexion of the book so nearly resembles the Apocalypse of Baruch, that an identity of authorship has been asserted ; though it is allowed that as a whole Baruch. is somewhat later than Esdras (see APOCALYPTIC, 13^).

The relation of 4 Esdras to Christianity is a principal point of interest. Its Messianic ideas (see MESSIAH) are highly developed ; and its eschatology has much in common with conceptions early current in the church (see ESCHATOLOGY, 79). Hilgenfeld has collected a number of passages which, on his hypo thesis of the date, are quotations of 4 Esdras by NT writers ; but the greater part of them do not suffice to show anything like a literary connection. One passage, however (435/1), so closely resembles Rev. &gf. that we must suppose either a borrowing by Esdras from the Johannine Apocalypse or the use of a common source.

7. Literature[edit]

Hilgenfeld, Messias Judctorum (Versions and Greek re-translation) ; Bensly and James, Fourth Book of Esdras in Texts and Studies, 3 2 (Latin text) ; Lupton, in Speaker's Comm. (English text and commentary) ; Schurer, GJVP) 3 232 ff. (ET, 5 95 ff^l and literature there referred to. Also Rende! Harris, Rest of the Words of Baruch; Carl Clemen, St. Kr., 98, ii. A critical and annotated German version by Gunkel in Kautzsch s Apokr. has recently (1899) been published. M. R. J.


(ecApIC [AV], esdrin [Vg.], *|JUk [Syr.] ; cp EZRI), a corrupt name in the account of a fight between Judas the Maccabee and GORGIAS (2 Mace. 1236 RV). It is natural to think that [oi] irepl rbv effdpiv at the beginning of the long sentence corresponds to [oi] irepl TOV yopyiav at the end, and to change fffdpiv into yopyiav. This is in fact the reading of Aid. and of some MSS, followed by AV, and, even if only a copyist s conjecture, is possibly correct.


(eceBcoN [NA]), Judith 5 15 AV, RV HESHBON (q.v. ).


(pEW ; <S translates : <\AlKlA [ADEL], cyKO- 4>&NTI<\ [Aq.]), l ^ e name f one of the contested wells in the story of ISAAC, q.v. , 5, and Abimelech, Gen. 2620.


(ecepeBlAC [BA]). i Esd. 854 RV (AV Esebrias):=Ezra 818 SHEREBIAH.


(jl^K), Josh. 1652 RV, AV ESHEAN.


(^3PN), i Ch. 833 9 3 gt. See ISHBAAL.


(JSK X, 45, in formation analogous to J3HN, a Jerahmeelite name), a Horite clan-name ; Gen. 8626 UcBAN [ADEL]); i Ch. I 4 i (*.ceBo>N [B], eceB&N [AL]). Cp DISHON.


(Vma^K, cluster of grapes, 1 69, cp 103 ; ecxooA [ADL]).

1. A wady near Hebron, so called from the un rivalled fruit of its vineyards, Nu. 182325 32g; Dt. Iz4f (<pdpa.y /36r/3uos [BAFL]). NW. of HEBRON (q.v.) is a wady called Bet Iskahil (Baed.( 3 ) 137), if the name may be trusted. But we can hardly expect to find such a name preserved (Conder does not recognise it). The vine still flourishes there (see HEBRON i. , 3, and cp Thomson, LB [ 94], 5g6/. ). Cp, however, NEGEB, 7.

2. The brother of ANER (i) and MAMRE, Abram s Amorite allies (Gen. 14 1324 ; in 24 eio-^wX [A]). Note that in v. 24 Eschol is placed first by < (cp Jos. Ant. i. 102) but second in MT.


RV better ESHAN (|W^N ; ec&N [AL], COMA [B]), a site in the hill country of Judah, to the S. or SW. of Hebron (Josh. 1552). Perhaps a corruption of Beer-sheba (cp < B , and IR-NAHASH).


(ptfW), a name in a genealogy of BENJAMIN (q.v.. 9, ii. /3) (i Ch. 8 39 t ; ACHA [B], eceAeK [A], <\ceK L L D- See JQ R ll II0 II2 ^ 9. I2 -


n), Josh. 13 3 AV. See ASHKELON.


( mNntTK ; for form cp ESHTEMOA, n. ). In eotfaoA [BA], -oAVr - coA. [L] ; Josh. 19 41 aaa [B], Judg. 1825 eflaeA. [A], Judg. 1631 18 2 eo-Satfa [Bb]. The ethnic Eshtaulites o pNnc Nrj, i Ch. 2 53, RV Eshtaolites ; viol ec-flaa/u [B], oi ea-SacuXatoi [A], 6 eerflaoAi [L]) presupposes a form Eshtaul (see Ko. Lehrgeb. 2 i, 131 /3).

A town in the lowland of Judah, Josh. 1633 UCTAOOA [B], . . . 0&. [L], ecOAOAl [A]), or more strictly in the northern hill-country immediately under the Judaean plateau (cp GASm. HG, 218 /. ). It stands first in the first group of cities, and is followed by ZORAH (q.v. ), with which indeed it is usually men tioned. In Josh. 1841 it is Danite ; cp Judg. 1825 182811, and see SAMSON, i. 1 Eusebius and Jerome describe it as evdaoX of the tribe of Dan, 10 R. m. N. of Eleutheropolis towards Nicopolis (OS 2558; 11932), and distinguish from it an acr0aw\ of the tribe of Judah (OS 22099 9226), between Ashdod and As- calon, which was called in their time aad(a (asto). The former description agrees accurately with the position of the small village of Eshu , which, Gue rin says, was, according to tradition, originally called Eshual or Eshthual (Judde, 212-14). The latter statement needs confirmation.

Eshu is 878 feet above sea-level, and z\ m. NE. from Zorah (ar a) in the W. $arar. It has some Roman remains. Eshual, without the characteristic t of Eshtaol, would be like es-Seinu for ESHTEMOA (q.v.), f. K. C.

1 Cp also Bu. Ri. Sa. 138 ff.; GASm. HG 220, n. 4. 1395


1 (inOfiN ; ec6eMto [A]; Josh. 21 14 i S. 3028 i Ch. 41719 642 [57]) or Eshtemoh (ilbn^X, Josh. 15 5 o).

s readings are: Josh. 1650, KTxa.iij.av [B], curdc^u [L] ; Josh. 21 14, re/id [B], icrflifiwe [L] ; i S. 3028, tadeie [B], eaSf/ma [A], j/o&o/x [?L] ; i Ch. 4 17, eo-eai/iOH- [B], -0<rv. [A], eaSa/ia [L] ; i Ch. 4 19, eo-eacfiwnj [B], lecrfo/iwj) [A], r6a/xa (L) ; i Ch. 657 [42], (rOa.fi<a [BA, ? om. L].

A city in the hill -country of Judah (Josh. 15 50), Levitical according to the priestly theory (Josh. 21 14 [P]), now es-Semu , a large village W. of Ma in, W. by S. of Yutta, and about 9 m. in a direct line W. by S. of Hebron. It is situated on a low hill with broad valleys round about, not susceptible of much tillage, but full of flocks and herds all in fine order (Rob. BR 2626). In several places there are remains of walls built of very large bevelled stones, marking it as the site of an important and very ancient town (cp Gue rin, Judte, 8173). The ruins of its castle are most likely of Saracenic or Turkish origin. The place is mentioned as a very large village by Eusebius and Jerome ( OS 254yo 93 16).


(flD^N. scarcely effeminate 2 [BDB doubtfully]; ACC&060N [BA, but om. B, v. 12], ecc- [L]), b. Mehir, a Calibbite (i Ch. 4n/).

Most probably a corruption of pOnE X, Eshtemon, another form of the name nDlWK, ESHTEMOH (see above). Cp IR-NAHASH.


(ecAei [Ti. WH]), father of Naum, in the genealogy of Joseph (Lk. 825). See GENEALOGIES ii- 3-


RV^EsoRA(, [N*]> AICOORA, -RAA. [N c - a ?], is mentioned between CHOBA and the Valley of SALEM in connection with the preparations of the Jews against Holofernes (Judith 44!). Tell Asur, NE. of Bethel (see HAZOR, 2) lies perhaps too much to the S. ; a more probable identification would be Asireh, a little to the N. of Shechem (PEF Map}. On the strength of the reading acrcrapwc, found in some MSS, Zockler has suggested jhe ri, the plain of Sharon.


i. Used of the bridegroom, H|rin, Mthwinah. (Cant. 3n). See MARRIAGE, 3, also CROWN, 3.

2. Used of the bride, niW?3, ktluloth, Jer. 22. See as above. In 2 S. 814 and Mt. 1 18 Lk. l2 7 2s, RV rightly has betroth.

1 The name, with which compare ESHTAOL, is of importance. In form it resembles the inf. of the eighth conj. in Arabic ; istima would mean attention, obedience. Is this a vestige of the influence of Arabic-speaking tribes in S. Judah ? Cp Olshausen, Lehrb. 367; Kampffmeyer, articles in ZDTV 15_/C

2 For the form cp ESHTEMOA, ESHTAOL (so-called Ifta al forms), or fSptyN, li HB K. See NAMES, 107, end.

3 For a Jewish view of the Essenes, see 2, n.


(ezp(e)lA [BA]), i Esdr. 9 3 4 = Ezral0 4 i, AZAREEL, 5.


(ecpcoM [Ti. WH] Mt. 1 3 ; ecptoM [Ti.] -N [WH] Lk. 3 33 ), RV HEZRON, q.v. (ii., i).


1. Meagre accounts.[edit]

It has been customary to follow Josephus in regarding the Essenes as forming a third Jewish party, the Pharisees and the Sadducees being the other two ; so far as we know, however, they were not a party in any sense, but a Jewish brotherhood, a kind of monastic order. 3

Our only authorities who speak of them from personal know ledge are the Roman Pliny (//A 5 17), and (with greater detail) his Jewish contemporary Josephus (BJ ii. 82-13 > Ant. xviii. 1 5), who, in the second passage cited, plainly depends on the most important witness of all, the Alexandrian Philo, who flourished some fifty years earlier. Philo discourses of the Essenes in two passages ; in his Quod otnnis probus liber, i?f., and in a no longer extant Apology from which all that is important in Euseb. Prifp. Ev. vin. ii. is doubtless derived.

They are nowhere mentioned, either in the Bible or in Rabbinical literature. It may safely be taken for granted that their origin does not go further back than the second century B.C. Josephus first mentions them {Ant. xiii. 69) in Maccabean times ; the earliest incident in connection with which an Essene is spoken of by name belongs to the year 105 B.C. In the second century A.D. they disappear from history, though J. B. Light- foot s attractive conjecture makes it probable that certain later Christian sects in the East, such as the Sampsasans, were somehow connected with Essenism.

2. Confined to Palestine .[edit]

The derivation of the name is obscure ; most probably it means the pious. 1 Philo estimates their number at 4000. They are not met with outside Palestine; the Egyptian Therapeutee, described by Philo in his De Vita Contemplativa, are certainly not to be regarded as merely an Alexandrian variety of Essenes. The Essenes who so many interpreters infer from the Pauline epistles were to be found in Colossse and Rome, can be much more simply explained if it is remembered that certain tendencies and views, strongly represented in Essenism, were characteristic of the whole religion of that time and hence make their appearance in many directions in a great variety of shades and combinations. What most struck the outside observer in the Essenes was the strictness of their organisation and their thorough-going asceticism.

3. Organisation.[edit]

In villages and towns - as, for example, in Jerusalem - they settled around a central house of their order, in which they followed their religious observances together, of which one was the common meal. There was no such thing as private property ; whatever any one earned by rigorously regulated labour in the field or at a handicraft came into the common purse, out of which the common expenses were defrayed and doles of charity not confined to members of the order could be dispensed. Elected stewards managed the funds and took the general oversight of affairs ; the proper preparation of foods had to be attended to by priests. A three years novitiate was necessary before admission to the order ; the entrant was pledged by oaths of the most solemn kind to obedience and reticence.

1 [From NDfl, pious (Ewald, Hitz., Schurer). Another plausible derivation is from ON, KDn, N^DX, physician (0epa- ireuTT/s?) a designation applied in the Talmud to certain men who have been supposed to be true Essenes. Lightfoot derives from D NtJTli silent ones, i.e., those who would not reveal their secrets. Both these names, according to Hamburger, belonged to classes of persons who formed part of the large brotherhood or order (?) of Essenes. This scholar mentions ten other groups of probable Essenes, including the Vathikin, the morally strong, who said the morning prayer at the first streak of dawn, the Table Shahrith, or morning bathers, the Banndint, or builders, who dwelt much on the construction of the world and on the cleanness of their garments, and the Zenuim, or secretly pious ones, who kept their books secret, and had other striking points of affinity to the Essenes. See Essaer in Hamburger, RE, Abtheil. 2 ( 96).]

4. Tenets.[edit]

All that we have described, however, constituted a means to an end the attainment of holiness. This was sought in the highest possible purity ; abstinence from all sexual intercourse, ex clusion of women, countless washings, avoidance even of that degree of impurity which resulted to members of the brotherhood from contact with a novice, and elabor ate scrupulosity in reference to all bodily secretions and excretions were prescribed. Every object of sense (das Sinnliclie) they held to be ungodly, and yet, on the other hand, every sin they regarded as a trans gression of nature s law. In their view of nature the soul of man formed no part of the present world, in which falsehood, egoism, greed and lust bear, sway. When a man has freed himself betimes from these evil inclinations, his soul will at death pass into a bright paradise in the farthest west ; the souls of the wicked, on the other hand, fall into a dark and dreary abode of never-ending punishment. As the Essenes lived entirely for the life hereafter, their interest largely centred in the attempt to penetrate the secrets of the future in every detail ; angelology and eschatology, doubtless, formed the main themes of their esoteric writings ; as fore tellers of the future they were held in high repute, and when Josephus tells to their credit that they had in vestigated to good purpose, in the interests of medicine, the healing virtues of roots and stones, we may be sure that this was done by them, not with a view to the good of the body, but as a special department of their apocalyptic gnosis.

5. Relation to Judaism.[edit]

The relation of Essenism to the religion of the OT seems difficult to determine. Hitherto scholars have reached no unanimity on the subject. On the one hand some - notably Ritschi and Lucius - regard it as a purely internal development of Judaism, Lucius in particular calling attention to its close kinship with Pharisaism. Others, on the other hand, find it impossible to explain it except by assuming the introduction into Judaism of foreign elements from Parseeism, Buddhism, or Greek Philosophy the Orphic - Pythagorean in particular. M. Fried- lander, 1 in fact, sees in Essenism the fruit of an anti- Pharisaic movement, a reaction against the post-Macca- bean anti-Hellenic Judaism of Palestine. Exaggeration in either direction is to be guarded against.

Beyond question the Essenes represented a purely Jewish piety.

The members were recruited from Jews alone, nowhere were the law and the lawgiver held in higher reverence than with them ; their Sabbath observance and their rites of purifica tion had their origin in an ultra-Pharisaic legalism, and if they repudiated bloody sacrifice, they did not on that account sever their connection with the temple ; probably their action was determined by an allegorising interpretation of the laws relating to animal sacrifice. 2 The foreign element in their system cannot have been conspicuous when they so power fully impressed a Pharisaic contemporary like Josephus. In their ascetic practices and prescriptions, as well as in their sincerity and hospitality, it was possible for the best people in Israel to see simply a fulfilment of what the law indeed points to, but does not venture to impose on every one as obligatory. Details, such as their worship of the sun, 3 are not handed down with sufficient clearness to warrant us in drawing deductions relating to the history of religion ; their communistic ideal, carrying with it the prohibition of marriage and of slave-holding, could quite well have been set up by Jews without external suggestion.

1 Zur Entstehungsgesch. des Christenthums ("94), pp. 98-142.

2 [It is difficult to consider the non-sacrificial system of the Essenes apart from the non-sacrificial religion of certain psalmists of the school of Jeremiah (Jer. 7 227^; cp 8s). The Essenes did not, it is true, reject the principle of a single national sanctuary, for they sent avaSru^aTa. to the temple. But they do appear to have gone beyond those psalmists whose spirit (cp Ps. 15 with the oath of the Essenes, Jos. BJ ii. 8 7) they had so thoroughly imbibed, in giving practical expression to their dislike of animal sacrifices. No such were offered by them (]os.Ant. xviii. 1 5) " by reason of the " superiority of their own " purifications " (ayvelai). The "sacrifices " which they performed " by themselves " (<!<!> avriav) were probably these purifications which were symbolic (cp Ps. 26 4-7) of the psalmists ivourite sacrifice of obedience and praise (Che. OPs. 375).]

3 jrpti/ yap avacrx^v TOV TJAioi ot>6ei> <j>8eyyovTai TMV /3e/3>jA<ui>, Trarpiovs Se rii/as eis avrbv ev>x<is wcrnep iKerevoi/Tcs ai/aretAai (Bj ii. 8 5). [This passage Lightfoot compares with BJ ii. 8 9, where the Essenes are said to burv polluting substances, <os /u.t) ras auyds v/3pi <Jbiei/ TOV dfov. Cheyne, however (OPs. 447), criticises at some length Lightfoot s use of the passages. Josephus is not to be held responsible for every detail of Greek phraseology. No genuinely Jewish sect could have worshipped the sun ; in any case, there would have been some indignant reference to this in the Gospels and the Talmud. Later heretical sects should not be adduced here (see Epiphanius). It is very possible, however, that the Essenes adopted the custom of saying the first prayer at daybreak with special zest, the dawn being to them symbolic of the expected appearance of the divine judge.]

6. Foreign influence.[edit]

The anthropology of the Essenes, their doctrine of the life beyond the grave, their effort after a life emancipated as far as possible from all needs, and lived in conformity to nature, have no analogies on Jewish soil, but are, on the other hand, conspicuous in the Pythagoreanising philosophy, 1 the form which the religion of the Greek world at that time was so ready to take ; and if the kinship is admitted at one point it becomes natural and easy to regard a dualistic and thus thoroughly anti-Jewish view of the world as having powerfully influenced both their ethics and their religious principles. Essenism may have been a gradual development, much that was foreign may have come into it in course of time, and the Hellenistic colouring may here and there be due simply to our informants ; Pliny may possibly not have been wrong when he represents dissatisfaction with life (vita pacnitentia] as having been the principle which had brought and kept them together ; this dissatisfaction with life, or rather enmity to the world, is as un-Jewish as it is un-Christian. Essenism, then, may be described as having been a religious growth within the Judaism of the last century B. c. which arose under the influence of certain tendencies and ideas |hat lay outside of Judaism, or, perhaps rather, at an early date admitted such influences. This is why Essenism disappeared ; of Judaism the only form capable of retaining life was Pharisaism ; no mediating forms were able to survive the catastrophe which overthrew the popular religion.

7. Traces of Zoroastrianism.[edit]

[In spite of the favour with which the theory of Pythagorean influence has been received, some scholars doubt whether it is correct. The fact that Josephus compares the Essenian mode of life with the Pythagorean is, at any rate, not in its favour ; Josephus had an object in throwing a Greek colouring over the views of Jewish sects. Besides, neo-Pythagoreanism has itself too foreign an air to be fitly appealed to as the source of any Oriental system. There is much in Josephus s account of the Essenes which can be ex plained either from native Jewish or from Oriental (Zoroastrian) ideas. He says, for instance, that the Essenes, or rather some of them, neglect marriage (BJ\\. 82 ; cp 13). There is no occasion to ascribe this to Pythagorean influence ; it is a part of the asceticism which naturally sprang from the belief in secret com munications from the Deity (see Enoch 882, and cp i Cor. 7s). Nor is it at all necessary to explain the Essenian doctrine of the soul from neo-Pythagoreanism. Lightfoot (Colossians) and Hilgenfeld (Die Ke.tzer- geschichte des Urchristenthums) have done well to suggest the possibility of Zoroastrian influences. Light- foot s remarks deserve special attention, even though he ascribes to Essenism some things (e.g. , sun-worship) which can hardly have belonged to it. a The truth prob ably is that the Essenian doctrine of the soul (if Josephus may be trusted) combined two elements a Babylonian and a Persian both Hebraized.

The happy island is a part of the tradition of the Assyrio-Babylonian poets. The description of Hades, on the other hand, is distinctly Zoroastrian, and so too is the second description in Josephus of the lot of good souls according to Essenism. We have, in fact, in the first sentence of Jos. BJii. 8 IT a reflexion of the Zoroastrian view respecting the frauashis, those " guardian angels" which were so linked to men as to form virtually a part of human nature, and which were practicably indistinguishable from souls (Che. OPs. 420; see the whole passage for a full examination of the affinities between Essenism and Zoroastrianism).

1 [The essentially neo-Pythagorean character of many parts of Essenism has been widely accepted on the authority of Zeller (see reference below).]

- See Che. OPs. 447 f. That the Essenes showed special zeal in saying the first prayer at dawn is probable. Cp col. 1397 n. with reference to the Vathlkln.

3 See especially his Der Essenismus in seinetn Verhdltniss xumjudenthum ( 81).

Essenism, therefore, if at all correctly described by Josephus, is not a purely Jewish product, and yet need not be ascribed in any degree to neo - Pythagorean influence. Persian and Babylonian influence, on the other hand, may reasonably be admitted. Unless we go further in critical audacity than Lucius, 3 and reject the accounts of Essenism in our text of Josephus as spurious, we can hardly venture to maintain that Essenism is of purely indigenous origin. From a con servative text-critical point of view, Lightfoot is right against Frankel. Ohle, 1 however, repairs the omission of Lucius ; he leaves nothing to Josephus but a few scattered notices of a very simple Essenism, which may be sufficiently explained as an exaggeration of Pharisaism. It must be confessed that Ohle s result would be historically convenient. In particular, it would explain why there is no reference to such a remarkable organization as that of the Essenes of Josephus, either in the Gospels or in the Talmud. It is more probable, however, that the text of Josephus has not, so far as the beliefs of the Essenes are con cerned, been interpolated ; that, at any rate in the main, Josephus s account of the Essenes is based on facts. Oriental influences were, so to speak, in the air, and it is not probable that the belief in the re surrection was the only great debt which Jewish re ligionists owed to Zoroastrians. T. K. C.]

8. Was John the Baptist an Essene?[edit]

We sometimes find John the Baptist, and even Jesus and his disciples, claimed for Essenism. Jesus, however, little concerned as he was about ceremonial observances, the Sabbath, and the like, who ate and drank with sinners, may have been quite as well a Pharisee as an Essene, and if Philo (Quod omnis probus liber, 13) is able to affirm so emphatically as he does that, in spite of the variety of rulers who governed Palestine, the Essenes never came into conflict with any of them, but, on the contrary, were held in high regard by all, the movement associated with the name of John, ending as it did so tragically, cannot be regarded as a chapter from the history of the order of the Essenes. It is only among the number of those who prepared the way for the new world-religion that we can reckon these Jewish monastic brotherhoods. They not only placed love to God, to goodness, and to man, as articles in their programme, but also sought with wonderful energy according to their lights to realise them in their life. This was the very reason of their disappearance Chris tianity dissolved them, reconciling Judaism and Hel lenism in a form of knowledge and ethics that was accessible to all, not to a few aristocrats merely.

9. literature.[edit]

The literature is immense. More immediately important are : J. B. Lightfoot, Epistles to Colossians and to Philemon^), 82-98, 349-419 ( 76) ; Zeller, Die Phil, der Griechen, iii. 2277-338 ( 81); E. Schiirer, GVm, 30 ; Wellhausen, //GW ( 97), ch. 19. See also PERSIA. A. J.

1 See his " Die Essener ; eine kritische Untersuchung der Angaben des Josephus " \nJPT 14 ( 88).


  • Unhistorical ( 1-2).
  • Its proper names (3).
  • Moral tone (4).
  • Date, etc. (5).
  • Purpose (6).
  • Purim (7).
  • Unity (8).
  • Greek version (9).
  • Additions (10-12).
  • Canonicity (13).

The Book of Esther (IFIDN, Istar. see below, 6 ; ec0Hp [BNAL], AIC. [A in 2u]) relates how, in the time of the Persian king Ahasuerus, the Jews were doomed to destruction in consequence of the intrigues of Haman, how they were delivered by the Jewish queen Esther and her uncle Mordecai, how they avenged themselves by a massacre of their enemies, and finally how the Feast of Purim was instituted among the Jews in order to perpetuate the memory of the aforesaid events.

1. Impossibility of story.[edit]

The book opens with the phrase wi, 'And it came to pass', thereby claiming to be a continuation of the historical books of the OT. The precise dates and the numerous proper names give the narrative an air of historical accuracy, and at the close we actually find a reference made to the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia. Unfortunately all these pretensions to veracity are belied by the nature of the contents : the story is, in fact, a tissue of improbabilities and impossibilities.

It is now generally admitted that in Esther, as also in Ezra 4 6 and Dan. 9 i, Ahasuerus (syniertKi Akkaskivlrosh) must be identical with the king who is tailed Khshayarsha in the Persian inscriptions, BnK BTl m an Aramaic inscription from Egypt, and Eepfrjs by the Greeks (see AHASUERUS). In former days it was usual to identify Esther with Amfistris (or, in the Ionic form, Amestris), who was the wife of Xerxes at the very time when Esther, according to 2 16, became the queeu of Ahasuerus {i.e. in Decemoer 479 B.C. or January 478 B.C.). It is true that the coarseness and cruelty of Amastris (see Herod. 7 1 14 9 i iojff.~) answer in some measure to the vindictive character of Esther ; but, not to mention the difficulty of explaining the disappearance of the syllable At, Amastris was the daughter of a Persian grandee, not a Jewess (see Herod. 76i and Ktesias excerpted by Photius [Bekker] 38*).

One of the main points in the narrative, namely the decree for the massacre of all the Jews in the Persian Empire on a day fixed eleven months beforehand, would alone suffice to invalidate the historical character of the book.

Still more extravagant is the contrary edict, issued by the king soon afterwards, whereby the Jews are authorized to butcher, on the same day, vast numbers of their fellow-subjects. Nor is it possible to believe in the two days slaughter which the king sanctions in his own capital. What meaning can we attach to the solemn decree that every man is to be master in his own house and speak the language of his own nation?

Further, notwithstanding the dates which he gives us, the author had in reality no notion of chronology.

He represents Mordecai as having been transported to Babylon with king Jeconiah i.e., in the year 597 B.C. and as becoming prime minister in the i2th year of Xerxes i.e., in 474 B.C. That Xerxes had already returned to Susa by the tenth month of the seventh year of his reign {i.e., by December 479 B.C. or January 478 H.C.), when Esther became his consort (2 16), is not altogether impossible ; if such were the case, he must have quitted Sardis after the battle of Mykale (early in the autumn of 479 B.C.) and marched to Susa without delay. However, the author of Esther betrays no knowledge of the fact that the king had visited Greece in the interval.

Further, it is contrary to all that we know of those times for an Achaemenian sovereign to choose a Jewess for his queen, an Amalekite (Hainan) and afterwards a Jew for his chief minister, measures which would never have been tolerated by the proud aristocracy of Persia.

It is still harder to believe that royal edicts were issued in the language and writing of each one of the numerous peoples who inhabited the empire (1 22 3 12). That Mordecai is able to communicate freely with his niece in the harem must be pro nounced altogether, contrary to the usage of Oriental courts. On the other hand the queen is represented as unable to send even a message to her husband, in order that the writer may have an opportunity of magnifying the courage of his heroine ; such restrictions, it is needless to say, there can never have been in reality. A similar attempt to exalt the character of Esther appears in the fact that her petition on behalf of the Jews is brought forward not at the first banquet but at the second, although Mordecai, who had meanwhile become prime minister, might naturally have intervened for the purpose. Mordecai, while openly professing to be a Jew, forbids his niece to reveal her origin, for no reason except that the plot of the book requires it. Yet those who observed Mordecai s communications with Esther could not fail, one might think, to have some suspicion of her nationality. It is not often that an Oriental minister has been so wretchedly served by his spies as was the case with Hainan, who never discovered the near relationship between Mordecai and the queen.

The fabulous character of the work shows itself likewise in a fondness for pomp and high figures. Note for example the feast of 180 days, supplemented by another of seven days (14^). the twelve months which the maidens spend in adorning and perfuming themselves before they enter the king s presence, the 127 provinces of the Empire (an idea suggested rather by the smaller provinces of the Hellenistic period than by the great satrapies of the Achsemenidae),! the gallows 50 cubits in height, the ten sons of Haman, the 10,000 talents (3 g). 2

There is something fantastic, but not altogether unskilful, in the touch whereby Mordecai and Haman, as has long ago been observed, are made to inherit an ancient feud, the former being a member of the family of king Saul, the latter a descendant of Agag, king of Amalek (see AGAGLTIC). However, though some of the details are undoubtedly effective, the book, as a whole, cannot be pronounced a well-written romance. As a work of art it is inferior even to the Book of Judith, which, like Esther, contains a profusion of dates and names.

1 Marq. Fund. 68, compares Dan. i [2].

2 This sum is perhaps based upon a definite calculation. If, in accordance with the statements in the Pentateuch, the total of the adult males in Israel be estimated as 600,000 in round numbers, and if a single drachm, the ordinary unit of value, be reckoned for each man, we reach the sum of 10,000 talents. This thoroughly Rabbinical calculation, which is found in the (second) Targ. (3 9 4 i), quite suits the character of the book.

2. No historical kernel.[edit]

That the Book of Esther cannot be regarded as a genuine historical work is avowed even by many adherents of ecclesiastical tradition. Since, however, the most essential parts of the story, na,ely the deliverance of the Jews from complete extermination and their murderous reprisals by means of the Jewish queen and the Jewish minister, are altogether unhistorical, it is impossible to treat the book as an embellished version of some real event a historical romance like the Persian tale of Bahrain Chobln and the novels of Scott or Manzoni and we are forced to the conclusion that the whole narrative is fictitious.

This would still be the case even if it were discovered (a thing scarcely probable) that a few historical facts are interwoven with the story. For it is obvious that the mere name of the king of the Persians and Medes, and similar details, must not be taken to prove a historical foundation, or we might pronounce many of the stories in the Arabian Nights to be founded on fact simply because the Caliph Harun and other historical persons are mentioned in them.

3. Proper names.[edit]

Nor would those who believe in the authenticity of the book greatly strengthen their cause if they could demonstrate that all the proper names which appear in the story were really current among the Persians, since even in the Hellenistic period a native of Palestine or of any other country inhabited by Jews might without difficulty have collected a large number of Persian names. As a matter of fact, however, most of the names in Esther do not by any means present the appearance of genuine Persian formations.

This has been made only clearer by Oppert's recent attempt to explain many of them from Persian. 1 In spite of the great liberties with respect to the sounds allowed himself by this in genious decipherer, he finds in Esther scarcely one of the Persian names known to us which are by no means few and from these the names which he professes to have discovered differ, for the most part, very essentially. Moreover, when, to cite one example, he interprets joinD as equivalent to Wahuman (the modern Persian Bahmari) he fails to consider that the practice of naming human beings after Izedhs - a class of heavenly spirits to which Wahuman belongs did not arise till several centuries after the fall of the Achemenian Empire.

Nor is it legitimate to suppose that the names in Esther have suffered to any great extent through errors of transcription, for the Hebrew (as contrasted with the Greek) text of this book is on the whole well preserved, and hence there is a reasonable presumption that the forms of the names have been accurately transmitted.

It may be added that several of the subordinate persons are mentioned more than once and that the spelling, in such cases, remains constant or undergoes merely some insignificant change proof that there has been no artificial assimilation of the forms. Thus we find jumn 1 I0 ar >d ruimn "9 (HARBONA); J31DD 11421 and jsniD 1 16 Kt. (MEMUCAN); BOW jnJ3 2 21 and B ini K:n:3 62 (BIGTHAN, TERFSH); jun 2 3 and jn 2 8 15 (HEGAI); -pin 5/- 9 f- (HATHACH); B-IT 61014 613 (ZERESH). In the lists of seven names (1 10 14) and in the list of ten (0 7-9) some of the forms are suspiciously like one another. This, however, is probably due not to the copyist but to the author, who exercised no great care in the invention of the names. 2

1 See his Recherches bibliques (Versailles, 94), reprinted from RKJ 28.

2 [On these names see Marq. Fund. 68-73. After noticing the connection between Esther rnd Daniel he reduces the seven princes in Esther 1 14 to three (as in Dan. 03) viz., (a) Carshena, (l>) Sarsathai (?) (in Shethar, Tarshish), and (c) Manisara (in Meres, Marsena).]

4. Moral tone.[edit]

It is certain that everyone would long ago have rejected the book as unhistorical but for its position in the Jewish and therefore in the Christian canon. Under no other circumstances could the moral tone of the work have escaped general condemnation. It has been well remarked by A. H. Niemeyer, a theologian of Halle, that the most respect able character in the book is Vashti, the queen, who declines to exhibit her charms before the crowd of revellers. 1 Esther, it is true, risks her life on behalf of her people ; but the vindictive ferocity which both she and Mordecai display excites our aversion.

The craving for vengeance natural enough in a people surrounded by enemies and exposed to cruel oppression per vades the whole work, as it pervades the so-called Third Book of the Maccabees (cp MACCAHKES, THIRD, 2), which appears to have been written in imitation of Esther. Whilst other books of the OT, including even Judith, ascribe the deliverance of Israel to God, everything in Esther is done by men.

It was long ago observed that this book, though canonical, contains no mention of God. The omission is certainly not intentional. It is due to the coarse and worldly spirit of the author. The only reference to re ligion is the mention of fasting (4i6 931).

Moreover, it cannot be accidental that Israel, the ideal name of the nation, is never employed we read only of the Jews. The author dwells with peculiar pleasure on the worldly splendour of his heroes, and he seems quite unconscious of the miserable character of the king. It is a curious fact that in this book, afterwards so highly esteemed, the word nnB D, banquet, occurs no less than twenty times. 2

Mordecai s refusal to prostrate himself before Haman may possibly appear to Europeans a proof of manly self-respect ; but among the Hebrews prostration implied no degradation, and had long been customary not only in the presence of sovereigns, but also in the presence of ordinary men (see SALUTATIONS). The behaviour of Mordecai is therefore mere wanton insolence, and accordingly Jewish interpreters, as well as some early Christian authorities, have spent much labour in the attempt to devise a justification for it (cp also loa).

5. Date and authorship.[edit]

In the Book of Esther the Persian empire is treated as a thing of the past, already invested with a halo of romance. The writer must therefore have lived some considerable time after Alexander the Great, not earlier than the third, probably in the second, century before Christ. The book presupposes moreover that the Jews had long been scattered abroad and dispersed among the nations (38); this iflea of a dispersion (Siacnropd) points to the time when large Jewish settlements were to be found within the domain of Greek civilisation (see DISPERSION, ia/i). The same period is indicated by the passage about the conversion of vast multitudes to Judaism (9 27), for such a conception would have been impossible even in a romance, until Jewish proselytes had become numerous. The most important point, however, is that the Gentile hatred towards the Jews of the dispersion in consequence of their religious and social exclusiveness a hatred which the Jews fully reciprocated was especially a product of the Hellenistic period ; this mutual enmity, which is not to be con founded with the older feud between the Palestinian Jews and the neighbouring peoples, forms in Esther the basis of the whole narrative. Whether it be necessary on this account to place the composition of the book later than the time of Antiochus Epiphanes is a question which we may leave open.

The language of the work also favours a late date. The fact that it contains many Aramaic words, several of which were borrowed by the Aramaeans from the Persians, might be compatible with a somewhat earlier origin ; but the whole nature of the style, which is characterised by a certain lack of ease, seems to show that the author spoke and thought in Aramaic, and had learned Hebrew merely as a literary language.

If, for example, we compare his diction with the pure and simple Hebrew style of the Book of Ruth, the enormous difference cannot fail to strike us, and is such as to suggest that these writings must be separated by an interval of three centuries or more.

1 Characteristiken der BibelW, (Halle, 31) 5 165.

2 Exactly as often as it happens to occur in all the other books of the OT put together if we exclude five passages where it signifies drink.

The author of Esther was, of course, acquainted with the older sacred literature. In particular, as has been shown by L. A. Rosenthal (ZAT\V 15 278 f. [ 95]), he made use of the story of Joseph who, like Haman, was chief minister of an ancient empire, and borrowed from it not only many isolated expressions but sometimes even half a sentence.

From the fact that Mordecai and Esther are of the family of Saul, wljo was not a favourite with the later Jews, we may perhaps infer that the author belonged to the tribe of Benjamin ; a member of the tribe of Judah would have been more inclined to represent his hero and heroine as descendants of David.

6. Purpose.[edit]

It has long ago been recognised that the purpose of the book is to encourage the observance of the feast Purim among the Jews. The fabulous narrative is merely a means to this end ; since the end was attained and the story was, at the same time, extremely flattering to the national vanity, the Book of Esther, in the capacity of a iepoj Xcryos authorising the feast in question, found a place in the Jewish canon.

In reality the origin of the feast is not explained by the book and remains altogether obscure. That it was primitively not a Jewish feast is shown by the name Purim (D TIB), a word unknown in Hebrew. Unfortu nately the meaning is a matter of conjecture.

According to Esther 3 7 pur signifies lot, in favour of which interpretation it may be urged that, considered as an element in the story, it is of no importance whatever. No such word, however, with the meaning required, has yet been found in any of the languages from which the name is likely to have been borrowed ; nor has any other explanation been offered that is at all satisfactory. With respect to this point even the investiga tions of Lagarde have led to no definite result J (see PURIM).

7. Purim.[edit]

On the other hand Prof. Jensen s essay Elamitische Eigennamen 2 seems to throw some light upon the story of Esther. This ingenious scholar clearly proves that Hamman (or Humman, not to mention other variations of spelling) was the principal deity of the Elamites, in whose capital (Susa) the scene of the Book of Esther is laid, and that Marduk occupied a similar position among the deities of Babylon. As the Elamite Hamman is represented by Haman, the Babylonian Marduk is represented by Mordecai, a name unquestionably derived from Marduk. In Ezra 22 ( = Neh. 7?) we find the name actually borne by a Babylonian Jew. 3 In close contrast with the god Marduk stood the great goddess Istar, who was worshipped by other Semitic peoples under the name of Athtar, Attar or Astart, and is often identified with Aphrodite. The later Babylonian form Ninon, Estra, (with the Aramaic termination) was used by the Syrians and Mandaites as a synonym of Aphrodite or of the planet Venus ; here we have the exact counterpart of IDDN, Esther.* HADASSAH, the other name of Esther (2?), which is mentioned quite incidentally and therefore seems to be no mere invention of the writer, corresponds to the older Babylonian form Hadasatu, signifying myrtle and also bride, as Jensen has shown. Since another word for bride is commonly used as the title of another Babylonian goddess, we may hazard the conjecture that Istar was also called Hadasatu. Furthermore Vashti is an Elamite deity, probably a goddess. Thus Vashti and Haman on the one side, Mordecai and Esther- Hadassah on the other, represent, it would seem, the antagonism between the gods of Elam and the gods of Babylon.

1 Art. Purim in the Abhandhtngen d. Ges. d. IViss. Giittingen ( 87). Jensen in a letter suggests to the writer of this article that fiftr or I ur seems to be an old Assyrian word for stone and that therefore it is possible that the wi.nl was also used to signify Mot like the Hebrew STU, lot, which originally, no doubt, meant little stone.

2 WZKM (J47./C, 209 f. The writer of the present article has moreover made use of some private information from Prof. Jensen, but wishes to state explicitly that he has himself no Independent knowledge of the cuneiform inscriptions.

" The Greek form, KlarJaclurus (Mapfioxeuot). probably comes nearer to the original pronunciation than the HaMOretU ZT10 or rTlD. See MORDECAI.

In the Thousand and One Nights the famous Shahra/fid a Jewess according to Mas fuli is, according to 1 >e Goeje (E 23 3i6_/C), no other than Esther.

Whether Jensen be justified in identifying Hainan's wife Zeresh (e "!t) with Kirifa, who appears in connection with Hamman and is presumably his female partner, seems open to doubt ; the difference of the initial consonants would not be easy to explain. It should be remembered, however, that Zeresh is, after all, only a subordinate figure. The other names mentioned above agree so closely that the resemblances can hardly be accidental.

It is therefore possible that we here have to do with a feast whereby the Babylonians commemorated a victory gained by their gods over the gods of their neighbours the Elainites, against whom they had so often waged war. 1 The Jewish feast of Purim is an annual merrymaking of a wholly secular kind, and it is known that there were similar feasts among the Baby lonians. That the Jews in Babylonia should have adopted a festival of this sort cannot be deemed im probable, since in modern Germany, to cite an analogous case, many Jews celebrate Christmas after the manner of their Christian fellow-countrymen, in so far at least as it is a secular institution. It is true that hitherto no Babylonian feast coinciding, like Purim, with the full moon of the twelfth month has been discovered ; but our knowledge of the Babylonian feasts is derived from documents of an earlier period. Possibly the calendar may have undergone some change by the time when the Jewish feast of Purim was established. Or it may be that the Jews intentionally shifted the date of the festival which they had borrowed from the heathen ^ see PURIM). We may hope that future discoveries will throw further light upon this obscure subject. 2

8. Unity.[edit]

Hitherto we have treated the book as a literary unity. Certain scholars however e.g., Bertheau and Ryssel hold that the two epistles in the last chapter but one, as well as the verses connected with them (that is to say, 920-28 29-32) are additions by a later hand. This view the writer of the present article is unable to accept.

The former piece contains, it is true, a short recapitulation of the story; but this is sufficiently explained by the author s desire to inculcate the observance of Purim in the strongest terms possible ; a later scribe would have had no object to serve by the repetition. Nor is it likely that an interpolator would have contented himself, in 926, with an implicit allusion to 87. Similarly in 25 the phrase riN23, when she came for no other interpretation is possible seems natural enough, if the author of the book is referring to his heroine ; but another writer would, surely, in this case, have written the name. Had these two pieces been originally independent of the book the name Purim would surely not have occurred in them (see vv, 26 31 f.) ; that it does occur must appear decisive. When isolated from the context, the pieces in question become meaningless, and to suppose that they are borrowed from another Book of Esther verges on the extravagant. In vocabu lary and style they so closely resemble the rest of the book that the insignificant deviations which occur (e.g., in T. 28) must be ascribed to a difference in the subject matter. The mode of expression is doubtless somewhat awkward ; but the same may be said of the strange verse, 3 7, which is nevertheless indispens able and forms, so to speak, the nucleus of the whole work.

1 [Cp Toy, Esther as a Babylonian goddess, JVrw IforM, i 130-145.]

2 Cp Br. Meissner in ZDMG M^6ff. Human the chief, the father of the gods worshipped by the heathen of Harran on the 27th of the month Tammfiz (Fihrist, 323, /. i) has hardly any connection with the Haman of Esther.

3 Das Buck Esther bei den LXX. (Giessen, 90), p. 43^ ( =

9. Greek version.[edit]

As early as the year 114 B.C. the Book of Esther reached Egypt in a Greek translation. This fact is attested by the concluding sentence in the best MSS of the Greek text ; nor have we any reason to doubt the truth of the statement, as has been done for example by B. Jacob. 3 It is impossible to see for what purpose such a story could have been invented.

The chief objection brought forward by Jacob, namely that the passage above mentioned represents the translation as having come from Jerusalem, has no real force ; it is indeed said to have been made at Jerusalem ; but the name of the translator (Avo-tjuaxos IlToAe/xaiov) at once suggests an Egyptian Jew. That the translator was an Egyptian Jew has been elabor ately proved by Jacob himself, though his arguments are not all equally conclusive.

The Greek text is found in two forms which we shall here call A and B (the ft and a respectively of Lagarde); they diverge considerably from one another, but the text of B [a] is, as a rule, derived from that of A f/3], the changes being due to careless and arbitrary copyists.

Only in a few cases does B [a] appear to have preserved older readings than the existing MSS of A ||3J. Here, as in other books of <B, we occasionally find corrections, in accordance with the Hebrew text, which were introduced by scribes at an early period, e.g., Ao-|o-]v)po? (1!) from c niBTIKi instead of the doubtless inexact ApTafe pf>;s of the translator, and OuacrriV (B) from nt l, instead of \<niv.

The tendency, so common at the present day, to overestimate the importance of s) for purposes of text ual criticism is nowhere more to be deprecated than in the Book of Esther. It may be doubted whether even in a single passage of the book the Greek MSS enable us to emend the Hebrew text, which, as has been mentioned above, is singularly well preserved.

A very small number of such passages might perhaps be adduced, if the Greek translation had come down to us in its original form ; but, as a matter of fact, the text underwent early and extensive corruption, so that now it is possibly worse than that of any other canonical book in the OT.

10. Its additions.[edit]

Of great importance are the additions. They fall into two classes (a) Hebraistic pieces, intended to supply the lack of religious sentiment (a lack which must hnve been felt at an early period ; cp above, 4) or to explain difficulties e.g. , Mordecai s refusal to prostrate himself before Haman.

Thus we read, in glaring contrast to the original sense of the book, that Esther consented with great reluctance to become the wife of the uncircumcised king. To this class belong the following pieces the prayer of Mordecai (3 1 ), the prayer of Esther (4), the expansion of the first interview between Esther and the king (u), the dream of Mordecai (1) and its interpretation (7). All this may once have been in Hebrew ; but the hypothesis is not probable.

(b) Pieces written in the Greek rhetorical style viz., the two epistles of the king (2 and 6).

Here it is stated, among other things, that Haman was a Macedonian and desired to transfer the supremacy from the Persians to the Macedonians ((3 13 ; cp (>g). From this passage the term Macedonians has found its way into other parts of the book ; the allusion doubtless is to the bitter enmity which there was between the Jews and their Graeco-Macedonian neigh bours, especially at Alexandria.

In addition to these, we find a few shorter interpolations.

11. Josephus' text.[edit]

The form of the book which lay before Josephus (about 90 A.D. ) was mainly identical with A [/3] ; but it contained a few older readings, some of which may be traced in B [a]. All the longer interpolations except two were known to Josephus.

Had he been acquainted with the two which refer to Mordecai s dream he would have had little difficulty in adapting them to the taste of his educated readers. However, it would not, of course, be legitimate to conclude from their absence from the text used by Josephus that the two pieces were necessarily lacking in all other MSS of the same period. Moreover there are in fosephus s account some small additional details. A few of these he may himself have invented, in order to point the moral of the story ; but since there is at least one (relating to Esther 222; cp Ant. xi. 1)4 [Niese, 207]) which does not appear in our texts of the LXX., and yet can scarcely have originated with him, we may infer, with tolerable certainty, that the copy of Esther used by Josephus contained some passages which are found in no extant Greek MS.

All these materials Josephus treats with his usual freedom, softening down or omitting whatever was calculated to give offence to educated Greeks and Romans.

1 Large Arabic numerals are here used to denote the chapters of the additional pieces, as distinguished from the original book.

12. Additions in Targums.[edit]

Such arbitrary transformations were quite in keeping with the unhistorical character of the book. Very similar tendencies showed themselves among those Jews who spoke Semitic dialects : but as the original text of Esther was here preserved from alteration by reason of the place which it occupied in the sacred canon, the additions and embellishments were confined to the Aramaic translation, or else formed matter for separate works. The additions to the original and literal Targum sometimes refer to the same subjects that are treated in the additions to the Greek text, though neither work has borrowed anything from the other. Some of these pieces are of considerable interest, and they are all very characteristic of Rabbinical Judaism.

Not infrequently the interpolations violate our notions of good taste and contain much that is at variance with the original book. There are moreover lengthy digressions which have no real connection with the subject.

In the so-called Second Targum such digressions are especially common, but they occur in the First also.

The two Targums sometimes differ substantially from one another in matters of detail (thus piaSi 1 6, is, according to the one, the wicked Haman, according to the other, the wise Daniel, which latter view appears also in the Talmud, Meg. 12 b); but they have very much in common. The relation between them cannot be accurately determined until more is known of the MSS, which are said to offer great variations of text. Some interesting embellishments of the story of Esther, similar to those in the Targums and sometimes exactly agreeing with them, are to be found in Bab. Talm. Meg, \o_ffJ-

13. Canonicity.[edit]

The reception of the Book of Esther into the canon occasioned so much discussion that a few words may be allowed on the subject in addition to what has been said under CANON ( 45-46). So late as the second century after Christ a distinguished teacher, Rabbi Samuel, pronounced Esther apocryphal {Meg. 7 a)- These theoretical objections had no practical effect ; indeed among the mass of the Jews the story of the Jewish queen and the Jewish prime minister has always enjoyed a special reputation for sanctity. With respect to Greek-speaking Christians it may be mentioned that Melito of Sardis, for example, does not reckon Esther among the canonical books (see Eus. HE 426). The Latin Church, since the time of Jerome, has rejected at least the later additions. The majority of the Syrian Christians went further still. Jacob of Edessa (about 700 A . D. ) treats Esther as apocryphal (Wright, Catalogue of Syr. MSS in the Brit. Mus., 598^). The lists drawn up by the Syrian Monophysites do not include it in the canon ; but we have no right to infer that the book was never read or used by the Christians of Syria. Aphraates (about 350 A. D. ) regards it as an authority, and it is also found in ancient MSS, such as the famous Codex Am- brosianus (edited by Ceriani), which, however, includes several other books universally reckoned uncanonical.

The Nestorians alone appear to have had, down to modern times, no knowledge of the book whatsoever. (Luther formed a very just opinion of the Book of Esther; but whilst freely ex pressing his disapproval of it he retained it in the canon. Since that time it has been regarded as canonical by Protestant as well as Roman Catholic nations.) See Jaub. of>. cit. 241 jf. ( 90); Kuenen, Onit.W, 551^; Zimmern, ZATW^VH^iff. ( 90); Wildeboer, Esther, in Nowack s //A"; Toy, Esther as a Babyl. Goddess, New World, 130-145. See also references above, and cp PURIM. Th. N.

1 Sal. Posner, Dai Targittn Kischon zu detit biblischcn Kuche Esther ( 96) gives no great results but (p. 5) a useful review of the midrashic literature. Cp W. Bacher, Eine siidarabische Midrasch compilation zu Esth. (MOW/, 41 450^)


(HCYHAOC [B*A] ; H cyNoAoc [Ba?t], I60HA [L,]), i Esd. 18 RV 2 Ch. 358 JEHIEL, 7.


(DOU? AITAN [BA]- M [L]).

i. A town of Judah, mentioned by the Chronicler (2 Ch. 116 ; airavi [A] a.ira.v [B*]) as one of the cities of defence built by Rehoboam. In the order of enu meration it is placed between Bethlehem and Tekoa. It also occurs in of Josh. 15 59^ (O.ITO./J. [A]; cp Di. in loc.) with Tekoa, Ephrath or Bethlehem, and Phagor (mod. Faghur between Bethlehem and Hebron). Ac cording to Josephus (Ant. viii. ^ 3) it was at Etam (t]0a/j.), two schoeni from Jerusalem, that Solomon had his well- watered gardens (cp BATH-RABBIM). This points to the neighbourhood of the modern village of Artds, half-an- hour S. from Bethlehem, where on the south side of the Wady Artas there are some ruins. The lowest of the so-called Pools of Solomon, not far off, is fed from a source that is still known as Ain Alan. See Cox- DL-ITS, 3 ; ETAM ii.

2. A Simeonite town, grouped with Aix (q. v. , i), Rimmon, Tochen, and Ashan (i Ch. 432), which Conder would identify with Khirbet Aitun, 8 or 9 m. S. of Bet Jibrln. But is the name CB y correct? It is not given in Josh. 19?, and is probably a corruption of a partly effaced pm py ; if so, En Rimmon, which follows, is an unintentional dittogram, inserted by a corrector (Che.). (Pesh. in Ch. gives \CUOJo ^..d \ O JL+JSI v \ Bertheau takes a different view (see ETHER).

3. Etam is again mentioned in an obscure genealogy in i Ch. 43 (ctiTdyu [A], -f\r. [L] ; the name Jezreel alone is familiar) where post-exilic families living around the Judcean Etam (see above, i) are apparently referred to.

For the MT CE y 3N n^N (OVTOI Trare pes TJTOJH [L]) various. emendations have been proposed : (a) to read 33 instead of 3 (after HA), (/,) to read <;JN 33 (so RV), or (c) to restore ,- DU V 3N Tin J3 (see Ki. SBOT). A simpler reading is rhtf Ca V UN ; see SHELAH, i. s . A . C-


(DD^ jp. HTAM [BA]. , T .[L], &ITAN [Jos. Ant. v. 88]). It was in the fissure of the rock of Etam that Samson is said to have dwelt after burning the fields of the Philistines (Judg. 158n). The place was evidently in Judah, and was farther from the Philistine border than Lehi (v. 9). Since there was a Judahite town of the same name (see ETAM, i) it is reasonable to suppose (with Stanley, Guerin, Wilson, etc.) that the narrator located Samson's rock there. It does not follow that more precipitous cliffs may not be found elsewhere. We have no right to begin with selecting the most striking rock, and then to identify this rock with Etam.

It is not likely that there were two Judahite places called Etam. We therefore reject the claims of the great rock near 'Artof known as the 'Arik Isma'in (in a wady which is the uppercontinuation of the Wady es-Sarar) though the physical conditions perfectly fit the requirements of the story (fJEFQ, April 1896, pp. 162-164; Schick, ZDPl r , 1887, pp. 131^). "The cave is approached by descending through a crack or fissure in the very edge of the cliffs overhanging the chasm of Wady Isma in. The crack is scarcely wide enough to allow one person to squeeze through at a time. It leads down to the topmost of a long series of rudimentary steps, or small artificial foot-ledges, cut in the face of the cliff, and descending to a narrow rock terrace running along the front of the cave, and between it and the fragments of massive wall (belonging to an ancient Christian coenobium). So writes Hanauer (PEfrQ, April 1896, p. 163), who in October 1885 guided Schick, the well-known architect, to the spot. Such descriptions help us to understand how legends like that before us grew up.

See also Hanauer (PEFQ Jan. 1886, p. 25), and especially Schick, ZDTl , 1887, p. \T,\ff. Against Conder s identification of Etam with Beit Atab (cp Baed.(2) 161) see Wilson, Smith s DB(-> 1 1004, and Schick, op. cit. Cp LEHI. T. K. C.

1 A substitutes in r. 8 (for iv rpiVioAia TTJS TreVpas) n-opo TO> Xetjuappu ei> rai <rmj\oto> ; cp Eus. ijrafi. Trapo Tip \fin.dppta (OS - 5983, cp 1 - - 9).

- In MH there are two terms worthy of mention : nvnsJ and D Oll? (e.g., C^ii n maip, the eternity of the world, a philosophical tenet rejected by the Jewish teachers). 1408


For the abstract term eternity there is no word either in OT Hebrew or in NT Greek.- Four times, however, the word occurs in AV ; and thrice in RV.

1. OT References.[edit]

(a) i S. 1529, Also the eternity (PIS3) of Israel will not lie (AVmg.). The rendering of EV is strength ; on the renderings of the V ss. see Driver s note. EV suggests victory, to which RV g- adds glory. The Tg. suggests that the text is corrupt (.-.ee Che. JQK, April 1899).

(b) Is. 57 15, the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity (EV after <& [6 KO.TOIKUX rov aiiava] Vg.) ; 1# f 2E . This vaguely grand idea lies outside the biblical conceptions. Most scholars (including Del. Di.) prefer that dwelleth for ever i.e., who is not subject to change (cp Ps. 10227).

(c) Jer. 10 10, he is the living God, king of eternity (AV s:-) \. D>1J7 7J7O (Theodot. /3a<riAei>s aiiorios). Here the true sense is an everlasting king (EV). Jer. 10 1-16 is a post-exilic insertion ; the belief in the eternity of God s kingdom was the foundation of the belief in the eternity of the people of Israel.

(d) Mi. 52[i], whose goings forth have been from of old, from the days of eternity (AV m e- ; cp & r^fiepuiv altai/os) , D7\y D D. RV substitutes in the nig., from ancient days ; both AV and RV give from everlasting in the text. The old interpreters connected this with the eternal generation of the Son ; Keil, while rejecting this view, still sought to maintain the essentials of orthodox tradition, and found a reference to the pre-existence of Christ and the revelations of Christ to primitive men. His torical sense compels us to assent to RVmg.

(e) Is. 9 6 [5] Father of Eternity (RV" e.), Itf % 3K. In the text RV (like AV) has Everlasting Father. (Kc.aA ira-njp TOV ficAAopros aiiavo ;, Sym. TrarTjp aia os, Aq. iraiTjp en). If this is correct, it must mean not possessor of the quality of ever- lastingness (an un-Hebraic use of the term father ), but one who cares perpetually for his people, like a father (cp Is. 22 21). The reading may, however, be incorrect (cp FATHER, and see S SOT Is. 210; Heb. text, notes, 89, 195).

(f) Eccles. 3 1 1, he hath set eternity in their heart (RVmg.). On this rendering, which is hardly natural, see EARTH i. 2 (4).

2. OT Conceptions.[edit]

Though, however, there is no abstract word for eternity, the conception of the endlessness of God and of persons or objects protected by him is not wanting. Earlier generations did not dwell on the thought i: the catastrophe of the exile forced men to ponder upon it ; they found it not only a source of comfort but also the basis of an eschatology. From the far-off past to the far-off future (oSijny DViJJD Ps. 902 ; cp. 41 13 [14]), Yahwe was their God. So Dt. 8827 (QT^ nSx the ancient God ; in the |] line, cVij; njhr everlasting arms ; cp Dr. in loc.). So too Is. 4028, cViy n^N an everlast ing God an instructive passage, because it shows how concrete the Jewish conception of eternity was, He faints not, neither is weary. Eternity meant the most intense life. Hence later, life and eternal life came, in the mouth of Jesus, to be synonymous (see f.g. , Mt. 19 16/! }. Thus, having Yahwe as a shepherd, the faithful community could look forward to a perpetual duration for itself ; this God is our God for ever and ever (Ps. 4814), to which, unfortunately enough, MT gives as a || line, he will be our guide unto death (rnD Sy). 2 Or, to put it in another form, God s loving-kindness (the bond between him and his people) would never fail ( Ps. 106 1 and often).

It is a poetical extravagance, however, when the mountains and hills are called everlasting (Gen. 40 26 where ~\y Tin should be ~<y T!? [ D >- etc -] " to cSiy nyaa) : so Dt. 8815, Hab. 36. Is. 54 10 assures us that the mountains may depart, and the hills be removed (cp Ps. 462(3]). So in Ps. 89 28 [29JyC Yahwe s covenant with David, and in Ecclus. 45 15 his covenant with Aaron are said to be for ever, and also (as lasting) as the days of heaven. It was no secret, however, that the heavens would pass away (Is. 344516, Ps. 102 26 [27]). It is only God whose years can absolutely have no end (Ps. 102 27 [28]).

1 In Gen. 21 33 (!>) we read that in Beersheba Abraham invoked Yahwe as D7 y 7N( 0eb? altavios, EV the Everlasting God ). If the text is right, this should mean the ancient God (Ba. , von Gall) and the writer will imply a reproof to some of his contemporaries (cp Dt. 29 26 [25] 32 17). Everlasting God is in appropriate here. Most probably, however cSiy flam should be l r ?3/, elydn (Gen. 14 18-20) i.e., Most High. So Renan. [A similar emendation, jv py Tins gates of the Most High, maybe suggested for Ps. 24 7 9. The phrase everlasting (or, eternal) God , however, is certainly right in Is. 4028 (d^iV Wj|i ^ e s aiuJi/tos), and Rom. 1(5 26 (TOV aium ou Oeov, unique in NT)].


3 (5, however, has simply e ws TOV aiwj os. Perhaps we should read D aVljnj;.

4 Probably, however, such a phrase includes a reference to the dynasty of the king. Not impossibly, too, it implies a popular belief that kings were privileged after death to join the company of the divine ones (D nSx 33, lit. sons of Elphim"). Our knowledge of the popular Israelitish beliefs is too slight to permit us ever to dogmatize about them. The influence of the neigh bouring nations must, however, have tended to the production of a belief in the quasi-divinity of kings.

3. Heb. terms.[edit]

Thus we get two Heb. terms for endless duration : (a) "'"^""^ and (b) "'"^""^. The two terms are combined in TJ? o TToVi TVrma (Is. 45:17), to ages of continuance ;( = world without end (EV). To these we must add (c) ns: and (d) DT TflK. (a) D^iy, age, can be used in a limited sense, as when a slave who refuses to leave his master is said to become his servant for. ever, oVu 1 ?. T V a-ltava) or when a loyal subject says to the king, Let my lord live for ever. 1 So, in strongly emotional passages, o jiy ? for ever, can be used of a state of things which may some day be altered (e.g., Is. 32 i4_/C ; cp 42 14, where RV renders cSiyD on g t 1116 )

(c) nsp or Hi::?, too, need not mean for ever. We can some times render uninterruptedly, as when the psalmist, expostu lating with Yahwe, says, How long wilt thou forget me (nsj) uninterruptedly? (Ps. 13 1 [2]).

(if) D C TflR length of days, is of course ambiguous. In Ps. 214 [5] 91 16 the context shows that everlasting life is really meant ; whether for the pious community or for the pious individual, is a question for exegesis. So in Ps. 236 the dwelling in the house of Yahwe spoken of is an endless one ; where would be the happiness if death or the foot of pride (Ps. 30 1 1) could one day work a sad change ?

if) Till Tn? for successive generations or ages, || CTiy 7 (Ps. 89 1 [2] 4(5] 102 12 [13] 146 10 etc.).

4. NT Terms and Ideas.[edit]

In the NT we have atwvios (often), with which ei s rbv aiCiva. and e/s rous ai&vas are to be grouped, 1 and twice ( Rom - l 20 J ude 6 ) d 5 oy - RV prefers eternal to everlasting for a ^ vtos . f or ^ I0f (AV eternal in Rom., everlasting in Jude) it gives everlasting. This arises from a sense that fwr/ aiwvios in the NT is or may be more than endless life. cViy "n. EV everlasting life (Dan. 122 (5 fwr/ aluvios), comes to mean life of (the Messianic) age, and includes all Messianic blessings (so e.g. , Jn. 815 ; cp w. 35). The later Jewish literature preferred the expression the life of the coming age because of its clear-cut distinction between the run o^iy i.e. , the present dispensation and the nan oViy i.e. , the Messianic age (cp Mk. lOao Lk. 18 3 o, T Heb. 2s 65). See ESCHATOLOGY, Zz ff., also EARTH i. 3.

Among the notable phrases of NT are icdXacns aluvios Mt. 2046, RV eternal punishment ; 8\e6pos aiuvios, 2 Thess. 1 9, RV eternal destruction ; and Sid, Trj ei/yuaros aiwviov, Heb. 9 14, RV through the eternal Spirit. On the first two compare ESCHATOLOGY, 98. The phrase jrvevfw. alwvLov has to be taken in connection with the preceding phrase (v. 12) aluvia. Xirrpwens. The high priest could, according to the Law, obtain for the Jewish people only a temporary redemption, for the bulls and goats whose blood he offered had but a temporary life ; but Christ entered in once for all by means of his own blood, and his life is not temporary, but eternal, or, which is the same thing, his spirit his c"n ran is unlimited by time, is eternal. For Christ has been made (high priest) according to the power of an indissoluble life, Kara dvva/jM> farjs a.Ka.TO.\vTov (Heb. 7 16).

Thus the word commonly used for eternal in NT means (i) endless (2) Messianic. In the Fourth Gospel and in the First Epistle of John, however, we find a noteworthy development in the sense of alwvtos. The word seems there to refuse to be limited by time- conditions altogether, fto-r/ cu ouuos is represented, some times indeed as future (Jn. 627 1225 4 14 36), but more generally as already present (Jn. 17 3 and other pass ages ; cp 11 26/. 851). This is akin to the view ex pressed in the Epistle to the Hebrews, according to which the Svvdftfis /J.^\\OVTOS O.L&VOS may be tasted even now (Heb. 65). Eternal life, thus viewed, is indeed 7; &TUJ fa?) the life which is [life] indeed ( i Tim. 6 19 RV). It is one of the most noteworthy faults of TR that it substitutes for this fine reading the ordinary term aiuvios, everlasting, eternal.

T. K. C.

1 Note also the deeply felt expression eis n-deras ras yci eas TOW alan-os TUV auuixoi/ (Eph. 821). See RV g.


(DnX ; Syr. A (Mm, Ar. Itham, Copt. 000H and BoyO&N [var. BoyOAi] ; ETHAM).

(T5 s readings are : in Ex. 1820, 060^1 [BAFL], r,Bav [|JVN], Aq. Sym. Theod., etc.; in Nu. 336^ Pov6av [BAFL] for original ftovdafj. {cod. 58 in z>. 6] ; in Nu. 33s BALom., but BabAF read aiiTot (see below).

The second station of the Israelites at the Exodus, situated at the end (nxp) of the wilderness (Ex. 1820 Nu. 336). Thus it was the last city on properly Egyptian ground, and therefore (being also near the straight road to Philistia ; Ex. 13 17) to be sought at the K. end of the Wady Tumilat and near the (North ern?) shore of the Crocodile (Timsdh) Lake. There is no proof whatever of the various identifications with Bir Abu-Ruk (Schleiden), Bir Maktal (Ebers ; spelled Bir Mahdal, in Bred.), Bir Sues (Hengstenberg), places which are, besides, all situated in the desert, partly E. of the Red Sea. Why Daphnre-Tahpanhes (Brugsch), cannot be Etham, is shown elsewhere (Exoous i. 13). The name ontt reminds us strongly of chs (see PITHOM), and if we follow < s text in Num. [* = cnis] * the identity is very plausible (Sharpe, Wellh. ). If Pithom is the same as modern Tell el-Mashuta, it was indeed the last city of Goshen, which has, at the E. , room only for a few villages and fortifications (about 10 miles to Lake Timsah). 2 This identification therefore is highly prob able. Otherwise, we might suppose a neighbouring place called after the same local god, Atiim, Ethom? The name of this place might also have been abridged. This, however, is less probable, and unnecessary. Other Egyptological explanations cannot be upheld. 4 See Exouus i. \off., GOSHEN i. 2, SUCCOTH, PITHOM.

\v. M. M.


(|JVX ; lasting, strong ; AI0&M [BL], <M6&N [A]).

i. An Ezrahite, whose wisdom was excelled by Solomon s, i K. 431 [5n] (yaiffav [BA], 427 ; so also in <S B of Jer. 50(27) 44). The true reading of the passage, which of course determines the explanation, is considered elsewhere (see MAHOL, HEMAN). <5 H , which calls Ethan rbv faptir-r)! (@ A efpa^XiTT/j/, cp Pss. 88 /. ), very possibly considered him to be an Edomite (cp Job 42 17^, <S B N C ), Edom being renowned for its wise men (Jer. 487). To the Chronicler, however, this view was unacceptable. Ethan (and not only he, but also the wise men who in i K. 431 [5n] are mentioned with him) must be of an Israelitish stock. The question of his age, too, must be cleared up. Hence in i Ch. 26 not only Zimri (or Zabdi), but also Ethan, Heman, Cal- col, and Dara are sons of Zerah, the son of Judah. Thus i K. 431 [5n] receives a thoroughly new interpretation. To this Judahite Ethan it is possible possible but hardly probable that the author of the heading of Ps. 89 (aiOai> [BN], aifj-av [R], aidafj. [T]), ascribed the composition of that psalm. It is much more natural to assume that he meant the eponym of the post-exilic Ethan-guild of temple-singers (see 2).

1 The prefixed p would not be the Egyptian article (K.nobel- Dillmann) but p(ei), house, place (cp PITHO.M, PI-BESETH). s transliteration /3 conforms to the rule that Egyptian p+w is rendered by Gk. |8. This / ( house ) is sometimes omitted, like the Hebrew equivalent Beth. [As another ex planation of the /3 of povOai>, H. A. Redpath suggests that perhaps it is a reproduction of the prep. 3 on the first occurrence of the name repeated in the second verse. ]

2 No argument can be drawn from the fact that the adjoining desert is called desert of Etham in Nu. 338 (P), but desert of Shur in Ex. 15 22 (E). The two frontier places are different. Note especially that the strange of Etham is omitted by B (but BabAFL read ainoti.f., CH).

3 Pap. Anast. vi. 4 15 speaks of the fort (htnni)of king Mcrncfi- tah which is (at ?) T(u)-ku, E. of Petom of Mernefitak which is (at?) ttku. It is not, however, clear whether this would be another Pithom, or, as is more natural, that built by Rameses II. (see WMM. As. u. Eur. 135) which would, as a royal city, change its name. On the Thou (?) of the I tin. Ant., see PITHO.M.

4 The comparison with Egyptian htm (closing) fortress, fort, from the root which in Coptic becomes sotetn to shut, is quite impossible. Anast. v. 20 i mentions a fortress (htmii) near f(u)-ku (cp preceding note) ; but no city with this name can be found. We are equally precluded from comparing the Coptic tiini, to close ; with the article this would be p-tcn, 4 the closing. Naville (Pit/torn, 28 Jf.) compares the name A-iiu-ia of the Bedawi-tribes mentioned in Anast. vi. 4 14, in which all recent writers have rightly seen the name Edom. The dental forbids the identification with Etham. (The alleged name Adima reads Kad-nta; see KEDEMAH.) Besides, Etham must be an Egyptian place, not several journeys E. in the wilderness.

Jastrow (Beit. z. Ass. 3, Heft 2 ; cp Rel. Bal>. and Ass. 519) identifies the Ethan of i K. 431 [5 ill with the mythic Babylonian Etana (the hero with whom the mythic eagle allied itself, and who took flight for heaven clinging to the eagle s breast, but fell to earth with the eagle and died unlike the Elijah of the noble Hebrew legend). 1 He assumes this largely on the ground that the names of Ethan s companions in i K. 4ji [5n] viz., Heman, Calcol, and Darda appear to be non- Hebraic, and suspects that Babylonian references may also be found to these three names. It is a part of this theory that Ktana, like Ethan ; means strong. Etana is not, however, renowned for his wisdom, and Ethan in i K. I.e. may be due to corruption (see MAHOL).

2. (aiffa/j. [ in i Ch. 15 17], atffav [B in i Ch. 15 17 19, and N in iCh. 1619]), son of Kishi or KTSHAIAH (q.v. ), the head of one of the families which had the hereditary office of temple musicians and singers ( i Ch. 644 [29] 151719) also called JEDUTHUN (q.v. ). In appearance this is an altogether different Ethan from the preceding ; but the appearance is illusory. From a critical inspection of the narratives the truth appears to be this. On a re-organisation of the guilds of singers in late post-exilic times the authorities of the temple looked out for nominal founders of those guilds belong ing to Davidic and Solomonic times. One older name that of ASAPH (q.v., 3) was retained ; to this two fresh ones viz. Heman and Ethan (or Jeduthun) were added. These names were derived from i K. 431 [5n].

A threefold assumption was made: (i) that the persons so called were Israelites, (2) that they were singers, and (3) that they were contemporaries of David. As to (i), rniK has no doubt the meaning of native (Lev. 16 29), and in the headings of Pss. 88 and 89 UKART renders Ezrahite by i<rpa>)A[e]i- rrjs (cp A of i K. 4 27). As to (2), if Solomon sang to perfection , Heman and Ethan who vied with him must, it seemed, have been eminent singers. As to (3), a possible interpretation of i K., I.e., no doubt favours the view that all three were contemporaries. We have seen already that it was one great object of the circle to which the Chronicler belonged to make the past a reflection of the present.

A little earlier it would have sufficed to make Heman and Ethan Israelites. In post - Nehemian times it was thought a matter of course that these two great singers should have been Levites. Hence Ethan is placed by the Chronicler among the Merarite Levites (iCh. 644). The one psalm, 2 however (89), which is ascribed to Ethan (or to the guild named after him) describes him simply as the Ezrahite. Either this is a slip of the memory, or the old name was still regarded as the highest title (see i). See GENEALOGIES i. 7.

3. Son of ZIMMAH and father of Adaiah in the second gene alogy of ASAPH.3, i Ch. 642 [27](ai0a [B], ovpi [A], r)0afi [L]). In the first genealogy the name is JOAH (3). It is noticeable that in the second pedigree a certain ETHNI (q.v.) b. Zerah is mentioned. This gives a new view of the relation between Ethan and Asaph. As Wellhausen remarks, the same elements occur again and again in these chapters of Chronicles in different connections ; consistency would have been too great a hindrance to the idealism of the writer (/Vo/.l 4 *, maf.).

4. See ECANUS. T. K. C. S. A. C.


(D^JlNn, /.<: [month of] perennial streams ; cp D3DN I"1"V in Ph.; A0AM6IN [B], -N6IM [A], -N [L]). i K. 82. See MONTH, 2, 5.


(/ : r//.-/.vri-),4Esd.l42 4 RV, AVEcANUS.


( pyaHN, with Baal, 22 ; cp Itti-Bel. 'with Bel', the name of the father of the first Sargon, and eiGcoB&Aoc. below, ^USiflN, with him is Baal 1 ; leOeBAAA [BJ, I&B. [A], ie6B. [L ), king of the Sidonians, and father of Jezebel the wife of Ahab (i K. 16 3 it).

According to Josephus (f. Ap. \ 18 ; quoting Men- ander), Eithobal (E/0tfy3a\os), a priest of Astarte, placed himself on the throne of Tyre by murder, 50 or 60 years after the time of Etpu/j.os or HIRAM (y.v. , i). With the same writer (Ant. viii. 13z) we may safely identify this king with the Ethbaal of i K.

Sidonians is used in the wider sense for Phoenicians." The name also occurs on the Taylor-cylinder as Tuba lu (king of Sidon), A"/> Jgi ; cp M Curdy, /fist., Proplt., Mcn. lv-jd. See PHOENICIA. T. K. C.

1 See Maspero, Dawn of dr., 698 ff.; Harper, Beit. z. Ass. 2:391 ff.\ Acad., Jan. 17, March 21, 1891.

2 A ascribes Ps. 88 [87] also to Ethan (aifcx/i).


pnr). a place in the Negeb of Judah, mentioned between Libnah and Ashan (Josh. 1642, |0A,K [B, see below], &0ep [AL]), but also assigned to Simeon (19 7 . leeep [B], Be- [A], ecep [L]). It is evidently the Athach to which, according to MT of i S. 8030, David sent a part of the spoil of Ziklag, and (S B actually reads idaK = ^r>y in Josh. I.e.

In Josh. 19;, however, (S, like MT, supports Ether. In II list of Simeonite villages in i Ch. 432 Bertheau is of opinion that Ether (which he prefers to Athach) is represented by Etam. This, however, is probably a mistake (see ETAM i., 2). Ether is a corruption of Athach, which is most certainly represented in i Ch. (I.e.) by Tochen, and Etam can be accounted for otherwise.

Possibly both Athach and Tochen are corruptions of a third word -Anaboth. See ANAB, ATHACH.

.T. K. c.


in EV is the equivalent of fc?-13, representing the AitfiOTTi a or Ai& on-es (originally burnt, i.e., dusky-faced ones ) of , and the .-Ethiopia of Vg. ; as rendering the name of the son of Ham (Gen . 10 6 -8 i Ch. 1 8-10), t>n3 is always transliterated (CUSH; xov?, X0 [E Gen. lO;], Chus); chr, Ethiopian, Jer. 1823, etc., RV Cushite in Nu. 12 i (<5 Ai0i67ri.<r<ra), etc. ; see CUSH i., 2, CUSHI, 3.

1. Form of name.[edit]

The Hebrew name is found also in Ass. A iistt ; 1 in Persian trilingual inscriptions, Bab. KfiXu is rendered by Pers. Kusiya, the Cushites. The Semites, evidently, bor rowed the name from Egypt. There the earliest form is in dyn. 12, /Cys (like gx2) 2 ; later the defective orthography A", A jf/, 3 is common, but even the Coptic form 66OOOJ. 66(x>U) (Boh. eGtOU^), written /i/in Demotic and later hieroglyphics (n-eicuo-is in Gk. transliteration as proper name), Ethiopian, betrays the middle consonant by the euphonic Aleph protheticum, pointing to Jfc 5S(i). The Semitic form comes from a late vulgar pro nunciation A o!, which omits the middle radical. 4

2. Meaning of name in Egypt.[edit]

In the time of dynasty 12 the name Kush seems to have designated a tribe occupying southern Nubia. As far as we can determine the territory of the tribe in question, 5 it began somewhat N. of the second cataract. About 1500, the annals of Thotmes III. still retain the traditional distinction of N. and S. Nubia as Wawat (a name not much known after 1000 B.C.) and K(o)si ; but A clf, the larger part of the country, then commonly gives its name to Nubia in general.

Later, Ek( )os2, Kushite, completely displaced the earlier term nehesi (i.e., Eastern-African, including Hamites as well as Negroes, although used by preference of the most character istic African race i.e., the Negro exactly as the Gk. \l6io\}i).

3. In Palestine.[edit]

The Hebrew writers too knew that Kush was the country S. of Egypt (Judith lio). beginning at SYENE or more exactly above the island of Philae. How far S. it extended in the vast regions on the White and the Blue Nile, they knew of course as little as the Egyptians. Whilst the Greeks, however (e.g. , Homer), had the most erroneous ideas on the position and extent of Ethiopia (sometimes they extended it as far as India !), the Pales tinians, like the Egyptians, clearly distinguished Kush from the African coasts of the Red Sea ( Punt or PUT, q. v. ). The list of provinces of Darius I. even dis tinguished A us, Put, and the Masiya tribes (Egyptian Mazoy) named between these two. Kush, therefore, must be limited to the Nile valley and not be identified geographically with the vague Greek term Aldtoiria. 6

1. Once Kfisu, Kmidtzon, Gebete an den Sonnengott, no.


LD 2 122, Petrie, Season, 340 Al<yd. 8926, etc.

i w i

4 A hamzeh, to adopt the terminology of Arabic grammar. 6 Cp Brugsch, AZ 82, p. 30.

9 To apply the term to Abyssinia is strikingly erroneous, for Abyssinia was never subject and hardly even known to the kings of Egypt or of Napata-Kos. The general Greek expression (rendered Itcoppeya) was limited to Abyssinia by the scholars of Aksum, a limitation that has caused very great confusion in modern literature.

[The meaning of beyond theriversof Cush (Is. 18 i Zeph. 3 to) is not altogether clear. Both passages appear to be very late ; they cannot be used as authorities for the geographical views of Isaiah and Zephaniah. In Zeph., I.e., we must render "QVC from beyond, implying that the region beyond the streams of Cush was one of the most distant points from which the dis persed Jews would be restored to Palestine. We rannot, how ever, say that Cush is always distinctly represented as one of connection with Egypt in Ps. G8 31 [32] Is. 20 3 5 Ezek. 30 4 Nah. 3 9. (W,hether Ps. 67 4 Is. 43 3 45 14 may be added, is matter for inquiry.) Great caution is necessary in discussing the references to Cush (see CUSH i., $ 2, CUSHAN, CUSHI, 3). More than one ethnic name seems to have been written j>O ; hence the distressing confusions which have arisen. On the difficult prophecy in which the Ethiopian Cushites appear to be described (Is. 18) there is difference of opinion ; cp Che. SHOT (fsaiah, Heb.), who recognises the corruptness of the text and seeks to correct it ; see also CUSH i., 2].

4. History.[edit]

[FIG. 1.] Head-dress of Ethiopian king. After Lepsius.

The Egyptians knew the country in earliest times under the name Hnt, the South (also A nsff), using Wawat originally of a central district. It was not exactly tributary ; : but the pharaohs sent trading expeditions thither e.g. , one with 300 asses of burden to Ama(m), near, or S. of, Khartum (EGYPT, 47). They derived much of their timber for large ships from the forests of central or S. Nubia, or even had the ships built on the spot with the assistance of the Nubian chiefs. In war-time these chiefs furnished thousands of archers to the pharaoh. This barbarous Negro country, therefore, seems to have been completely under Egyptian influence. Its conquest was undertaken by the kings of dyn. 12 (EGYPT, 50). The A"osi people, now first mentioned, seem to have been more warlike than the tribes of the N. ( IVawat), so that Usertesen III. had to fix his strongly fortified frontier at Semneh (about 21 32 N. lat. ). Though apparently independent during the Hyksos period, Nubia was again made subject after 1600 B.C. by Ahmose (Ahmes) I. and his successors, and remained so down to about 1 100 B.C. The southernmost traces of an Egyptian mili tary post have been found at Ben Naga (Naka), near the sixth cataract (see EGYPT, after col. 1208, map no. i); and slave-hunting expeditions may have extended even more to the S. The Nile valley seems to have been con tent to remain tributary without giving Egypt trouble. The many wars in vile Nubia (A s hst) were probably merely slave-hunting expeditions in the S. , or punitive raids upon the rapacious desert-tribes (the Anti or Trog(l)odytes 3 in the N. , the Mazoy (or Masoy) near Sennar (see above)). The banks of the Nile, therefore, were covered not only with military forts but also with temples and Egyptian colonies. Although the Egyptian elements were absorbed without leaving many traces in the language or the racial type, the country became to a certain extent civilized. The government was in the hands of a viceroy (residing at the holy mountain in Napata) 1 who had the title royal son of Kos. - The tribute and products of the country were chiefly gold (rarely, wrought gold), precious red stones, ostrich feathers, leopard skins, cattle, live monkeys, ivory, ebony, some incense, etc. (cp Herod. 897114).

- 1 An official says, Never could any work be done (before me) in the region around Elephantine with only one war-vessel (inscr. of Una, /. 41). The earliest expedition recorded is that of king Snefru(i) of dyn. 4, who is said, on the stone of Palermo, to have brought 7000 men and 200,000 animals as booty from Ethiopia.

2 Mariette s results, however, in his Listes Geographiques, rest on absurd identifications of the names recorded by Thut- mosis III.

3 Trogodytes seems better attested than Troglodytes.

5a. The kingdom of Ethiopia.[edit]

[FlG. 2]. Ethiopian queen, Roman period. After Lepsius.

We find Nubia an independent kingdom in dyn. 22. It seems that the high-priestly family at Thebes when yielding to the power of the Tanitic pharaohs (EGYPT, 6i/. ) had fled to the southern provinces, and there founded an independent state. In few countries of antiquity was the theocratic ideal of the priesthood realised as completely as in this new ecclesiastical kingdom of Napata. Every affair of state was directed by oracles of Amon ; even the king was elected from certain royal descendants in a way very similar to that described in i S. 10 19, and if the priests were dissatisfied with the king, they simply communicated to him an oracle that he should leave the throne (or even commit suicide). 3 The priest hood seems to have enjoyed a wealth quite dispropor tionate to the resources of the country. No wonder that the discontented Egyptian priests of later times described pious Ethiopia to the Greeks (especially Herodotus) as the most ideal of lands, where people lived in unexcelled orthodoxy, and, consequently, in Utopian wealth and power. This new kingdom does not seem to have extended very far up the White Nile ; its frontiers in N. Kordofan and Sennar are unknown ; the nomadic desert-tribes between the Nile and the Red Sea could not be tractable subjects. Thus it does not seem to have included much outside of the narrow Nile valley from Philae to Khartum, which is a poor country, not admitting of much agriculture. With such meagre resources, Rush could never hold its own against united Egypt.

1 Nf>t t Nfy, a name meaning in the language of the country something like bank of the river. For the incorrect identifi cation with Fij, see MEMPHIS.

2 Strangely, his province seems sometimes to have included the frontier districts of Egypt as far as Eileithyia (el-Kab).

3 The best account, with a few exaggerations, of this strange state of things is found in Diodorus. A singular fact is that the king s mother was for the most part co-regent a trace of the matriarchy so prevalent in E. Africa.

The unfavourable political conditions of Egypt however, allowed the king of Kos to occupy S. Egypt with Thebes soon after 800 B.C., and king P anhy could even attempt to subjugate the rest of the disunited counties, about 750 (see EGYPT, 65 ; on the more suc cessful conquest by Sabako, on Sabatako [or Sebichos ?] and T(a)harko [see TIRHAKAH], ib., 66 a). Nah. 89 refers to this period; Jer. 46g Ezek. 304 (885, very strange) refer to Ethiopian mercenaries in Egypt rather than to the past period of the 25th dynasty. ZKRAH (5) and So (qq.v. ) do not belong here. The strange anomaly of Nubia as a great empire, which even tried to stop the progress of Assyria in Asia, did not last very long. For the Ethiopians to hold even Egypt was too hard a task. The last attempt to regain it was made by Tantamen J in 667. He tells us in a long inscription how, encouraged by a dream, he easily conquered Egypt to Memphis ; but he does not tell of his subsequent defeat. The ascendancy of dyn. 26 shut the Ethiopians out completely.

On several cases of unfriendly contact with the Ethiopians under Psametik (I. and 1 1.?) and Apries, see EGYPT, 67-69. The kings Atirunras, Asparuta (circa 600 B.C.) and several named P anhy are mentioned. One surnamed Arura was dethroned by Harsiot(ef ) ; these two kings and their successor Nastasen(n), who records great victories over the southern peoples, reigned about 400. During the whole Persian period the kingdom of Kush was tributary to the Persian kings (cp Esth. 1 i SyC), having been subjugated by Cambyses in 524. The Ptolemies also had at least a strong influence in Napata. - Under Ptolemy IV. a king F-rkamenCEpyafit iT)?) had the courage to refuse the abdication demanded of him by the priests, and broke the power of the clergy by a great slaughter in Napata.

1 Written Tanwati-Amen ; in Assyrian pronunciation, Tan- damani ; in a Greek tradition disfigured to Tementhes. Kipkip, where he fled according to Asur-bani-pal, cannot be identified.

- The war of Ptol. I. Soter with the Blemmyans (Diod. iii. 5 2 is a strange confusion of the interior and the coast of Ethiopia), the Nubian tribute (?) at the coronation of Ptol. II., the imitation of Ptol. 1 1 1. s name by Erkamen and his successor Azahramen prove this.

See Mahaffy, Einp. of the Ptol. 273, on the emendation of "Ptolemy II."

4 This district paid tithe to the I sis of Phils and seems to have formed, sometimes, a kind of neutral zone between Ethiopia and Egypt.

3. Meroe as capital.[edit]

[FIG. 3]. One of the pyramids of Meroe. After Hoskins.

The southern residence Meroe (Eth. originally Berua ; cp mod. Begerauie f) came more into prominence from the time of Ergamenes (who was not, however, the founder). On the loss of the Dodekaschcenus district (ending at Pnubs or Hierasycaminus) 4 to Ptolemy V. Epiphanes (fragmentary report of the war in Agatharchides), see Egypt, 71. The kingdom now sank more and more in culture (art, architecture, hieroglyphic inscriptions, become indescribably barbarous) and in power. An attack on Egypt 1 by the one-eyed queen Kandake (see CANDACE) caused her defeat by C. Petronius in 24 B.C., the Roman occupation of the Dodecaschcenus, and the destruction of Napata. This shattered the weak empire, and although Nero s spies exaggerated in reporting that Meroe was in ruins (some later buildings are found there), only a shadowy remnant of the old kingdom seems to have subsisted on the Blue Nile.

6 Ethnology of Nubia.[edit]

It may be mentioned that the Egyptians figured the inhabitants of Kush as negroes among them a minority of reddish-brown (i.e., Hamitic?) tribes. The settled Cushites of the independent period seem to have been rather pure negroes * (contrast Gen. 10 6), most probably akin (but not all directly) to the modern Nuba (not to the Hamitic liedja or Beda), who speak a language of the Nilotic 3 type. The population of the southern part may have been somewhat different. Certainty as to this depends on the decipherment of some inscriptions in as yet unknown char acters, 4 and representing evidently the vernacular language in opposition to the Egyptian writing of the priests. The Romans, after Augustus, speak only of the independent tribes of the Nubae or Nobades on the Nile, the rapacious Blemmyes and Megabari in the East. They gave much trouble to the Romans, who had to subsidise the Nobadians. Beginning with the latter, they were converted to Christianity only in the sixth century. In the district around the ruins of Merpe arose the Christian kingdom of Aloa. 5 This and the Nobadian kingdom held their own against the Mohammedans down to the Middle Ages.

W. M. M.


AV ITTAH-KAZIN (J Vg nn ; noAiN KATACGM [B], n. KACIM [A], x<M CIN [I-]), a landmark of the frontier of Zebulun, mentioned after Gath-hepher and before Rimmon-methoar (Josh. IQis). If AV is right in taking the final letter in nny as radical, we might with HaleVy (JAs. , 6th ser. , 8 552) render Ath6 is lord (cp the deity Ath6 in ATARGATIS) ; but the form of the Hebrew name is open to suspicion (cp <S). The nn in r\ny may be due to the neighbourhood of nni. Most probably we should read -iy city (of), following <5 BA ; perhaps too pup, magistrate, should rather be vsp, i.e. , A asiu, an old divine name. 6 The same name may be probably found in Hirata-Kazai (or Kasa i) mentioned by Asur-bani-pal in his celebrated campaign into Arabia; see Gottheil, JBL 17 210 f. ( 98). For traces of deities in place-names cp BENE-BERAK, and see NAMES, g ff. T. K. c.-s. A. c.


(OOMA [B]), i Esd. 9 3 s AV=Ezral0 4 3 NEBO (4).


(|3nK, 10; C6NNO)N 7 [B], e6NAAi[A], 66NAN [L]), son of Ashhur, a Judahite (i Ch. 4?), perhaps representing the Judean city ITHNAN (Josh. 1023).


(eOlNApXHc)- EV governor, lit. ruler of a nation, a title applied to Simon the Mac- cabee (i Mace. 1447 15 i/ ; cp Jos. Ant. xiii. 66), also to ARCHELAUS [q. v. ], and in 2 Cor. 1132 to the governor of DAMASCUS [y.v. , 13] under ARETAS. In the last case the ^dfdpxfis is really the head of the tribal territory bordering on Damascus, 8 the political organisation of the Nabataeans being primarily tribal (Schur. St. Kr. 99 i. ; cp DISTRICT, i). The head of the Jewish community in Alexandria also had the title of Ethnarch (Jos. Ant. xiv. 72), and Origen (Ep. ad Afric. , ap. Schiir. G VI 1 534 2 150) speaks of the Jewish Ethnarch in Palestine in his own day as differing in nothing from a king. See ISRAEL, 77; GOVKKNMKNT, 29 ; DISPERSION, 7-9-

1 Caused most probably by the interference of the Roman governor in Ethiopian affairs. The first governor of Egypt, C. Cornelius Callus, in an inscription of 29 B.C. (SB AW , 1896, p. 476) boasts recepisse in tutelam (the Greek version only in alliance ), the king of Ethiopia, and to have established a ruler (tyrannus) of the Triacontaschoenus in Ethiopia i.e., of the part reaching to about the second cataract.

2 See W. M. Mttller in Oriental Studies of the Oriental Club of Philadelphia ( 94) ; Schaefer, A Z 33 114 ( 95).

3 The nearest linguistic relatives of the Nuba are the mountain negroes in E. Kordofan ; then come the Barea and Kunama on the Abyssinian frontier.

4 Some inscriptions in a simplified hieroglyphic system are so barbarous that it is still disputed whether they are to be con sidered as Meroitic in language or merely as bad Egyptian.

5 Formed by Bedja elements to judge by some fragmentary inscriptions.

6 The Nab. vxp s well known as a personal name ; that it was also a divine name appears from the Ar. Abd-Kusai (cited by We. GGA, 99, p. 245).

7 Perhaps an instance of the pronunciation f\ "< C P Del. Assyr. Gr. 43 (Ki. SBOT).

8 For actual examples of efli/apx*!? in this sense from Gk. inscriptions in the Hauran, etc., see Schiir. St. Kr., I.e.


(\tflN), a Gershonite Levite, i Ch. 641 [26] UGANei [BA] H0&NIA [L]) = JEATKRAI, RV JEATHERAI, i Ch. 621 [6] HriKV ieep[e]i [BAL]). See ETHAN, 3.


(eyBoyAoc [Ti. WH]) joins Paul in his greeting to Timothy (2 Tim. 4 21). The name is not met with again ; it is somewhat unaccountably absent even from the lists of the seventy disciples compiled by Pseudo-Dorotheus and Pseudo-Hippolytus.


I. Accounts of Institution (1-3); II. Significance in accounts (4-6).

  • Other views in NT ( 7-10).
  • Non-canonical writings (11-13).

III. Early Christian usage (14).

  • Greek parallels (15).
  • Agapa; (16,18).
  • Development of Eucharist ( 17-19).

I. Accounts of Institution.[edit]

1. Institution: Mk. 1422. Mt. 2026.[edit]

Two distinct narratives of the institution of the Lord's Supper or Holy Eucharist are found in the Synoptic Gospels. We may take first the account given by Mk. , setting beside it the modified reproduction of it in Mt.

Mk. 14:22 Mt. 26:26
And as they were eating Now as they were eating
He took bread, blessed and brake and gave to them and said : Jesus took bread and blessed and brake and giving to the disciples said :
Take : Take, eat :
this is my body. this is my body.
And taking a cup he gave thanks And taking a cup he gave thanks
and gave to them ; and gave to them,
and they all drank of it : saying :
and he said to them : Drink ye all of it :
This is my blood of the for this is my blood of the
covenant, which is shed on covenant which for many is
behalf of many. shed for remission of sins.

The insertion of the command 'eat', after take, is probably due to a desire to lessen the abruptness. The change of the statement 'they all drank of it' into the command 'Drink ye all of it' is parallel with this. Both changes may be due to liturgical use, as also the addition of for remission of sins.

2. Lk. and Paul.[edit]

We may next compare the narrative of Lk., setting it side by side with that of Paul.

Lk. 22:17. 1 Cor. 11:23.
And he received a cup and gave thanks and said :
Take this and divide it among yourselves ; for I say unto you, I will not drink from now of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God come.
And he took bread and gave thanks and brake He took bread and gave thanks and brake
and gave to them and
saying : said :
This is my body This is my body
[which is given on your behalf: do this unto my remembrance, which (is) on your behalf : do this unto my remembrance.
Also the cup likewise after supper, saying : Likewise also the cup after supper, saying :
This cup (is) the new covenant in my blood, This cup is the new covenant in my blood ;
(this) which on your behalf is shed].
do this, as oft as ye drink (it), unto my remembrance.

The words in brackets are regarded by Westcott and Hort as no part of the original text of Lk. They are termed by them a western non-interpolation, as having been interpolated into all texts except the western. They are absent from Codex Bezae and several old Latin MSS (a,jf, i, i) ; others (b, e), as well as the Old Syriac (cu sin), show a dislocation of the passage which points to oiiginal omission. Internal evidence supports the omission. The words spoken over the second cup contain an awkward juxtaposition of words from I Cor. with words from Mk. (TO Tronjpioi . . . iv r<a aifiari pov, TO inrp v/i<op fKxvvi>6u.ti>oi>) : it is difficult to ascribe this to so careful a writer as Lk. The interpolation of these clauses into all Greek MSS (except D) is doubtless due to harmonistic tendencies, and was perhaps facilitated by liturgical usage (cp the harmony in the English Prayer Book of words from the three Gospels and i Cor.).

1 Apparently a conflation of in* an d "iriN-

A remarkable accession of evidence has come to us from the Teaching of the Apostles ; for there the order is the same as in the shorter text of Lk. ( first, concern ing the cup chap. 9). The cup is mentioned before the bread in i Cor. 10 16 ; but we cannot lay stress on this in face of Paul s formal statement in 112$.

We must accordingly regard the accounts in Lk. and in i Cor. as wholly independent of each other. We have thus three lines of tradition : ( i ) that of Mk. ; (2) that of Paul, in which the words both for the bread and for the cup are somewhat varied, and the command is added : Uo this in remembrance of me ; (3) that of Lk. , in which the blessing of the cup comes first, with variations in the words spoken, whereas for the bread the words (apart from the omission of Take ) are the same as in Mk.

3. Fourth Gospel[edit]

The Fourth Gospel does not record the institution of the Eucharist ; but its chronology of the Passion differs, from that of the Synoptic Gospels in a point which has an important bearing dospel. Upon the Last Supper. In this Gospel the death of Jesus synchronises with the killing of the paschal lamb towards evening on the fourteenth day of Nisan : so that the Last Supper falls on the day before the Passover. According to Mk. ( = Mt. Lk. ) it was on the first day of unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the Passover (14 12) that Jesus sent two dis ciples to make preparation for the paschal meal ; and, when evening was come, he sat down with the twelve. With regard to this discrepancy we may perhaps be con tent, for the purpose of the present discussion, to accept the position defended by writers so divergent as Westcott (Iiitrod. to Gosp. , 340^ ) and Spitta (Zur Gesch. u. Lift, des Urchrist. \2ioff. [ 93]), and regard the Last Supper as taking place on the day before the Passover (cp CHRONOLOGY, 54^ ). We have early evidence to show- that the Eucharist was soon regarded as a commemora tion of the redemption effected by the death of Christ (i Cor. 1126), and that Christ himself was spoken of as the Christian s paschal lamb (i Cor. 67). Such interpretations may have led to the actual identification of the Last Supper with the paschal meal, and so have affected the chronological notices of the Passion. But it is hard to feel confidence in an explanation which sets aside the chronological statement of the Synoptic Gospels for that of the Fourth Gospel only.

II. Significance.[edit]

4. Thanksgiving at a meal.[edit]

In view of this uncertainty, and for other reasons, our conception of the original institution must not be dominated by the consideration of the elaborate ceremonial of the Passover celebration. Such a consideration belongs rather to the subsequent development of the Eucharist as a Christian rite. Here we must confine ourselves to the simpler formulae which are known to have accompanied the ordinary Jewish meals. Thus at the present day (Daily Prayer Book, with transl. by C. Singer, 287 [ 91]) the following blessing is said over the bread : Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the Universe, who bringest forth Bread from^the earth, and before drinking wine : Blessed art Thou, . . . who creates! the fruit of the vine. It is probable that such words as these are implied in the statements He took bread and blessed, and He took the cup and gave thanks.

This supposition is confirmed by the earliest extant formulae of the Christian Eucharist. In the Teaching of the Apostles (chap. 9yC) we find certain thanksgivings, which are clearly of earlier date than the manual in which they are embodied. Two of these are respectively concerning the cup and concerning the broken bread ; the third is to be said at the conclusion of the meal. Their language suggests that they are Christian adaptations of Jewish graces ; and it is worthy of note that they survived as Christian graces, after the Eucharist had ceased to be a meal, and had become a distinct act of worship with an elaborate liturgy in which these primitive formulae have left but scanty traces (Ps. Athan. de virg. 12-14).

We see then that the Eucharist had, in its earliest form, an element in common with the ordinary Jewish meal, which was sanctified by thanksgivings uttered over the bread and over the cup. This element is expressly recognised in all the narratives of the institu tion. The chief point of distinction is that here these acts of thanksgiving came, not at the beginning of the meal, but during its progress and at its close ; and that they were accompanied by utterances prompted by the unique circumstances of the Last Supper.

If we take merely those portions of the words of institution which are certainly common to two or more of the three lines of tradition, we see that, whereas the bread is interpreted simply as the body of Christ with no further explanation, the cup is directly explained of the covenant made by Christ s death. The words of institution, even apart from premonitory warnings, in themselves pointed to death my body . . . my blood ; and the more clearly, in that the blood of a covenant was not life-blood flowing in the veins of the living, but life-blood shed in sacrificial death. If the first utterance, then, signified : At this moment of parting I give you in the fullest sense myself ; the second further signified : My blood is being shed to unite you in a covenant with God.

5. Idea of covenant.[edit]

The second utterance as it stands in Mk. (TOVTO tanv TO AIMA MOV THC AlA0HKHC) clearly recalls the covenant recorded in Ex. 24:6-8:

Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said : Behold the blood of the covenant (iSov TO al/ia. r>j iaflrJKTjs), which the Lord hath covenanted with you concerning ll these words (cp Heb. ! 20 10 29). Therefore, just as in Mt. 16 18 Jesus emphatically adapts to his own use a familiar term I will build my Ecclesia (see CHURCH, 2) so here, in reference to the Mosaic covenant on Mount Sinai, not in reference to the Passover in Egypt, he declares: This is my blood of the covenant.

Accordingly we are justified in accepting the words in Mk. as more nearly original than those in i Cor. ( This is the new covenant in my blood ). The Pauline phrase introduces the word new into the place already filled by the emphatic pronoun my, the new covenant being perhaps an interpretation necessary for Gentile Christians.

6. Messianic reference.[edit]

The symbolism of eating and drinking is accordingly combined with the symbolism of a covenant made by sacrificial blood-shedding. Thus are brought into combination two characteristics of the Messianic idea : the feast of the Messianic kingdom, and the sacrificial death of the Messiah himself. The feast appears in many passages of OT prophecy ; and there is reason to think that it had received a spiritual, not merely a literal, interpretation ; even as the manna and the water in the wilderness were regarded as symbols of the Messiah. Moreover, the popular conception of the Messianic-kingdom included a marvellously fruitful vine and an extraordinary abundance of corn (cp Fragm. of Papias in Iren. v. 883 which rests on earlier Jewish tradition ; see Apoc. of Baruch, 29, ed. Charles, 54). If then, at the moment, the death of Jesus was beyond the com prehension of the disciples in spite of his frequent references to it, yet there may have been a side of his strange action and utterances which appealed to them then, the conception, namely, of the Messianic feast, in which they should spiritually feed upon the Messiah himself, the spiritual corn and the spiritual vine. It is certain, at any rate, that Jesus added in reference to the cup an allusion to his drinking the new wine of the kingdom of God. The Teaching of the Apostles embodies a similar thought in the significant expression in which it gives thanks for the holy vine of David (chap. 9).

7. The words enigmatic.[edit]

Whatever conception these acts and words conveyed to the disciples at the time, the events of the following days may have helped them to see in them the gift of a personal union with their Lord at the very moment of parting, and the gift of a union with his sacrifice of himself.

That the acts and words are capable of yet further interpreta tions must have been part of the intention with which they were spoken ; for had their meaning ended here, they would have been spoken otherwise, so as to exclude the possibility of interminable disputations. As it is, the very diversity of their interpretation in the history of the Church seems to be a token that they were so framed as to wait for a. fuller comprehension. Something of that comprehension is found in Paul ; something too in John.

8. View of Paul.[edit]

Paul, in this as in so many other instances, arrived at his interpretation through the exigencies of his special mission. His task of welding into one the Jewish and Gentile elements led him to develop the conception of the corporate unity of all Christians. Food has ever been the token of unity the bond of equal intercourse. Refusal to take food together is the symbol of exclusive- ness and caste distinction. The Jew could not, by the later Pharisaic ordinances, eat with the Gentile. If Christ were for Jew and Gentile alike, the Eucharist, the feast of the new and all-inclusive covenant, must be the common meal of Jew and Gentile. This in itself must have given it to Paul a special significance.

Again, to Paul with his doctrine of the one man the one body with many members a new vista of thought lies open. The one body is the whole Christ : so also is the Christ (i Cor. 12 12) : we are members of his body ( Eph. 5 30). Now the word of the Eucharist was : This is my body (not This is my flesh ). Thus the Eucharist was the sacrament of corporate unity in Christ. The single loaf, broken into fragments and distributed among the faithful, was the pledge and the means of their intimate union : We are one body : for we all partake of the one loaf (i Cor. 10 17).

The sin of the Corinthian church lay specially in their scrambling over the Supper of the Lord, each making it his own supper, and not waiting for others : note in i Cor. 11 20 f. the contrast between the Lord s (KvpiaKov) and his own (fSiov). They wholly failed to grasp the truth of the one body : thus, in a real sense (even if this does not exhaust the meaning of the words), not discerning the body.

That to Paul the body is at one moment the Church, and at the next the Christ, is no contradiction in his thought, but rather a kind of refusal to distinguish : the Church and Christ are to him not twain, but one (cp Eph. 5 31 f.). Augustine is truly Pauline when he says of the Eucharist, Be what you see, and receive what you are (Serin, ad Infantes, 272).

Paul s conception comes out strikingly in the sequence of verses in i Cor. 10 idf. : The loaf which we break, is it not the communion (or fellowship) of the body of Christ ? For one loaf, one body, we the many are : for we all of us partake of the one loaf. That is his practical comment on This is my body.

9. Of the Fourth Gospel.[edit]

When we turn to the Fourth Gospel, the much-debated question arises whether the sixth chapter has any direct reference to the Eucharist, either by way of anticipation on the part of Jesus himself, or in the reflective exhibition of his teaching by the writer.

The absence of all mention of the institution of Christian baptism or of the Eucharist stands side by side with the emphasis laid in the third chapter on the absolute necessity of a new birth by water and the Spirit, and in the sixth on the absolute necessity of feeding on the flesh and blood of Christ. In each case the answer to the enquiry, How can this be? is a simple reassertion of the necessity without any explanation to guide the inquirer : and in each case words are spoken of the ascension of Christ into heaven, and of the need of faith if these things are to be grasped at all.

We may securely say that the two discourses deal with the same spiritual things as underlie respectively baptism and the Eucharist : and we cannot doubt that the evangelist s own interpretation of the two sacraments must have followed the lines laid down in these dis- courses. This being so, the controversy above referred to sinks to a position of secondary importance.

We may take it, then, that to the evangelist the special signification of the Eucharist lay in the intimate union with Christ himself, which we have already seen to be involved in the words and particularly in the first word of the institution. The saying I am the bread of life is the converse of the saying This (i.e., this bread) is my body. In each case the meaning is : You shall feed upon myself : you shall enter into a union, which is nothing less than identification, with me.

10. The two views contrasted.[edit]

If Paul is, as always, impressed with the corporate aspect of truth, the Fourth Gospel is concerned with the mystical union of the individual with his Lord : He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me, and I in him (Jn. 656).

To Paul This is my body is almost inseparable from the thought His body are we. In Paul s narrative This is my blood of the covenant appears as This cup is the new covenant in my blood. The thought of the new people of God is each time uppermost in his mind. He finds its unity in the body : he finds it again in the new and universal covenant.

In the Fourth Gospel the interpretation of the Eucharist is the same as if its words had actually run : This is my flesh, This is my blood. The flesh and blood are the full life : their com munication is the communication of eternal life (Jn. f) 54^).

Paul is practical and sees truth in his effort after corporate unity. The Fourth Gospel is contemplative : the writer is interpreting a past of half a century ago, which yet to him is an eternal present ; but he is thereby in a sense isolated.

The two sides of truth are not opposed but com plementary the mysticism of the individual and the mysticism of the corporate life. They both alike find their full expression and realisation in the sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord.

11. Other early writers: Clement.[edit]

The Church of the post-apostolic age shows strangely little indication in its dogmatic teachings of the influence of the peculiar conceptions of Pauline or of Johannine teaching. This is true generally, and the history of the doctrine of the Eucharist presents no exception. The words of the institution, constantly repeated as they probably were, formed the only comment on the significance of the sacrament. There was no attempt to explain them : they were as simple as words could be This is my body, This is my blood. They were the formula which expressed the fact : no metaphysical questioning arose ; no need was felt of a philosophy of explanation.

Paul s special position as the uniter of Jew and Gentile had ceased to need justification or even assertion. The Church so far as its literature has survived to us was a Church of Gentile Christians. Jews indeed formed apart of it, but an insignificant part, not destined to influence directly its future development. John s special position was necessarily peculiar to himself : there could be none after him who had seen and handled as he had. A new age had begun, with its own situations and exigencies : and it was not an age which called forth developments of Christian philosophy.

The Epistle of Clement does not employ the Eucharist, as Paul had employed it, as the starting-point of an argument for unity. The spiritual significance of the Eucharist is not emphasised ; but the way is being prepared for its becoming the central act of Christian worship, and so comparable with the sacrifices of Judaism. It is regarded as the offering of the gifts of the Church (chap. 44), and it is surrounded already, it would seem, with liturgical accompaniments of prayer and praise (chap. 59 fr).

12. Didache.[edit]

In the Didache the Eucharistic formulae (chap. 9/. ) differ in thought and phraseology from anything else in the book : their colour is probably derived mainly from Jewish ritual, though their language is in several points Johannine. The three thanksgivings are addressed to the Father : the only reference to Christ is in the phrases through Jesus thy servant 1 (thrice), through thy servant, and through Jesns Christ. It is noteworthy that none of these names occur in the rest of the book, where Christ is always (except in the baptismal formula) spoken of as the Lord, a title reserved in the thanksgivings for the Father.

Thus, negatively, there is no expression of any feeding on Christ : there is not even a mention of body, or flesh, or blood. There is no sense of the Eucharist as a means of corporate unity. The future union of the now scattered ecclesia is prayed for with an allusion to the gathering together of the scattered particles of wheat into one loaf. This is a conception radically different from Paul s teaching of the unity of believers as partakers of the one loaf.

Positively, we note the prominence of the idea of thanksgiving : its subject-matter being that which has been made known through Jesus Christ viz., the vine of David, life, knowledge, faith, immortality. The nearest thing to any positive blessing in the Eucharist itself is in the clause : Food and drink thou hast given to men . . . and to us thou hast granted spiritual food and drink and life eternal through thy servant. From this we may perhaps conclude that the Eucharistic elements were already regarded as spiritually nourishing and so producing immortality.

It is convenient to notice at this point the view of the Eucharist which belongs to the later period of the composition of the Didactic itself. The Eucharist is that holy thing which may not be given to the dogs i.e., the unbaptized (chap. 9).

Confession of sins and a forgiving spirit are essential pre liminaries, that your sacrifice may be pure, that your sacrifice be not defiled ; for it is that which was spoken of by the Lord ; In every place and time to offer to me a pure sacrifice (chap. 4). Though the word sacrifice is thus used, however, there is no exposition of a sacrificial view of the Eucharist no indication that the elements were regarded as forming a sacrificial offering, or that the Eucharist was in any way con nected with the sacrifice of Christ. Indeed this last conception would be wholly foreign to the atmosphere of the Didache. Yet the language both of this book and of Clement s epistle was preparing the way for an interpretation of the Eucharist in the light of the sacrificial worship of the Old Testament.

13. Ignatius.[edit]

The Epistles of Ignatius emphasise the Godhead and the manhood of Christ in face of a docetism which practically denied the latter. Thus Ignatius' whole view of life is sacramental : everywhere he finds the spiritual in closest conjunction with the material. We are accordingly prepared to find in him a mystical exposition of the Eucharist.

The second main stress of his teaching is laid on the threefold order of the ministry. As the Eucharist is the central function of the bishop s ministration, it stands out as the symbol and means of the Church s unity.

Thus we find in Ignatius something of the Johannine and something of the Pauline conception of the meaning of the Eucharist. In each case, however, there are serious limitations : Ignatius grasps only so much as the needs of his time make him feel the want of.

Taking first the thought of the Church s unity, we have in Philad. 4 Be ye careful therefore to observe one Eucharist : for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup for the unity of his blood : one altar precinct, as there is one bishop together with the presbytery and the deacons. We miss here the Pauline conception of union through partaking of the broken pieces of a single loaf. The centre of unity is the one Eucharistic service of the one bishop with his presbyters and deacons, making the one altar precinct. The connection of the bishop with the Eucharist is elsewhere strongly emphasised : e.g. , Sinyrn. 8 : Let that be accounted a valid (/HejSaia) Eucharist, which takes place under the bishop, or him to whom he may give commission," etc.

The mystical meaning of the Eucharist comes out in such a passage as Sinyrn. 7 : They abstain from Eucharist (or thanks giving) and prayer, because they allow not that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, (that flesh) which suffered for our sins, which the Father raised up. They therefore that gainsay the gift of God die in their disputings. The thought of the Eucharist as counteracting death comes out still more plainly in Ephes. 20 : Breaking one bread, which is the medicine of immortality, a preventive remedy that we should not die, but live in Jesus Christ for ever. In Rom. 7 we read: I desire the bread of God (cp Ephes. 5), which is the flesh of Jesus Christ . . . and as drink I desire his blood, which is love incor- ruptible. In Trail. 8 : in faith, which is the flesh of the Lord, and in love, which is the blood of Jesus Christ. These last two passages are characteristic of the manner in which Ignatius keeps interchanging abstract and concrete ideas.

The parallel with Jn. comes out especially in the terms the bread of God and the flesh (not the body) and blood ; but the life eternal of Jn. is here limited to immortality.

III. Early usage.[edit]

14. Earliest practice.[edit]

In the first description of the believers after Pentecost we are told that 'they steadfastly continued in the teaching of the apostles and the fellowship, the breaking of bread, and the prayers ' (Acts 2 42). Here the breaking of bread is a part of the expression of the fellowship which characterised the new society. Immediately afterwards (v. 46) we read : clay by day, continuing steadfastly with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread house by house (or at home, /car* OIKOV). The numbers were already so large as to make a single united Eucharistic supper out of the question. It is probable that in these earliest days every meal at which Christians met would be hallowed by Eucharistic acts ; and we can scarcely doubt that such would be the case with the daily common meal by which the Church supplied the needs of her poorer members (Acts 6 1 ; on this subject see COMMUNITY OF GOODS, 5). It may be right to distinguish, however, between the Eucharistic acts which lent a sacredness to such common meals, and the formal Eucharists for which the Church as sembled at stated times.

Of the more formal Eucharists we have an example in Acts 20 7 at Troas, where the Christians came to gether on the first day of the week to break bread. Their Eucharist was preceded by a long discourse from Paul and followed by yet more speaking until the dawn (v. n), as the apostle was bidding farewell to the church. In i Cor. 11 17 ff. we have again the Eucharist proper when ye come together iv eKKXycriij., i.e., solemnly assembled as the Church. The fault of the Corinthian Eucharist was, as we have seen ( 8), that each made it his own supper (TO tSiov Seiirvov) rather than the Lord s Supper (KvpiaKbv Se nrvov), by greedily scrambling for more than his share. Paul does not suggest any change in the method by which the Eucharist is attached to a public meal ; he only calls for orderliness. Yet the possibility of such abuses must have led the way to change, even if other elements had not soon begun to work in this direction (see below, 17).

15. Greek parallels.[edit]

The Corinthian Eucharist had parallels on its social side in the Greek world. Guilds and burial clubs had their stated suppers; and the wealthier townsmen found many occasions of inviting their poorer neighbours to a feast, as, for example, at the time of a funeral and on fixed days after the death. From such public entertainments Christians were debarred by reason of their connection with idolatrous worship ; but it is likely that the Chris tians themselves in a Greek city would have similar suppers on somewhat similar occasions ; and the wealthier members of the Church would thus entertain the poorer from time to time. Such suppers, though not Eucharists in the strict sense, would be accompanied by eucharistic acts.

16. Agape.[edit]

Hence would appear to have originated the Agapa, or charity suppers, which are not always distinguishable from Eucharists. They are referred to in JUDE 12 ( cp 2 Pet. 2is); and some light is thrown upon the reference by the custom, mentioned in the Didachl (chap. 11), of allowing the prophets to order a table (bpiffiv Tpdtrffav) a custom sometimes misused for selfish ends.

In Ignatius, Smyrn. 8, it is forbidden to baptize or to hold an agape (aya.irt\v noiflv) apart from the bishop. It does not follow from this passage that agape and Eucharist were with Ignatius convertible terms ; if the agape required the presence or sanction of the bishop, a fortiori this was true of the Eucharist.

17. Separation of eucharist.[edit]

It is commonly said that the separation of the Eucharist from the agape, or (if they were already separated) the discontinuance of the latter, was made, in Bithynia at any rate, in consequence of an edict of Trajan forbidding clubs ; but Pliny's letter to Trajan (Ep. 96) does not bear this out.

The renegades who described to him what their practice as Christians had been, had not merely desisted from attendance at the Christian common meal ; they had abandoned the faith altogether. The faithful, on the other hand, had desisted from nothing, as far as we know ; there is no proof that they had abandoned the later meeting and retained the earlier. Accord ingly this correspondence throws no light on the relation between the Eucharist and the agape.

The causes which tended to separate the Eucharist from a common meal were mainly four.

(a) The increase of numbers made the common supper more and more difficult in itself, and less and less suitable for the solemn celebration of the united Kucharist.

(l>) Disorders, such as those at Corinth, were always liable to recur where a large number of persons partook freely of food and drink. The ordinances made at a later time (see the Canons of Hippolytus; ed. Achelis, pp. 105-111) for the quiet conduct of the agape show that there were dangers of this sort to be guarded against.

(c) The liturgical accompaniments of the Eucharist underwent a great expansion. Even in the time of Clement of Rome (circa 96 A. D.) we find an elaborated intercession and a long form of thanksgiving in use.

(if) As the symbol of the Church s unity the Eucharist became restricted to occasions when the bishop or his deputy was present to celebrate it. In this, and in every way, it increased in formal solemnity, and became less compatible with a common meal.

These causes were doubtless at work to varying extents in different localities ; in one place the issue would be reached more quickly than in another.

It is noteworthy that Clement s epistle makes no mention at all of the supper ; and the next notice that we have of a Roman Eucharist clearly leaves no place for it. This is Justin Martyr s full description (Afiol. 1 65-67), which shows a ritual already developed and containing all the main elements of the later use.

18. Liturgical development.[edit]

If we seek the grounds of the liturgical development of the Eucharist, we must begin from the mention of the covenant, which, as we have seen is found in both the Synoptic and the pauline narratives of the institution. Here we have at once a link with the sacrificial ideas of Judaism. Although it is to the covenant of Ex. 24, not to the Passover, that reference in the first instance is made, the Passover associations also probably attached themselves to the Eucharist at a very early date. Moreover, before the first century had closed, a Roman writer could speak of the Christian ministers as offering the gifts (Clem. Ep. 44), and the passage of Malachi about the pure sacrifice was soon interpreted of the Eucharist (Did. 14 ; Just. Dial. 28, 41 ; Iren., Tert. , Clem. Alex.). Paul had received as a tradition coming ultimately from Christ himself the command, Do this in remembrance of me, and had declared that in the Eucharist Christians showed forth the death of the Lord.

Thus the conception of a solemn remembrance of Christ s death held a foremost place in the earliest times, and the interpretation of that death as sacrificial gave a second sacrificial aspect to the Eucharist. The word remembrance (dva/xvijcrts) was afterwards in terpreted in a ritual sense of memorial in view of certain passages in which it was so used in the LXX.

It was a natural consequence that, when the Jewish ritual system was annulled at the destruction of the temple, a Christian ritual was developed with the Eucharist as its centre.

19. Fate of agapa.[edit]

The agapae, on the other hand, lost more and more their semi-eucharistic character. They became in some places occasions of unseemly riot or mere excuses for wealthy banqueting ; and Clement of Alexandria, at the close of the second century, is already indignant that so lofty a name should be given to them, and complains that Charity has fallen from heaven into the soups (Peed. ii.ls).

Thus the original institution underwent a twofold development, according as the liturgical or the social character of it came to predominate. In the one case, the supper itself disappeared, or was but symbolically represented by the consumption of small portions of bread and wine ; the spiritual significance was empha sised, and the Eucharist became the centre of the Church s worship. In the other case, the supper was everything, and the eucharistic acts which accompanied it were little more than graces before and after meat ; the spiritual significance had passed elsewhere, and, though under favourable conditions the agape still had its value and lingered long, it had no principle of vitality left, and its place was filled in time by more appropriate methods of charitable assistance.

Among recent critical monographs may be mentioned : Har- nack s Brod und Wasscr \Texte . Unters. vii. [ 92]) ; Jiilicher s Zur Gesch. d. Abendm. (in Theol. Abkandl. dedi cated to C. v. Weizsacker, 92) ; Spitta s Zur Gesch. u. Lift, d. Urchrist. \zo^ff., ( 93); Percy Gardner s Origin of the Lords Supper ( 93) , J. H. Thayer s Recent Discussions respecting the Lords Supper mJBL 18110-131 ( 99) (with further references). j. A. K.


(eyepreTHC, benefactor ; cp Lk. 2225). In the Prologue to Ecclesiasticus reference is made by this title (originally conferred by states on special benefactors) to one of the Egyptian Ptolemies (see EGYPT, 73). Of the two Ptolemies who bore it viz., Ptolemy III. (247-222 B.C.), more commonly known as Euergetes, and Ptolemy VII. it is the latter who is meant (ECCLESIASTICUS, 8). Ptolemy VII., Euergetes II., more commonly called Physcon (<f>vffK(i>i>), began to reign jointly with his elder brother (Ptolemy VI., Philometor) in 170 B.C., became sole king in 146 B.C., and died in 117 B.C. In spite of the attempt of Willrich (Juden u. Griechen) to prove that Physcon was a friend of the Jews, it appears that this king s attitude towards them was consistently inimical, not on any religious grounds, but from political motives, because of the support they had given to Cleopatra. To his reign belongs probably the main part of the Sibylline Oracles ; see APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE, 94. For the well-known story of the elephants (Jos. c.Ap. 2s), which the author of 3 Mace, places in the reign of Ptolemy IV., Philopator, see MACCABEES, THIRD, 5.


(eyMGNHC [ANV] well-disposed ). Eumenes II., son of Attalus I., and king of Pergamos (197-158 B.C.), allied with the Romans during their war with ANTIOCHUS (q.v., i), in recognition of which they added to his territory all that was taken from the Syrians. The statement in i Mace. 88 that Eumenes received India, Media, Lydia, and the goodliest of their (the Seleucidean) countries is clearly inaccurate i 1 Apart from the improbability of the mention of Lydia by the side of India and Media, neither India nor Media ever belonged to the Seleucidre or to the Romans. Both Livy (37 55) and Strabo (xiii. 42 [624]) agree that the territory added to Eumenes extended only to the Taurus, and the latter especially notes that previous to this accession there had not been under the power of Per gamos many places which reached to the sea at the Elaitic and the Adramy tene Gulfs ( TroXXa %wpta fJ-fXP L TTJS BaXdrr-tjs TTJS KCLTO, rbv EXa tYi?? KO\TTOV Kal rw Adpa/jLVTryvov). Hence it is probable that Media is an error for Mysia (Michaelis), and India for Ionia (Grotius 2 ). For the life of Eumenes see Smith s Diet. Class. Biog.


a misprint in AV for ENNATAN of RV (eNN<\T<Mvi[BA]) lEsd. 844 = Ezra8i6, ELNATHAN, 2.

1 In his account of the power and policy of the Romans, the writer of i Mace. 8 does not appear to have followed very trust worthy sources ; cp in 1 . 479 157^, and see Cainb. Bib. ad loc., also ANTIOCHUS, i.

2 This is more probable than the suggested identification with the Paphlagonian Eneti (cp also Horn. //. 2 852). By the writer of i Mace. 88 India "may have been possibly conceived in as limited a sense as Asia in z . 6.


(CYNIKH [Ti. WH]). the mother of Timothy (2 Tim. Is), a Jewess who believed (Acts 16i). See TIMOTHY.


(Dnp, CTTAAtON [Gen. 3736, Is. 39 7], 6YNOYXOC [usually]; in NT 6YNOYXOC in Mt. 19 12, Acts 8 27 ft; also the verb eyNOYX 2 ^ Mt 19 12). That eunuchs were much employed in Oriental courts, is well known ; Babylonian and Persian history is full of examples of their political influence (cp Herod, viii. 105). We have no positive evidence, however, that the kings of Israel and Judah employed eunuchs. The reference in the law in Dt. 23 1 [2] is to those who, for a religious purpose, had voluntarily undergone mutilation (WRS ap. Dr. Deut. ad loc.}. Still it is a mistake to suppose that the Hebrew word saris was used both of eunuchs and of persons not emasculated. It has been overlooked that ancient Hebrew possessed two distinct words D")D one meaning eunuch, the other (more frequent in OT) meaning captain or high officer. For the former the usual etymology suffices (see Ges. - Buhl); the latter is the Ass. sa-rOS (see RAB-SAKIS). Another form of the second D nD seems to be v^v, Salts, the still current explanation of which (see CHARIOT, 10, sup. 730) is open to objection (see Di. on Ex. 14 7).

By a piece of remarkable good fortune we have in aK.932 positive proof that the equation D")D = C> 7C is correct. The closing words of this verse are, properly, "J t-^tp W ( L Su o eiii/oO^oi aurrjs ; (pn Svo fvv.) i.e., two of her captains. To JVC S? there was a marginal gloss C D ")D which in course of time intruded into the text, the consequence of which was that nVTV became corrupted into no^ff, and so the text came to lie rendered (as in EV) two or three eunuchs (nearly so Klo.).

Injer. 292 eunuchs (KV) should rather be officers (i.e. court officers ). So EV, probably correctly, in Gen. 37 36 39 i 1 i 8.815 iK. 2292 K. 86 24 12 15 25 19 i Ch. 28 i 2Ch. 188 fmg. eunuch ]. In one passage [2 K. 25 19] such an officer holds a high military post. (See GOVERNMENT, 21.) In two other passages (Gen. 37 3*1, 39 1) he is married. In 2 K. 1817 EV leaves RAB-SAKIS [i/.r 1 .] untranslated.

The Herods, however, no doubt had eunuchs in their courts (Jos. Ant. xv. 7 4 ; xvi. 81), and this suggested Jesus reference in Mt. 19 12. 2 He gives the expression eunuch a symbolical turn, and says that those who have entirely devoted themselves to the interests of the kingdom of heaven cannot satisfy the claims of married life. Perhaps, as Keim thinks, he refers to himself and to John the Baptist. See Clem. Alex. Pad. iii. 4 ; Strom, iii. i. T. K. c.


(eYoAiA [Ti. WH] and CYNTYXH [Ti. WH]), two women in the Philippian church specially saluted by Paul (Phil. 42). In the early days of Christianity at Philippi these women had struggled, likeathletes, side bysidewith Paul (crw/idXrjcrdv /tot), and on this ground he appeals to a certain Synzygus (EV yoke-fellow i.e., fellow-labourer) to help them, but in what way is not stated. From the exhortation to be of the same mind in the Lord it has been con jectured (Schwegler, Nachapost. /.ei (alter, 229/1 134/1 ) that the women may have represented two parties inclining to the Jewish and to the Gentile type of Chris tianity respectively, whilst the yoke-fellow is supposed to be the apostle Peter. The name Euodia, however, at any rate, is justified by EuoSios, the name of the first bishop of Antioch (cp Eus. HE, 822 ; Ap. Const. "46). AV Euodias erroneously derives evoSLav (in the ace.) from the masc. ei)o5ias. See Znhn, Einlcit. 1 396/1 and cp PiiiLii PiANS.

1 Cp EHVIT, 29, n. - Cp Dalm., M orte /esu, 1 100.


(fn$. eY^P^THC [BADEFL], Ass. Purattu. For derivations see Del. Par. 169/1) This, by far the greatest river of Western Asia, rises in the Armenian mountains. It has there two chief sources, one at Domli, NE. of Erzeroum, the other close to Mt. Ararat. Both branches trend W. or SW. till they unite at Kebben Maden, where they form a river 120 yards wide. Thence a south course takes the river towards the Mediterranean till the Amanus range and Lebanon bar the way and the stream follows a SE. course to the Persian Gulf. It is this portion, from Hit to the Gulf, about 1000 miles through a low, flat, alluvial plain, that is the historical river.

Its whole course is about 1780 miles, for 1200 miles navigable for small vessels. Below its junction with the Hubiir, still 701 miles from its mouth, it attains a width of 400 yards, but gradu ally decreases to about 120 at its mouth. Its depth is only 18 feet by the Hfibiir and still less at its mouth. It was always depleted by canals, now it loses itself in marshes.

In May the melting of the snows in Armenia causes the yearly inundation. In the time of Nebuchadrezzar, and to a less extent before, this flood was skilfully applied to purposes of irrigation. The amount of traffic was always considerable, the river forming a main artery of commerce from the Gulf to the Mediter ranean (Herod. 1185). The boats were of wicker, coated with bitumen. Trade was brisk between all the cities on the route, and the ships took names from their ports (see a list of them in 2 R. 46, No. i, cols. v. and vi. , and duplicates in Bezold s Catalogue of Kou- yunjik Collection B. M. sub. K. 4338(2). Ships from Mair, Asur, Ur, Dilmun (an island down the Gulf), Makan, Meluhha, etc. are named.

The Euphrates is first named (Gen. 214) as one of the four rivers of Eden (see PARADISE). The promise of dominion from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates (Gen. 15 18) defines the ideal boundaries of the Israelite power (28.83 iCh.ISs iK.42i[5i]). According to i Ch. 5 9 the tribe of Reuben actually extended itself to the Euphrates before the time of Saul, there meeting the Hagarites whom Tiglath-pileser III. names as in that quarter (A li ii. 10 10), -a still greater idealisation of history, according to critics.

Whatever passages there may have been across the Euphrates in its upper course, it is clear that the great route by which the armies of Assyria came into Syria and beyond to Palestine and on to Egypt must have been commanded by the strong city CARCHEMISH. Till that fell no permanent hold was possible on the west. The army of Necho there met the forces of Nebuchadrezzar in the time of JOSIAH [i]. The exiled Jews became very familiar with the river, and there are frequent references to it in the political and pro phetic books. At the mouth of the river on its left bank lay the country of CHAI.DKA (q.v. ), inhabited by a Semitic- race carefully distinguished from Assyrians, Babylonians, Arabs, and Arameans. Their land was known properly as the sea-land (see MKKATHAIM). Above it was BABYLONIA ; then comes ASSYRIA (q.v.).

In Assyrian times the Euphrates did not join the Tigris, and Sennacherib, when pursuing Merodach Baladan and his followers, made a long sea voyage after sailing out of the mouth of the Tigris before he reached their seat. The growth of the delta at the mouths of the Euphrates and Tigris seems to have early excited remark. Pliny (NH 6 31) states that Charax (mod. Mohammerah} was built by Alex ander the Great 10 stadia from the sea ; and that in the days of Juba II. it was 50, and in his own time 120 from the coast. Loftus estimated that since the be ginning of our era the rate of growth was about a mile in 70 years. The very ancient city of Eridu (mod. Abu Shahrein) was originally a seaport. This process of silting up of course gave rise to extensive salt marshes, called Marratu in the inscriptions (see MKRATHAIM).

The tributaries of the Euphrates were ( i ) the Arzania which joined the E. branch before the river left the mountains ; (2) the small stream which ran in from the west below Tul-Barsip (mod. fierejik) ; (3) the Balih, l?d\ix<*, Bi\77xa, Bellas of the ancients (mod. Heltkh), that came direct S. from Harran into the Euphrates here flowing E. ; (4) by far the most important, the Habur, mod. KhAbur (see HABOR), which has several ramifications on its upper course. (See map in KB ii. and compare map after col. 352 of the present work. )

For a fuller account of its physical characteristics see Chesney, Euphrates Expedition, 1. On the antiquities add Loftus, L haldea and Susiana, and Layard. On the inscriptional material specially Del. Par. (passim). c. H. W. J.


(rn$ ; ey^pATHC [BAQ]). According to Jer. 184-7 _RV Jeremiah was directed to take his inner garment ("I1TN, ezor=.\r. tzar, waist-wrapper, Lane; see GIRDLE, i), 1 and hide it by Euphrates (Perath), in a hole of the rock. There are three diffi culties in this view of the narrative. ( i ) The common prefix the river is wanting; (2) the shores of the Euphrates are not rocky ; and (3) it is most improbable that Jeremiah went (and went twice) from Jerusalem to the Euphrates.

The third difficulty is the least ; the narrative might be only based on a vision (cp Jer. In 13). The other two difficulties appear insurmountable. Bochart suggested reading Ephrfith for Perath, Kphriith being another name for Bethlehem (so Che. Jer. (1) 333 [ 8 3 - 85] ; Ball, Jer. 284 [ 90]). The landscape of Bethlehem suits, and the play on Ephrath, as if the name pro phesied of Perath (Euphrates and the Exile) is in the Hebrew manner. There is, however, a better solution.

The right course is with Marti (ZDPV 3n), Cheyne (Life and Times of Jer. [ 88] 161), and Birch (PEFQ 80, p. 236) to alter one vowel point, and read nrns to Parah. The prophet means, however, not the town of that name (see PARAH), but (probably) some point in the wild and rocky Wady Eara (3 m. NE. of Anata or Anathoth), near the abundant spring called the Ain Eara.


(eyrroAeMoc L A ^ V J). b - J hn - b - Accos (and of priestly descent, see HAKKOZ, 3), one of the envoys of Judas the Maccabee to Rome ( i Mace. 817 ; cp 2 Mace. 4n). He is possibly to be identified with the Hellenistic writer of that name (author of the fragment on David and Solomon in Eus. PE 9 30-34) (juoted by Alex. Polyhist. See Schiir. Hist. 33, iii. 2.


RV Euraquilo (eypoKAyAcoN [TR 61], eypAKyAcoN [NAB* Treg. Ti. WH] ; eypy- KAyAooN [B 3 ]), the name of a typhoon or hurricane (Acts 27 14). The crew and the passengers thought themselves out of their trouble, when all at once one of those hurricanes from the E. , which the sailors of the Mediterranean call Euraquilon, fell upon the island [Crete]. The Gregalia of the Levantines is this very word, just as Egripou has been produced from Euripus (Renan, St. Paul, 551, and n. i). These words sum up in a nutshell the general conclusion of scholars. Renan adopts the reading eupaKv\uv, and the very plausible view of Conybeare and Howson that the nar rator uses a name given to the wind by the sailors (St. Paul, 2402 n. ), supporting this view by the usage of Levantine sailors at the present day (Gregalia is their word).

If we accept this theory we cannot be surprised at the large number of variants (see Tregelles) ; the form fvpa.icvk.wv was not in common use, and so was easily corrupted into evpvK\vSiot , evpOK\vStaf, (vpaK\v&ov, eypOK\v8ia, eupaicr)A<o> , ei)T/JaxT)Au>i , evpa.K(.K\<ui>, fvrpaKoSov, while Vg. substitutes the form which, on the analogy of Euronotus and Euroauster, was to have been expected viz., Euroaquilo. The earlier Eng. versions (Wye., Tyn., Cran., Gen.) considerately translate North - east ; the Rhemish Version (1582) and the AV(i6n) prefer to reproduce the reading of their respective Gk. texts, Euroaquilo and Euro- clydon. East by north would be a more exact rendering of fvpa.Kv\wt> or Euroaquilo. That this was in fact the wind appears from the account of the effects of the storm.

As to the meaning of TR s reading evpoKXvduv , scholars have been divided, some rendering Eurus iluctus excitans, others fluctus Euro excitatus. To adopt the second view involves of course the rejection of the reading as unsuitable.

B( 3 ) s reading evpvK\vS<av, (a wind) raising a broad surge, is obviously too vague. We do not want a second merely descriptive epithet after rviptaviKos (EV tempestuous ) i.e., marked by those sudden eddying squalls (Ramsay) which are common in the autumnal storms of the Mediterranean.

See Dissertation in Jordan Smith, I oyaxeandSliipivreckofSt. Paul, 287-292, and, against Burgon and Miller (who vehemently reject vpaio/Acui ), Dickson in Hastings DB, s.v. T. K. C.

1 See the luminous paper on this word by WRS, , JQR, 1892, pp. 289-292. The main points had already been given in Che. Jer.(^ 333 ( 83). Giesebrecht, Jer. 77 ( 94), goes back to the wrong rendering girdle.


(eyryxoc [Ti. WH], fortunate ), the young man of Troas, whose story is told in Acts 20 5-12.


The designation given to Philip, one of the seven, with whom Paul stayed in Caesarea (Acts 218).

The Gk. word evangelist (eiia-yyeAio-T^s) is formed from evangelize (euayyeAi jJecrOai) a favourite word in Lk. s writings (although evayye Aioi occurs only in Acts 167, speech of Peter ; 2024, speech of Paul), which he uses five times in connection with the work of Philip and others immediately after the death of Stephen, when the Gospel began to spread beyond the limits of Judaism (Acts 8 4 12 25 35 40). From this we see plainly what the function of an evangelist was in the earliest time.

The evangelist was the man who brought the first news of the Gospel message. Timothy was charged by Paul not to neglect this duty : Do the work of an evangelist (2 Tim. 4s). In Eph. 4n evangelists are spoken of after apostles and prophets, but before shepherds and teachers, as among the gifts of the ascended Christ to his Church ; but we must not con clude from this that the term evangelist, any more than that of shepherd, was the stereotyped title of an official class. The word denotes function rather than office.

It is noticeable that the word is not found in the Apostolic Fathers, nor in the Didache / in the latter the function in question appears to be discharged by apostles. In the time of Eusebius the word is still used in its earliest sense, and without reference to a particular office or class (e.g. , Eus. HE iii. 372, and of Pantasnus v. 102 /". ); but already another use was current, ac cording to which an evangelist was the writer of a Gospel in the sense of a narrative of the life of Christ : eg. , in Hippolytus, Julius Africanus, and Origen.

J. A. K.


(H-iri), Gen. 820 ; see ADAM AND EYE, 3 (b).


pTL n nnjD), Ezra 9 4 . See SACRIFICE.


See ETERNAL, and cp ESCHATOLOGY, 82^ ,


PIN), one of the five chiefs of Midian, slain after the matter of Peor ; Nu. 318 (eyeiN [BA], eynpe [L]) ; Josh. 13 2 . ( e y[e]i [BAL]), both P. See MIDIAN.