Encyclopaedia Biblica/Palisade-Pass

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



(X&P&Z). Lk. 19:43 RVmg. See SIEGE.


(tti?B ; ^AAAoyc [BADFL]),one of the sons of REUBEN, Gen. 40:9, Ex. 6:14, Nu.26:58, 1 Ch. 6:3 (in Gen. <J>aA- AouS [AJ, <|>aAAou [I,], in Nu. </>aAAov [HAL, but <J>avAov [BJ in a. 8], in Ch. <J>aAAovf [L]). The gentilic, Palluites ( N^B, <^aA- Aou[e]i [BAFL]), occurs in Nu. 26:5.

Carmi and Pallu (sons of Reuben) both probably represent fragments of Jerahmeel, viz., BJTV ar >d ?ND - Cp PELEG.

T. K. C.


(ft^|3), Jon. 4:6 EVmg, EV GOURD (q.v.).


(QT3, root meaning 'to cut off' ; KAMTTH I eruca ; \) Q^VS). mentioned thrice in the OT (Joel 1:4, 2:25, Am. 4:9+)- Probably the leaf-eating larva of some lepidopterous insect was intended ; like our word 'caterpillar', the term was probably used vaguely.

The Greek icdfiTri) [kampe], which expresses the idea of 'bending' or 'looping', may perhaps denote a looper or measuring worm - the larva of some geometric moth.

Palmer-worm in the sense of 'caterpillar' is said still to linger in some local dialects (e.g. in that of the New Forest).

A. E. S.


i. "IOFI, tamar ((fcoiNlL 1 Ex. 15:27, Lev. 23:40, Nu. 33:9, Dt. 34:3, Judg. 1:16, 3:13, 2 Ch. 28:15, Neh. 8:15, Ps. 92:12 [92:13], Cant. 7:7-8 [7:8-9], Joel 1:12; also Jn. 12:13, Rev. 7:9+).

1. The name.[edit]

In Hebrew, Syriac, and Ethiopia tamar is the name of Phoenix dactylifera, L. ; in Arabic it denotes not the tree but its fruit.

Arabic has two names for the tree - dakal and nahl; the former, which is also found in Aramaic and occurs in Gen. 10:27 as the name of an Arab tribe (see DIKLAH), has the special signification of a palm bearing plentiful dates, but of an inferior sort ; whence Guidi (Delia Sede, 20) has ingeniously conjectured that it is the older Arabic name, derived from a time when the palm received little or no cultivation, and bore inferior fruits. Nahl, on the contrary, which is peculiar to Arabic, he connects with the sense of excellence, and supposes it came into use later to denote the cultivated tree which bore a larger and finer fruit. The history of the Hebrew word is obscure. Some scholars connect it with the verb 'itma'arra to 'stand stiffly upright' ; but a more probable suggestion is Guidi's (l.c.) that tamr is a dialectic variation of thamar, which means 'fruit' in general, and came to be specially applied early in the history of the Semitic languages to the palm and its fruit, as the fruit par excellence.

The fact that this word is common to Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic 2 proves it to be very ancient ; its absence from Assyrian is one of the proofs on which von Kremer, Guidi, and Hommel base their theory that the Assyrians and Babylonians were the first of the Semitic nations to quit the parent stock.

1 In Ex. 16:27, Nu. 33:9, LXX has for D"ian, ar [steleche phoinikoon]

2 Eth. tamart has by some scholars (e.g., Hommel, Saugethiere, 412) been regarded also as an ancient word ; but Guidi gives reasons for supposing that it is a comparatively late loan word from Arabic.

2. Its cultivation.[edit]

As the camel among animals, so the palm tree among plants possesses primary importance in the life of desert people like the Arabs. It has existed since prehistoric times over a vast area in the dry, warm zone which extends from the Senegal to the basin of the Indus, chiefly between the 15th and 30th degrees of latitude (De Candolle, Origine, 240). There has been much discussion as to where it was first cultivated (see esp. Th. Fischer's monograph Die Daltelpahne, Erganzungsheft no. 64 zu Petermann's Mittheilungen); but it is enough to say that we have evidence of very early cultivation in Egypt, Babylonia, and (so far as we can indirectly infer in the absence of records) Arabia. Syria, on the other hand, lies some what N. of the proper latitude for the palm ; and, with the exception of the famous palm-group at Jericho, the tree has probably never been common in Palestine, though the biblical references are sufficient to show that its appearance was not unfamiliar (note especially the 'palm tree of Deborah', Judg. 4:5, and its mention in Joel 1:12 among common fruit-trees). 1

As is well known, the palm flourishes best in a dry and even rainless atmosphere, provided that its roots can reach a supply of subterranean water. This has in some cases to be provided by artificial irrigation ; in others the need is supplied by nature. 2 The twelve wells of Elim, beside which the seventy palm-trees grew, seem to point to early cultivation in that region (see ELIM). The place-names TAMAR (q.v. ) and Hazezon-Tamar 3 (see EN-GEDI) confirm this inference, and though the title 'city of palm trees' was doubtless applied to different places (cp Bertheau on Judg. 1:16 [and especially Greene, The Hebrew Migration from Egypt, 273]) one of which was ZOAR (q.v. ), no place bears it with so much justice as Jericho (Dt. 34:3, 2 Ch. 28:15, and probably Judg. 1:16, 3:13; but cp JERICHO, 2). The group of palms at JERICHO (q.v. , 10) which has now entirely disappeared, must in ancient times have been very large. It is referred to by Theophrastus, Diodorus, Strabo, Pliny, Tacitus, and of course also by Josephus, who remarks (BJ 4:8:3) that the 'fatter' sort of palms, when pressed, yield a fairly good honey (see BEE).*

[The abundance of palm trees in Babylonia, and the veneration for sacred trees in the form of conventionalised palm trees, is naturally referred to under PARADISE (11). Tylor and Haupt have described with much fulness of scientific and Assyriological knowledge the sacred ceremony of the artificial fecundation of the palm tree (PSBA 12383+; note in Toy's Ezekiel, transl. , SBOT 182+). Winckler's theory that the tamar in Palestinian place-names has a mythological explanation seems to be derived from the acute mythologist Stucken (Astralmythen, 73-75) ; according to him Tamar is the Palestinian counterpart of the Babylonian goddess Ishtar (see, e.g., Wi. Gl 2:98, 227). See, however, n. 3, and cp TAMAR.]

1 [Palms grew in the Middle Ages at Tiberias, according to Makdisi (quoted by Del. Ein Tag in Kapernaum, 151), and probably grew in ancient times, as Tristram states that they still do, within Jerusalem (see FURNACE, 5)].

2 Trees naturally supplied are termed by the Arabs 'baal palm trees' (Rel. Sem. W 99).

3 [It is possible (see Crit. Bib.) that "OR, 'palm tree', and orn' , 'Jerahmeel', have sometimes been confounded by the ribes. This applies to Baal-tamar, Judg. 20:33, near Gibeah ; to 'Ir hat-temarim, the city of palm trees; and to Hazezon-tamar, which should perhaps be read Kadesh-Jerahmeel ( = the En-gedi of 2 Ch. 20:2).]

4 See Schurer, GK/(2) 1:311-313.

3. In poetry.[edit]

In Hebrew poetry the palm tree is an image of prosperous growth (Ps. 92:12 [92:13]) and tall comely stature (Cant. 7:7-8 [7:8-9]). With the use of its branches at the feast of booths (Lev. 23:40, Neh. 8:15) we may connect the 'branches of palm trees' in Jn. 12:13 ; whence are derived the reference in Rev. 7:9, and the use of palms in the services of the Christian church. Much information as to statements about the palm in later Hebrew will be found in Low, 109+.

The branches or date-stalks (AV 'boughs' ) of the palm are once referred to (Cant. 7:8 [7:9]) by the name C JDJD. The corresponding Aramaic word sisana is likewise specially appropriated to the date-bearing stalks (Low, 119).

2. Whereas 13B, tamar, occurs only as a noun in the absolute state, 1 pK tomer, twice (Judg. 4:5, Jer. 10:5+) appears as a construct ; it is difficult to believe that this traditional pointing really represents the true original form. On Judg. 4:5 see Crit. Bit.

3. rnb PI, 1 timorah (on the spelling see Baer on Ezek. 40:22), is repeatedly used (1 K. 6 etc.) for the palm as an architectural form. This tree played an important part in the development of Egyptian architecture (Fischer, op. cit. 5). See TEMPLE.

[4. 7m, nahal, according to Perles (JQR 11 [1899] 688-689), sometimes means palm tree ; so at any rate in Nu. 246 Ecclus. 50:12 (reading ^ru TOl D. 'like palm-branches', cp of Ecclus. is areAe xTj <j>oii><. /ccoi>, and see above, i, first note). Probably this is right ; and, taking a hint from Schultens, who for a time took y^rii A ^> m Job 29:18 to mean 'palm tree' (Liber Jobi, 1737, p. 813 ; see PHOENIX), we shall do well to read 7/13 for 5in in Job (l.c.), rendering the whole passage,

And I said, I shall grow old like the cedar (J fJW n CV),
Like the palm tree (?nj2) I shall multiply days.

On Nu. (l.c.) - where for DJJ? read D JS.33 - and Job (l.c.) see Cheyne, Exp.T, Dec. 1899, and for the older views see Dillmann. T. K. c.] jj. M.


("tp 1 ??, 52 ; 4>AAT[e]i [BAL]).

i. Husband of MICHAL (q.v. ), described as a 'son of LAISH', that is to say, probably, a citizen of Laish or LAISHAH (read, however, 'Shalisha' ), to which 1 S. 25:44 appends the gloss 'which was of GALLIM' - i.e. , of Beth-gilgal (i S. 20:44. 2 S. 3:15; (pa\Ti-ri\ [BA], (j>a\Tiov [L, gen.]). In 2 S. 3:15 he is called PALTIEL. See BAHURIM.


  • (1) that both Gallim and Bahurim are probably distorted fragments of Jerahmeel (they are designations of the centre of a Jerahmeelite clan) ;
  • (2) that Michal and Merab are very probably the same person, both names having sprung from Jerahmeelith, and consequently
  • (3) that Palti (miswritten in 2 S. 3:15 Paltiel) and ADRIEL (q.v.) are also the same person.

Probably Palti comes from Palti or Pelethi Cn/S) - a corruption of Sarephathi (see PELETHITE), and Adriel from Jerahme'el. The names are virtual synonyms ; in 1 Ch. 27:10 a Paitite is described as of the b'ne Jerahmeel (crit. emend.; see PALTITE). See further MERAB, MEHOLATHITE, SAUL, 6.

2. b. Raphu, a Benjamite chief, one of the twelve spies (Nu. 13:9 [P]). Very possibly to be explained as no. i ; cp Japhleti, which may have a similar origin. RAPHU probably comes either from Jerahme'el or from Sarephathi ; cp 1 Ch. 4:12, and see PASEAH, REPHAEL. T_ j^ C.


(^P?9, 30 52 ; as if 'God's deliverance', but see PALTI). i. See PALTI (i). 2. b. Azzan, of Issachar, one of the princes nominated to divide Canaan amongst the tribes (Nu. 34:26 [P]; </>aAT[e]i)A [BALFvid. (0 a . TirjA)]).


( p^Sn ; o KeAooGei [B], o <J>eA- ACONCI [A], o 4>AAr~ONl [!-]) the designation of Helez (Hilles?), one of David's thirty (2 S. 28:26), meaning, according to most scholars, a man of BETH-PALET (q.v.).

The 'Pelonite' Cpi^n) of 1 Ch. 11:27 (6 <eA<o.>ei [BN], 6 <f>a\\<avt [A], o ^eAAcoKt [L]), 27 10(6 eic <>aAAou? [BA], 6 $aAAa>i/t [L]), is, most commentators think, a corruption of 'Paltite' (so Kittel) ; Marquart (Fund. 19), however, would read 'Keilathite' ( nSypn I C P B above) on the ground that 'man of Beth-palet' should strictly be nSs.l H 3- But Paitite seems to be the name of the clan, and Beth-palet that of its chief settlement. In 1 Ch. 27:10 Helez is further described as 'of the bne Ephraim' ; perhaps (as in 1 S. 1 i^Q ISK may be a corruption of [-^Nor7'7- PALTI (q.v.) seems ultimately to mean 'Zarephathite' ; i.e., the clan had a Zarephathite or Jerahmeelite connection.

T. K. C.

1 Plur. D % -)bn or n1ibn.


(nAMchyAiA, Acts 2:10, 13:13, 14:24, 15:38, 27:5, 'the sea of Cilicia and Pamphylia' ; 1 Macc. 15:23).

1. Description.[edit]

Pamphylia was properly the strip of plain bordering the bay of Adalia, that remarkable indentation in the southern coast of Asia Minor between Capes Chelidonia and Anamur. The plain itself retreats like a bay into Mt. Taurus at its back, and at the eastern and western extremities of Pamphylia the hills advance and rise often sheer from the water ( see PHASELIS ). The narrowness of the territory of the Pamphylians is indicated by the fact that in 480 B.C. they provided only thirty ships to the fleet of Xerxes, as against fifty from Lycia, and one hundred from Cilicia, the neighbouring territories on the E. and the W. (Herod. 7:91-92).

2. History.[edit]

The Romans put Pamphylia under the governor of Cilicia in 103 B.C. - Cilicia at this period 'being the Roman term for a great, ill-defined, half-subdued agglomeration of lands, comprising parts of Cilicia, Pamphylia, and other regions' (Rams. Hist. Comm. on Galatians, 103-104). 1 Coming down to 36 B.C., we find Pamphylia - or rather the more inland mountainous part of it, which apparently had been under the surveillance of Polemon of Laodiceia (Rams. op. cit. 110) - added to the territories of the Galatian Amyntas (Dio. Cass. 4932 ; Strabo, 571). When Amyntas was slain by the Pisidians in 25 B.C. (see GALATIA, 3) Pamphylia was not incorporated with the Province Galatia, but was treated as a separate governmental district, 2 and subordinated probably either to the governor of Galatia or to that of Syria and Cilicia. It was apparently not until 43 A. D. , in the reign of Claudius, that Pamphylia and Lycia were combined as a separate imperial province (Dio Cass. 60:17 : see LYCIA).

The character of the country, a narrow strip, about 80 mi. long (640 stades, Strabo, 667) and never more than 20 mi. wide, separated from the interior by the steep and lofty range of Taurus, accounted for the fact that none of the Pamphylian cities became important. The mountain wall of Taurus prevented all heavy traffic from crossing the short lines between the plateau and the southern sea, and turned it along the road that led to the Aegean (Rams. Hist. Geogr. of AM, 58). The climate also, with hot, damp, and stagnant air, was unfavourable to Greek settlers. Consequently Pamphylia never became completely Hellenised ; the native element, oriental in its sympathies and character, triumphed over the Greek. The Pamphylians, in these circumstances, showed a backward civilisation (Strabo, 570 : 'though living S. of the Taurus, they have not quite given up their robber-habits, and do not allow their neighbours to live at peace' ). See SIDE.

3. Paul's visit.[edit]

Pamphylia was visited by Paul and his companions, in the regular course of their mission, after traversing Cyprus (Acts 13:l3). Nevertheless, no work was done in the province ; Paul passed on to Antioch in Pisidia (v. 14). Taking this fact in conjunction with the statement in Gal. 4:13, that through 'infirmity of the flesh' the Gospel was first preached to the Galatians, Ramsay has plausibly suggested that 'the sudden plunge into the enervating atmosphere of Pamphylia' brought upon Paul an attack of fever, and compelled him to go to the higher ground of the interior (St. Paul the Traveller, 93 ; Church in the Rom. Emp.W 61-62). This theory has the merit of satisfactorily explaining the refusal of John Mark to accompany Paul beyond the Taurus (v. 13, cp Acts 15:38). On the return journey mission work was attempted in Perga, apparently with slight success (Acts 14:25 ; cp NEAPOLIS). The only other Pamphylian town mentioned in the NT is Attaleia. That a considerable number of Jews were found in the country about 139 B.C., we learn from 1 Macc. 16;23, as well as from Acts 2:10 ; and, conversely, the slow progress made by Christianity here during this early period is evidenced by the fact that Pamphylia, as well as Lycia, does not occur in the list of 1 Pet. 1:1.

(Pamphylia, in part, is elaborately described in Lanckoronski's Stadie Pamphyliens und Pisidiens.) w. J. W.


For (i) TD , sir, (2) iva, kiyyur, and (3) -ins, parur, see COOKING, 5, i. a, b, and c (on sir see also ALTAR, 9a). For (4) rana, mahabath, and (5) QTOn. habittim, see COOKING, 7 ; for (6) rityrno, marheseth, see COOKING, 7 ; for (7) nii^D, masreth (2 S. 13:9+) see COOKING, 5, i. (where the reading is emended), and for nnVsi selaJiah (2 Ch. 35:13) see CRUSE, 3.

1 Cp Cic. Verr. 21:38, 'quomodo Lyciam, Pamphyliam, Pisidiam, Phrygiamque totam . . . affixerit : summed up as provincia Cilicia, id. op. cit. chap. 17. This refers to 80 B.C.

2 Dio Cass. 53:26 Ta TE xwpia Ta iK tns nam0vxios npoTEpov Tw xuvt0 npoo-vEun0EvTa Tw idiw vouw anEdo0e


(rnJIDp), 1 K. 7:28 RVmg, AV BORDER. See LAYER.


(23S ; KA[C]CIA [? BAQ]), in Ezek. 27:17 1 is taken by AV apparently as a place-name and by RV as a common noun, untranslated, with the marginal note 'perhaps a kind of confection' (cp BAKEMEATS, 3- end )-

The text needs correction, as most critics allow. Cornill proposes to read JJ11, 'wax' ; but almost certainly [S3, 'vine' is the right word. For RV's 'and pannag, and honey', read 'and grape-syrup' (JS3 C^ll). The Hebrew phrase is parallel to the Mishnic phrase for date-syrup (C"1Dn CQ")). Bliss s view of the apparatus traceable at the wine-presses at Tell el-Hesy is thus confirmed. Cp HONEY, i (3). Observe that nOJ ( see STORAX) precedes, for so we should read for MT s jvjjj (see MINNITH); in Gen. 43:11 the very same products are mentioned together. Cp DABBESHETH. T. K. C.


(XARTHC). 2 Jn. 1:2-3. See PAPYRI, 2. For the 'paper-reeds', RV 'meadows' (n ny) of Is. 19:7+ see REED, 2, and NILE.


(TTA<}>OC, Acts 13:6, 13:13).

1. Site.[edit]

The town visited by Paul and Barnabas on the first missionary tour was New Paphos (mod. Baffo), originally the port of Old Paphos. The kingdom of Paphos, in the extent of its territory, its wealth, and its fame, was second only to that of SALAMIS (q. v. ). It embraced the western part of Cyprus, touching on the N. the territory of Soli, on the S. that of Curium, and extending inland a distance of 20 mi. as far as the range of Troodus. While under an independent king, its capital was Old Paphos (IlaXcua llanos [palaia pathos], later IIaAcu 7ra</>os [palaipathos]; cp Strabo, Paus. ), the modern Kitklia, on the left bank of the Bocarus (mod. Diorizo}, about 10 mi. SW. of Baffo, and 2 mi. from the sea (cp Strabo, 683, oaov evotKa. (rradiois virtp TT}S 6a\aTTrjs Idpv/J^vr), ij(f>op/j.ov %owa).

2. Native cult.[edit]

Paphos owed its celebrity to the temple and worship of the 'Paphian Queen' (TJ 0ed i] lla<f>ia, or rj lla<f>ia simply, in inscrr. also fa.va.aaa. [wanassa]. See Samml. der gr. Dialekt-inschriften, 1:1+, 1:15+) whom the Greeks identified with Aphrodite (see PERGA).

The temple was near Old Paphos (Paus. 8:52), which thus became the religious capital of the island. The kings of Paphos, of the clan of the Cinyradae, were also hereditary high priests of the temple, a dignity which they retained down to the annexation of the island by the Romans in 58 B.C. 1

In course of time the old town lost its importance, and the port usurped its position and became the administrative capital of the island in Roman times (cp Acts 13:7) ; 2 but the wealth and greatness of the shrine of the goddess were not thereby impaired (cp Strabo, 683).

The cult was that of a nature-goddess similar in character to the Babylonian Ishtar, the Phoenician Astarte. She was a native goddess of the Anatolian peninsula and the Aegean islands (cp Rams. Cities and Bish. of Phrygia, 1:89+ ; Hist. Comm. on Galatians, 35-36). As the result of long and close intercourse with Syria, this worship in Cyprus was overlaid with Phoenician elements.

The characteristic of the worship lay in the strongly organised college of priests or priestesses living, often in thousands, round the temple (cp Strabo, 558, of Comana Pontica ; see DIANA), and the sensual excesses of the devotees, and their self-mutilation (cp Athan. Contra Grac. 10, Tt]v firiOv^iav OeoTroirjcrai Tes irpoo-Kvvovaiv, the Cyprian cultus the 'deification of lust' ). As at other centres of the worship, the goddess was represented only by a conical stone (cp Max. Tyr., TO 6e a-yaA/xa OVK av <iKacrais aAAui r<a 17 nvpafii&i Aeuicrj ; Tac. Hist. 2:3. Cp Coins, and see PERGA. So also at Pessinus in Galatia).

Models of the image were sold as charms (Athen. 15:18; cp the 'silver shrines' at Ephesus, Acts 19:24, used somewhat differently). The fame of the Paphian shrine attracted costly gifts and distinguished pilgrims (for example, Titus visited it before undertaking his campaign against the Jews, Tac. Hist. 2:2-3).

1 The modern Primate of the island is entitled fta<eapiaJTaTos [makariootatos], and perhaps inherits his privileges from the pre-Christian priestly guild (Gardner, New Chapters in Greek History, 172).

2 New Paphos in its turn gave way to a new settlement about a mile to the N., the modern Ktima, the administrative capital of the district.

3. Paul's visit.[edit]

The apostles appear not to have come into direct conflict with this worship, as Paul was destined to do later at Ephesus. It should be remembered that an analogous cult must have been familiar to them at Antioch in Syria. Although a considerable time must be implied in the expression 'go through the isle' (Acts l3:6, AV, 5if\66i>Tfs 6\rjv rrjv vrjffov), this did not bring them into collision with the native priests as the work was confined to the Jewish synagogues (v. 5). The conflict with Elymas (Bar-Jesus) before the Proconsul was, on the face of it, a personal one. (See, further, BARJESUS, PAUL.)

See P. Gardner, New Chapters in Greek History; D. G. Hogarth, Devia Cypria. All that ancient authors say about Paphos gathered by M. R. James in Journ. of Hell. Studies, 9:l75+. For description of temple, excavations, etc., see ibid., 158-215. W. J. W.


1. Papyrus as writing material.[edit]

The use of papyrus as writing material is very ancient. According to Kenyon, 2 the oldest of the written papyri that have come down to our day is a leaf containing accounts dating from the reign of King Assa of Egypt (about 3580-3536 B.C.). From these early times down to a late date in the Arabian period papyrus continued to be, in a very special sense, the characteristic writing material of Egypt. Although apparently at first sight brittle and perishable, it is in point of fact as indestructible as the pyramids and obelisks, and it is to the magnificent power of resistance possessed by the papyri that, to a large extent, we owe the revival of knowledge of ancient Egypt which has occurred in recent times.

As to the mode of preparation of papyrus leaves inaccurate statements are frequently met with. Very recently it has been said, 3 but incorrectly, that they were made from the 'bast' of the papyrus plant. The elder Pliny (HN 13:11-13) gives a description 4 of the process of manufacture which technical examination of extant papyri has made intelligible. It is thus explained by Kenyon : 5

The pith of the stem of the papyrus plant was cut into thin strips, the width of which was of course determined by the thickness of the stem, while their length varied considerably . . . These strips (Lat. philyrae) were laid side by side to form a sheet. Each sheet was composed of two layers, in the one of which the strips ran horizontally while in the other they were perpendicular. The layers were attached to one another by glue, moistened with water - preferably, it would appear, the turbid water of the Nile, which was supposed to add strength to the glue. The sheets thus made were pressed, dried in the sun, and polished so as to remove unevenness in the surface ; and they were then fit for use.

The papyrus plant, from the pith of which the strips just spoken of were obtained, Cyperus papyrus, L., Papyrus antiquorum, Willd., besides occurring in Egypt, 6 is met with in Sicily, especially near Syracuse, and also in Italy by the Thrasymene lake.?

The size of a papyrus leaf is, as ought never to have been questioned, variable. Kenyon 8 has brought together some measurements. For most writings of a non-literary nature (letters, bills, receipts, etc. ) a single leaf was sufficient ; for longer texts, especially of a literary character, the required number of leaves were glued together into a roll. 1 The papyrus-roll was the classical form in which literary productions appeared in antiquity. Ordinarily the writing was upon that side of the leaf on which the fibres run horizontally (recto) ; the back (verso) was made use of only on exceptional occasions. 2 If a papyrus leaf is found to be written on both sides and by different hands, it is, generally speaking, safe to assume that the writing on the recto side is the earlier. It is only in rare cases that the leaves of a papyrus roll are written on both sides.

Nestle* recalls Rev. 5:1 /3t/3AtW yeypa/j.fj.evov e&atQev Kai. oir<.<r8(v where some MSS. have e<ru>0ei icai i^iaOfv or e/j.irpoa Oev Kai oTrivOev.

In the later centuries of antiquity the papyrus book - the Codex - is met with as well as the papyrus-roll, and ultimately, as we know, the codex gained the upper hand. It is not accurate to say that the transition from the roll to the codex began with the introduction of parchment.

A few examples will suffice. The British Museum possesses a fragment of a codex of the Iliati written upon papyrus and probably dating from the third century A.D. ; 4 amongst the Oxyrhynchus Papyri there is a leaf from a codex of the Gospels or of the NT, containing Mt. 1:1-9, 1:12, 1:14-20 and dating from the third century ; the same collection Includes other biblical codex fragments. The Heidelberg University Library possesses twenty-seven papyrus leaves of a LXX codex dating from the sixth or the seventh century. The famous so-called Logia-fragment of Oxyrhynchus also comes from a codex.

[picture of Papyrus Plant (from living specimen at Kew). goes here]

1 The etymology of the word 'papyrus' remains uncertain. See Nestle, Einfuhrung [V], 41 ; Lagarde, Mittheil. 2:260. [For the etymology generally accepted among living Egyptologists, cp EGYPT, 8. Bondi, starting from the Talmudic orthography 11"B E. was tne first to propose to take the name papyrus as 'a-p-yor (for the better form yo or, cp NILE) 'the (thing or product) of the river' - i.e., 'the river-plant'. This etymology is highly probable, or at least superior to all other etymological attempts. w. M. M.]

2 The Palaeography of Greek Papyri, 14.

3 Gregory, textkritik, 1 7 (1900).

4 This description has been popularised by G. Ebers in his Kaiser Hadrian. Cp also Ebers, 'The writing material of antiquity' in Cosmopolitan Magazine, New York, Nov. 1893 (Nestle! 2 ), 40).

5 Paleography, 15.

6 B. de Montfaucoti, Dissertation sur la plante appellee Papyrus in Mem. de I Acati. royale des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, 6 (1729) 592 ff. ; Franz Woenig, Die Pflanzen imalten Aegypten, ihre Heimat, Gcschichte, Kultur, 1886, pp. 74+. [Cp EGYPT, 8 ; RUSH.]

7 See Hoskyns-Abrahall, Acad. 19th March 1887, 77 6 (Nestle i->. 40).

8 Palaeography, 16-17.

2. Biblical references.[edit]

Even if there were no allusions to the papyrus in the OT, the immense importance of recent papyrus finds for the study of biblical and Christian antiquity would fully account for the existence of an article on the subject in a biblical encyclopedia. The Hebrew writers, however, do occasionally refer to the papyrus plant (NDJ, Is. 18:2, RV, Ex. 2:3 RVmg; see RUSH), and as a writing material we find a reference to papyrus in 2 Jn. 12, where xaprTjj [chartes] (EV 'paper' ) clearly indicates a papyrus leaf. Again, in the well-known passage, 2 Tim. 4:13 (see PARCHMENT), we cannot doubt that by TO. j3if\ia [ta biblia] papyrus books are intended.

1 Kenyon, op. cit. 17 ff.

2 U. Wilcken, Recto oder verso, Hermes, 22 (1887) 487^.

3 Einfuhrungft), 41.

4 Kenyon, Pal(fogra.phy t 27, where also other examples will be found.

3. Recent papyrus finds : their importance.[edit]

Since 1778 when an unknown European dealer in antiquities bought from Egyptian peasants an original papyrus roll of 191-192 A. D. and at the same time witnessed how they set fire to some fifty others and revelled in the aromatic perfume thus produced, 1 the lower valley of the Nile has yielded a vast wealth of papyri written in all possible languages and separated in time by thousands of years. Already in the second and third decades of the nineteenth century not a few papyri from Memphis and Setopolis in Middle Egypt, and from This, Panopolis, Thebes, Hermonthis, Elephantine, and Syen& in Upper Egypt, had reached our European museums, though noticed by few, and read and studied by still fewer scholars. Then, to leave out of account various single finds in other years, came the great discoveries in the province of el-Faiyum (see EGYPT, 50) in 1877, when the heaps of ruins to the N. of Medinet-el-Faiyum (^ r&v KpoKodeLXuif TTO XIS [e ton Krokodeilon polis], afterwards called T] ruv Apffivo iruv 7r6/\is) [e ton harsinoiton polis] yielded hundreds and thousands of precious leaves and fragments of leaves. Since that date find has succeeded find with great rapidity. The most remarkable point to notice is that most of the papyri have been unearthed with the spade. From this we gain a most valuable hint as to the light in which these documents of antiquity are to be viewed. In the papyri which come to us from the Faiyum, from Oxyrhynchus (el-Behnesa), and elsewhere we are not to see the remains of great collections of archives, but only what has survived from ancient waste-paper-baskets and rubbish heaps to which had been consigned old minute-books and ledgers from public or private offices, second-hand and worn-out books which were destined after a long slumber in oblivion to possess in the far future an importance never dreamed of by their writers.

1 Wilcken, Die griechischen Papyrusurkunden, 10 ; cp also with what follows.

The great mass of the papyri is non-literary. Law-papers of the most various kinds leases and loans, bills and discharges, marriage-contracts and wills, certificates, magisterial orders, advertisements and notices of penalties, minutes of law proceedings, assess ments in large numbers ; besides letters and notes, school exercises, magical texts, horoscopes, day-books, and so forth. The contents of these non- literary writings are as manifold in their variety as life itself. Those in Greek, numbering many thousands, cover a period of about a thousand years. The oldest go back to the early Ptolemies and thus to the third century B.C. ; there are others that bring us down far into Byzantine times. The whole shifting scene of Greek and Roman history in Egypt during this long interval passes in these leaves before our eyes. Of the significance of these Greek documents alone - not to speak of the abundance of others in Coptic, Arabic, Latin, as well as other languages - for our knowledge of antiquity in the largest sense of that word there can be but one opinion. They mean a resuscitation for us of a large part of ancient life. They bear witness to the conditions of the past with an accuracy, a warmth, and a fidelity such as can be predicated of no ancient author and of only a very few of the ancient inscriptions. The tradition handed down to us by the writers of antiquity is always, even at its best, secondary ; it is always more or less artificial and sophisticated. The inscriptions are often cold and dead things like the marble on which they are carved. The papyrus leaf is alive ; one sees autographs, individual peculiarities of penmanship - in a word, men ; manifold glimpses are given into inmost nooks and crannies of personal life for which history has no eyes and historians have no glasses. These insignificant-looking scraps give a vitality that was previously wanting to the history of law in the first instance, but also to the history of human culture in general, and in a very marked degree to the study of historical philology. It may seem a paradox ; but it can safely be affirmed that the unliterary papyri are more im portant in these respects than the literary. The peculiar treasures of science which lie hidden in those new fields are not the fragments of ancient art and literature which they may perchance contain, but the fragments of living, palpitating actuality which we may hope to recover from them. It will be a matter of regret if, while every scrap of any ancient book is forthwith treated as a sacred relic and published in facsimile whatever its inherent merit, the non-literary remains are only partially made known. Any trivial lease, for example, may perhaps contain a form of expression which supplies the long sought missing link between a form of the Koivft [Koine] in its beginnings and another of a neo-Grecian dialect that has been developed therefrom.

1 Griechische Papyri in Centralblatt fur Bibliothekswesen, 14:1+

2 Palaeography, 131+.

3 The Louvre and the Bibliotheque Nationale of Paris also possess papyrus fragments of psalms, which have not yet been edited.

4 Will shortly be edited by the present writer.

5 Kenyon, Palaeography, 145, describes them as belonging to the museum of Gizeh.

6 The fragments Mt. 15:12-16, 18, Mk. 15:29-38, Jn. 1:29 spoken of by Kenyon, Paleography, 1:32, are not on papyrus but on parchment. The library of St. Mark s, Venice, possessed a Book of the Gospels on papyrus ; see Haberlin, no. 166.

4. Biblical and old-Christian papyri.[edit]

(a) In the prevalent tendency to over-value the literary element it is not surprising that theological research should have found its chief enrichment in the fragments of biblical and old-Christian books which have been recovered. It is certainly true that we have abundant cause to be thankful for every addition to our knowledge in what concerns texts and sources. The most important of the recent discoveries - at least so far as Greek is concerned - may be here briefly enumerated. Inexhaustive lists are given by C. Haberlin 1 and F. G. Kenyon. 2

A. Septuagint.

  • 1. Gen. 14:17, Brit. Mus. Pap. 212.
  • 2. Genesis-fragments in Archduke Rainer Collection, Vienna.
  • 3. Ps. 10:2-18:6 [11:2-19:6] and 20:14-34:6 [21:14-35:6] Brit. Mus. Pap. 37.
  • 4. Ps. 11:7-14:4 [12:7-15:4], Brit. Mus. Pap. 230.
  • 5. Ps. 39:16-40:4 [40:16-41:4], Berlin Museum.
  • 6. Fragments of Ps. 5, 108, 118, 135, 138-140 in the Amherst Papyri, nos. 5, 6.
  • 7. Fragments of psalms in Archduke Rainer Collection, Vienna. 3
  • 8. Job 1:21-22 and 2:3 in the Amherst Papyri, no. 4.
  • 9. Cant. 1:6-9, Oxford Bodleian MS. Gr. Bibl. g. i (P).
  • 10. Is. 38:3-5, 38:13-16, Archduke Rainer Collection, Inv. no. 8024 (Guide, no. 536).
  • 11. Ezek. 5:12-6:3 with the diacritical marks of Origen, Oxford Bodl. MS. Gr. Bibl. d. 4 (P).
  • 12. Zech. 4-14 and Mal. 1-4, twenty-seven leaves written on both sides formerly in the possession of Theodor Graf, and now in the Heidelberg University Library. 4

B. Septuagint and Aquila.

  • 13. Gen. 1:1-5, Amherst Papyri, no. y.

C. Judaica.

  • 14. Several fragments bearing on the history of Judaism in Egypt : in Berlin, Paris, London, Gizeh, and in the Oxyrhynchus Papyri; see TLZ 23 (1898) 602-603
  • 15. Fragments of Philo in the Bibliotheque 5 Nationale, Paris.

D. New Testament.^

  • 16. Mt. 1:1-9, 1:12 14-20, Oxyrhynchus Papyri, no. 2.
  • 17. Fragments of Mt. in the Bibliotheque Nationale at the end of the Philo Papyrus.
  • 18. Fragments of Mt. in the Archduke Rainer Collection, Vienna.
  • 19. Lk. 5:30-6:4 in the Bibliotheque Nationale at the end of the Philo Papyrus.
  • 20. Lk. 7:36-43 and 10:38-42, in Archduke Rainer Collection, Vienna, Inv. no. 8021 (Guide, no. 539).
  • 21. Jn. 1:23-31 and 1:33-41, and 20:11-17 and 20:19-25, Oxyrhynchus Papyri, no. 208.
  • 22. Fragments of the Gospels in Archduke Rainer Collection ; see Haberlin, no. 168a and b.
  • 23. Rom. 1:1-7, Oxyrhynchus Papyri, no. 209.
  • 24. 1 Cor. 1:17-20, 6:13-18, 7:3-4, 7:10-14, in the library of Bishop Portiri Uspensky at Kieff.
  • 25. 1 Cor. 1:25-27, 2:6-8, 3:8-10 and 3:20, Sinai.
  • 26. Heb. 1:1, Amherst Papyri, 36.1
  • 27. An amulet containing passages from Ps. 90 [91], LXX, Rom. 12 and Jn. 2, in Archduke Rainer Collection, Inv. no. 8033 (Guide, no. 528).

E. Other Old-Christian Literary Texts.

  • 28. Fragments of an extra-canonical Gospel (?), in the Archduke Rainer Collection : portions of the narrative of Peter's

denial. A full discussion of this fragment with careful reference to the voluminous literature that has appeared regarding it will shortly be published by Dr. H. Miiller of Paderborn.

  • 29. The so-called Logia - Fragment, Oxyrhynchus Papyrus no. i, published also separately as Aoyia Ii)<roi> [Logia Iesou] : Sayings of Our Lord from an early Greek Papyrus discovered and edited, with Translation and Commentary, by Bernard P. Grenfell and Arthur S. Hunt, Lond., 1897. This fragment also has been the subject of a voluminous literature of which it is impossible to give an account here ; an exposition of the questions which have been raised by this important discovery would far exceed the limits of our space. This, however, may be remarked : the crucial question is not as to the origin of the leaf (whether from the Egyptian or some other extra-canonical gospel or from some other writing) but simply as to the genuineness of the words of Jesus which it records a question to be answered only on internal grounds. The present writer takes a more favourable view of them in this regard than is done by most of his fellow-workers.
  • 30. Fragments of a Hebrew-Greek Onomasticon sacrum in the Heidelberg University Library. 2
  • 31. The Shepherd of Hernias, Sim. 27-10 u. 42-5, Berlin Museum.
  • 32. Fragment of a book (by Melito of Sardes ?) upon Prophecy with a citation from the Shepherd of Hermas, Mand, 11:9-10.p Oxyrhynchus Papyrus, no. 5.
  • 33. Fragment of a Gnostic (Valentinian ?) writing, Oxyrhynchus Papyrus, no. 4 verso.
  • 34. Fragments of Basil of Ceesarea epp. 5, 6, 293, 150, 2, Berlin Museum.
  • 35. Fragments of Gregory of Nyssa fleoipi a ecj -rov rov M<ov- cre ws piov, Berlin Museum.
  • 36. Vitae Sanctorum, Paris Musees Nationaux, no. 7403, 7404, 7405, 7408, and Fond du Faioum, no. 261.
  • 37. Theological Fragments in Brit. Mus. Pap. no. 455.
  • 38. Ibid. no. 113 ; neither this nor the preceding has as yet been fully determined.
  • 39. Fragments of Cyril of Alexandria, de adoratione in spiritu et veritate, Dublin.
  • 40. Cyril-fragments in the Archduke Rainer Collection.
  • 41. Letter of a Patriarch of Alexandria to the churches of Egypt, with citations from the commentary of Cyril on the Gospel according to John, Brit. Mus. Pap. no 729.

To this list have to be added several liturgical and homiletical fragments.

For theology great importance attaches also to the fragments, in Coptic, of biblical, gnostic, and other old Christian writings - such as the Acta Pauli in the Heidelberg University Library now being published by Carl Schmidt.

(b} The non-literary papyri also supply matter which is of direct importance for the study of Christian antiquity. This remark applies, to take one example, to those documents - ranging from the period of the Ptolemies down to the late Caesars - which name Jewish inhabitants of the most various places in Egypt and thus contribute to our statistical knowledge of that cosmopolitan Judaism which so powerfully affected the spread of Christianity. Or again, those papyri which enable us to settle the chronology of the prefect Munatius Felix and thus to fix the date of an important work of Justin Martyr's ( ATroXo^i a vtrep \pi<mavuv ['apologia hyper christianoon]) ; once more, the famous Libelli of certain libellatici which have reached us from the days of the Decian persecution are highly important documents from a great period rich in martyrs. Then, too, we have many private letters of otherwise unknown Christians which have long been published, but have never as yet received the attention they are well entitled to claim. Even the legal documents belonging to the Christian period contain in their formulas, and occasionally also in details of their varied contents, many fresh contributions towards the history of Christianity.

1 The Louvre, Paris, possesses an as yet unedited fragment of the Epistle of Jude.

2 About to be edited by the present writer.

3 So A. Harnack(.S\5^, 1898, 516-520). In Kenyon, Paleography, 137, the fragment is given as a portion of the Pastor Hermie itself.

5. Subsidiary utility.[edit]

In speaking in some detail of the importance these non-literary papyri have for the biblical student, their value for Greek philology in general and especially for the study of the Greek OT and NT is what requires mention first.

Until the papyri were discovered there were practically no other contemporary documents to illustrate that phase and form of the Greek language which comes before us in the LXX and NT. In those writings, broadly, what we have, both as regards vocabulary and mor phology, and not seldom as regards syntax as well, is the Greek of ordinary intercourse as spoken in the countries bordering on the Mediterranean, not the artificial Greek of the rhetoricians and litterateurs, strictly bound as it was by technical rules. This language of ordinary life, this cosmopolitan Greek, shows unmistakable traces of a process of development that was still going on, and in many characteristic respects differs from the older dialects, as from the classical Attic. It is true that a few extra-biblical specimens of this later Greek were not wholly wanting ; there were for example inscriptions dating from the period of the Diadochi and Roman emperors, the vocabulary of which often shows surpris ing affinities with that of the OT and the NT. Hardly any attention was given to these, however, with the result that a widespread opinion arose - it may be said to be the prevailing opinion even now - that the Bible or at least the NT is written in a special kind of Greek - called 'biblical' or 'New Testament' Greek. Prof. F. Blass, as recently as 1894, 1 laid it down that NT Greek 'is to be regarded as something by itself and following laws of its own'. This thesis is a factor of great potency in exegesis, especially in that of the NT, and at the same time a refuge and shelter for everything that is arbitrary and devoid of method. It will not, however, be able to hold its ground long in presence of the papyri. It is one of the pre-eminently valuable results of the recent finds - with which we may also group the ostraka 2 and inscriptions, that they correlate the Greek OT and NT with other contemporary texts, and compel what used to be called Philologia Sacra to become in the best sense of the word secular.

A few special points may be particularised.

(a) The papyri render possible a full realisation of the fact that the LXX is an Egyptian book. The fact itself of course is not new ; but it is by the unearthing of these hundreds of leaves which we now possess, written under the same sky, in the same air and at the same time with the venerable Bible of the Jewish Dispersion and of the most ancient Christianity, that we are able in imagination to restore the book once more to its original home. Every translation involves alteration. Luther's Bible is a German Bible not merely because it is a rendering in German but also because it could not pass through the mediating mind and genius of its great translator without receiving some impress of his personality. So in like manner the LXX was not merely a rendering into Greek, it is also an Egyptianising of the OT.

If in the MT of Gen. 50:2-3 we read of 'physicians' who embalmed the body of Jacob and the translator has called them 'embalmers' we see in this an added detail due to the influence of their surroundings ; eira^cao-T>js [entaphiastes] was, as a papyrus dating from 99 B.C. informs us, the technical name for the functionary whose business it was to embalm. 3 Or when D O p BN in Joel 1:20, and DV3 373 in Lam. 3:47 are rendered ai^e creis vSa.T<av we have agam an Egyptianising trait : a papyrus of 258 B.C. shows us that a<eo-is TOV iiSaros [aphisis ton hydatos] was the technical expression for the freeing of water by opening the Nile sluices ; the translators lead the Egyptian reader who knows no water-courses to think of canals.*

1 Theol Lit.-Ztg. 19 [1894] 338.

2. U Wilcken, Griechische Ostraka nits Aegypten u Nubien vols., 1890. Cp Theol. Lit.-Ztg. 26 (igot) 65^

3 Deissmann, BiMstudien, 117 (ET Bible Studies, 120 f.)

  • Ib., of. cit. wff. (&ff.).

(b) The papyri render possible a more accurate investigation of the orthographical problems which come before the editor of the canonical texts.

For copious illustrations on this point, see Deissmann, Neue Bibelstudien, <)ff.( = Bible Studies, i8i^C)and Moulton (Grammatical Notes from the Papyri, 31 Jf.; Notes from the Papyri, 281).

(c) The same remark applies to the morphological problems ( Deissm. Neue Bibelstudien, 14+, ET i86_^; Moulton, Gramm. Notes,^ff.\ Notes, 281 /).

(d) The syntax also of the biblical texts is brought into a clearer light (Deissm. op. cit. 22-23. 194+ and Moulton, op. cit. 282).

For instance, we know! from the NT of the manner of expressing a distributive by a repetition of the cardinal number : Kai.7Jpfo.TO atiTous an-oo-TeAAeii- Svo Svo (Mk. 6:7). This usage, which we find Blass 2 still declaring to be Semitic, can be traced hack to pre-Christian times : we find Svo Svo [duo duo] already in the LXX (Gen. 7:15 and often 3 ). The same usage survives in new Greek. But Karl Dieterich 4 in adducing an instance from the long interval between NT times and the period of the rise of the New Greek from the Apophth. Patr. (500 A.D.) desiderates some instance from inscriptions or papyri. An Oxyrhynchus Papyrus (no. 121) now supplies the missing link: a certa Isidorus writes to a certain Aurelius that he is to tie the twi into bundles of three apiece (e tW Sr/a~r] rpi a rpia).

(e) Most notably of all is the Lexicon of the LXX and NT enriched by the new discoveries. In this region the unhistorical conception of 'biblical' or 'New Testament' Greek characterised above is still very widely prevalent. One of the main supports of such a conception has been the existence of so many 'biblical' or 'New Testament' Hira.% elprmtva [hapax eiremena]. These words, so it is asserted, make it abundantly clear that the language of every-day life was inadequate for the needs of the apostolic preaching ; Christianity had to coin new words. Now, it is of course self-evident, from the point of view of scientific philology, that Christianity, like any other new movement affecting civilisation, must have produced an effect upon language by the formation of new ideas and the modification of old ones. But we are not on that account forthwith justified in isolating a biblical or Christian 'Graecitas'. Many of the so-called biblical tt.ira.% dprjfdva [hapax eiremena] are, as might have been conjectured before, merely #7ra evprj/uLfva [hapax euremena]. which remained so only until an inscription, a papyrus, or a passage formerly overlooked happened to show the anxiously treasured word-jewel to have been the property of 'profane' Greek as well.

The following words still stand in the Lexica as special biblical words, but as recent study informs us, are not so in point of fact : dyaTTj) [agape], aKardycajo-Tos [akatagnoostos], aiTiArj/uirrajp [antilemptoor], eAatiof [helaioon], fvavri. [enanti], ivd>niov [enupion], evdpe<7TOS [enurestos], eutAaros [enilatos], iepareuaj [ierateuoo], /caSapuJw [katharizoo], xvpiaKo; [kyriakos], Aeirovpyticds [leitourgikos], Aoyei a [logeia], i/eoc^vros [neophytos], o<f>a\ij [hopheile], 7rept6e ftoi [peridexion], aTrbn-epuac [apoperusi], Trpoo-euYiJ [proseuche], Truppdicr)? [pyrrakes], oiTo^erptoi [sitometrion] , c^iAoTrptoTev w [philoprooteiuoo], <pean-dr>js [phrenapates]. 5 This list could even now be enlarged.

It is further to be observed that a large number of words to which it has been customary 6 to give specifically biblical or Christian special meaning can now be shown to bear the same meaning also in contemporary extra-biblical sources. In particular, the category of lexical Hebraisms must, in the light of the knowledge now available, be subjected to a careful revision. 7

(f) There is yet another aspect of the value of the papyri for the student of the OT and NT and of early Christianity on which a word or two ought to be said : their value, namely, as illustrating the character of a considerable part of the field in which the first missionaries in the discharge of their world-mission first sowed their seed. The men of the period of the 'fulness of the time' Gal. 4:4) are made to live again before our eyes in these priceless leaves ; with their toil and their cares, their farness from God and their yearning after him ; - especially the men of the middle and lower class, to whom the gospel was chiefly addressed and amongst whom it won its chief triumphs. If the Bible student has more than a merely philological interest in what he studies, and has an eye capable of discerning more than the merely superficial aspects of things, he will find him self a large gainer by the study of the papyri in all that relates to the history of Christian religion and civilisation. The value of such gain does not need to be insisted on here.

1 Cp Theol. Lit.-Ztg. 23 (1898) 6 3 oyC

& Gramm. des NTlichen Griechisch, 141.

3 Winer-Liinemann, Gramm. des NTlichen S prachidionu, 234, refers to Aesch. Pers. 981 : /oivpi a /uvpi a = Kara /ixvpidSat.

4 Untersuch. sur Gesch. der Griechischen Sprache = Byzantinisches Archiv, 1 188 (Leipsic, 1898).

5 The proofs will be found for the most part in Deissmann, Bibelstiidien and Neue Bibelstudien.

6 See, for example, Hermann Cremer.

7 See art. Hellenistisches Griechisch in PRE W 7627-639, especially 637_/I

6. Literature.[edit]

An excellent introduction to the study of the papyri will be found in the little work of Ulrich Wilcken (Die grieckischen Papyrusurkunden, 1897). For the palaeography see F. G. Kenyon, Pal., 1899. For the history of papyrus as writing-material see K. Dziatzko, Untersuchungen iiber ausgeivahlte Kapitel des antiken Buckivesens, 1900 : Th. Birt, Zur Gesch. d. antiken Kuchw. in Centralblatt fur das Bibliothekswesen, 17 (1900) 545-565 ; R. Wiinsch, Berliner philol. H ochenschriff, 21 (1901)684-592. The most careful account of the Papyri publi cations and of the literature connected with them is that of Paul Viereck ( Bericht iiber die altere Papyruslitteratur in Jahres- ber. ii. d. p ortschritte tier classischen Alterthumsivissenschaft, vol. 98 (1898), 8135-186, and Die Papyruslitteratur von den 7oer Jahren bis 1898 in the same work, vol. 102 (1899), 3:244-311). Everything further that may be required will be found in the Archiv. f. Papyrusforschung u. verwaldie Gebeite, edited by Ulrich Wilcken (1900+). In their biblical aspects the Papyri are discussed by G. Adolf Deissmann (Bibelstudien, 1895, Neue Bibelstudieti, 1897 ; both done into English by A. Grieve in Bible Studies : contributions chiefly from Papyri and Inscriptions to the history of the Language, the Literature, and the Religion of Hellenistic Judaism and Primitive Chris tianity, 1901). Further similar studies were given by J. H. Moulton in Grammatical Notes from the Papyri in The Classical Review, 15 (1901), 31-38 and in Notes from the Papyri in The Expositor, April, 1901, 271-282. Cp also G. A. De\Bf,mnnn,Diesf rachliche ErforschungdergriechischenBibel, ihr gegenwdrtiger Stand und Hire A ufgaben, 1898.

G. A. D.


1 Meaning of Word.[edit]

[The wide use of 'parable' implied in the EV of Nu. 23:7 (i^SO XB"1, 'and he took up his parable' ) is unfortunate. ^O (masal) is an elastic word, and will not hear a single rendering. It was a pointed, versing speech that Balaam pronounced, with the authority of a soothsayer, not a 'parable'. What is a 'parable'? It is easier to define than masal, and yet a single definition will hardly cover all phenomena. Konig, in his instructive work, Stylistik, Rhetorik, Poetik in Bezug auf die Biblische Litteratw (1900), defines it as a narrative whose subject is personal but unnamed, and which is feigned in order to present something [didactically important] with special vividness (89). In this sense five sections of the OT are, according to him parables, viz. 2 S. 12:1-4, 14:6-7, 1 K. 20:39-40, Is. 5:1-6, 282:4-28 (but the last is no narrative). Ezekiel's parables are expressly called D Wp (tnesallm) ; see Ezek. 20:49, 24:3a, and though in the latter passage the Tg. renders by i"W3p, 'a prophecy', there can be no doubt that 24:3b-5 is virtually a narrative ; the commands are given to an unnamed person, who is of course supposed to carry them out. Parabolic actions do in fact come as close as possible to narratives ; 24:3b-5 may fitly be grouped with 3:24b-26, and 4:1+: (see EZEKIEL, BOOK OF, 9). It is worth noticing that the Syriac mathla, which exactly corresponds to masal, is used for jrap<^oAij [parabale] in Mt. 13:18, 13:31, 13:33, etc., 21:45, Mk. 4:2, etc., Lk. 5:36, 6:39, 14:7 etc., and the use of 9tJ O in this sense is frequent in the Talmud. It is not, however, of the OT parables, nor yet of those of the Talmud, that the reader will be thinking when he turns to the present article, but of those of the NT, with which, if opportunity permitted, it would be helpful to compare the highly original parables (e.g., those of the sower and the mustard-seed) of the Buddhist literature.]

2. Types.[edit]

The word parable occurs twice in the NT ( Heb. 9:9 and 11:19) in a sense almost synonymous with type, or antitype, or figure - the lesser thing or event whereby some greater future thing or event is foreshadowed. Abraham by faith receives back in a 'parable' his son Isaac whom he has offered in sacrifice, that is to say, he receives him as a prophecy of the risen Christ ; and the tabernacle was but a 'parable' of the time that is now, a type of the era of salvation. In both passages TrapafioMi [parabole] is used as a terminus technicus of that artificial exegesis which by application of an allegorising method discovered a new and deeper meaning in the persons and events of the OT : comp. Gal. 4:21+, where Hagar and Sarah, without any implied denial of their historical existence as wives of Abraham, are understood as signifying respectively the covenant of Sinai, of which the essence is bondage, and the new covenant with its heavenly freedom.

3. Parables of the Synoptists.[edit]

The remaining passages of the NT where the word parable occurs are all in the Synoptic Gospels : Mk. 4, Mt. 13, Lk. 8 make it clear that these evangelists regarded the parable as a form of teaching largely used by Jesus. Twenty utterances - three common to all and two common to two - are expressly called parables by the Synoptists ; but the omission of the designation in connection with other similar utterances is only accidental : some interpreters have chosen to find as many as 100 parables in the gospels, and even a cautious enumeration brings the number up to about 60. Alike in compass and in character they vary greatly; from the short saying, such as (Lk. 4:23) 'Physician heal thyself', up to the story of the Prodigal Son, contained in twenty-two verses of Lk. 15, all sorts are represented.

4. Evangelists' conception.[edit]

The element they possess in common, according to the evangelists, is their figurative, metaphorical character, -the fact that they signify something different, something deeper, than the words at first sight convey, - that, accordingly, like the allegory taken up in Gal. 4:21+, they need an explanation, a key. An example of such explanation is offered in Mk. 4:14+, Mt. 13:18+, Lk. 8:11+, in connection with the parable of the sower, according to which the seed is the word of God, those by the wayside are the hearers out of whose hearts Satan snatches away that which has been sown as soon as it has been heard, and so forth. Still more striking is the interpretation of the parable of the tares which is given at the disciples' request, Mt. 13:37-38: the sower is the son of man, the field is the world, the good seed are the children of the kingdom, etc. ; trait after trait in the parable is referred back to its true meaning which lies concealed behind the words when taken literally. Exactly the same thing is intended in Jn. 16:25, 16:29 where Jesus is represented as speaking to his disciples in similitudes (tv Trapoiftiau [en paroimiais]), and as indicating that frank utterance is reserved for a coming time ; the similitude (wapoi/j-ia [paroimia]) of Jn. 10:6 (of the door and the shepherd), as also the figure of the vine and the branches (15:1+), are regarded by the fourth evangelist as identical in nature with the parables of the synoptists. It is worth noticing, however, that, according to him, Jesus employed this form of figurative speech in speaking to his disciples; whilst, according to Mk. 4, Mt. 13, Lk. 8, it was exclusively reserved for the unresponsive masses - 'without a parable spake he not unto them' - but when they were alone he explained all to his disciples (Mk. 4:34) ; the parable is of the nature of a riddle spoken so that it may not be too easily understood, it is intended to hinder conversion - in fact, to harden (Mk. 4:11-12).

Mt. after his fashion finds this purpose already indicated prophetically in Is. 6:91; and, of parabolic speech generally, in Ps. 18:2 ; but he cannot express its hardening tendency more bluntly than it had already been expressed in Mk.

5. Their purpose.=[edit]

It is plain, however, that we have to do here with an artificial construction [cp GOSPELS, 128g]. In fact there survive in Mk. 4:33 traces of another view, however Mk. himself may have understood the words : with many such words spake he the word to them as they were able to hear it, that is to say, by means of the parable he condescends to make it easier for them to understand the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven. Indeed, the evangelists are betrayed into self-contradiction, for they by no means represent Jesus as speaking to the masses of the people only in parables ; see, among other instances, Mt. 5-7:23; further, according to Mt. 21:45, for example, the high priests and Pharisees, who surely deserved no better treatment than the common people, are represented as having 'understood' the parables that were addressed to them ; and, lastly, Jesus often enough avails himself of the parable within the circle of his disciples, as, for example, even in Mt. 13:44+, 13:47+ ; and no more, in those cases, than in Mk. 21:9-22 where he seeks to justify his disciples for their omission of the observance of fasting, can it have been his purpose to conceal his meaning. Moreover it is inconceivable that Jesus who, in the parable of the sower, whilst recognising the existence of very different kinds of hearers, sees among them none who ought to be unable to understand at all, should have desired thus rigidly to exclude the masses from salvation - the masses who flocked to him so eagerly for the word, who, moreover, according to Mt. 21:46 held him for a prophet (so ardently, that the Pharisees out of fear of them were compelled to hesitate in their plans for his death), and (Mt. 22:33) were 'astonished at his doctrine' - it is inconceivable that he should have so desired when, as we read in Mk. 6:34, moved by compassion for the sheep having no shepherd, he began to teach them many things.

6. Nature of the parables.[edit]

If, however, the evangelist's conception of the end for which the parables of Jesus were used must be given up as unhistorical, so also, along with it we must abandon their views of the nature of these parables.

If Jesus did not make use of parables with the sole purpose of veiling his meaning, but rather precisely in order to make it clear, elucidating new truth by means of the familiar and commonly known, then the parable does not belong to the same region of things as the allegory, where an interpretation is requisite, but comes under the same category as the similitude and the fable ; it is, as the etymological meaning of the word implies, that form of speech in which two statements or series of statements, resembling one another yet drawn from distinct spheres of observation, are laid alongside of one another.

The parable, in fact, is an amplified comparison. When Jesus (Mt. 10:16) said, 'be ye wise as serpents', or (17:20) spoke of having 'faith as a grain of mustard seed', it was not to set his hearers a-searching for some deeper occult meaning of the words 'serpent' or 'mustard seed', but only to bring these familiar images vividly before their minds so that, thus helped, their imagination might be better able to realise the amount of wisdom and the degree of faith he meant to suggest. If in Mk. 19:24, in order to give a vivid impression of the difficulty the rich man has to overcome in entering the kingdom of God, Jesus hyperbolically compares it with the difficulty of a camel (see CAMEL, 5) in passing through the eye of a needle, it is precisely in the same manner and with the same effect that in Mk. 13:28+ he uses the parable of the fig tree ; the certainty with which the observer is able to conclude from the appearance of the young and tender shoots of the fig tree that summer is coming, is paralleled by the certainty with which we may be sure that the signs of the coming parousia will be followed immediately by the parousia itself. It is not meant that the parousia is like summer, or that the tender shoots of the fig tree have any resemblance to the troubles of the last days ; the point is that the symptoms of the coming irresistibly lead to the coming itself ; the law with which every one is familiar in its relation to summer ought to be applied also with reference to the parousia. A 'similitude' - and half the gospel parables are simply similitudes - is simply consideration of one thing or one aspect, extended by way of comparison to the relation of two things or aspects. It is not necessary that the two halves of a comparison, both of which require to be understood, should each of them admit of being in every case elaborated with scrupulous minuteness.

In Mk. 2:17 it is true that the proposition enforced - namely, that Jesus came into the world not for the righteous but for sinners falls into exact parallelism with the corresponding proposition that the physician exists not for those who are well, but for those who are ill. But for Mk. 2:19 one must first go to v. 18 for the parallel to the thesis about the children of the bride-chamber not fasting as long as the bridegroom is with them ; in the two parables of the old cloth on the new garment and of the new wine also (vv. 21-22), it is left to the reader himself to exercise his own intelligence in 'finding out' why the folly of patching a new garment with an old rag is brought thus vividly before him.

Sometimes there is simply a general indication of a sphere of things wherein the course of events is similar and where similar laws prevail, as, for example, the familiar sphere of husbandry (Mk. 4:26-27 : the kingdom of God is as if a man, etc.; Mk. 4:30-31 : whereto shall we liken it? It is like a grain, etc. ) where the formulas that are used indicate clearly enough the simple point of comparison that lies at the root of the parable.

7. Narrative parables.[edit]

Again, a large number of the parables of Jesus are in narrative form - e.g. , Mk. 4:3 (the sower), Mk. 12:1+ (the wicked husbandmen), and especially some of those which are peculiar to Lk. (15-19). These last, indeed, admit of being classed by themselves as a separate group ; they are exactly what in profane literature are usually called fables. The desire for visual presenta tion here goes one step farther than in the ordinary similitude ; the law which is represented in the latter as being, within its own field, of general validity, is in the other case individualised, in the living form of a story that makes a deeper impression ; it is set forth in a concrete instance which helps it to carry conviction to the mind in the higher sphere of religious truth.

Here the parable does not speak of old wine or new bottles in general, but of a certain father who had two sons, and who passed through certain experiences which are described, of a certain nobleman who went into a far country and handed over his monies to be managed for him by his servants in his absence, and so forth. Here again the nobleman, his talents, his servants, and the rest, do not mean anything different from what the words ordinarily convey, but the same judgment as we are led to form on hearing the story we are called on to extend to similar conditions of things in the religious sphere ; from the lower we must learn to ascend to the higher truth.

8. Illustrative instances.[edit]

A special variety of this second form of parable is represented in four examples in Lk. : the Good Samaritan (10:30+), the Foolish Rich Man (12:16+), the Rich Man and Lazarus (16:19+), the Pharisee and the Publican (18:9). Like the others they are narratives ; but here the narrative moves from the beginning on the higher religious and ethical plane, the laws of which are to be set forth ; the story is itself an instance of the proposition to be demonstrated. Here there is neither comparison nor allegory, there is no 'laying alongside' of two things that they may be compared ; if we are precluded from using the word 'parable' we must call them illustrative instances which establish an abstract religious or ethical truth by the evidence of a concrete case. But any one finding parabolic stories in which the comparison with the higher reality was entirely left to the imagination of the readers placed in close juxtaposition with illustrative instances which in outward form are not distinguishable from them (cp Lk. 15:11-32 and Lk. 18:9+) might very easily regard the two sorts as identical.

9. Mistaken exegesis.[edit]

The frequent omission of the second half of the parable - the half in which the precise 'mystery of the kingdom of heaven' which it sets forth is explicitly defined - also explains why it was that the character and object of the parables of Jesus was so early misunderstood. Men found it impossible to imagine that the Saviour of the world should have indulged in long narratives drawn from the events of everyday life, and even narratives of the triumph of unrighteousness if only it is associated with cleverness (Lk. 16:1+), almost (it would appear) for mere purposes of entertainment, or that he should have seriously directed the thoughts of men to such trifling matters. With him, it was thought, every word ought to speak of the kingdom of heaven, and of the way to everlasting life. In this way a second meaning came to be attached to his parabolic utterances ; they were allegorised so that they no longer .(in spite of the words) spoke of husbandry or fishing, but of God and his word ; that which in the intention of the speaker was to be suggested by them and thought of in connection with them, was actually introduced into them. Having thus been turned into dark and mysterious utterances, they now had assigned to them quite a different purpose from that which they had fulfilled when they were used as aids to clear understanding and to conviction : the purpose, namely, of concealing the truth from the uninitiated.

By this misapprehension endless difficulties for the understanding of the parables were created ; the history of the exegesis of the gospels from the earliest antiquity downwards to the present day hardly anywhere shows so great confusion, and so immense a variety of interpretations, as it does in the case of the parables.

Whilst some interpreters, following the example of interpreta tion (which is due to the evangelist only) given in Mt. 13:37+, exercised all their ingenuity in discovering in a rigorously consistent manner the deeper meaning of even the smallest detail - as, for example, in Lk. 15:22, to find the spiritual significance of the robe, the ring, and the shoe - the exegetic tact of others perceives the futility of such an undertaking and contents itself with giving the meaning of the essential features ; but in doing so the parable is made a bizarre and inartistic mixture of literal and figurative speech. 1

10. Genuineness.[edit]

Here again, as in so many other points, it is possible for us to reject the synoptists view of the matter and yet retain our confidence in the trustworthiness of their tradition. That they have handed down to us fully and without alteration the parables as spoken by Jesus is indeed a proposition that no one will venture to maintain. That there must have been at least some alteration is conclusively shown by the variations observed in the parallel traditions preserved by different evangelists: for example, in Lk. 15:4+ as compared with Mt. 18:12+, or in Lk. 19:12+ as compared with Mt. 25:14+. The very fact, however, that the parables, as given by the evangelists, have retained so much that is absolutely incompatible with their theory about them, proves conclusively how conservative has been the evangelists treatment of the materials lying to their hand ; the same thing is evidenced by the admirable clearness, the lively and vivid naturalness, which distinguish the gospel parables as soon as they are correctly apprehended, and cleared of some accretions due to those through whom they have been handed down. Most of them unmistakably declare themselves to be creations of a unique originality, and what makes them of very special importance for us is that almost throughout they bear unmistakable evidence of genuine ness, and thus tell us with no uncertain voice that which lay nearest to the very heart of Jesus.

11. Literature.[edit]

Among older exegetes the palm for textual elucidation is carried off by Chrysostom, Calvin, and the Jesuit Maldonatus. Of recent monographs the following may be mentioned. (German) : F. L. Steinmeyer, Die Parabeln des Herrn, 1884 (strongly allegorising, but original) ; F. Gobel, Die P. Jesu methodised ausgelegt, 1879-80 (steers an intermediate course) ; A. Julicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, i.(2i [generally] 1890; ii. [expository], 1899. (Dutch) : C. E. Van Koetsveld, De Gelijkenissen van den Zaligmaker, 1869, 2 vols. fol. (an exposition distinguished by learning and fineness of conception, but unfortunately without criticism of the evangelical tradition). (English): E. Greswell, An Exposition of the Parables of our Lord, 5 vols, 1834^ (vast accumulation of materials) ; R. C. Trench, Notes on the Parables of our Lord^), 1841 ; ( 14 I, 1880 (very able, but does not keep within the limits itself lays down) ; A. B. Bruce, 77?* Parabolic Teaching of Christ, 1882 (sounder in exegesis than Trench, yet hardly clear enough in principle). A. T.

1 B. Weiss, in his commentaries on Mk. and Mt. (1872, 1876) was the first to break with this method in principle ; but unfortunately he failed to see clearly enough the impossibility of holding to the theory of a hardening tendency as applied to a form of speech which was expressly designed to make the subject-matter plainer.


The word TTAP&K\HTOC is met with, in the NT, only in the Johannine writings (Jn. 14:16, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7, 1 Jn. 2:1).

In Job 16:2 Aq. and Theod. use it to render Cri3C, while LXX has napa.K\riT<ap [parakletoor] (see below 3) ; and in Zach. 1:13 LXX renders cin: by irapa/cArjTKtos [parakletikos].

1. The term.[edit]

From its form/cp (cArjTos, exAeicTos) the word can only have a passive meaning^ 'called in', 'summoned to help'. The Itala translates advocatus, and in classical Greek - it does not occur in the LXX - it usually signifies one who defends before the judgment seat, the counsel for the defence ; it has even found its way into the Targum and into Talmudic Hebrew. One of the examples of its use in the Targum is specially interesting, because it suggests a point of contact between the NT expression and a late portion of the OT. In the speech of Elihu (a late insertion in a late book - see JOB [BOOK] 12), we find that in order to produce repentance, and so to 'redeem a man from going down to the pit', a special angelic agency is required - that of a 'mediator' or 'interpreter' ! (Job 33:23-24). For this interpreter the Targum has - = ap"K A )To [parakletos]). The opposite agent in the Talmud is 71]'OP (= KaTnywp, KaTnyopos [kategoor, kategoros])

2. Usage.[edit]

In 1 Jn. 2:1 the rendering 'advocate' for Tra/sd/cX^ros [parakletos] is demanded by the context : 'if any man sin' (and so has exposed himself to the condemnation of the divine Judge), 'we have an advocate with the Father, one to speak for us, even Jesus Christ the righteous ; and he is a propitiation for our sins' - a mode of representation that would very naturally present itself as soon as the idea of the atoning death of Jesus, along with that of his return to the right hand of the Father, had begun to bear its fruit in the consciousness of believers.

In the Fourth Gospel, however, it is not Christ who is designated as the Paraclete ; on the contrary, Christ distinguishes the Paraclete in the clearest possible way from himself as well as from the Father ; the word there is a name (of which no further explanation is given) for the Spirit of Truth, or the Holy Spirit, which the exalted Redeemer is to send to his disciples 'from the Father' - i. e. , from the place where the Father is ( 'who cometh forth from the Father', 15:26 16:7), or, otherwise, whom the Father is to bestow on the disciples, at his intercession and in his name, as an enduring possession. This Spirit the world will be unable either to see or to know ; unlike the Son he will descend unseen, and his remaining with the disciples is more precisely spoken of as an indwelling in their hearts (14:17). His work - as spirit of truth, it could not be otherwise - is to testify of Christ (16:26), to bring to the remembrance of the disciples all the words of Christ, and to instruct them in all things ; in other words, to carry on Christ s work uninterruptedly during the period that intervenes between his lifting up and their final reunion with him ; indeed, to bring that work to perfection on a higher level - according to 16:13 to lead the disciples into all truth - inasmuch as Jesus, while with them, out of consideration for their weakness had been compelled to leave much unsaid (16:12). The counterpart of his exalted work in the disciples is that which he exercises towards the world, where he has the function of an eX^xxwy [elegchon] (AV 'reprove', RV 'convict' ) which he executes in three decisive points - sin, righteousness, judgment. A further indication of the magnificence of the part assigned to the Paraclete in the Fourth Gospel is given in 7:38-39 although the use of the name is there avoided.

1 See Delitzsch, Hiob ^-1, 441 ; Cheyne, Job and Solomon, 44./C [See JOB (BOOK). Whatever the original reading may have been, the author of the present reading thought of an angelic Paraclete.]

3. Interpretation.[edit]

Why now does this Holy Spirit, through whom, though dependent on the Son as well as on the Father, the work of God in believers is to be brought to its completion, receive the name of Paraclete? The evangelist cannot merely have taken over the name from some source or other without further consideration as to its meaning; in 14:16, the place where it first occurs, he speaks of him as another Paraclete ; this does not necessarily imply that he wished to keep the title of irapd.K\7)Ts [parakletos] for Christ also, but he must have meant at least that this other Paraclete was now to begin discharging in a fuller measure the functions of a ira.pa.K\T)Tos [parakletos] towards the disciples, whose fear is that thej are about to be left orphans. In this there is not any idea of a vicarious presence of Jesus, any more than there is of his being God's representative with men : God never needs any advocate or spokesman. Older and better grounded is the interpretation of TrapdK\-r)Tos [parakletos] as meaning Comforter, or more generally, Exhorter, 'one whose office is ira.pa.K\ria<.s [parakletos]'. In the farewell discourses of the Master the reference to a Comforter as about to be sent would be indeed appropriate, and from Origen onwards many Greek exegetes have advocated this interpretation. Since Aquila and Theodotion actually substitute for the TrapaKXijropes [parakletores] of Job 16:2 wapdK\r)Toi [parakletoi] , it seems to be made out that in late Greek usage the lexical impossibility involved - that of taking wapdK\7]Tos [parakletos] actively, just as if it were irapa.Ka\(*>v [parakletoon] - had actually become possible. We have no reason, how ever, for expecting to find in Jn. any other meaning of the word TrapaKXrjros [parakletos] than that which it has elsewhere. It is indeed true that in no place does he point at the work of the Spirit as being to defend believers in the judgment, 1 in the manner in which we find this attri buted to the son in i Jn. 2i ; but just as the Latin Advocatus often occurs in a more generalised sense as equivalent to 'helper' or 'protector', we find similar instances also in the case of wapd/cA^ros [parakletos] ; in Philo, who frequently makes use of the word, it is sometimes to be taken in the broader and sometimes in the narrower sense (see Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek, 1889, p. 82 f. ) ; in De mundi opif. 6, the only feasible meaning is even something like 'instructor', 'adviser'. Just so is the word employed in the gospel ; in place of the Son about to return to the Father, the seemingly forsaken disciples are to receive the patronus, the 'helper' /car Qo-^v [kat hexochen], the spirit of truth, who will take them up and lead them on, in the struggle for light and life, step by step, from victory to victory. 2 A. J.

1 B. W. Bacon (JJ3L, 1896, pp. 64 ff.) thinks that n-apaicA [parakl] in Jn. 15:26 (the first occurrence of the word, according to his theory of the displacement of Jn. 14) may have the ordinary sense of an advocate, or helper, before a human tribunal. He regards Jn. 15:18-16:4 as a recast or paraphrase of Mt. 10:16-25. In the opposition which the Church will encounter from the world in her witnessing for Christ, she will be assisted by a divine Paraclete, who 'will testify' of Jesus ; 'for it is not ye that speak, but the spirit of your Father which speaketh in you' (Mt. 10:20).

2 Following up a suggestion of Gunkel, Zimmern (in Vatcr, So/in, u. Fursprecher in der babylonischen Gottesvorstellung, 1896 ; see especially p. 13, n. i) has recently raised the question whether the Jewish-Christian doctrine of the Paraclete may not contain elements of Oriental speculation ; he recalls what the Babylonian fire-god does, acting as the advocate of men at the instance of Ea and Marduk. It is to be remarked, however, that the idea of a heavenly being engaging in the work of intercession for men is of such wide diffusion (see, e.g., Job 33:24, quoted already, which certainly looks like a purely Jewish passage) that we cannot take the Babylonian Nusku as its source ; and, moreover, in the Fourth Gospel no intercessory function is attributed to the Paraclete. The name Paraclete, at any rate, will certainly not be of Babylonian origin ; Jn. s employment of it is sufficiently explained, if explanation is needed, from his acquaintance with Philo or with the Philonic theology ; in Philo, however, it occurs (Vit, Mas. 3:14), not as the designation of a third person in the Godhead, but as a predicate alongside of rcAetoTaros TT) aperrji vcos, which re minds us only of 1 Jn. 2;1.


  • Expressions (1).
  • Method of inquiry (2).
  • Ezekiel's Eden (3).
  • Is. 14:4-20 (4).
  • Gen. 2-3: text (5).
  • Jerahmeel story (6).
  • Name 'Eden' (7).
  • Babylonian theories (8).
  • Eden in Jerahmeel (9).
  • Gunkel's theory (10).
  • The two trees ; the serpent (11).
  • Babylonian illustrations (12).
  • Object of present story (13).
  • Object of original myth (14).
  • Influence of story on Jews (15).
  • Literature (16).

1. Expressions.[edit]

The Hebrew Pardes, DTjB (Syr. pardaisa, Gk. TT&p<\AeiCOc) is from Old Pers. pairidaeza, 'an enclosure, a place walled in' (see Justi, Handbuch der Zendsprache}.

The word occurs in Neh. 2:8, Cant. 4:13, Eccles. 2:5 in the sense of 'park' ; LXX in irapa&. [parad] =|3, 'garden' (see GARDEN, begin.). Evidently napaS [parad] suggested the idea of abundance of water (cp Ecclus. 24:30-31; Susan. 15 [Theod.]); the tree of life and the water of life naturally go together. On the occurrence of the word pardesu in Assyrian, see PSBA, Dec. 1896; ZA 6290, and on the late non-literary Greek usage, cp Deissmann, Bibelstudien, 146. At the present day, TO napaSitri [to paradisi] is still the popular term for the valley descending southward from the sacred hill-forest at Idalion in Cyprus (Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, no).

A 'paradise' is properly a garden or orchard ; but we shall here restrict ourselves to what we may quite simply and naturally call the mythical Paradise, a belief in which sprang up ages before the birth of history, and the significance of which is independent of historical criticism. There are many mythic paradises ; the region in which that of the Hebrews was located bears the name of py, Eden, Gen. 28 io4i6 (eSe/u. 1 ). Hence Paradise itself is called pjrja, 'the garden of Eden', 2:15 (TrapdSetcros [paradeisos]), 3:23-24 (irapad. TTJS Tpv<f>TJs [parad tes tryphes], so LXX{L} in 2:15), Ezek. 36:35 (KTJTTOS rp. [kepos tr]), Joel 2:3 (ir. rp.), or more shortly jiy, 'Eden', Is. 51:3 (irapdd. [parad]), Ezek. 28:13, 31:9, 31:16, 31:18 (i) rpixferi [e tryphe]). In Ecclus. 40:27 the Heb. text says that the fear of God is 'like Eden a blessing' - i.e. , full of blessing (.ina pjn)- We also find Paradise described by the phrases (DTI^N) rn,T"[a, 'the garden of Yahwe' (or 'of God' ), Gen. 13:10, Is. 51:3, Ezek. 28:13 ; and 'the holy mountain of God', Ezek. 28:14.

2. Method of inquiry.[edit]

Sound critical method requires us to begin by ascertaining the form or forms of the Hebrew tradition, and in order to do this we must examine the classical passages respecting Paradise in Ezekiel and in Genesis. We can build to some extent on what has been already said in other articles (see CHERUB, 2, 6 ; CREATION, 20 ; DELUGE, 17), and here as elsewhere the amount of reference to modern scholars and investigators is no measure of our obligations to them for stimulus and instruction. It has been necessary, however, to do all the critical work afresh from the first. A mere register of what is stated in books is not illuminative ; in a continually advancing study we cannot be bound by authorities.

At the point which we have now, as a body of workers, reached, an enlargement of our methods is enforced upon us. It is our slowness to act upon this which is almost the chief hindrance to our progress in biblical study. Old methods, where sound, must not indeed be renounced, but new methods must be applied, and that on an extensive scale (to avoid hasty conclusions), for it must be confessed that even critics whom one could not justly call unmethodical, have often gone astray through relying too much on a single method, and deciding questions before the whole body of facts lay spread out before them.

3. Ezekiel's Eden.[edit]

(a) As to Ezekiel. In certain very remarkable passages of this prophet, 2 two royal personages are stated to have been (metaphorically) in 'Eden, the garden of Elohim' - the wise and wealthy king of Tyre (28:12-13) and Pharaoh, king of Egypt (31:8-9, 31:11, 31:16, 31:18). Why this metaphorical description is selected for these two kings is not clear. The king of Egypt, in particular, seems misplaced there, for the Jews cannot be supposed to have known that the Egyptians had their own very full conception of the supernal Paradise, 3 and geographically the OT Paradise is specially Asiatic. And why too should it be said that the king (or prince, as he is strangely called in 282) of Tyre was perfect in wisdom (vv. 3-5, 7, 12, 17)? The explanation we can offer is one which would be very surprising if there were not parallels for it both in the prophetic and in the narrative books. The prophecies in Ezek. 26-32 have probably been edited by some later writer than Ezekiel, and made to refer to Tyre and Egypt, whereas originally they referred to the king (or prince) and people of the N. Arabian Musri. 4 The case is precisely similar to that of Jer. 46-51, and (as we shall see) to that of Gen. 2:10-14, as in Critica Biblica we shall develop at some length. We can now understand the wisdom ascribed to the divinely favoured king in Ezek. 28. The Misrites, like the Edomites, enjoyed a high reputation for wisdom ; to say that Solomon was wiser than the Jerahmeelites and the Misrites was the highest possible eulogy (1 K. 4:30). Of course in his original perfectness the king of Missur was just as exceptionally wise as Solomon ; he was indeed the equal of the sons of God ; for he dwelt in the mountain and garden of Elohim (see CHERUB, 2). No Babylonian monarch could be more conscious of his supernatural privileges than this king. There he walked to and fro in his 'holiness', like the first man before he yielded to temptation. His 'guilty acts', however, or, more precisely, his 'unrighteous traffic' - here we pass from allegory into history - offended Yahwe, and the cherub (the mythic allegory resumed) which guarded the sacred mountain and its precious stones, destroyed him, by casting him, like the Etana of a Babylonian legend (see ETHAN), with his 'holiness profaned' 2 to the lower earth ; or, to leave mythology, a fire came forth from the very midst of his kingdom which con sumed him.

1 Cp a^eipcoi/ [abeiron], OT3N \ ai8a/j. [aitham]], JJV M .

2 Cp the commentaries of Smend, Bertholet, Kraetzschmar ; also Toy s Hebrew Text and new translation in SBOT. See also Gunkel's Schopfung und Chaos, 146 ; Genesis, 30-31.

3 The Field of lalu (see Maspero, Dawn of Civ. 168, 180-181, 183, 196).

4 is has been altered from "ISO, and D lV? should be pointed D "1!>D - see MIZRAIM, PATHROS.

4. Is. 14:4-20.[edit]

To understand this passage it will be well to compare it with Is. 14:4-20, which, as is pointed out elsewhere, 3 refers not to some Babylonian or Assyrian king but to the king of Jerahmeel in N. Arabia, by whom in the Chaldaean period the Jews were oppressed. In v. 12 this king is called, not 'Lucifer' or 'the daystar', but 'Jerahmeel', 4 and the 'mount of congregation' (ti io ~n - i.e. , the mountain of Elohim) where he claims to dwell, but from which (cp Ezek. 28:16) he shall be cast out, is described as being pss n2T3 - i.e., probably, 'in the recesses of Safon' (Safan) - which seems to have been a name nearly equivalent to Missur (the ethnic belonging to it is Sefoni = Sefani) ; cp SHAPHAN, ZAPHON, ZKPHANIAH. It is not impossible that a very unlikely phrase in Ezek. 28:14 (EV, 'thou art, or wast, the anointed cherub that covereth' ) 5 should, by critical emendation, be read '(thy dwelling was) in the recesses of Cusham [see CUSH, 2] ; thy throne (thou exaltest)'.

See further Crit. Bib. It may be noted here that a particular phrase (C S 3^2) which at first sight appears destructive of the above hypothesis is corrupt. Any one can see this in Ezek. 28:2, where 'I sit in a seat of God in the heart of the seas' cannot be right. But if one passage in the group is corrupt, all the other passages are so too - i.e., the original prophecy became corrupt in one place, and because it suited the editor's interest to read 'Tyre' for 'Missur', he harmonised the other passages (27:4, 27:25, 27:27, 28:8) with it. The original reading most probably was D ri?K 7313, 'in the mansion of God', except in 28:8, where we must read ^K ?3?D /MCTTV rHOni, 'and thou shall die, O Jerahmeel, (cast out) from the mansion of God'. There is also corruption in Is. 148, which in its original form referred probably to the songs of the cities of Benjamin, which had suffered so greatly from the raids of the Cherethites (i.e., Rehobothites), a section of the Jerahmeelites.

This form of the Paradise-story is remarkable for its mention of the divine mountain in Eden with its garden or grove (on the summit?) and its 'stones of fire' 1 (i.e., precious stones; see CHERUB, 2, n. 2), also from its affirmation of the original blamelessness of the man who dwelt in Eden. This important feature of the story may perhaps refer to the time when the Kenites were the tutors of the Israelites in the worship of Yahwe (see MOSES, 14). The 'unrighteous traffic' by which the Misrite king provoked Yahwe may be the traffic in Israelite slaves - captives of war (Am. 1:9, reading -ijtp for -is). Plainly the garden of Eden was, according to Ezekiel, in the Jerahmeelite land - i.e. , in N. Arabia.

1 In 1 K. 4:30 Solomon is said to have been wiser than the sons (son?) of Jerahmeel (see MAHOL, SOLOMON). In Ezek. 28:3 (emended text) we read, 'Behold, thou art wiser than Jerahmeel ; (even) those of Halusah cannot reach thee' (j;iN*;r X 1 ? c ns^n ^Ksrryp nnx cjn njn). Cornill's correction C Hpin, 'magicians', is brillant, but n itself is a suspicious word. Kraeteschmar keeps MT's DWD 73, but emends ?;?2J? into *i S s J?, which is not very plausible. A historical key was wanted for a satisfactory emendation. Halusah (see ISAAC, i, ZIKLAG) was a city in the Negeb renowned in the Jerahmeelite and Hebrew religious legends.

2 Read "Bnp (? 18) with Toy.

3 The view given in ISAIAH ii., 9 (9), with which the views of Marti and Dillm.-Kittel may be compared, plausible and reasonable as it is, needs rectification. The passage thus becomes a member of a large group of passages, the obscurities of which can now for the first time be fully removed. See Crit. Bib.

4 Read ^NSrrV or V^ .T I see LUCIFER.

5 'O covering cherub' (v. 16, EV) is due to an absurd error of the text. 2 K J3N THD 131DH is a corruption of 33^ -jrnDp t> N> 'thy coverings were stones of fire' - i.e., precious stones ; this is a repetition of the clause at the end of v. 14 (a similar cor rection).

6 In 274 Cornill most wisely reads rfall for MT's T^13J, but omits the corresponding correction S3I3, for 393>

5. Gen. 2-3: text examined.[edit]

(b) As to Genesis. The writer of Gen. 2:4b-3 assumed that the original occupation of man was agriculture ; * but in 2:4b-7 he imagines a time before the commencement of agriculture, and he is apparently indebted to an older and fuller narrative which began with a description, only slightly exaggerated, of the physical phenomena witnessed by the first colonists of Babylonia. Gunkel, it is true, thinks that the mention of 'bushes' (n*v) and 'herbs' (ivy) in v. 5 points specially to Palestine. But rnis-n n ty is almost certainly a corruption - of Tsn, 'grass' (cp Is. 15:6 ; Ps. 37:2). 'Grass' and 'herbs' the only natural parallels are as appropriate in Babylonia as in Palestine, while -IN (if rightly explained as = Bab. edu 'flood' 3 ) must come directly from a Babylonian story. Instead of pNrqe, 'from the earth', we should perhaps with Haupt read .vSy, 'upon the earth' ; 4 so the full Babylonian colouring is restored.

Like Holzinger (see below) the present writer was once inclined to read | J? for IN (LXX, Pesh., Vg., actually render 'fountain' ), and fin for nOiKH. He rejected this solution, however,

  • (1) because the explanation given in DELUGE (not considered by Holz.) is perfectly valid,
  • (2) because he hopes to have made it probable that the substratum of vv. 10-14 is not secondary, and
  • (3) for the reason mentioned above. Holzinger thinks that the mention of the want of rain and of the drenching flood (IN) side by side is incongruous.

If there was a flood, plants would surely have appeared. But such an excessive flood as is supposed was a poor substitute for orderly rain, and it is admitted in DELUGE that water-plants must have appeared for a time in short, the description is not without some mythic exaggeration.

Of course, something which the narrator has omitted must be supplied mentally ; the 'flood' spoken of must have been subjugated by Yahwe before he planted the garden or park in Eden, and we should expect a reference (such as we find in one of the Babylonian myths 5 ) to the setting of the streams 'in their places'. We have now to study the great geographical enigma in 2:10-14. The passage is rendered thus in RV :

'And a river went out of Eden to water the garden ; and from thence it was parted, and became four heads. The name

of the first is Pishon ; that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah [rather Hahavilah], where there is gold ; and the gold of that land is good ; there is bdellium and the onyx stone. And the name of the second river is Gihon : the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Cush. And the name of the third river is Hiddekel : that is it which goeth in front of Assyria. 1 And the fourth river is Euphrates.

1 This is enough to show that the Paradise-story did not originate either among the Hebrews or among the Jerahmeelites. Cp Wellh. Prol. 324, n. i.

2 Note the warning Pasek. mcfn springs from Tsn> an early correction of n t?-

3 See CREATION, soc, with n. 3 ; GARDEN, 5 ; Ball's note in Genesis, SHOT Heb. 47, and Haupt's, ibid., 118.

4 Proceedings cf the American Oriental Society, 1896, pp. 158+.

5 See CREATION, 5.

Most recent critics agree in thinking that this is not a part of the original narrative (so Ew. , Di., Bu. , Toy, Bacon, Oxf. Hex., Holz. , Gunkel ; cp GARDEN, 5). They remark that it is too learned for its context and interrupts the story, and Holzinger thinks that the contents are, partly at least, a creation of the writer's fancy. This able critic also thinks that v. 6 once stood somewhere after v. 8, in the description of the garden. Of these suggestions, the easiest to deal with is the last, which indeed has also occurred to the present writer (see above). The objection to placing v. 6 elsewhere is that it needs to be explained how Yahwe could get the trees to grow ; in perfectly dry soil this would of course be impossible. As for the 'learning' of the passage, the word must at any rate be used in a qualified sense. It is presumably meant that the writer reports the fantastic geographical notions which have reached him ; and certainly Delitzsch, Haupt, and Sayce have done their best (see below) to make this view acceptable. But textual criticism must precede and clear the way for archaeology, and it is in textual criticism that we are still somewhat behind. The signs of probable cor ruption in vv. 10-14 are so striking (in v. 10 they have been pointed out already by Holz. ) that we are bound to apply the methods of correcting the text which have already served us so well in many other cases. Verse 11-12 has been emended elsewhere (GOLD, i ; TOPAZ) ; but the form of text there proposed can only represent the intermediate stage between the original and the present text. Verses 10-14, in their original form, probably ran nearly as follows : -

And a stream went out from Eden to water the garden, and afterwards it spread itself out - and watered the whole of Misrite Arabia' (nnso 3njrS|-nN njJtrrn -na< DB DI).

By a mistake such as occurs again and again, 3 i-iy, 'Arabia', was misread nyaiN, 'four' ; D en (which our dictionaries boldly render 'arms' or 'branches' ) comes from n"iB : K [AShRYM]; ii^ X is frequently substituted in the traditional text for i?jtp or -nate (one cannot always be quite sure which is right). When the 'four heads' had thus been brought into existence, it only remained to identify them. The old Babylonian myth had been naturalised in Jerahmeel, and, even when adopted by the Hebrews, its geography long continued to be purely Jerahmeelite. Consequently, if Jerahmeel, as known to the editor of the corrupt text, could not furnish the requisite four Streams, all that could be done was to imagine that, at a distant period, while the enchanted garden existed, there were four streams. The following may be nearly what the editor, and the interpolator who followed him, 4 wrote in explanation of the partly misread words in v. 10, 'it spread itself and became four heads' :

The name of the first is Pishon ; that is it which encircles the whole land of Hahavilah [the land of Cusham, Missur,

Jerahmeel, and the bne Ishmael]. And the name of the second stream is Rehobothon ; that is it which encircles the whole land of Cush. And the name of the third stream is Jerahmeel ; that is it which flows E. of Geshur (or Missur?), and the fourth stream is Ephrath. 5

1 -IIB N nDljp. AV and RVmg toward the east of Assyria, so Aq., Targums, Pillm.l 1 ), Del., Kautzsch, Reuss, Gunkel; AVniK. 'eastward to Ass.' ; Strack, in front of Ass. , cp Ko.Tfvo.vTt. ; Kautzsch -Socin(i), along Ass. ; Kau. - SocmP), hitherward from Ass. Whitehouse (Expos. 7 [1888] 135) follows LXX. Dillm. G 2 ) and Holzinger are uncertain. Evidently there is some error in the text ; the suspicious word is "WN.

2 The same sense as in Ezek. 1:11 (n TPS). See BDB, and Ges.-Bu., s.v. TIB-

3 Usually D 3iy (Arabians) is misread D J?aiN, 'forty'. So in Gen. 7:4, where read 'on the land of the Arabians and the Jerahmeelites' ; 1 K. 19:8, where Elijah's journey is described as 'in the road (?) of the Arabians and Jerahmeelites' ; also the passages, quoted in MOSES, 11, to which we may doubtless add Gen. 15:13 (reading 'and the Arabians and Jerahmeelites shall afflict them' ; ci~nj, [i] = Q iny)-

4 The interpolated gloss is placed in square brackets.

5 Ephrath is one of the popular distortions of Jerahmeel (cp RACHEL). Why has the fourth stream no geographical description? Either because it was so well known (was it the so-called RIVER OF EGYPT?), or because no fresh variation of the previous description appeared possible ; Jerahmeel and Ephrath are in fact the same.

6. Jerahmeelite form of story.[edit]

We shall return presently to the very different form of text which now represents this early insertion. What it is most important to call attention to just now is the fact that the early Hebrew legends are predominantly Jerahmeelite. We do not of course deny the potent influence of Babylon, which indeed we have already pointed out in 2:4b-7. We also affirm the probability of a revival of Babylonian influence on Hebrew traditions at a later period (cp CREATION, 23). But we assert that the original Hebrew legends were received from the Jerahmeelites, among whom, both on the N. Arabian border and in Palestine itself, the early Israelites lived. The Jerahmeelite colouring of the Hebrew legends may have been injured by scribes, but by no means have all traces of it been effaced. Thus the traditional text may tell us that Yahwe [Elohim] planted a garden in Eden eastward (Gen. 2:8); but it is certain that cip and cp-] are common corruptions of SKDPIT I and with the Paradise-story of Ezekiel before us we cannot hesitate to read, 'Yahwe [Elohim] planted a garden in Eden of Jerahmeel'. A recent writer, 1 noticing features of the Paradise-story which every scholar feels never originated on Jewish soil, and for which Babylonian lore fails to account, asks what inland country in or near a desert like Arabia can have been the source of the narrative. It may be hoped that this question has been answered.

So too, it is plausible to hold that the deluge was originally described as overwhelming the land of the Jerahmeelites, and the ark as settling on the mountains ot Jerahmeel (^KDlTVi partly miswritten, partly emended in the traditional text as QVIN, 'Ararat' ). So too 'the beginning of Nimrod's kingdom was Jerahmeel' (on this reading of Gen. 10:10 see NIMROD), and it was 'as they journeyed in Jerahmeel' (Gen. 11:2, text, oipO 2 - i.e. (1) eastwards, Dillmann ; (2) in the E., Kalisch, Kautzsch, Holzinger; (3) from the E., Gunkel; cp LXX dn-b aixxToAwi- [apo anatoloon]) that the primitive men 'found a plain in the land of Geshur' (text, SHINAR, q.v.). So too the warlike story in Gen. 14 is largely concerned with 'Jerahmeel', and the region chosen by Lot (13:10-11), where lay the cities destroyed by a judgment, was originally placed in Jerahmeel (133 and 123 ->D in vv. 10-11 and mpa in v. 11 being corruptions of ^xsm la] , see SODOM, MELCHIZEDEK).

1 Worcester, The Book of Genesis, etc. (1901), p. 157.

2 Kalisch supports the rendering in the east by a reference to 13:11, Is. 9:11 [9:12]; but in both places Sworn s surely the right reading. The corruption, however, is an early one, and Jensen (Kosmol. 214, n. i) even thinks that this D^S has influenced the view of the situation of Paradise given by Cosmas Indicopleustes, ire pilf] 6e TraAti TOV flicfai ov TTJI- yijv rrji/ nepav ev0a Kai 6 7rapa6eiox>? Kara ai/aroAa? KCITIC. Similarly, according to Kohut (JQR 2:224-225 [1800]), the statement in the Vendidad (2:24) that Yima, the first man, went to meet the sun, is suggested by CHP..D.

3 Reuss (La Bible) would emend ftja fa into p!ilf 'garden of pleasure'.

7. Name 'Eden'.[edit]

We have still to ask, How does the name Eden fit into our present theory ? According to Reuss and Dillmann it is a purely symbolic name invented by the Hebrew narrator, and meaning 'pleasure' (Tpvfiri [tryphe]). 3 Certainly we can easily imagine that later Hebrew writers (but hardly Ezekiel) gave the name this interpretation (cp 4 Esd. 7:53), and both Delitzsch and Duhm have seen an allusion to this meaning in the phrase (not, it is to be feared, beyond critical questioning) ?rrij? Sru, 'the stream of thy pleasures', in Ps. 36:9 [36:8]. But purely symbolic names in ancient myths are improbable ; iij (Nod) may suggest the sense of 'wandering', and 'Eden' that of 'pleasure', but the names were originally geographical. The 'father of Assyriology' (Sir H. Rawlinson) conjectured that Gan-Eden was a popular Hebraised form of Gundunis = Kar-dunias. This is the name of an extremely fruitful territory which, like Frd. Delitzsch in 1881, Rawlinson supposed to be close to Babylon, but which, as Tiele and Winckler have shown. 1 was in S. Babylonia, close to the Persian Gulf, and means Kaldi-land. Obviously this will not accord with our present theory; but who any longer defends it ? We might, however, if no better course presented itself, accept Frd. Delitzsch's comparison of the Bab. word edinu. a synonym of seru, meaning 'field, plain, desert' (Par. 79). 'Eden-jerahmeel' in the text as restored above would then mean 'the desert of Jerahmeel', and we might venture to compare Gen. 11:1. where we should not impropably read, 'Now the whole human people was (of) one speech in the wilderness of the Jerahmeelites' (c s KSrrT 12"C2 for C"ni c~CT>l-~ The explanation is nevertheless almost certainly wrong ; 'Eden' is the name of a part of N. Arabia, and virtually equivalent to Gush or Missur, or perhaps (see Che. Ps. <* on Ps. 74:15) to Ethan. There is a difficult passage in Amos (1:4-5), which has hitherto not been satisfactorily explained,* but which becomes clear if the Hazael mentioned is a N. Arabian king (see Schr. KATT 1 - 1 , 207), and if 'Dammesek' (as in 1 K. 19:15) is miswritten for 'Cusham', and 'Aven' for 'On' (as in Hab. 3:7); in this case Beth-eden will of course be on the N. Arabian border, and 'Aram' will be = 'Jerahmeel'. See also 2 Ch. 29:11, where 'Eden' (p^) ben Joah is a Gershonile. and cp the name Adonijah (rvnuK which is at any rate most probably an expanded ethnic. 4

1 Tiele, BAG 7-80; Winckler, Untrs. 135-136

2 LXX gets over the difficulty of the traditional text by a paraphrase, icai 6o"-n ma -o<rir: Dillmann renders, 'the same words, or expressions'. Holzinger admits the harshness of the phrase. Can we acquiesce in it when T,K and 2"1~K ( r tne like) are obviously such common corruptions of ""KCrn* ail| i C***K2rn**

3 See Driver in the CMm rjJge Bible and Nowack in HK, ad loc.

4 A close inspection of the names of David's sons will justify the statement. See special articles.

5 According to the Bundahish (ch. 20 in West's translation) two chief rivers, called the I.rag and the Ven. rise in the Iranian sacred mountain Alburz but also eighteen other streams, the list of which begins with the Diglat (Tigris) and the Frat (Euphrates) Alburz is the later contraction of Hara-berezaiti, above which (for there is no favouritism as in Babylonia) the souls of all the righteous go up (Vend. 19:30).

6 Very possibly, however, in a document used and misunderstood by the editnr of Daniel. Hiddekel may have been corrupted out of Jerahmeel. Cp PURIM, 6 (end).

7 Halevy. however (Revue semitique, 1893, p. -53), identifies the Persian Gulf, continued westward towards the Red Sea, with the Gihon, which compasses the whole land of Cush.

8. Babylonian theories.[edit]

Here it is necessary to guard ourselves against misconception. We have no objection whatever to explain vv. 10-14 in their present form in the light of Babylonian lore so far as we can. The nucleus of these verses had come down to their second (?) editor in a corrupt form, and he edited it presumably in the same way as Gen. 11:1-9 - i.e., on the theory that it had some reference to Babylonia. He had prolxibly heard of the Babylonian belief, expressed at the end of the great Deluge-story. in a terrestrial Paradise 'at the mouth of the streams' (ina pi narati ; see DELUGE, 2. 15, 17. These streams were, according to Jensen (Kosmol. 213), no other than the Tigris and the Euphrates.* It is reasonable to suppose that a Hebrew editor of Gen. 2:10-14 would (like the writer or compiler of Dan. 10) 6 identify Hiddekel with the Tigris, in spite of the initial Hi [see HIDDEKEL], and Perath with the Euphrates. Thus he would provide himself with two out of the four streams required by v. 10, as he read it. The present writer cannot satisfy himself that he attempted anything more than this. Still, when we consider that Alexander the Great supposed at first that the sources of the Egyptian Nile were in N\V. India, it becomes barely conceivable that a Hebrew writer might regard the imaginary upper course of the Nile in Asia r.s one of the streams of Paradise, and connect the (corrupt) name Gihon with it." We can even imagine with Haupt 1 that he might connect the remaining (corrupt) name Pishon with the Persian Gulf (the Bab. naru marratu ; see MEHATHAIM). or rather with the Persian Gulf joined to the Red Sea. which, he may have thought, formed one great river encircling the whole of Hahavilah (i.e., Arabia a except the northern part), and springing from the same source as the (supposed) Asiatic upper course of the Nile.

To complete our account of Haupt's theory, it should be added that he lays great stress on the phrase in Is. 14:13 which we have translated above 'in the recesses of Siphon' : like other scholars, he adheres to the usual rendering of pEi , 'north', and, to explain this phrase as well as that in Ps. 48:3 [48:2],* supposes (with Hitzig. Stade, and Sniend) that the Jewish exiles in Babylonia believed that Yahwe dwelt in the N., not (as of old) at Horeb. As a consequence, he thinks that the exiles transferred the gan-Eden to Armenia (i.e. the NE.), near the common source of the Euphrates and the Tigris. From this great body of water, according to Haupl. the Jews believed two other streams - viz., the Asiatic course of the Nile and the Persian Gulf - to have branched off, to the E. of the Tigris. But the exegetical and critical objections to this view of the transferred dwelling-place of Yahwe (for some of which see Kraetzschmar, Ezeck. 9) are insuperable.

A brief mention must also be given to the view of Frd. Delitzsch in 1881 (in his Wo lag das Parodies f) which for a time attracted Prof. Sayce. 4 Taking the Heb. 'eden as = Bab. edinu 'plain', he locates Paradise in the plain of Babylonia, the northern part of which is watered exclusively by the Euphrates. The Pishon and the Gihon he identifies with the Pallacopas (the nar Pallukat of the inscriptions) and the Shall en-Nil canals. 5 which may have been river-beds before they were made subservient to Babylonian irrigation. But Delitzsch's altempt to explain the names PISHON [q.v.] from pisan(n)u and Gihon from Gug'ana or Guhana, a name of the Arahtu, is admitted to have been unsuccessful. Sayce therefore (Crit. Mon. 101) would now place the garden of Eden in the neighbourhood of Eridu. the sacred city of Ea. This is certainly plausible. Eridu (now Abu Shahrein), though at present far inland, was once on the sea-coast, and Jensen (Kosmol. 213) refers to a place in the inscriptions where the 'mouth of the streams' is mentioned in connection with Eridu. It is here that we should most probably place the enchanted island where Par-napishtim, the hero of the Deluge-story, was placed by the gods, and where, according to a hymn or incantation, a magic palm grew, with precious stones for fruits (cp Ezekiel's 'stones of fire' = precious stones). Sayce thinks that the river of the Hebrew Paradise is the Persian Gulf, into which four streams flowed - viz,, the Euphrates, the Tigris, the Kercha ( = Choaspes), and the Pallakopas canal. Unfortunately for this theory, there appear to be no Babylonian names for the last two of these streams from which Pishon and Gihon might fairly be derived.

With regard to Lenormant's theory (Les oHgints, vol. i.) that the primitive Paradise lay where Zend tradition placed it, in the highlands of the Hindu Rush, it may safely be said that whatever resemblances there may be between Gen. 2-3 and the account in Fargard 2 of the Yendidad. are much more likely to be due to borrowing (possibly at mote than one period) on the part of the Iranians, than to the derivation of both accounts from a. common Aryan source. Babylon must be the parent of the Paradise-myth as known to the Iranians, the Jerahmeelites, and the Hebrews ; otherwise, why should this mth have been known only to a favoured few of the Aryan and the Semitic peoples?

1 Wo lag das Paradies (from Ueber Land und Meer, 1894-95, no. 15), 7-8. Haupt adopts Nestle's etymology of PISHON [q.v.], and explains it as the stream with high waves.

2 It is significant, however, that we never hear again of the gold of Hahavilah.

3 On this much misunderstood passage see CONGREGATION (MOUNT OF). When will Bredenkamp's aspiration (Gesetz u. Propheten. 145) be fulfilled, and the 'fatal mountain of the gods' be banished from the hymn-book of Israel?

  • See review of Del.'s Paradies in Acad., Nov. 5, 1881, p. 349.

5 Delitzsch identifies the Shatt en-Nil with the ancient canal called Arahtu : but according to Haupt (note in Ezekiel, Eng. ed., SBOT 93-94), the Arahtu was to the N. of Babylon, and the Shatt en-Nil is probably the (naru) Kabaru, at Nippur (see CHEBAR).

9. Eden in Jerahmeel.[edit]

The theories which make the Hebrew Paradise-story simply a loan from Babylonia having failed, we return to the hypothesis of a partly Babylonian, partly Jerahmeelite tradition. The Jerahmeelites, from whom the Israelites took the story, probably located Paradise sometimes on a vastly high mountain, sometimes in a garden (at its foot ?), in some part of the Jerahmeelite territory. Cp Che. Ps.W on Ps. 74:15. The mountain (with a sacred grove on its summit) has dropped out of the story in Gen. 2-3, but is attested in Ezek. , and in the Eth. Enoch 24-25 (cp 18:6-9) the tree of life is placed in a mountain-range in the S. l As to the locality, if it be correct that by the Hebrew phrase a^n mi pK, w]an 'a land flowing with milk and honey', a part of the Negeb was originally meant (Nu. 13:23, 13:27, on which see NEGEB, 7), we might infer that this fruitful land, with its vines, pomegranate-trees, and fig-trees (cp Gen. 3:7), had once upon a time been the Jerahmeelite Paradise. The phrase quoted from Nu. 13:27 may seem an exaggeration ; but we can hardly doubt that the river of milk and honey which (cp 'Secrets of Enoch', ch. 8) flowed through Paradise is the earthly antitype (the ancients would have said, the continuation) of the river which flowed through the Elysian fields of the Milky Way 2.

This view is in essential agreement with that of Sayce - that the four rivers of Paradise were originally the rivers of the four regions of the earth, which were fed by the ocean-stream that girdled the earth and descended from the sky (Acdd. , Oct. 7, 1882, p. 263). The Paradise-myth belongs in fact to the same cycle as the Creation and Deluge stories. All these narratives come from Babylonia; but in spite of their present scenery, all are connected with sky-myths, the first men being originally viewed as divine men, the companions of the sky-god, and the flood, equally with the great ocean-stream, being the counterpart of the heavenly ocean (cp DELUGE, 18).

At the same time we must bear in mind that Paradise is, by its very conception, an enchanted land. From a mythical point of view, it was quite conceivable that more distant parts of N. Arabia than that referred to above, though bleak and bare after wards, might, in the world s childhood, have been covered with pleasant trees. Certainly the language of Is. 14:13 (end), which may well be drawn from tradition, would seem to suggest a somewhat remote part of the region called Saphon.

10. Gunkel's theory.[edit]

Gunkel's theory (Gen. 33) is unsatisfactory in so far as it places the 'mountain of Elohim' in the far N. , identifying it with the north pole 3 (the 'station' of Bel in Babylonian cosmology). Another part of it, however, is well worth considering - viz. , the view that the Paradise of the Hebrew writer is no narrower region than the earth itself. This may indeed be, strictly regarded, an exaggeration ; but it contains an important truth which is often overlooked. It is true that, just as the upper river of milk and honey belonged to the whole sky, so far as it was inhabited by gods and by blessed souls, so the river of Paradise belonged, theoretically, to nothing of less magnitude than the earth ; originally indeed the earth, viewed as a great mountain, may have been the har elohim. The Hebrew story itself (see the short form of vv. 10-14, in 5) by no means states that the course of the river was confined to the garden. Thanks to this beneficent stream, N. Arabia (the representative of the outside world) was delightful as compared with the earlier time described in Gen. 2:5. Thus room was left for other myth-makers to devise different geographies of Paradise. The myth is at home, not only among the Iranians (who derived it from Babylon, but modified it to suit themselves), but also 'among the American Indians, the Sioux and the Aztecs, the Mayas. the Polynesians'. Brinton, who points this out, adds, with theoretical accuracy, 'that the four rivers are the celestial streams from the four corners of the earth, watering the tree as the emblem of life'. *

1 Charles (Enoch, p. 98) expresses surprise that the tree should be in the S. From the old Hebrew point of view, however, it is not wonderful. It is the moderns who have confused our ideas through false inferences (see 8, 10).

2 Cp Hymn to the Nile (Guieysse's transl., RP&, 3:48), 'Watering the orchards created by Ra, to cause all the cattle to live, thou givest the earth to drink, inexhaustible one ! path that descendest from the sky' ; cp Gunkel, Genesis, 33.

3 Cp EARTH (FOUR QUARTERS), 2; Jensen, Kosmol. 25. But the Babylonian Paradise was in the south, and so too is Horeb, the mountain of Elohim.

11. The two trees; the serpent.[edit]

We now pass on to other details. Chief among the trees of the garden were 'the tree of life in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (2:9b). Of any of the trees the man who was placed in the garden was permitted by Yahwe to eat, except (as the text now stands) of 'the tree of knowledge of good and evil'. It is obvious (though Winckler 2 apparently thinks otherwise) that there must have been an earlier form of the Hebrew myth in which only one tree was specially named. Budde and Gunkel agree in fixing upon the tree of knowledge of good and evil ; Kuenen, more wisely ( Th. T 18:136), prefers the tree of life. Of course, as Budde remarks, 'the original narrator cannot possibly have reported that the man had been permitted to eat of the tree of life as well as of the other trees of the garden'. 3 Consequently, it being probable on various grounds (see, e.g., 3:23-24, and cp Gunkel) that our present narrative is composite, it is assumed (at least by Gunkel) that in one of the literary sources only one tree that mentioned above was specially named, whilst in the other two trees were mentioned. 4 There is much to be said for this theory. Still, it must be confessed, not only that the closing words of 2:9 appear to drag, 5 but that the phrase 'the tree of knowledge of good and evil' is both obscure and (in a myth like this) improbable. The worthiest, but at the same time the least defensible, interpretation is no doubt that of Jastrow (Rel. Bab. and Ass. 553, note) - viz., that 'good and evil' means our 'everything', or the Babylonian 'secrets of heaven and earth'. The poorest, and yet on the whole the easiest, is that 'knowing good and evil' means the art of living smoothly - e.g. , with reference to the sexual distinction. But can we believe that any good Hebrew writer would have devised such a phrase as this out of his own head? In all such cases textual corruption is the root of the evil.

The narrative in its present form does not require emendation ; even the repellent phrases in 3:5, 3:22 have to stand. But in the original narrative the words which closed 2:9 were probably parallel to JJ.T "ifinz, 'in the midst of the garden'. Is there any probable Hebrew phrase which can underlie j,vi ye n>"!" fJ1> having regard to the habits and dangers of the scribes? There is - one may very plausibly read pKJ T2?2, 6 'in the navel of the earth'. In the Book of Jubilees, chap. 8, Jerusalem the holy city is called the navel or 6/u<f>aAo? [omphalos] of the earth (like Delphi in Greece); cp also Eth. Enoch 20:1, with Charles's note. It is quite probable that the centre of the Jerahmeelite Paradise was similarly described, and that it was marked out by the tree of life i.e., everlasting life 1 which grew there. The editor had before him a corrupt text, and instead of inventing he made the best possible sense of his doubtful material, using the very gentlest manipulation.

1 Religions of Primitive Peoples, 126. Cp Sayce, review of Lenormant's Les origines, vol. ii., Acad., Oct. 7, 1882, p. 263.

2 In the Alexander legend Alexander receives his oracle from two special trees in a Trapo5ei<ros [paradeisos]. Winckler (GI 2:108) compares these two oracular trees with the two trees in the Hebrew Paradise, both called (according to him) tree of the knowledge of good and evil. One of them, he says, became the tree of life, by a confusion with the (Babylonian) plant of life (see S 12). May we not rather say that the original tree of life declined into a plant in the S. Babylonian myth, as with the Hindoos it shrivelled up into the lotus-flower on which Krahma rests?

3 Die biblische Urgeschichte, 53. It may be noted that from a feeling of the inconsistency of magic with moral religion all mention of the magic tree of immortality - the Gaokerena - is excluded from the ancient Zoroastrian hymns called the Gathas. Cp OPs. 400 439.

4 This view is at any rate simpler than that given by Budde in 1883.

5 Driver has made a gallant attempt (ffelmtica, Oct. 1885, p. 33) to save the text ; he quotes a number of examples to show that 'the order is quite regular and natural'. But is it quite natural in this context? It is certainly awkward not to be told expressly whether 'the tree of knowledge of good and evil' was in the centre of the garden, or elsewhere. Kautzsch and Socin (Genesis), 4) remark, 'One cannot help noticing that these words drag ; one of the two trees seems to be alien to the original context'.

  • nyn yy\ comes from umnxm < JTil 21Q f rom f f lK"!~3TO-

The uncommon phrase {HJM "122 was dittographed ; corruption followed.

The sense which the editor put upon his text was in fact not unnatural if he knew of another form of the Paradise-story, according to which Yahwe, like Ea in the Adapa myth, endowed his creature man with wisdom (Job 15:7; cp CREATION, 21), but denied him immortality. This parallel story may at least have given him the idea of a tree of knowledge, though the range of knowledge had to be limited. He did his little best with the text, and - what is more important - he sought to lift up the story in its revised form to a higher level. Though the serpent accuses Yahwe of deception (Gen. 3:4-5), and though deception on the part of Yahwe was very possibly asserted in the original myth, the narrator does not mean us to admit the truth of the accusation. The penalty of death may be delayed ; it is not removed. The narrator also gives no hint as to the kind of tree meant by the tree of life - information which might perhaps have been injurious to the interests of religion.

Can we go behind the narrative, and try to identify the trees? From the mention of 'fig-leaves' (3:7) one may perhaps infer that the narrator (i.e. , the editor) meant the fig-tree, one of the most valued trees of Palestine, and also, as it happens, one of the sacred trees of Babylonia. 2 The tree of life might well, in Palestine, have been the terebinth ; the sacred tree of MAMRE (q.v. ) was a terebinth. But in any Babylonian version of the myth the tree of life would naturally be the date-palm. 'Here' (i.e., in Babylonia), says Sir G. Birdwood, 3 'if I may judge from the banks of the Shatt el-'Arab, along which I botanised for more than a week in 1856, the only true native tree is the date-palm'. Its fruit in antiquity formed the staple food of the people, and date-wine was their drink. 4 It was also chief among the sacred trees ; the famous mythic palm-tree of Eridu has been referred to already. In Enoch (24:4) we read of the tree of life that 'its fruit was like the dates of the palm' ; this was the most natural way of supplementing the old Hebrew story.

The result at which we have arrived removes some serious difficulties. It is satisfactory to have reason to believe that 'life' and 'wisdom' were not in the original story regarded as separate. 'Knowledge', no doubt, has different meanings. But it was a true insight which dictated the statement that Enoch passed away from earthly view, because God had taken him (Gen. 5:24). He who shared God's wisdom (see ENOCH) ought also to share his immortality, a statement which, in the fulness of time, becomes transfigured into the truth, 'This is life eternal, to know thee the only true God'.

But can no fresh light be thrown on the serpent, who is classed among the 'beasts of the field' (3:1), and yet possesses such extraordinary faculties ? We are only able as yet to express suspicions, and this can best be done in the form of questions (cp SERPENT). Was the serpent originally the semi-divine guardian of the tree of life, like the dragon of the garden of the Hesperides ? Was the 'temptation' in the primitive story a friendly counsel, which presupposed indeed that the words of Yahwe were deceptive (cp the Adapa-myth), but which is not to be judged as a deliberate act of rebellion against the supreme Will ? We know not. But we may at least reject a recent theory ascribed by Jastrow to Haupt, based on the interpretation of ,nn (Eve) as 'serpent' - viz., that 'the serpent' was originally the woman, 'who, by arousing the sexual passion, leads man to a " knowledge of good and evil"'. Surely the speaking serpent l is no afterthought, but a primitive element in the story. That the curse pronounced on the serpent is primitive is not equally clear, and it is perhaps all the more permissible to allegorise it for edification. Nor can we add anything fresh on the cherub and on the flashing sword (on both, see CHERUB).

1 The limitation of 'life' in Eth. Enoch (see 256) is not in accordance with Gen. 2-3. The divine beings themselves eat of the fruit of this tree, and certainly they live for ever (D7J7 1 ?, 3 22, not 'for a long time' ).

2 See the sacred tree (a conventionalised fig-tree) represented on p. 182 of Toy's Ezekiel, translation, SBOT.

3 Asiatic Quarterly Review, Jan. 1886, p. 41.

  • Cp Lenormant, Les origines, 1:81-82 ; Maspero, Dawn of Civ., 555/

12. Babylonian illustrations.[edit]

No Babylonian tree of wisdom is known to us. But

(a) in the Babylonian earthly Paradise there was both water of life 2 and a 'plant which makes the old young' 3 - a plant which is presumably the original both of the Hebrew tree of life and of the Iranian tree of immortality called Gaokerena. 4 And when Par-napishtim and his wife were placed in the Babylonian Paradise, it followed that they had free access to both. 5

(b) This was not the case with the hero of another remarkable myth, named Adapa, who, though permitted to see the secrets of heaven and earth, w\as prevented by his divine father Ea from partaking of the 'food of life' and the 'water of life'. 'When thou comest before Anu', said Ea, 'they will offer thee food of death. Do not eat. They will offer thee waters of death. Do not drink'. Adapa obeyed his commands ; but it was a deception on Ea's part, and the sky-god Anu is represented as being astonished (or grieved ?) that Adapa should have foregone the privilege offered to him. 6

Sayce (Crit. MON. 94, and elsewhere) has considerably exaggerated the illustrative value of this myth, and there is a great gulf fixed between Adapa and Adama. It is quite possible, however, that the threat of death as the penalty for eating the forbidden fruit was suggested by the speech of Ea to Adapa, quoted above ; at the very least, the two tales are too much akin not to have a common source.

(c) Another story which deserves to be mentioned is that of Eabani. But beyond the point already used as an illustration (the formation of Eabani out of clay, CREATION, 20, n. 4) it appears unsafe to venture. Jastrow's use of the comparative method has perhaps led him to some serious misinterpretations of the story of Adam and Eve. 7 Into these we need not here enter. But two points on which he has suggested a new theory can hardly be passed over,

  • (1) As to the naming of the animals (Gen. 2:19-20). Is this really a euphemism to be illustrated by the story of Eabani (but cp Maspero, Dawn of Civ. , 576+) ? The passage in Gen. is no doubt difficult, but only through its present context. It seems to have come from another Paradise-story accord ing to which the first man was endowed with extra ordinary intelligence. It has, properly speaking, no connection with the creation of 'Eve'. The passage should probably run thus, 'And out of the ground . . . and brought them to the man, but for man (?) he found no help corresponding to him'. The naming of the animals is a mark partly of the wisdom of the first man, partly of his lordship over the animals (cp NAME, NAMES). We are reminded of the version of the Paradise-story in Ezekiel, where the first man has also a splendid state-dress (not a mere coat of skins), and who, if he sins, sins in a grand way.
  • (2) As to the name of the first woman. Jastrow connects mn, Hawwa, with Ukhat in the story of Eabani, but prematurely (as well as most unsuitably). Before we try to account for the name we must apply criticism to the text. Now rr^a DN (EV 'the mother of all living' ) in Gen. 3:20 is just as corrupt as <NI n 1 ? 1K3 (EV Beer-lahai-roi) in 16:14. The passage probably ran originally, 'And Jerahmeel called the name of his wife Horith (rnn), that is, a Jerahmeelitess' l (n SKCrrv Kin). 'Jerahmeel' and 'Horith' - the original first men - became Ha-adam and Havvah (AV, Adam and Eve). Almost throughout, the story has been adapted to the new reading Q-ixn (instead of Wsnv), but here and there passages occur which have become hopelessly obscure through the alteration.

1 The Book of Jubilees says (contrary to the spirit of the underlying myth) that all animals spoke before the Fall.

2 See Zimmern, Lebensbrot und Lebenswasser im Babylonischen und in der Bibel, Archiv fur Relig. wissenschaft, Bd. 2; Jeremias, Die Bab.-ass. Vorstcllungcn, etc. 91+. The Hebrew story must also once have referred to this water ; see Prov. 10:11, 13:14, 14:27, and cp Rev. 22:1-2, 22:17. Elsewhere, too, the tree and the fountain of life go together (e.g., according to Schirren, in New Zealand), and every sacred tree, properly, has near it a sacred fountain.

3 On Winckler s theory see col. 3578, n. 2.

4 This was a white Haoma tree, said to grow in the middle of the mythic sea Vouru-kasha. By drinking of its juice on the day of the resurrection men would become immortal. The Haoma plant used in the sacrifices was the yellow Haoma which grows on the mountains. See Yast, 23 ; Yasna, 106-110 ; Zend-avesta (SBE) i., Introd. 69.

5 Cp Jensen, Kosmol. 227, 383 ; Jeremias, op. cit. 87-95.

6 Jastrow, Rel. of Bab. and Ass., 549, 552; cp Zimmern in Gunk. Schopf. t,-2ojf. ; Jensen, A"/>, i, f)j,ff.

7 'Adam and Eve in Babylonian Literature', AJSL, July 1899, 193+.

13. Object of present story.[edit]

And what, we may now ask, is the object of the beautiful Hebrew story of Paradise? As it now stands, it gives an account of the origin of the gravest phenomena of human life. We see the toiling man, the subject woman, the pains of childbirth, the sad farewell of death. Yet we know that the man was 'God's son' (Lk. 3:38) and dwelt in his garden ; how is it that paradise joys and paradise simplicity have disappeared ? The sense of shame, too, so specially human, how is this to be accounted for ? And the serpent - how comes it to be at once so intelligent (LXX ^poi t/u.wraros [phronimootatos]; cp Mt. 10:16, (f>p6vLfj.oi ws oi 6<peis [phronimoi oos oi ophies]) and so hostile and dangerous to man? It is all owing to fateful events which occurred in the primitive age. The narrator has no special curiosity about sin. He only brings in the sin of the first man to explain the expulsion from Paradise and the rest. Of course, we do not accuse the narrator of being indifferent to sin. In a style which is far more impressive than that of a preacher he inculcates the fear of God and obedience to his commandments, and he acquiesces in the justice of the punishment of the offenders. But the existence of sin is not one of his problems ; there is an intellectual chasm between him and Paul. One must admit that there is also a difference between this somewhat pessimistic story and many of the narratives which follow. Abraham especially is, in the eyes of the narrators, no sinner, and is very near and dear to God. One may venture to add that the illusion which tempted the first man was a relatively modest one - it was not to become God (the exaggerated aspiration of the Indian), but to become as God in a single point ; and that, after his doom had been pronounced, he exhibited no Titanic insolence, but, as Milton has rightly noticed, was humble and resigned towards the supreme will.

1 m Kin is a perfectly correct gloss, in being probably a fragment of SNDrrY- Cp the name of Esau's wife, Gen. 26:34 (emended under JUDITH)

2 Brinton, op. cit., 122.

14. Object of original myth.[edit]

Such is the primary object of the story of Paradise, and such is the explanation. But the primitive myth - had that no object? and was the original object wholly lost through being elevated morally by the Hebrew narrator ? No. The original object was partly to put man on his guard against exciting the <pdbvos [phthonos] of the Deity, partly to cheer him by describing the felicity of the golden age, which golden age may and must in the drama of history return (cp 4 Esd. 8:52, but also Is. 11:6-9, 65:25, 51:3). Look where we will, we find 'that man has ever looked on this present world as a passing scene in the shifting panorama of time, to be ended by some cataclysm, and to be followed by some period of millennial glory'. 2 This millennial glory is the restoration of Paradise (cp MILLENNIUM). The (/>0jvos [phthonos] of the Deity is not indeed a Christian conception ; but something slightly resembling it is not wanting elsewhere in the OT (see, e.g., Gen. 11:6-7., Is. 2:12-21). The restoration of Paradise, however, is thoroughly congenial to the Christian ; only it is to the heavenly, not the earthly Paradise, that he aspires - 'to enjoy God and be with him for ever'.

15. Influence of story on Jews.[edit]

That the details of the Paradise-story took hold of the later Jews is obvious ; we cannot, however, show that it exerted any influence on the pre-exilic Israelites. It may, nevertheless, in some form, have been widely known at any rate in Judah, though the prophets apparently did not think it important to refer to the story.

Among the later references Job 15:7-8 can hardly be quoted ; it is not the same but a parallel myth that we there have before us (CREATION, 21). The 'fountain of life' in Proverbs is a detail not found in Genesis; Proverbs (3:18, 11:30, 13:12, 15:4), however, also refers to the tree of life, though accidentally the expression is simply a figurative synonym. 1

In Enoch the tree of life and that of wisdom (tppbifTjcris [phronesis]) are separately described. The tree of life is represented as one of a number of fragrant trees, encircling the throne of God, which throne is the middle and highest of seven mountains in the south (24:3-25:7 ; cp 9, n. i). 'The tree of wisdom (fipovyffis [phronesis]) in the garden of righteousness is like the carob tree (see HUSKS) ; it imparts great wisdom to those who eat of it' ; Rufael expressly identifies it with the tree of which Adam and Eve ate (32). In the 'Secrets of Enoch' (8) we again hear of the tree of life. It is in Paradise, which, as in 2 Cor. 12:24, is placed in the third heaven. It is further described as in that place in which God rests when he comes into Paradise, and as on all sides in appearance like gold and crimson, and transparent as fire, and as covering everything.

For the different statements of the Ethiopic Enoch as to Paradise, see Charles's note on 60:8. It is a remarkable illustration of the permanence of mythic phraseology that in the book Secrets of Enoch (8:5-6) we read of four (or two) streams going forth, which pour honey and milk, oil and wine, 2 and are separated in four directions, and go down to the Paradise of Eden, between corruptibility and incorruptibility, and thence go along the earth. To Moses, too, the 'greatness of Paradise' is revealed in the Apocalypse of Baruch (59:8) ; cp Ta'anith, 10a. See also 4 Esd. 7:53, 8:52; Test. Levi 18 ; and note the gloss upon as the days of the tree (Is. 65:22) in LXX and the Targum. Lastly, note a fine passage in the Psalms of Solomon (14:3b) 6 7rapa6ei(ros TOU Kvpiov, TO. u Aa rijs magic element is here entirely removed.

The NT references are Lk. 23:43, 2 Cor. 12:4, Rev. 2:7. Here irapaSeiffos [paradeisos] is used in a technical sense (not so oils in MH). On Paul's reference see above, and on the heavenly Paradise as the abode of the righteous see Weber, Jud. Theologie, 344-345. The Midrash on the Psalms says that the dwellers in Paradise see the face of God ; they are indeed nearer than the angels. It is the antithesis to Gehinnom, and was created before the world. See ESCHATOLOGY, 20, 63, 75, 79, 103 ; and on the Reformation antipathy to allegory, on the NT treatment of the Paradise-story, on the story itself, and on the names of the first two human beings, ADAM AND EVE.

While this article was passing through the press, appeared an essay by Hommel entitled Vier neue Landschaftsnamen im AT, nebst einem Nachtrag iiber die vier Paradiesesflusse in altbab. u. altarab. Ueberlieferung (also to be found in Aufsatze u. Abhandlungen, 3:1), in which it is maintained that the Babylonians knew four Paradise-rivers, analogous to the four Paradise-rivers of the Hebrews. These rivers Hommel localises (cp AHT 314+) in northern and central Arabia, the tm and -IIB-K of Gen. being, according to him, central Arabia and Edom respectively. Hommel, however, equally with Winckler, fails to notice the strong evidence of a Jerahmeelite origin of the story of Paradise and other related narratives in the early part of Genesis.

1 Cp Budde, Die bibl. Urgesch. 85.

2 Charles well compares Koran, Sur. 47:15 where Paradise is described as having rivers of incorruptible water, milk of changeless taste, delicious wine, and clarified honey.

16. Literature.[edit]

A complete bibliography for Gen. 2:4b-3 and the questions which this section has produced would be a contribution to the history of exegesis but would not greatly help the pursuit of critical truth. Besides the important works referred to in the article we may mention a few articles or portions of books which might easily be overlooked. Spiegel, >-.i ;>. < A itrrt tmms&*i*/f, 14737^ 5" jf-~- Schrader, jft T 1 124.^ ; Baudissin. St*<fif* xmr sfiHit. /?/.-<*&-*. 2 i*>S. , Glaser, St-issf, 323^ 34/^: Hommel, \f*f firvU. Zt. 2*)3J^ : Stade, C.l l \ *$*f. : ^ ell- Gen. 2 X, fBL 10 t-io [iSoi], Kuenen. 7*. T1S 1*0-143 1>SS4], (on Budde's theories); Nestle, M*rgi<talie*, pp. 4-6 [iJj;]; Worcester, The Book of Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge pp. 148-256 [1901]. T. K. C.


<rnan, i.e.. 'the cow' ?; d>d.pA.[B], [A], AtppA [L]), a town in the territory of Benjamin mentioned with OPHRAH ( 'fawn' ?), Josh. 18:23. Identified by Guerin with the ruins called Fara, in the lower part of the W. Fara. on a hill in the middle of the valley, about 3 mi. NE. of Anathoth. The valley is always fresh and green from the beautiful 'Ain Fara (see EUPHRATES, a), and though to-day nothing is more austere than this savage gorge, haunted by birds of prey, and at evening by wild beasts from the mountains, numerous relics of ancient buildings are visible (Guerin, Judde, 3:71-73: PEFM 3:174). There is another Fara, SW. of Kedesh-Naphtali, not far from Kefr-Bir'im. The name Parah or Happarah is scarcely in its original form. Probably the article is prefixed to the Benjamite Parah to distinguish it from the other Parah (Fara).


ipS3 ; cp the Arab tribal names, farran, faran [Ges.-Bu. ]; Wetzstein, in Del. Gen 41 587 n.. derives from X "TN2. [root PAR] 'to dig out' : <J>APAN [B4t*ADFQL]). It is not easy to understand all the OT passages relative to Paran. Most scholars will agree, however, in identifying the wilderness of Paran with the lofty tableland of limestone called et-Tih. which is bounded on the S. by lebel et-Tih, on the W. by the Jebel Helal and the Jebel Yelek (towards the Wady el-Aris), on the N. by the 'Azazimeh mountain plateau (see ZIN), and on the E. by the Arabah. In a larger sense it appears also to have inc uded the wilderness of Zin in which Kadesh is located (Nu. 20:1 etc.), and therefore to have stretched up to the NEGEB (q. v.). This wider sense is presupposed in Gen. 21:21 'and he (Ishmael) dwelt in the wilderness of Paran, and his mother took for him a wife from the land of Misrim'. The narrator means trrat Paran and Misrim are virtually synonymous, so that if Misrim included Kadesh (which has been elsewhere - see MIZRAIM - assumed ), Kadesh can be said with equal justice to have been in the wilderness of Zin and in that of Paran. In fact. Nu. 13:26 states that the spies came to Moses 'to the wilderness of Paran, to Kadesh'. Here, it is true, !rsh. 'to Kadesh', 1 is a redactional insertion ( RP, see Bacon) ; but the insertion is geographically correct,

Dt. 33:1-2. 'Yahwe came from Sinai, and beamed forth from Seir upon them : he shone brightly from Mt. Paran, and came from Meribath-Kadesh' (see KADESH, 2, MASSAH. 2-3). The passage only becomes perfectly clear when we admit that Kadesh and Par.\n are geographically connected. 1 S. 24:1, 'Behold, David is in the wilderness of En-Kadesh' (so we should probably read, for "En-gedi": 1 see KADESH [BARNEA]): 25:1, 'And David arose and went down to the wilderness of Paran'. Most critics (e.g., We., Dr., but not H. P. Smith) follow LXX in emending MT's p2 [P'RN] into T>^> [MAON] which occurs in the next verse (cp MAON). But the harder reading is to be preferred. From the wilderness of Kadesh David went down to the wilderness of Paran (in the narrower sensed It should be noticed that 25:16 and v.2+ come from different sources.

1 Greene ( Hff-rfcr .^f ig-ratifm fn^m Egrft, 1879, p. 371} sees very clearly that the midbar of Paran and that of 'En-gedi' were not far apart. He also (273) suggests that En-gedi may be a corruption of En-Kadesh. We cannot, however, with Greene abolish the traditional En-gedi altogether.

Nu.20:1, 27:14 ( = Dt. 32:51) 33:36, 34:4 (cp Josh. 15:3); in these passages (all P or R{) Kadesh is distinctly said to lie in the wilderness of Zin (Nu. 33:36 even says, 'in the wilderness of Zin, that is, Kadesh' ). Nu. 10:12, 12;16, 13:3, 13:26 (all P) place Paran between Sinai and the Negeb. In Dt. 1:1 a new usage (but on the text see SUPH) appears. Paran may here designate a locality in the wilderness of Paran (Buhl. etc. ) ; so, too, if the text is right, in 1 K. 11:18, but here pjts is very possibly miswritten for j-iss or c TsS *< - i.e. the N. Arabian Misrim (see HADAD. MIZRAIM, 2b).

The description of Paran given by Eusebius and Jerome (OS 298:64, 122:28) is surprising. Pharan is a town over against Arabia southward, three days' journey from Aila eastward. HoreH, too, according to Eusebius (OS 301:40), was beyond Arabia, and Jerome adds (112:23) that it was near the mountain and the desert of the Saracens called Pharan. Eusebius and lerome were evidently misled by the name, Feiran, of the principal wady in the Sinaitic peninsula, on the N. side of the Jebel Serbal. Rephidim, they say (OS 287:86, 145:25), is near Pharan - i.e., near the walled episcopal city of Pharan (cp RETHIDIM) It is very strange that Greene (Hebrew Migration, 319) should think this tradition defensible. The Mountain of Elohim. he says, was indifferently called Sinai. Horeb, Paran. Cp SINAI.

Mt. Paran is mentioned twice : Dt. 33:2 (see above), and Hab. 33 (|| TEMAN). The latter passage favours the view of Buhl that 'Mt. Paran' means 'the range of hills between Sinai and Seir, which stretches beside the Elamitic Gulf as far as Aila' (Elath). 1 This very late passage, however, is merely a new and condensed edition of Dt. 33:2, where Mt. Paran is parallel to Kadesh. It is better to explain 'Mt. Paran' in accordance with this earlier passage as meaning Jebel Makrah l, (Palmer's Magrah), an extensive plateau which, though intersected by several broad wadys, runs northwards, without any break, to a point within a few miles of Wady es-Seba . It may he added that, as Holland discovered in 1878, the Jebel Makrah and the Jebel Terafeh (SE. of the 'Azazimeh mountains) do not form one continuous ridge, but are separated by a wady, and that this wady is probably the 'road of Mt. Seir' mentioned in Dt. l:2. a This enables us to understand better how Teman ( = Edom) and Mt. Paran could be regarded as parallel, though they are less strictly parallel than Mt. Paran and Kadesh.

We also meet, in Gen. 14:6, with El-Paran (-KS s> x. fore [TTJJ] rep(f]fi[ji]irQov r^$ (papar ; Onk. Sam. 'plain t~r c] of Paran' [see MOREH, PLAIN OF]), a point described as being -j-crr^. 'by the wilderness', at which, according to the present text, Chedorlaomer 'turned' in order to reach En-mishpat or Kadesh, and the country of the Amalekites and of certain Amorites. It is usually identified with the famous ELATH (nS N^ at the N. end of the Elanitic Gulf. This is not unplausible, according to the geographical view suggested by the present text. Still, the assumption that the full name of Elath was El-Paran ( 'palm(s) of Paran' ?) is by no means likely ; we should have expected Eloth-Arabah. That the wilderness of Paran was considered to extend to the Elanitic Gulf, is also unlikely. It is probable that we have here one of the many corruptions which disfigure the text of Gen. 14. The point intended may have been somewhere in the low hills near the Wadies Ghamr and Jerafeh. in the ancient 'road of Mt. Seir' (see above, also Palmer, Desert of the Exodus. 424. ). But cp SODOM. T. K. c.

1 Palmer. Desert of the Exodus, 510. 2 Guthe, ZDPl 8:213 (1885) ; cp Palmer, op. cit.


EV Persia (D?9 ; rrepCAi :BAQ] ; Ezek. 27:10, 38:5). according to Dillmann (Schenkel's BL 4:470) a N. African people ; he compares the Perorsi and Pharusii of Pliny (5:8). EV cannot be right; certainly, too. Ezekiel mentions 'Paras' in connection with 'Lud' and 'Put' which Dillmann regards as N. African peoples (in Ezek. 38:5 'Lud' may have accidentally dropped out of the text ; cp LXX, AV). When, however, we consider the frequent errors of MT, we have no right to suppose the reference to be to a people nowhere else mentioned in OT. According to Gratz, in 27:10 DIB is simply a corruption of B^O, whilst in 38:5 the word was also by an error written twice over (dittographed). Elsewhere (see PARADISE, 3, and PROPHET, 27) the present writer has maintained that certain prophecies of Ezek. have been recast so as to refer to peoples not meant by the prophet. If so, DIB and BIB will both be corruptions of n*nx, ZAREPHATH (q.v.). Cp PUT.

This is of importance, because Winckler bases his denial of Ezekiel's authorship of 38-39 partly on the incorrect geography implied in 'Paras', 'Cush', and 'Put' (AOF 2:165.) T. K. C.


p3"1S) and PARVARIM (AV 'suburbs', RV 'precints', D "VnS ; (JxNpoypeiM [HAL], (ppoyplON [ Sym. ] ; K""" [ pesh -]). These two names, which occur in 1 Ch. 26:18 and 2 K. 23:11 respectively, are usually identified.

1. 'Suburbs' or 'mules' ?[edit]

It is pointed out that -111-19 (iris) in New Hebrew means 'suburbs' and 'precincts', and that iKhns is used in Tg. for Heb. y-\is, etc., and from Ezek. 41:12, 41:15 it is inferred that there were outbuildings on the W. of the temple. In the temple of Herod two of the gates on the W. are said to have led to the irpodffTeiov [proasteion] (Jos. Ant. 15:11:15). This explanation of Parvarim is certainly rather incomplete, and the question arises whether scholars have not been too hasty in assuming that c inDa "wx describes the situation of the chamber of Nathan-melech and does not rather com plete the very imperfect description of Nathan-melech's office. It has also perhaps been premature to assume that the horses which the kings of Judah 'gave to the sun' were of bronze, when one considers the pointed way in which it is stated that the 'chariots of the sun' were 'burned with fire'. Of the horses, in fact, it is only said that Josiah put them down (risen). It has also not been adequately noticed that K3D is corrupt, and that if the position of the horses of bronze (?) had been described at all, a more precise expression than XOE (so Kittel) would probably have been used. The most obvious new explanation is to emend KOO into aiys, 'on the west of', and c*nfi3 into C"nB3- The passage then becomes, 'And he put down the horses which the kings of Judah had given to the sun, on the W. of Yahwe's house towards the chamber of Nathan-melech, the official, who was occupied with the mules (the king's riding animals), and he burned the chariots of the sun with fire'. See NATHAN-MELECH. We have thus obtained fresh light on a passage of much interest for Jewish history ; but we have lost a supposed source of light for the 'Parbar' of 1 Ch. 26:18, and we shall now hardly be bold enough to compare the Pers. parwar or parbar (both forms, besides fifteen others, are given in Richardson's Persian Dictionary), which means 'an open gallery or balcony on the top of a house, an upper room open on all sides to the air, etc.' (see Ball on 1 Ch. l.c., in Elliott's OT Commentary, vol. iii. [1883]).

2. Ancient versions.[edit]

The word -ais 1 ? was apparently unknown to LXX, and, where it occurs first, appears to be a corrupt dittogram of 3iysV-

It still remains to consider the readings of the ancient versions.

The readings in cellulis janitorum [Vg.] and >O3 sS2 [Tg., dividing -13 D()S, so Levy, Targ. HWB 367] are guesses. Pesh. simply transliterates. In vv. 16-18 LXX presents here and there a simpler text than the MT, and v. 18 (the opening words eis iioiexo/ieVovs [eis diadechomenous] apparently belong to v. 17) consists of a repetition of 16-17 followed by <cai n-pos Svoyiats Tf<rtrap(s, ai <J T OV rpifiov &vo Siabexofjievovs [..... duo diadechomenous]. The last two words represent C JB P":e (so read in v. i8/ )- The repetition of Parbar in one verse is unaccountable, and unless it is the corruption of some gloss upon n 38 D JC" and therefore expressed in the <taj<rxop.eVovt [diadechomenous] (in which case the first mention of it belongs to the end of v. 17), it would appear that it has been ignored or not read by LXX.

T. K. C. 1 ; S. A. C. 2.


See FOOD, i.


(TA BiBAiA M&AICT& TAG Bp&N&C ; libros, maxime autem membranas : 2. Tim. 4:13)-

Parchment was prepared from the skins of goats, sheep, calves, asses, swine, and antelopes ; the codex Sinaiticus is written on the finest prepared antelope skins. It owes its name (lirepya.^^ [pergamene], charta pergamena) to Eumenes II., king of Pergamum (197-159 B.C.), who revived the ancient use of skins, and improved the method of their preparation. Pliny's story (HN 13:11), for which he claims the authority of Varro, is that Eumenes wished to found a library in his capital which should rival that of Alexandria. To prevent this Ptolemy Epiphanes forbade the export of papyrus, and so compelled him to revert to the ancient custom. The new material was prepared in such a way as to be fit to receive writing on both sides, and thus be conveniently made up into book-form, the yu/jAnov [soomation]. The name pergamena first occurs in Diocletian's Price-list and in Jerome. The earlier word was 8i<fjOtpai [diphtherou] (Herod. 5:58), or Stppfit [derreis] (cp Mk. 16 in cod. D), or fj.tp.ftpdva.1 [membranai] (Lat. membrane) ; gradually parchment supplanted papyrus, and with this came also the change from the roll to the 'codex'. The first scholar to possess a whole library in codices was Jerome; and shortly before his time the library of Origen had to be rewritten in parchment volumes oy two priests. What the p<.p\{a [biblia] (i.e. , papyrus-rolls) or the more valuable jte/i/Spdrot [membranai] mentioned by Paul (in a section which may possibly have formed part of a genuine letter of the apostle) actually were it is impossible to say. What they may have been can easily be conjectured ; but the hypotheses of scholars differ. Thiersch thinks of notes on the life of Jesus, Maier of portions of the OT, Bahnsen of apocryphal writings, Wieseler of legal documents, Baumgarten of works of Greek literature (cp von Soden, ad loc. ).

Birt, Das antike Buchweien ; Sanday, Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica, 3:234+; Nestle, Einfuhrung in das Griechische NT (1899), 39-40 (=ET, 40-41)


fD HB;, Neh. 2:8, RVmg, Eccl. 2:5, RV. See GARDEN, PARADISE.


(n etc.), Judg. 820. etc. See CHAMBER, HOUSE.


MARMACIMA [BL/s], fio.pfj.air i fj. [K], fuiptuurif.ra[A] ; pfter>rtesta[\ %, ]), son of HAMAN, Est. 9
9. For the name some compare Sansk. parameshta, 'chief' (Benary). An old Pers. original would be better; but see PURIM.


fnARMCNAc [Ti. WH]) = Parmenides, one of the 'Seven', Acts 6:5.

The list of the Pseudo-Hippolytus makes him bishop of Soli ; in that of the Pseudo-Dorotheas he is said to have died in his deaconship in the presence of the apostles.


CJjriS; djARNAX ;BAF], d> A p & NAX [ L D- Elizaphan, nasi of Zebulon, is called ben Parnach (Nu. 34:25+, P).

The name can hardly be the 'land of Parnak' mentioned by Esarhaddon (KB 2:128) in connection with Tul-Asur (i.e., TELASSAR [q.v.]). See Del. Par. 265 ; Wi. GBA 269.


(B inS, 68, 'flea', cp Ass. parshu'u, 'flea', also a personal name, Del. Ass. H WB, 546 ; for a more attractive explanation, see below ; usually (popoc or cpApec [L], whence PHOKOS in EV of Esd., but in Ezra 2:3 [B] and 10:25 [K ca ] d>A.pec. and in Neh. 2;25 (popecoc [L]. and 10:15 <|>opC \\*\}> { he name of the most eminent non-Levitical 'father's house' in the post-exilic Judaean community, Neh. 10:14 [10:15], elsewhere called sons of Parosh (Ezra 2:3 = Neh. 7:8 = 1 Esd. 5:9, and Ezra 8:3 [AV PHAROSH]= 1 Esd. 8:30 [AV PHAREZ]). One of their number had a share in the building of the wall under Nehemiah (Neh. 3:25, see PEDAIAH) ; and certain B'n Parosh took part in the league against alien marriages (Ezra 10:25 = 1 Esd. 9:26). Meyer (Entst. d. Jud. 157) thinks that the family was of pre-exilic origin. This is probable, but not on the ground which he gives. For the Assyrian parallel mentioned by Delitzsch seems to show that Par'osh may really have been a personal name among the Israelites. Meyer s right course would have been to deny that a family called the 'Flea-clan', can have been the first family in the land. He might then have gone on to propose a better explanation of the name. w and n being phonetically akin, B jns may be miswritten for njns, Pir'ath or Par'ath, a name which is presupposed by PIR'ATHON (q.v.} mentioned in Judges. 1

Cp FLEA, where it is maintained that the insect is nowhere expressly mentioned in the OT. T. K. C.


(NrnjEHB ; <}>APC<\N KM vttrraLiv [I?], ^>a.p<ra.vve<TTa.v [N* vicl.], -Tail/ [N c - a ], <t>ap<ravf<rrav [AlJ 5 ]), eldest son of HAMAN (q.v.) Esth. 9:7. For the name compare perhaps Old Peruan fracna data [the c has a cedilla] 'granted by prayer' (Benfey).


(n&pGoi), Acts 2:10-11. See PERSIA.


(XTUp, kore], 1 S. 26:20 ( but see below), Jer. 17:11 and Eccles. 11:30 (nepAliz).

1. Species.[edit]

No one could be surprised to find the partridge referred to in the OT. The Caccabis chukar (a sub-species of the more widely-distributed Caccabis saxatilis) is the commonest game-bird in Palestine. A smaller species, Ammoperdix heyi, takes the place of the C. chukar in the Dead Sea area and the Jordan valley, where it is abundantly represented. A third kind, Francolinus vulgaris, the black partridge of N. India, occurs in several parts of Palestine, but is not numerous, and another species of Caccabis, C. melanocephala, is found in SW. Arabia.

2. OT references.[edit]

It is certainly a thoroughly natural expression that is assigned to David in 1 S. 26:20. Of the Caccabis chukar it is said that its ringing call-note may be heard everywhere in the hill-country of Judah. When hunted, these cheery birds scud up the hills with great rapidity ; at last, wearied out, they can be knocked over with a stick. More generally, however, they are captured by 'long narrow runs, carefully formed of brushwood, leading to the cave in which the decoy-bird is concealed' (Tristram) ; often indeed partridges themselves are the decoy-birds (as is mentioned, for classic antiquity, by Aristotle and Aelian) ; cp Ecclus. 11:30, and see Fowl., 10-11

One of the three passages of EV in which 'partridge' occurs gives a perfectly satisfactory sense. In Ecclus. 11:30 the guile of a proud man is compared to a decoy partridge in a cage and to a spy. In 1 S. 26:20, however, we have a slight feeling of surprise that Saul's pursuit of David should be compared to nothing nobler or harder than the chase of partridges, and in Jer. 17:11 the reference (in RV) to a partridge 'that gathereth young which she hath not brought forth' has met with no adequate explanation. The partridge has far too many eggs of her own to care to steal the eggs of other birds. No popular superstition suggestive of such an idea as that given in the prevalent version of Jer. 17:11 is in the least likely to have arisen among such observant people as the Israelites ; we may sajely let Bochart s Hierozoicon repose on its shelf.

A doubt will naturally arise as to the state of the text, more especially when we find in Judg. 15:19 the term En-hakkore, which, against the context, is explained by some 'Partridge-spring', but which must either be 'Well of him that called' or be a corruption (in combination with Lehi) of 'Jerahmeel' (see LEHI).

In 1 S. 26:20 our choice seems to lie between inserting 1'], 'a hawk' (as suggested by a marginal note to Tg. Jon. in Lag. Proph. 18), so that Saul would be compared to a hawk and David to a partridge, or (since r,-n is not the right verb to be coupled with 1']) changing Xip into NTE, a 'wild ass', in accordance

1 We must not compare Parsua, the name of a land in W. Media.



with the critically emended text of 1 S. 24:15 [24:14] (see FLEA). In Jer. 17:11 a more searching examination of the text is required. Cornill (SHOT, Jer., Heb.) says that this is one of those passages which have been misplaced by an error of the scribes, whilst Giesebrecht denies it to Jeremiah altogether. We may indeed reasonably deny it to Jeremiah (see JEREMIAH [BOOK]); but we must not deny its connection with vv. 5-8. It is in fact parallel to vv. 5-6, and should probably run, 'Cursed is the pernicious man who acquires riches, but not rightfully', etc. - i.e., iS uSi IJT 1p is corrupted out of Vy; 1 ?!! 123 "inN. It is surely better to try to restore what the prophetic writer may have said than to spend time in seeking to explain what no Hebrew writer can have said.

In 1 S. 26:20, H. P. Smith (Samuel, 233), after Klost., would emend ll^ND into "lt?33 ( 'as the eagle hunts the partridge' ). But

  • (1) rpi is the wrong verb ;
  • (2) vvKTiic6pa [nyktikorax] (LXX) nowhere else represents -ujij ; and
  • (3) the vulture (nc j) > is a carrion-feeding bird. T. K. C. A. E. S.


(H-l-lB; <J>AppOY [A], BAPC&OYX [I-]. 4>OY*.COyA [K]), the father or clan of the prefect of ISSACHAR (4, n. 4) under Solomon (1 K. 4:17). 

If 'Jehoshaphat' is really a late transformation of Zephathi (see SHAPHAT), 'Paruah' probably comes from Hareph ( pn), or Haruph (niin), a Calebite clan-name (1 Ch. 2:51). Note that in 1 Ch. 125 Shephatiah (i.e., Zephathi) is called a Haruphite. Paruah ( 'blooming', NAMES, 57) is surely miswritten.

T. K. C.


(DM-IQ; ^APOY^IM [BA], -CIM [L] ; Vg. Pesh. Ar. take it as an adj. decore multo, etc.).

2 Ch. 3:6 states that Solomon 'overlaid (]s i) the house, or temple, with mp p or costly stones, for adornment, and the gold was gold of Parvaim'. The statement respecting the gold is unconnected with what precedes. We must, however, resist the easy hypothesis of a gloss, and seek for a solution of the problem which brings the clause into relation with the immediate context. Investigation leads to the theory that Parvaim is a corruption of bf/vsim [beroshim] 'fir-trees', whilst 'and the gold was gold' of must be changed to 'and covered (it) with timber of'. The passage belongs to the Chronicler's account of the building of the temple.

The Pasek after jiNl in v. 5 indicates that the text is in some disorder, and the fact that closely similar words recur at intervals in vv. 4-7 suggests that corruption and dittography may very possibly have combined to produce the present text. mNBn 1 ?) being such an unnecessary appendage, is specially suspicious. niNEn certainly comes from [cltt na, 'fir-trees'. This appears originally to have stood in the margin as a correction of C"nS, for which weshould also read CE lil~)3 ; it is dittographed from v. 5a which suggests that yft\ 3,11 ~1 is probably corrupted from sy ^[Tl. From insm to jruS lE l must evidently be transferred to v. 4 (the opening words are of the nature of a dittogram). v. 5-6 may have been nearly as follows, 'and he covered the greater house with costly stones (?) and with fir-timber'. All besides is either misplaced or dittographed.

If the rest of the text of 2 Ch. 3:6 were sounder, Glaser's identification of Parvaim (Skizze, 2 347) with Sak-el-Farwain, of which we hear from the Arabian geographer Hamdani, would be more plausible. T. K. C.


(TIPS ; BAICHXI [ R L <t>ecHXi [A], cbacex [L]), a name in a genealogy of ASHER (q.v. 4ii. ), 1 Ch. 7:33+.


(DV3TDS; cbAcoAoMH [BN], - m [A] TOIC cepp&N [L]- U^3? ^tvvft [Pesh.], phesdomim [Vg. ]), the place where Eleazar ben Dodo (Dodai) performed an exploit during the war with the Philistines, 1 Ch. 11:13. The || passage (2 S. 23:9) has csiw ( 'when they defied', so LXX{BA} fv T<^ oveidicrai ; ev ffeppafj. [L]). The original reading was probably either c KBT pey3, 'in the valley of Rephaim' (Marq. Fund. 17), or trsiN pOi 2, 'in the valley of the Arammites' ( =Jerahmeelites), or more probably both readings were current (Che. ). See Crit. Bib., and cp REPHAIM, VALLEY OF, and cp EPHESDAMMIM, LEHI.


(Plpa, 66 'halting', i.q. Claudius).

i. Brother of Beth-rapha (from 'Beth-sarephathim' ? ) and TEHINNAH [q.v.] in a Calebite genealogy, i Ch. 4:12. Paseah is possibly a corruption of JERAHMEEL [Che.]; cp Pisseah, an assumed link in the development of MEPHIBOSHETH (q.v.) out of Jerahme'el (|3e<r- ffrjf [B], <f>ffffij [A], (paaae [L]).

2. The B'ne Paseah are mentioned among the post-exilic Nethinim; Ezra 2:49 WHCTOI/ [B], </>OCTT) [A], <f>acr<ra [L]); Neh. 7:51 (Phascah [AV], ^etrr) [B], ^.aicn) [X], <f>fo-<rr) [A], $a.a<ja. [L]). In 1 Esd. 5:31 the name appears as PHINOE (<j>ivo( [BA], so RV, but AV PHINEES).

3. Father of Jehoiada, 3 : Neh. 3:6 ($acr [BNA], <e<ro-e [L]).


so RV, but AV PASHUR TTACXCOP eAeyGepoc. OS 204, 25 ; LXX <S generally). It is natural to compare ASHHUR [q.v.], 1 but some of LXX{L}'s readings (see 3) suggest a corruption of PEDAHZUR [Che.]; cp Jer. 20:3. See also HAPPIZZEZ.

i. Pashhur, one of the B'ne IMMER (q.v. ), was chief officer in the temple in Jeremiah s time, probably therefore second only to the chief priest 2 (Jer. 20:1-6). He was also a prophet, but of quite another type from Jeremiah (v. 66 ; cp v. 31), whom he caused to be put into the stocks for his prophecies of woe, and thereupon received the name MAGOR-MISSABIB (contrasting with Pedahzur, 'God hath ransomed' ), and the warning that he would share the general fate of captivity. He is identified by some with the father of another opponent of Jeremiah, named Gedaliah (Jer. 38:1), but on no special grounds.

2. Pashhur b. Malchiah was one of two sent by Zedekiah to Jeremiah imploring him to inquire of Yahwe on behalf of the nation (Jer. 21:1, 38:1). Some identify him with the Pashhur b. Malchiah, mentioned in a document of the age of Nehemiah which forms the basis of 1 Ch. 9:3-17 and Neh. 11:4-19: 1 Ch. 9:12 (<f>a<rx<0p [A], <f>a<reovp [L]); Neh. 11:12 (<acrcrovp [B], <f>a<reovp [KA], <Ja<Tovp [L]). That personage certainly belonged to a priestly family ; but since Pashhur is not called so in 21:1 we may assume that he did not exercise priestly functions. It may be doubted whether Pashhur was properly a personal name (see 3) ; identifications are therefore uncertain.

3. The B'ne Pashhur, a post-exilic family : Neh. 7:41 (<j>atTf&ovp [B], <<xcreovp ["A], <j)aSa<T<Tovp [L]) = Ezra 2:38 ((acr<Tovp [B?], ifiaa-a-ovpa [B*], <j>acrovp [A], <j>a66as, [L])=1 Esd. 5:25, PHASSARON, RV PHASSURUS (<acrtropov [B], <a<rcrovpou [A], tfraSacr- trovp [L]). Six of their number are mentioned as having married foreign wives, Ezra 10:22 (<f>a<rovp [BNA], <j>apa-r>vp [L]) = 1 Esd. 9:22, PHAISUR (<ai<roup [B], <arov [A], ^afiacrcroup [L]) ; the family itself is referred to at the closing festival under Nehemiah (Neh. 10:3 </>a<rovp [BNA], cf>acrcrovp [L]).


In 1 S. 13:23 ma'abar, ~apc, and in 1 S. 14:4, Is. 10:29 ma'barah, n7ays, is in AV 'passage' ; in all three cases RV has 'pass'. See MICHMASH. In Gen. 32:22 [32:23], Josh. 2:7, Judg. 3:28, Is. 16:2 EV gives 'ford' for (rt)l3j, D, as also does RV in Judg. 12:5-6 where AV has 'passages'. See FORD. RVmg also has fords in Jer. 51:32 where EV has 'passages' (of Babylon). On Jer. 22:20 (AV 'passages' RV 'Abarim' ) see ABARIM.

1 [Names with pash (earlier form passh) 'portion' (i.e., property) of a divinity (Manet, Isis, Me'it f. Liebl. 25:25) are far from being uncommon in Egyptian. w. M. M.]

2 Zephaniah, who in Jer. 29:26 is called 'an officer' (Tps)i in 62:24 is called 'second priest' (n:sj>cn J 13).