Encyclopaedia Biblica/Pollux-Praetor

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




tree or fruit (|isi, po & ; Ex. 28:33-34, 39:24-26, Nu. 13:23, 20:5, Dt. 8:8, 1 S. 14:2, 1 K. 7:18, 7:20, 7:42, 2 K. 25:17, 2 Ch. 3:16, 4:13, Cant. 4:3, 4:13, 6:7, 6:11, 7:12 [7:13], 8:2, Jer. 52:22-23, Joel 1:12, Hag. 2:19+).

1. Derivation.[edit]

It bears the same name in Heb. , Aram., Arab, and Eth. , and might therefore be supposed to belong to the group of plants - vine, olive, fig, palm - which were known to the common stock of the Semitic peoples before they separated (except the Assyrians and Babylonians ; see Hommel, Aufs. und Abh. 93), were it not that there is special reason to doubt whether rumman (like tuffah = n1an) is a genuine Arabic word at all, and not rather borrowed from Aram, or Heb. (cp Frankel, 142). The origin and first home of the word are uncertain (Noldeke, Aland. Gr. 123 ; Guidi, Della Sede, 19 ; Hommel conjectures a source in Asia Minor, op. cit. 98). The connection with the divine name Rimmon - if such connection there be (it is denied by H. Derenbourg) is obscure and throws no light on the etymology (cp Baudissin, Stud. 1306). Cp RIMMON.

The pomegranate tree (Punica Granatum, L. ) is indigenous in Persia, Kurdistan, Afghanistan, and perhaps Beluchistan, also S. of the Caspian Sea and the Caucasus ; farther west its growth is mainly con nected with cultivation (De Cand. Origine. 189). It has been since early times cultivated in Egypt 1 (cp Nu. 20:5), Assyria, Palestine, and most countries round the Mediterranean.

1 It was imported in historical times ; see EGYPT, 8 n.

2. Description.[edit]

[The pomegranate is a shrub or low tree with small deciduous dark-green foliage, which well sets off the crimson calyx and petals of the flowers, whilst the large reddish coloured fruit, filled with many seeds, each surrounded with juicy pleasant-tasted pulp, gave it additional value in a warm country. The rind and bark and the outer part of the root are valued as astringents for the tannin which they contain. The fruit is frequently represented on Assyrian and Egyptian sculptures, and was a religious symbol in several ancient cults (see Baudissin, Studien, 2:207+, but cp HADAD-RIMMON).

According to Ohnefalsch-Richter (Kypros, Text, 115) the pomegranate was sacred to Adonis in Cyprus, just as in Crete it was sacred to Dionysus, which throws light, as he holds, on the confusion made in MT between f\GTl, 'pomegranate-tree' and ]&], Ramman (the Assyrian storm-god). See RIMMON.]

3. OT references.[edit]

The biblical references especially Dt. 8:8, Joel 1:12, Hag. 2:19 show that the pomegranate was one of the common fruit-trees of Palestine. 1 There was a large tree at Gibeah in the time of Saul (1 S. 14:2 ). We hear of a pomegranate orchard or garden (0^-13 = irapadfiaos [paradeios]; see GARDEN) in Cant. 4:13; the beautiful flowers are referred to in Cant. 6:11, 7:12 [7:13]. The jienn nSs, Cant. 4:3, 6:7 (EV 'piece of a pomegranate' ) is explained by Wetzstein (ap. Delitzsch, 437+) as referring to the cleft in the ripe pomegranate, which shows the flesh of the fruit with the seeds shining through it. The mention of pomegranate wine, Cant. 8:2 ( EV 'juice' ), is illustrated by the account of poirrjs olvos [roites oinos] in Diosc. 5:34.

As is well known, the pomegranate supplied forms (1) for the embroidery at the base of the 'robe of the ephod', Ex. 28:33, etc. (see BELLS, i), and (2) for metal ornamentation on the tops of pillars in the temple, 1 K. 7:18, etc.

[According to Flinders Petrie the design of bells and pomegranates is the old Egyptian lotus and bud border, such a pattern having lost its original meaning in course of transfer to other lands (Hastings, DB 1:269). If so, the design is misnamed. As the text stands, a small golden bell was to be attached to the hem between each two of the 'pomegranates' (i.e. , balls like pomegranates made of threads of the three colours mentioned).] N. M.

1 [See also Nu. 13 23, where the spies are said to have brought pomegranates and figs, as well as grapes, from Eshcol. Cp NEGEB, g 7.]


2 Ch. 14:12-13 AV, RV BOWLS (q.v.)


i. D2N, 'agam. See POOL, i.

2. "VpD, mikweh (v/Hlp, in Niph, 'to gather, collect' ), in Ex. 7:19 RV (AV 'pool' ; <rweoTT)icbs uS<op ; lacus aquarum) ; used also widely in Gen. 1:10, Lev. 11:36 [see RV]. Cp nlj3D, mikwah, 'reservoir', Is. 22:11, Ecclus. 43:20a+ (Heb.); see CONDUITS, i (5).




(TTONTOC, Acts 2:9, 1 Pet. 1:1 ; TTONTIKON TOO peNe Acts 18:2). The 'maritime' state, in the NE. corner of Asia Minor.

1. Geography.[edit]

It was, in fact merely the coast-land of Cappadocia, lying N. of the mountains which separate the central plateau from the sea-board : hence it was called 'Cappadocia on the sea (Pontus)' - Ka7r7ra5o/da i] Trpos T Ilocrcfj (Strabo, 534). It is a land of mountains and well-watered fertile valleys, and of great natural wealth.

The chief river was the Iris (Yeshil Irmak), with its tributary the Lycus {Kelkit Irmak). Amaseia (Amasia) and Comana Pontica (near mod. Tokat) were centres of trade (cp Strabo, 559, ifj-iropiov TOIS O.TTO rrjs Ap/aei/tas af idAoj/oi , of Comana) : the former was the cradle of the power of Pontus, the latter the chief seat of the worship of the great goddess Ma, around whose shrine dwelt six thousand consecrated courtesans (Strabo, 557-558) ; cp Comana in Cappadocia, id. 535, and the cult of Anaitis in Armenia, id, 532).

On the coast were flourishing Greek settlements, of which the most important was Amisus (mod. Samsun), the natural outlet for the products of eastern Asia Minor northwards. Farther E. was Trapezus (Trebizond), and W. , Sinope (Sinub), which ultimately became the capital of the kingdom.

2. History.[edit]

The independent career of Pontus dated from the overthrow of the Persian monarchy (Strabo, 534). Under the sway of the family of Mithridates (from about 280 B.C.), its importance gradually grew, at the expense of its eastern and western neighbours (see sketch by Holm, Gk. Hist. ET 4:285-286). The glorious period of Pontic history was during the reign of Mithridates IV., Eupator (111-63 B.C.), who created a great maritime kingdom (cp Holm, op. cit. 4:569), and extended his power westwards over the coast beyond the river Halys and over the inland country (Paphlagonia : of which he ruled TTJV eyyvrdrw, Strabo, 544 J, 1 to the borders of Bithynia (Strabo, 540). The campaigns of Lucullus and Pompeius overthrew the Pontic Kingdom, and in 65 B.C. Pompeius organised the double province Bithynia-Pontus.

This was created by combining with the former kingdom of Nicomedes III. (see BITHYNIA) all the western part of the kingdom of Mithridates - viz., the coast-land of Paphlagonia from the Pontic Heraclea (mod. Eregli) as far as Amisus, inclusive, 2 together with those parts of inner Paphlagonia that had been acquired by the Pontic kings. The rest of Paphlagonia, together with eastern Pontus, remained non-Roman, being handed over to semi-independent, in some cases priestly, dynasts (Strabo, 541). These territories were, however, from time to time incorporated, not with the province of Pontus-Bithynia, but with that of Galatia.

In 5 B.C. the Paphlagonian kingdom of Deiotarus Philadelphus, brother of Castor, the capital of which was Gangra (mod. Changra), was thus incorporated ; in 2 B.C., the kingdom of the Gaul Ateporix - i.e. , the territory of Karana which had formerly belonged to Zela (mod. Zilleh, S. of Amaseia) ; at the same date the territory of Amaseia was absorbed, along with the district of Gazelonitis (with the exception of its seaboard) on the lower Halys; in 34 or 35 A. D. Tiberius incorporated Comana Pontica and its territory ; finally, in 63 A. D. , Nero incorporated the kingdom of Polemon II., the only remaining part of Pontus as yet unabsorbed (Pontus Polemoniacus was its name after absorption, to distinguish it from Pontus Galaticus. See GALATIA, 3).

3. NT references.[edit]

The word Pontus in the NT has, therefore, two possible significations. It may indicate that part of the Pontic Kingdom which was added to Bithynia (TTJS Hovmcfjt >Xias TT?S rrj KiOvviq. Strabo, 543) ; or it may stand for the full title of the double province Pontus-Bithynia, just as is the case with the word Bithynia (see BITHYNIA). It is in this latter sense that the word is used in Acts 2:10, in the list of regions from which came certain Jews and proselytes present in Jerusalem at the Feast of Pentecost. That list (cp GEOGRAPHY, 26, end), in spite of some irregularities, is made on the principle of naming the regions according to four groups (so Page, Acts of the Ap., note in loc.), and follows a natural geographical order from Cappadocia in the E. , round by the N. , and southwards to Pamphylia. Pontus stands for the Province Pontus-Bithynia, in the coast-towns of which Jews would be settled for purposes of trade (cp Acts 18:2). On the other hand, in Acts 18:2, where Aquila is said to have been 'born in Pontus' (so AV ; RV, 'a man of Pontus by race' ), we must under stand the word in the first sense, of Roman or western Pontus, the eastern section of the double province. We may conjecture that Aquila, who was a tent-maker (ffKT]voTroi6s, Acts 18:3), came from the district E. of the Halys, in which Amisus lay, for there alone in the province was wool raised in any quantity (cp Strabo, 546, Gazelonitis fyei 5e KCU Trpo/So.Tei ai VTro5i<pdepov Kdl /u,aAaK??s peas, TJS nad 6\tjv T\\V K^awiradoKiai tcai TOV \\OVTOV fftpbdpa TroAA?; crrrdvis eaTi).

There remains the mention of Pontus in 1 Pet. 1:1. The enumeration 'Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia' employs the terms in the Roman sense and 'sums up the whole of Asia Minor N. of the Taurus range' (Rams. Church in the Rom. Emp.W 110). Why then are the two names Pontus and Bithynia both employed, and so widely separated ? The question depends to some extent upon the date of 1 Peter (see PETER [EPISTLES OF]). If it was written as early as 63 A. D. it is conceivable that Bithynia is used for the double province (as in Tac. Ann. 174 16:18), and that Pontus = the kingdom of Polemon, the last free relic of the old Pontic realm. It is at least more probable, however, that the Epistle belongs to a period not earlier than 75-80 A.D. Pontus will therefore be the eastern part of the double province Pontus-Bithynia, and Bithynia the western part, which bore the name Bithynia before its erection into a province. Nor is such separation without justification in point of fact, for the two parts of the province had a certain independence.

Amastris was the firjrpon-oAis [metropolis] of the Pontic part, as Nicomedeia of the Bithynian, and the provincial synods (consilium, KOLVOV) met separately in those towns (see Momms.-Marq. Rom. Staatsv. l:355-356). The only difficulty is then to account for the order of the names. On this point the view put forward in Hort's dissertation, 'The Provinces of Asia Minor included in St. Peter's address' (1 Peter, 157-184) is the most satisfactory.l He shows that the order of names indicates the course of the journey projected by Silvanus the bearer of the letter. Silvanus was to enter Asia Minor by a seaport of Pontus, and thence to make a circuit till he reached the neighbourhood of the Euxine once more. He would, perhaps, land at Sinope (more probably at Amisus), and leave Asia Minor by a port ol Bithynia.

1 Light is thrown upon the geography of this region by Anderson and Munro in Journ. of Hell. Studies, 20:150+ (1900).

2 Relying on Strabo, 544, Momms.-Marquardt (Rom. Staatsv. 1:350) say that Amisus was not included in the province until after 33 B.C. ; but see Rams. Hist. Geogr. of AM, 191-129.

4. Christianity in Pontus.[edit]

As to the date of the planting of the church in Pontus we have no information. Paul had been forbidden to set foot in the western part of the Province (Acts l6:7). We gather from Col. 4:10 and 2 Tim. 5:11 that Mark's work lay in Asia during the years succeeding 61 A.D. , and he is mentioned in 1 Pet. 5:13 in away that suggests that he was known to the eastern congregations. Hence we may conjecture that Mark laboured in the eastern provinces of Anatolia, and that the evangelisation of Pontus was due in part to him. Possibly it was suggested to him by Aquila, who probably saw him in Rome on the occasion of Paul's first imprisonment (cp Rom. 163, Col. 4:10, Philem. 24) and at Ephesus some years later (cp 2 Tim. 4:12 and 4:19).

The tradition of Peter's work, in association with Andrew, in Pontus and the Provinces of Asia Minor is, probably, merely an inference from the Epistle itself. See SIMON PETER. The earliest authority for the statement is Origen (cp Eus. HE 3:1), who simply repeats the list of 1 Pet. 1:1 (with changed order) and says that he seems to have preached (xeiojpvxeVai eoiKei/). The Syriac Doctrine of the Apostles (Cur. Anc. Syr. Doc. 33) says that Peter 'laid the foundation of the Church' in Antioch, Syria, Cilicia, and Galatia, even to Pontus ; and the route followed is given as starting from the Syrian Antioch and going by way of Tyana in Cappadocia to Sinope, where there was a tradition of Peter s presence (see Lipsius, Apokr. Apostelgesch. 2:1:43+).

The route is indeed quite correct, as the road from Syria, through the Cilician gates, and then by way of Tyana and Caesareia in Cappadocia, was the great N. route to the Euxine, and is to-day the only road between Ccesareia Mazaca and Samsun that is practicable for arabas (see Rams. Hist. Geogr. of AM, 268, 446). The point of issue upon the Pontic coast-land was not, however, Sinope, but Amisus, for 'Sinope is cut off from the interior by broad and lofty mountains, most difficult to traverse' (Rams., op. cit., 28).

We learn from Pliny's correspondence with Trajan that in 112 A.D. renegade Christians were found at Amisus in considerable numbers ; and that some claimed to have abandoned Christianity even twenty-five years previously (Ep. 96). This would prove that Christianity had obtained a hold in Amisus as early as 87 or 88 A.D.

Ramsay (Church in the Rom. Emp. 225) concludes that we may place the introduction of the new religion into this part of Pontus between 65 and 75 A.D. ; but he appears to take too narrow a view in ascribing the evangelisation of Asia Minor too exclusively to Paul and Pauline influence, as though Christianity in the northern provinces was due only to infiltration from Ephesus and other centres (Id., op. cit., 284-285).

For the history of the Pontic Kingdom, Th. Reinach, Mithridate Eupator, roi de Pont (Paris, 1890). w. J. W.

1 The secret of the peculiar order of the list was divined first apparently by Ewald, in his Sieben Sendschreiben des NB, 2+ (see Hort, l.c., 168 .).

2 Cp POND. When RV in Ex. 7:19 substitutes pool for pond as a rendering for again and pond for pool as a rendering for mikweh, it seems to be guided by a sense of the probable etymology of pool as akin to TnjAds [telos] and/a/wj [palus].


{2} The words are :

i. C3K, 'agam (\/Q3N [root 'GM] 'troubled sad' ?; Ass. agamu ; properly of troubled or muddy pools or marshes ; see BDB), applied, for example, to the pools left by the inundation of the Nile (Ex. 7:19, 8:1 [8:5] : AV 'pond' ; eAos ; palus) and probably to the 'marsh' of Jordan (1 Macc. 9:42, 45 ; palus ; see Comm.). Frequently used in poetry in contrast with the dry sand of the desert (Is. 14:23, 35:7, 41:18, 42:15 ; in last three cases eAos, stagnum) ; Ps. 107:35 (Ai/neVa iiSdriav, stagna aquarut), 114:8 (Ainms vS., st. aq.). In Jer. 51:32 (<rvo-T(fia.Ta) AV renders 'reeds' (cp REED, 3), but RVmg. has 'or marshes, Heb. pools'. On the U 23 "C3N, AV 'ponds of fish', of Is. 19:10 see under SLUICE ; also FISH, 5.

2. i"I3"13, berekah (?v/T3, of camels kneeling to drink, but cp Ges.-Bu.) ; Kp7Jf>; [krene], KoAu/uj3>7(?pa ; [kolumbethra] once Ai /oiv> [limne]), Cant. 7:4; Vg. piscina; once aquaductus, Neh. 2:14 ; cp Arab, birkeh and Span, alberca. See CONDUITS, i, 3 ; also, on the 'pools' (icoAuju/3>)0pa [kolumbethra]) of Bethesda and Siloam, see JERUSALEM, 11, and SILOAM.

3. nipp mikweh. See POND, 2.


1. Terms.[edit]

Dismissing with a bare notice the word en t Ni, rash, which is the proper term in Hebrew for 'poor' in the sense of 'indigent', 'without means' (1 S. 18:23, etc., esp. frequent in Proverbs ; irtvys, TTTUXOS, Ta.irfi.vbs) we come to an interesting group of words j1']x, 'ebyon (irtvr)s, irrw^bs, raTreiyos, evotris}, 71, dal (a<jdevq<i, TT^CTJS, irtvixpbs, TTfvofj^vos, wovrjpbi, TTTWXOS, Ta7retv6s) and <:y, ant (irtvrjs, TTevixpbs, Trpaus, irruxbs, ra.irei.v6s) - all three synonymous in usage but with a different significance and denotation in different books. In legal documents where it is in the absence of material goods that the point of the reference lies, all three terms denote the poor man in the material or legal sense.

So in the Book of the Covenant ([V3N, Ex. 23:6, 23:11, ^i, Ex. 23:3, jy, Ex. 22:24 [22:25]), the Law of Holiness (<jy, Lev. 19:10, 23:22 ), the Priestly Code (*?-], Ex. 30:15 Lev. 14:21), or Deuteronomy (rvan, Dt. 15:4, etc., jy, Dt. 15:11, etc.), and generally in the Wisdom Literature (|V3K, Job 29:16, Prov. 14:31, etc.; S-|, Prov. 10:15, 28:11, etc.; jy, Job 24:9; Prov. 14:21, etc.).

In the older prophets (Am. 2:6, Is. 315, etc.), where the opposition between tyrannical ruler and downtrodden subject is the point to be emphasised, the words denote primarily the lower classes of the people, oppressed and miserable, but relatively righteous ; in later prophecy (Is. 14:30, 14:32, 29:19, 49:13, etc.), and often in the Psalms (Ps. 22:25, 35:10, etc.), they serve to denote that pious remnant, still chastened by suffering and oppression, which constituted, ideally at least, the post-exilic Israel.

Of the three terms, 'ebyon is the narrowest in connotation, and signifies originally 'in want' - i.e., either (i) of material assistance hence 'poor', 'indigent' (Esth. 9:22, etc. ), or (2) of help in time of trouble or oppression, hence 'afflicted', 'miserable' (Is. 254, etc. ): the religious colouring it so often possesses (Jer. 20:13, Ps. 37:14, etc.) is due to frequent association with dal and 'ani.

Dal on the other hand has the widest range : its root-meaning is that of lowness or dependence and it signifies

  • (1) weak, in poor condition physically (Gen. 41:19),
  • (2) of a family, reduced, insignificant (Judg. 6:15, 2 S. 3:1),
  • (3) poor materially (Ruth 5:10, Prov. 10:15, etc. ),
  • (4) weak, oppressed, miserable, always with a religious connotation (Am. 2:7, Is. 10:2, Zeph. 3:12, etc. ).

Most spiritual in significance of the three terms is 'ani which, whilst denoting originally 'one in a humble or servile position' (cp Ass. enu, Del. Ass. HWB 99, and Arab, 'anin, a captive, slave), and sharing with dal the significations 'poor' and 'oppressed', tends always to take on less of a material and more of a religious colouring. 'Ani, >:y, is never opposed to 'asir as poor to rich (but dal five times) whilst its by-form 'anaw, i:y has never a material significance at all.

On the relation between 'ani and 'anaw see Driver, art. 'Poor' in Hastings DB, and Rahlfs, <jy </ijy in den Psalmen 53+ (1892). Rahlfs' determination of the meaning of 'anaw by means of the form of the word is too ingenious to be assured of general acceptance, while the line of demarcation between a 'religiously coloured', and a 'religious', idea ( 'religios gefarbter' 1 and 'religioser Begriff' ) is faint : 'anaw is merely a by-form of 'ani having its origin perhaps in textual corruption but fixed and perpetuated by a Rabbinic taste for fine distinctions. Neither 'ani nor 'anaw, however, should ever be rendered 'meek ; the cursings of Pss. 69 and 109 are inconsistent with such a rendering, and EV's rendering in Nu. 12:3, 'the man Moses was very meek' ( 'amaw) can hardly be sustained.! On jj; see also Lagarde, Mittheil.

A loan-word from the Assyrian (Eccles. 4:13, 9:15-16+) is [3pp, misken (irfrys) from Ass. mushkenu, Safel part. from V/JND to be humble (before the deity).

In the sense of 'poor' the word passed from Assyrian into Aramaic, Hebrew, and Arabic ; the Arabs brought it with them to Europe, and it appears in Italian meschino, Span, mesquino, Port, mesquinho, and French mesquin, (For another derivation of JDDO see Del. Prol. 186, n. 3.)

Other words for 'poor' are ar'ar (iy~iy), Ps. 102:17 (irrwxos SCI [rairfivfo [tapeinos] ABS( 2 ]), literally 'stripped', hence 'naked', 'destitute', and the doubtful word helkah, 17oSn (Ps. 108:10, 108:14, LXX wevr]s [penes], wTwx6s [ptochos]).

That there is no connection with TH, 'host', as MT supposed, is obvious. Since Schultens (Opera minora, 182-183) must have assumed a word nsVn (Ew.) or "IS 1 ?!! (Kon. ii. 1:118), 'dark', 'unfortunate'; see BDB. One might also suppose "l/3n ; cp V?3n and Ass. akkulu 'troubled' (root-idea, darkness), ikkillu 'lamentation'. ... A strange and as yet unexplained word, says Wellhausen. But we have the key to it, knowing who were the chief oppressors of the Jews in Palestine after the fall of the Jewish state. Read TKDrlT ; cp the error in 55. So Che. Ps.(2 ), who reads in 108:6, nBS jKanT D"3y 'Jerahmeel watches the sufferers'.

In Lev. 25:25, 25:35, 25:39 (H), 26:47, 27:8 (P) the verb 71o, 'to be low, depressed', is used of impoverished Israelites (LXX airopflffQcu, TT^veffdat, TcnreLvbs elvat, raTrfivovcrBai). In Gen. 45:11 (E), Prov. 20:13, 23:21, 30:9 the Niphal of B>T, 'to dispossess' is found in the sense 'to be impoverished', 'be poor', unless, as is probable, the punctuation of the Massoretes is due to misunderstanding and s?v is really a by-form of pvi, 'to be poor', cp Piel, Judg. 14:1j, JB i T l ?i TTTCdxePcrcu 7]fj.as (A) ; (see for other instances of duplicate forms, Barth, Etym. Stud. 11).

That 'ani does not primarily mean 'poor' is indicated by the fact that the corresponding substantive 'oni (^y) invariably denotes 'misery', 'wretchedness', and only once 'poverty' (1 Ch. 22:14, LXX wTwxfia. [ptoocheia]), the proper Hebrew terms for which are tr7, r'7 or E>NI (LXX wevia [penia], 7 times in Proverbs), 7'ono (Prov. 6:11, 14:23 , etc., LXX Zvdeia), ion (Job 30:3, Prov. 28:22, tvdeia), cp also nU3DD (Dt. :89, TTTUxeia).

Words signifying 'poor' in the Apocryphal books are ei/Seifc [endees], Wisd. 10:3, Tob. 2:2 (S, etc.); irev^s [penes], Wisd. 2:10, 1 Esd. 3:1, TTTWXOS, Tob. 2:2 (LXX), 2:3 (LXX), 4:7 (AB), while ei/Seiia [endeia] occurs Tob. 4:13 (AB), Wisd. 16:4 . In the NT we have ei/Se>js [endees], Acts 4:34; TreVrjs [penes], 'poor', 2 Cor. 9:9 ; s [penichros], 'poor', Lk. 21:2 ; s [ptoochos], 'poor', Mt. 5:3, Mk. 10:21, Lk. 4:18, and 29 times 'beggar', Lk. 16:20, 16:22 (but Mk. 10:46, Jn. 9:8, npoo-iTns [prosaites]), 'beggarly', Gal. 4:9 nTwXEia [ptoocheia], 'poverty', 2 Cor. 8:2, 8:9, Rev. 2:9; uo-TErnua [hysterema], 2 Cor. 8:14, 9:12, etc.; uo-TErno-is [hysteresis], Mk. 12:44, Phil. 4:11; Xpeia [chreia] 'need', Phil. 2:25, 4:16, etc.

1 Dillmann and Kautzsch, it is true, render 'sanftmuthig' ; Konig (Lehrgeb. 2:1:76), 'demuthig'. It would seem that we must render, either 'very pious' (which indeed may be the meaning of LXX's Trpaik [praus]) or (as We. in EB(), art. 'Moses' ) 'heavily burdened'. The narratives do not make Moses live before us as an individual (see MOSES).

2. OT references.[edit]

i. In the historical and legal books the poor are the indigent, the hired servant (Dt. 24:14) who cannot wait a day for his wage (v. 15), the poor Israelite who has no effects but his salma (see MANTLE, 2, i) (v, 13), who has no vineyard of his own ( Lev. 19:10 H ) and no harvest-field (23:22 H). Although in Dt. 15:4 the promise is made 'there shall be no poor with thee', the condition on which it turned was never fulfilled, and in view of the facts (v. 11) charity is enjoined (Lev. 25:35 [H], Dt. 15:7+, Ex. 23:11 [E] ; see ALMS, 2) and oppression forbidden (Dt. 24:14). The poor Israelite may neither lose his freedom (Lev. 25:39+, v. 47+) nor alienate his property (v. 25+). To lend to the poor on usury is unlawful (Ex. 22:25 E, Lev. 25:36 H) ; but a PLEDGE may be taken (Dt. 24:12) if restored at sundown (v. 13). Rich and poor are equal in the eye of the judge (Ex. 23:36 E), if not in that of the temple assessor (Lev. 14:21, 27:8, but cp Ex. 30:15).

ii. It is a dark picture that meets us in the pages of the prophets. The ruling class, both in Israel and in Judah, the elders of the people and the princes thereof (Is. 3:14) with their wives, 'the kine of Bashan' (Am. 4:1, if the text is correct 1 ), oppress their subjects ; they sell the righteous for silver and the needy for a pair of shoes (Am. 2:6, according to MT 1 ), crush the people and grind the face of the poor (Is. 3:15). The great land-owners sell the plebs bad corn, scant measure at double prices (Am. 8:5). The poor man cannot call his own life (Jer. 2:34) or honour (cp 2 S. 11:2+) or patrimony (cp 1 K. 21:1+). Whilst the rich lie upon beds of ivory and eat the lambs of the flock (Am. 6:4) the poor go naked and hungry (Is. 58:7), as helpless against the oppressor as the widow or the orphan (Is. 10:2, Zech. 7:10) : a poor man cannot hope for justice (Am. 5:12, Is. 32:7, Jer. 5:28). And yet, to judge the cause of the poor and needy - is not this to know Yahwe ? (Jer. 22:16). To feed the hungry, give shelter to the poor, clothe the naked, is not this the fast he has chosen ? ( Is. 58:7 ). To judge the poor with righteousness is significant of the Messiah (Is. 114).

iii. The 'poor and needy', who figure so prominently in the Psalms (35:10, 40:18, 72:13, 74:21, 109:16, etc.) represent either the weak and oppressed Israelitish nation, or the pious in Israel afflicted by hostile nations without or the wicked within. The reference in any given case must be determined by such internal evidence as the passage may afford. That the term 'poor' was not inappropriate as a designation of Israel at the time of the exile and immediately after the 'return' may be seen from the account given in ISRAEL, 45, 54 end ; and that at the time of the birth of Jesus there actually was a party of pious Jews calling themselves perhaps cnv^N, 'ebyonim, and distinguished from the Zealots by their attitude of patient waiting, would seem to be indicated by the narrative at the beginning of Lk. (see esp. Lk. 2:25, 2:38). Cp Renan, Les Evangiles, 44+

These 'ebyonim were not a political party like the Zealots ; the bond between them was little more than the sympathy in spired by a common hope ; and if, as is probable, their political inactivity was a necessary consequence of their poverty and social insignificance, they may well have been an earlier form of the later Ebionites. In the Psalms they are represented as suffering persecution (Ps. 10:2, 102:1), but waiting patiently for Yahwe (40:2), who hears their cry (34:7), answers them (34:5), delivers them (35:10) and bestows of his goodness upon them (68:11) whilst the wicked perish (37:2). 2

iv. In Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Ecclesiasticus, a store of practical wisdom has been preserved to us on the subject of poverty. The causes of the evil are found in sloth (6:11, 10:4), gluttony and drunkenness 23:21), love of pleasure (21:17), or gossip (14:23), in over-carefulness (11:24), want of thoroughness (21:5), refusal of correction (13:18), the following after vain persons (28:19). The disabilities which it entails are loss of friends (19:4), the hatred of neighbours (14:20) and brethren (19:7, Ecclus. 13:21), and the liability to oppression (Pr. 283, where 'needy' [eh] should of course be 'wicked' [yah], see Toy). Even great wisdom and great service cannot secure for the poor man recognition (Eccles. 9:15, an enigmatical passage). At the same time if poverty be his only crime (Pr. 10:15), it is not right to despise or mock him (17:5, Ecclus. 10:23) ; God made both rich and poor (Pr. 222). He that has pity on the poor honours God (14:31) and secures his own happiness (14:21), God will hear him when he calls (21:13). He who helps the poor shall be blessed (22:9), he shall not lack (28:27), God will repay him (19:17). The king who faithfully judges the poor, his throne shall stand for ever (29:14). It is not distinctly implied in these books that the poor man may be presumed to be pious (see, however, Ecclus. 21:5?) ; but a haughty poor man is asserted by Ben Sira to be incongruous and intolerable (Ecclus. 25:2). On the propitiatory value of charity see ALMS, 3.

The poor man is better than the fool (19:1) or the liar (19:22) or the perverse man (286). One advantage he has over the rich man ; he has nothing to lose (138). But the golden mean is best of all (30:8).

From the sayings of Ben Sira (Greek version) two may be quoted here :-

(1) A poor man is glorified for his knowledge ;
And a rich man is glorified for his riches.
But he that is glorified in poverty, how much more in riches ?
And he that is inglorious in riches, how much more in poverty ? (10:30-31).
(2) Wild asses are the prey of lions in the wilderness
So poor men are pasture for rich (13:18).

For the comparison in this distich, and for remarks on its bearings, see HYAENA.

On the position of the poor in the NT see ALMS, also COMMUNITY OK GOODS, and, on Ebionitic passages in Lk., GOSPELS, 110.

A. c. P.

1 [The text is not free from suspicion. See Crit. Bit.}

2 Cp Isidore Loeb, La literature des Pauvres, 31-42; Cheyne, Jewish Religious Life after the Exile, 113-125.


(n^n?, 'whiteness' ; cp its Syr. name haura). According to EV the libneh was one of the trees from which Jacob made white rods (Gen. 30:37, pdftSov ffTvpaKivr]v, virgas populeas) ; and it is referred to by Hosea as a sacred tree of the paganising Israelites, like the oak and the terebinth (Hos. 4:13, [leuke]). The poplar tree is common enough in Palestine, especially in the country about the Lebanon and Damascus. The varieties known are Populus alba, L. , and P. Euphratica, Ol. (cp WILLOW), which, by the way, forbids us to identify the Baca tree of 2 S. 5:24 with the P. tremula 1 (cp MULBERRY). This much is clear: in Hos. 4:13, the storax cannot be intended, whereas it may be meant in Gen. 30:37 (so RV mg, Kau. HS etc.).

1 According to Boissier, this is not a Syrian tree.


(NJYTIS), one of the sons of HAMAN [q.v.] (Esth. 9:8: ^Apa^AGA [BL], (bARAAGA [K]. BApAAGA [A]). LXX's form may presuppose the Persian ending -data (e.g., purdata 'given by fate' ?), with which cp the preceding names PARSHANDATHA, ARIDATHA. See ESTHER, 3 ; PURIM, 3.


Among the following five words, note especially 2, in connection with EHUD (q.v. ).

1. D^N or cSx, 'ulm, aiAa/u. [ailam], 1 K. 6:3, 7:6, Ezek. 8:16, 40:7, etc. [Co., Ki. cS xl- See PALACE, 7, and TEMPLE. Cp cS Ni Ezek. 40:16 etc., cuAafi, EV arch(es), RVmg 'colonnade' doubtfully ; Ezekiel's architecture is obscure.

2. j lTTOO, misderon, ^ Trpoo-rds [e prostas], Judg. 8:23. But 'he (or, it) went out to ... (hammisderonah)' cannot be treated apart from 'and he (or, it) went out to . . . (happarshedonah)' (v. 22 end), and NS 1 I"mC ")Bn is one of those cases in which coarsenesses (see AV v. 22) are due to corruption of the text (cp DOVE'S DUNG, HUSKS, JEHU, WASHTOT). These troublesome words appear to have been caused by dittography (see SBOT, ad lac.). Neither pBHS nor p"l~lDDi however, can possibly be right ; some third word or phrase must underlie both. Read probably, n|3n "lytj*, 'the corner gate' (see CORNER). After going out by this gate, Ehud shut up Eglon, whom he had killed, in the chamber ().

Moore {Judges, 98) suggests that p!!"lS> parshedon (RVmg. 'antechamber'), may possibly represent irpotrrutov [prostooon] (a Greek gloss); cp PALACE, i (3) (on pmx in Kings). He prefers, however, to emend CHSn (so No., Bu.) - i.e., 'the foeces'. But surely the repetition of Ks l is very suspicious, and the view of the accidental conformation of parshedon to misderon is less natural than the view here given.

3. 7rpoauAioi/ [proaulion] (Mk. 14:16), RVmg. 'forecourt' ; see HOUSE, 2.

4. TruAaji [pyloon] rendered 'porch' (cp TrpoauAioc, above) in Mt. 26:71, is elsewhere in NT rendered 'gate' (Lk. 16:20, Acts 10:17, 12:13-14, 14:13, Rev. 21:22+). A large gateway or portico is meant.

5. o-Toa [stoa], Jn. 5:2, 10:23, Acts 3:11, 5:12 See TEMPLE. Delitzsch ( 'Talmud. Studien', Zt.f.Luther. Theol. 17 [1856] 622-623) even explains 'Bethesda' as vt3D~ri 3> oucos oroas [oikos stoas]. T. K. C.




(llSi?). Is. 14:23 etc. RV, AV BITTERN,


(DH3), Esth. 1:6+ RV mg See MARBLE.


(trnn), Ezek. 16:10 Ex. 25:5, RVmg, AV BADGER.


(]Unt?, Bibl. Aram, ii7n, Ezra 7:24+; nom. agent, from TIN?, see GATE ; Gypcopoc [ 2 S. 4:11, 2 K. 7:11, 1 Esd. and in NT], nyAcopoc only in LXX), used of the guardian of the gate of a city (2 S. 18:26, 2 K. 7:10-11), or house (Mk. 13:34 metaph. Jn. 10:3 ; fem. 2 S. 46 {1}, Jn. 18:16-17), or of the temple.

In 1 Ch. 16:25-26, however, EV has DOORKEEPERS; 'be a doorkeeper' is even retained from AV in RV of Ps. 84:10 [84:11] for the difficult word r^s7non. It is true the post of doorkeepers (cn^r) in the temple was assigned to two Korahite families and one Merarite family according to 1 Ch. 261-19. It is very doubtful, however, whether fjs7non can mean 'to keep the door'. 'To keep the threshold' would be more plausible. Baudissin (Priesterthum, 260) conjectures that in the pre-exilic time to which he refers Ps. 84, there may have been subordinate keepers in addition to the three distinguished keepers of the threshold (2 K. 25:18, EV wrongly 'door' ). Certainly the office of keeper of the threshhold cannot have existed in post-exilic times (cp Baudissin, op. cit. 218-219), to which Ps. 84 is most reasonably assigned. Another suggested meaning is 'to lie at the threshold' (from ]D, 'threshold' ). A layman - and for laymen on pilgrimage Ps. 84 is supposed to have been written - could not set foot in the temple (Ba. ). LXX gives irapapnrTfLffdai [pararipteisthai], Jer. abiectus esse. There are other obscurities in the verse which suggest the necessity of a close inspection of the text with a view to its amendment (cp Ch. Ps.W, ad loc. ).

The classing of the doorkeepers under the heads Korah and Merari mentioned above represents a middle stage of development. At an earlier period they were kept distinct from the singers, the Nethinim, and the Levites ; and last of all they became thoroughly Levitised, and included among the Korahites and Merarites ; see GENEALOGIES i. , 8 7 (ii.). For the post-exilic 'families' of the porters, see especially Ezra 2:42, Neh. 7:45, and note that some of the names which appear there are elsewhere those of individuals; cp 1 Ch. 9:17 Neh. 11:19 (add also Neh. 12:25, on which see MATTANIAH, 2). Originally, however, they were doubtless place-names or clan-names, and elsewhere it has been conjectured that c lyB .l. he word rendered in EV 'porters', is a corruption of an ethnic name, most probably of D TIB Jjtrt, 'the Asshurites' ( = Geshurites, see GESHUR, 2), parallel in Ezra 2 Neh. 8 to Q 3/ft, 'the Levites', and .D rnsri, a distortion of c ?n, 'the Ethanites' (Che.).


(nociAoiMON [A], -IAON- [V*],-eiAcoNH [Va]), one of Nicanor's ambassadors to Judas the Maccabee in 161 B.C. (2 Macc. 14:19).




The word is D V^- raslm? literally 'runners'. The passages in which 'posts' or 'state-messengers' are really referred to are Jer. 51:31 (diuKwv [diookoon], currens), 2 Ch. 30:6, 30:10 (rp^xuv [trechoon], cursor), Esth. 3:13, 3:15 (/3i/3Xia06/>os [bibliaphoros],

1 A fem. mj. B (n) is to be read with LXX and most modern critics. For female doorkeepers cp also Acts 12:13.

2 [At first sight it appears to be the same word as that rendered 'guard' by EV in 2 K. 10:25, 11:6, and by RV in 1 S. 22:17 (AV 'footmen' ). It is, however, in the highest degree probable that rasim in these passages is a mutilated form of sarephathim (Zarephathites), which occurs side by side with vi^s (Pelethites), just as ^3 (RV Carites) stands side by side with *m3 (Cherethites). That 'Cherethites' and 'Pelethites' are but conjecturally vocalised corrupt forms of 'Rehobothites' (712rn) and 'Zarephathites' ( nB"li ) is maintained elsewhere (see PELETHITES). In 2 K. 10:25 we can still detect a gloss on C SI ( " ? " )> which asserts its equivalence to o - nE s S (in MT Pelistim), which again is most probably a corruption of C nEns, Sarephathim (or C Di lBt Paresathim ?). (For EMffarTI B Xl ? read [n % ni; s D s ] D S^S or D DS^! ?)- The case is parallel to that of S^i n TlE ^Sn (1 S. 17:26, 17:36), where ^tyn ( SuSniTl) represents a gloss on TiB Ssir See Crit. Bib. We must also keep out of our list of words for 'post' the corrupt word in in Job 9:25 (Spo/meii? [dromeus], cursor), for, probably, we have in the true text the first of three comparisons of Job's fleeting days to swiftly-flying birds (see OSSIFRAGE). T. K. c.]



cursor), 8:10, 8:14 (liriretis [ippeus], veredarius}. In Esther the reference is no doubt to the system of posts said to have been first devised by Cyrus the Great (Xen. Cyrop. 86:17-18). According to Herodotus (898) 'nothing mortal travels so fast as the Persian messengers. . . . The Persians give this system of riding post the name of dyyapriiov [aggareion]'. The &yya.poi [aggaroi] had authority to press into their service men, horses, or anything that might serve to hasten their journey. Hence the verb ayyapevu [aggareuoo], 'to compel', in NT (Mt. 5:41, 27:32, Mk. 15:21), and the N -IJJK (dyyapfia [aggaraia]) of the Talmud. The etymology of ayyapos [aggaros] is disputed. Andreas (in Marti's glossary) explains it 'express messenger' (Eilbote), and connects it (like Bibl. Aram. N-IJN, Heb. rniiN) with Middle Iranian hangert, etc., new Pers. angara, 'narrative, report'. But rniK is no doubt = Ass. egirtu (see EPISTOLARY LITERATURE, 5), and egirtu is certainly not a Persian loan-word. The reverse process is much more intelligible ; i.e. , ayyapos [aggaros] is of Assyrian origin. Jensen, 1 however, leaves egirtu ( ^/-UK, to pay) out of the question, and derives dyyapos [aggaros] from Ass. and Bab. agru ( \f~\iK), one engaged, or pressed, for service.

Jensen argues that the etymology is excellent in itself, and also that its synonyms aovcai Sr/s [askandes], a<ryai/5T)s [asgandes] (a<TTai 6r)s [astandes]), and berid (cp 'veredarius' ?) can be satisfactorily explained only from Babylonian ; cp also Rawlinson s note on Herod. 898.


For i. TD, sir; 2. "\T&, parur; 3. VT\, dud; 4- nnSpi kallahath, see COOKING, 5, i. a, c, d, e; also ib. 2 for dud, and POTTERY, 3 [61 for parur.

For 5. c 13) kirayim, see COOKING, 4.

6. iiDN> asuk (2 K. 4:2+), is used of the widow's 'pot of oil' ; but "jlDX (V / "J?D) can hardly mean 'pot' (LXX{BA}, o a\etyofia.i [o aleipsamai]; LXX{L}, ayyeiov [aggeion], but with o dAei i^. [o aleips] at end of verse). QX may come from the preceding CN. We expect TjS, pak (see Box, i), which Klostermann restores.

7- nj!> 31>, sinseneth+ (Ex. 16:33, if correct), of the pot of manna, containing a homer {<no.fj.vo>; [stamnos] ; Pesh. NBDp ; Onk. rrniVx). LXX makes it a golden pot (<rra.fj.vov xpvo-ovv) ; cp Heb. 9:4.

8. J? 3J, gabla . See CUP, MEALS, 12, and POTTERY.

9- QTIEES shephattayim (Ps. 68:13 [68:14]). See SHEEPFOLDS.

10. 3S j;, 'eseb (Jer. 22:28+), AV 'idol' (cp IDOL, 1b), RV 'vessel' (-v/asyi to fashion), RVmg. 'pot' ; see POTTERY, 3 [10].

JI - fllxCi masreph (Prov. 17:3, 27:21). See METAL WORK.

12. trra.fi.vos [stamnos] (Heb. 9:4). See above, 6.

13. feVnjs [xestes] (Mk. 7:4); Lat. sextarius. See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.

See also PURIFICATION ( 'waterpots', Jn. 2:6-7), WASHPOT.


OB P IB; TrerecbpHC [ADEL], see below ; Putiphar), a high Egyptian official, the master of Joseph, Gen. 39:1-2. The name is evidently only a shorter writing of POTIPHERA with which it is identified by LXX. On the Egyptian etymology see POTIPHERA. The position of Potiphar is described first as cno (saris) of Pharaoh. This word means 'eunuch' (LXX, Vg. ), as well as 'court-official', (thus Tg. Onk. NTI), the most important offices having been in the Ancient Orient (cp especially Assyria) in the hand of royal slaves who were often eunuchs (cp EUNUCH). The fact of Potiphar's being married decides against the translation 'eunuch'. 2 It has to be mentioned that the word was known also to the later Egyptians in the non-sexual sense. In two rock inscriptions in the valley Hamamat, Persian officers are called : 'srys of Persia, where, evidently, it means 'official'. See EGYPT, 29, on the fact that no representation or mention of eunuchs has been found, so far, in Egypt, although it must be presupposed that the Egyptians knew eunuchs at least by contact with the neighbouring nations. The chief title of Potiphar was 'chief of the cooks' (n rnBn ~x>). Thus it is correctly rendered by LXX (apx^dyfipos). The attempt to explain the title as 'chief of the executioners' (already Onk. Syr. ) might be supported by the imprisonment (Gen. 39:20-21) at the command of Potiphar, but has no lexicographic authority. On the other hand, the inmates of the prison - viz. , the baker and the butler or cup-bearer decide for the first interpretation of the title. Is the superintendent of the royal kitchen and wine-cellar intended ? The inclusion of the cup-bearer under his authority might point to such an extended sphere. At any rate, the office would include the command over a host of officials and slaves so large that the holder might well have a prison of his own. For the interpretation that no private prison is meant but the general royal prison, it might be argued that the office of cup-bearer was higher in rank, at least in dynasties 19 and 20, and could not well come under the authority of the super intendent of the kitchen, so that Joseph s meeting the two royal officials in that prison would be accidental rather than due to Potiphar s position. It is not easy to find a corresponding office in the Egyptian inscriptions. The office of the 'scribe of the royal table' (sh wdh [sic]) who had to register the expenses, was usually different from that of the mr-st [sic] 'superintendent of the kitchen', and this one from that of the 'superintendent of the brewery' (mr-w'bt), etc. If the words of Genesis be taken literally, the second office would be meant. We do not, however, know the court and its officers sufficiently well in all periods to be able to deny the possibility that all those offices may once have been united in one person.

W. M. M.

1 See P. Horn, Grundriss d. Neupersischen Etymologic (Strassburg, 1893), 29254.

2 Exceptional cases of eunuchs having wives will not alter the rule. See Ebers, Aegypten und die Bucher Mosis, 299 (who still retained the error of the early Egyptologists who saw eunuchs in representations of fat old men).


RV, AV POTIPHERAH neTpecpH [A], rreTe<t>pH [KL], see below), an Egyptian priest of On-Heliopolis whose daughter was married to Joseph by Pharaoh (Gen. 41, 45:50, 46:20+). On the fame of the learned priests of On and on that ancient city see ON. The name Potiphera is of great importance, allowing us to recognise its Egyptian etymology and to use it for criticism of the documents of the Pentateuch reporting the story of Joseph.

The consonants of the Hebrew traditions are a faultless rendering of the Egyptian name p[']-edy[u]-p[']-Re ?, {1}{2} 'the one whom the sun-god has given' ; cp Greek Heliodorus. In later pronunciation Pedep(h)re ; cp the rendering lleretpp-rj [petephre] in LXX{BL} . The Greek version treats the name Potiphar as identical, and transliterates it, consequently, in the same way. This is, undoubtedly, correct. See for the many similar names Lieblein, Diet, of Hierogl. Names, 1056 (the biblical name, however, which points to the local cult of Heliopolis-On is not given there). Names of the same form, 'given by god N.' are, e.g. , the Egyptian prince Pedubaste(t) whose name Ashur-bani-pal renders Putubasti, Pedam(m)un, which, on a bilingual sarcophagus (in Turin), is Hellenised as A/j,/uuJ)vios ['ammoonios], Pedeset, in Greek Ilencrts [petisis]; Hfroffipis [petosiris], etc. On the question of the antiquity of these formations of names 3 see the discussion in ZA 30 (1892) 49-50. There is no doubt about their rather recent use. No example from the Mosaic time can be furnished as yet, and it is questionable whether any certain examples occur before the time of dyn. 22 - i.e. , before 950 B.C. In the discussion referred to (ZA, 1892) it is claimed that such names become frequent only after 700 B. C. , and that the writer of Joseph's life (E1 or E2) who adduces the name Pedephre as belonging to two persons is, therefore, to be placed in the seventh century B.C. (cp JOSEPH, 4). Our material is not exhaustive enough to allow such exact statements. At any rate, however, it must be confessed that in a writer of the period before 1000 B. C. , the name could not appear as of characteristic frequency among the Egyptians. On the other hand, the transcription with & and y gives a good, archaic impression, and would militate against too extravagant attempts at bringing down the date. W. M. M.

1 The uiw is later always omitted. Of course, the name can be written in various other ways, owing to the great variety of hieroglyphic signs which may be interchanged. Notice that the Egyptian d sounded to the Semites always nearer t than d.

2 [Hieroglyphs go here]

3 Correctly compared first by Rosellini, Monumenti Storici, text i., 117 (Ebers, Aegypten und die Bucher Mosis, 296). Champollion, Systemc Hierogl., had come near the truth in assuming 'the one who belongs (et[e] for earlier ente) to the sun' ; but no similar name can be found. See also col. 3728, n. 3.


(rVp-jnn 11>t?, Kr. ; niD~nn \?, Kt. ), Jer. 19:2+. See JERUSALEM, 24; cp POTTERY, 7.


(TTX Gen. 25:29; eye/V\<\- Bel. and Drag. 33). See FOOD, 4 (i), and LENTILES.


(TON AfRON TOY KGRAMecoc). Mt. 27:7. See ACELDAMA.


1. Introduction.[edit]

[picture of FIG. 1. - 'Amorite' or pre-Israelite pottery: before 1500 B.C. (From Bliss, Mound of Many Cities, i. no. 83 ; 2. no. C2 ; 4. no. 93. All handmade, with simple incised ornament.) goes here]

Though the art of pottery was presumably known to the Israelites from an early period, references in Hebrew literature to the manufacture and use of earthen vessels are rare, and for the most part ambiguous. The ample vocabulary of names for vessels is derived mainly from roots descriptive of their forms or uses, not of their material; and more than once (Is. 30:14, Jer. 48:12 Lam. 4:2) an express reference to earthen vessels is attached to words which properly mean vessels of skin. Probably the earliest express reference, though vaguer phrases occur in the Hexateuch, is 2 S. 17:28, where, in a list of supplies, earthen vessels accompany (wooden) beds and (brazen) basons (cp the similar classification, Mk. 7:4, j3aTTTlff/J.OUS TTOTr)pi(j}V KO.I ^ITTWV KO.I %a\K uav). It is only in prophetical literature that allusions to the manufacture and characteristics of pottery become at all frequent.

2. In Egypt and Palestine.[edit]

[picture of FIG. 2. 'Phoenician' or proto-Israelite pottery : 1500-1000 B.C. Scale about 1/10. (From Petrie, Tell el-Hesy. i. no. 124; 2. no. 137; 3. no. 125; 4. no. 115 [occurs also in Mycensean Cyprus and in 18th dyn. Egypt] ; 5. no. 141 [occurs as no. 4] ; 6. no. 110. Almost all handmade, without ornament : the forms often imitated from leathern vessels.) goes here]

This all corresponds with what the history of the Israelites would lead us to expect. In Egypt, it is true, pottery was in use from the pre-dynastic period onwards ; and wheel-made vessels, from the time of the fourth dynasty - though handmade fabrics survived to a much later date. 1

Into Palestine the use of the potter's wheel seems not to have been introduced until the time of the eighteenth Egyptian dynasty, and then probably from Egypt. A variety, however, of hand-made fabrics for the most part rude though characteristic, and occasionally later of some elegance, were in use among the pre-Israelite populations, and persisted among these and their conquerors aftar the introduction of the wheel.

[picture of FIG. 3. Jewish pottery : 1000-500 B.C.: scale about 1/10. (From Petrie, Tell el-Hesy. i. no. 201 [with owner's mark, j(]; 2. no. 192 ; 3. no. 202 ; 4. no. 187 ; 5. no. 198 ; 6. no. 218, 7. no. 219. Often wheel-made : the forms analogous to the contemporary pottery of Cyprus, and of Carthage.)]

The whole series of Palestinian pottery has been fully illustrated by excavations at Tell-el-Hesy, 2 the probable site of LACHISH [q.v.].

[picture of FIG. 4. - Typical Hellenistic and Graeco-Roman pottery. goes here]

On this site occur :

  • (1) early, rude, and apparently indigenous fabrics, all handmade, which have been provisionally described as Amorite (fig. 1) ;
  • (2) some characteristic varieties of the fabrics which have been described as Phoenician, from their frequency in Cyprus, and in foreign settlements in Egypt of eighteenth dynasty date. They occur also occasionally on the less known Syrian mainland (fig. 2) ;
  • (3) imitations, clumsy and barbaric, of the Phoenician fabrics above mentioned, which have been regarded as very probably Jewish, since examples of the same style recur on a number of sites in Jewish territory. But few of these scattered examples are from undisturbed sites, and none are of accurately determinable date (fig. 3). In the chronological series, as indicated at Tell-el-Hesy, their upper limit approximately coincides with that of the Israelite occupation of Palestine ; the lower is more vague, for the native forms are gradually modified and give place in the third and second centuries B.C. to
  • (4) degenerate Hellenistic forms, which have persisted almost without change to the present time (fig. 4).

1 E.g., eighteenth dynasty, see Leps. Denkm. i-j^a; Wilk. Anc. Eg. 3 164.

2 Flinders Petrie, Tell-el-Hesy(1891); Bliss, Mound of Many Cities (1894). Cp also the 'finds' at Tell Zakariya (PEFQ, 1899, pp. 102+, 1900, p. 11+) ; Tell es-Safieh (fO. 1899, pp. 324^); Tell Sandahannah (ib. 1900, pp. 319+), and Tell ej- Judeideh (ib. 1900, pp. 199+); the examples from Jerusalem (Bliss and Dickie, Excavations at Jerusalem [1898], p. 261, pi. 25, Warren and Wilson, Recovery of Jerusalem [1871], pp. 472+), and those figured in Per. Chip., Art in Sardinia, Judaea, etc., 1:351, fig. 235+

[Picture of FIG. 5. Painted pottery showing Cypriote influence. (1. Bliss, Mound of Many Cities, no. 106. buff clay, red and black pigment, wheel-made, resembles Cypriote style ; 800-500 B.C.: 2. Petrie, Tell-el-Hesy, no. 157. bottom view of bowl, like 3 ; dark clay, white slip, black pigment ; handmade ; common in Cyprus, 1500-1000 B.C.: 3. Bliss, Mound of Many Cities, no. 181, bowl like 2.) goes here]

Painted decoration was very rarely applied to pottery either in Phoenicia, or in any other part of non-Hellenic Asia ; and, when it occurs, maygenerally be referred either to Egyptian or to Aegean influence. One imperfect vase from Jerusalem (fig. 6:1), like a modern Egyptian gulleh, found only 4-6 metres (19 ft. ) deep in the Muristan (Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 478-479, Per.-Chip. op. cit. 1355, fig. 244-245), and a few fragments found near Barclay's Gate and the Genneth Gate (Louvre ; Pettier, Catalogue des Vases, 92 ; Per.-Chip. , op. cit. 1356-1357, fig. 246-248), and fragments from Tekoa ( Brit. Mus. ) and from Moab (Brit. Mus. A, 1676-77, cp H. de Villefosse, Notice des Mon. Phen. du Louvre, no. 7) seem to be influenced by the geometrical style of Cyprus ; but their date is quite uncertain, and similar fragments, found in Malta (Valetta Museum) seem to be of mediaeval Arab fabric. Other fragments from er-R mall (Louvre, H. de Villefosse, Notice des Mon. Phen. no. 81) have the characteristic (7th-5th cent. B.C.) Cypriote ornament of concentric circles, which occurs also at Kuyunjik on imported - probably Levantine - pottery (Brit. Mus. NH, 18, 28). At Tell-el-Hesy, painted pottery of quasi-Cypriote forms (fig. 5:1), together with the 'painted Phoenician' bowls (which are probably actually Cypriote), begins to appear about the time of the eighteenth dynasty (figs. 5:2, 5:3); but none of the 'Jewish' types are painted (fig. 3). Clear traces of the influence of the Mycenaean civilisation, probably introduced by the seafaring raiders who harried the Levant, appear during the eighteenth and nineteenth dynasties of Egypt. (See PHILISTINES, 6+) But this phase was short-lived. 1

[picture of FIG. 6. Painted pottery showing Aegean influence. (i. Jerusalem (Muristan), Wilson and Warren, Recovery of Jerusalem, 478, geometrical ornament : 2. Tell Zakarlya, PEFQ, 1900, p. 13, pi. iii. i, Aegean form and painted ornament : 3. Tell es Safieh, ib. 1899, p. 314, pl. ii, native copy of Aegean form and spiraliform ornament ; on front, a bird like Fig. 5:1 above ; buff clay, red and black paint : 4. Tell-el-Hesy, Bliss, op. cit. no. 179, native copy of characteristic Aegean (Mycenaean) form, unpainted.) goes here]

1 Cp Welch, 'The Influence of Aegean Civilisation on South Palestine' in PEFQ, 1900, pp. 342^! The pottery in question was found at Tell el-Hesy (Petrie, l.c., figs. 46, 145, 164-7 I Bliss, l.c., fig. 179); Tell es-Safieh (PEFQ, 1899, P- SM). and Tell Zakariya (ib. IQOO, pp. 11-13).

2 Niebuhr, Voy. 1 188 ; Benzinger, Heb. Arch. 214.

3. Hebrew terms.[edit]

In a nomadic state, the use of brittle earthenware is reduced to a minimum, owing to the difficulties of transport. Its place is taken by vessels of leather, wood, and gourds, and by metallic utensils where commercial intercourse permits. Such pottery as there is in such circumstances is either very rude and temporary, or is imported and preserved as a luxury. 2

Thus among the Israelites, three words for vessels, nebel (nebel), hemeth, nod, besides 'ob, Job 32:19, properly denote vessels of skin (see BOTTLE, i), whilst in the accounts both of the tabernacle and of the temple the great majority, if not all the sacred vessels were of metal (Ex. 38:3, 1 K. 7:45, 10:2, 2 Ch. 4:16, 9:20, 35:13), and so at the same time of greater intrinsic value, more durable, and less liable to contract pollution (Lev. 6:28+). For minor sacrificial purposes earthen vessels are specified more than once in the Levitical code (Nu. 5:17, Lev. 6:21, 14:5, 14:50).

The difficulty of determining the usage of the Hebrew terms is increased by the fact that, in all the versions, the words for vessels of pottery and other materials are rendered for the most part quite at random. Least of all, either in AV or RV, is the key-word 'pot' confined to earthenware ; it includes vessels of wickerwork, skin, and metal. With this qualification, the following outline gives the forms and uses of pottery which are expressly mentioned in Hebrew literature.

1. kad, o^(J[root] 'heave'? draw water, v&pia [hydria], AV 'pitcher' ; Gen. 24:14, Judg. 7:16, Eccles. 12:6, icdfios [kados], cadus; AV 'barrel' ; 1 K. 17:12, 18:33) is a capacious vessel large enough to conceal a lighted torch, Judg. 7:16 ; cp Mt. 5:15, or to serve as a meal tub, 1 K. 17:12+ (see Robinson Lees, Village Life in Palestine, 1897, frontispiece). It was commonly used for carrying water, Gen. 24:14, Eccles. 126, 1 K. 18:33 ; cp vSpia, Jn. 4:28, and was borne on the shoulder, Gen. 24:14. See COOKING, 2.

2. p3p3i bakbuk, see BOTTLE, 2 (a), CRUSE, 2.

3. 7]5, pak (J[root] 'drop', $aicos [phakos] [lentil] ; lenticula, EV 'vial', ; 1 S. 10:1 ; AV 'box', 2 K. 9:13) is a lenticular flask or pilgrim bottle, with a narrow neck between small handles for suspension. The form is derived from a leathern prototype, and is common in 'Phoenician' and 'Jewish' fabrics of pottery, see fig. 2, 3-4.

4. y*21, gabia. (J[root] 'round' ; (cepa^iior [karamion], scyphus, AV 'bowl' Jer. 35:5) is a large round bowl from which wine could be served out into cups. In Jer. 35:5 it is probably of clay (LXX) ; but the same word is used Gen. 44:2 for the 'divining cup' of Joseph, which is expressly of silver (cp DIVINATION, 3 [3]), though late Chaldaean bowls with magic inscriptions, in Brit. Mus., are of clay. See MEALS, 12.

5. D lSi kos (J[root] 'contain' ; tron\piov [poterion], calix, AV 'cup' freq.) is frequently used for a drinking-cup. Such cups were often of metal ; but for common purposes clay was in use at all periods. In Mk. 7:4 Tronjpia [poteria] are distinguished from feora [xesta] (wooden) and voA/cta [chalkia] (bronze) vessels, and are presumably of clay ; cp tcepafiiov [keramion] vfiaros [hydatos], Mk. 14:13, Lk. 22:10, and Is. 30:14. See MEALS, 12.

6. "ins, parur (J[root] 'be hot'; \vTpd [chutra], olla, 'pot' AV Nu. 11:8, Judg. 6:19, 1 S. 2:14, Joel 2:6) seems always to represent the common clay cooking-pot, and is repeatedly distinguished from the metallic cauldron. Cp COOKING, 5 (i. c).

7. 1}3, kur (J[root] 'cook', (cdju.ti os [kaminos], catninus, Prov. 173, 27:21, Is. 48:10, Ecclus. 2:5, fornax Dt. 4:20, 1 K. 8:51, Jer. 11:4, Ezek. 22:18, 22:20, 22:22) is the earthen crucible or melting pot of the metallurgist (Wilk. Anc. Eg.); but in Lev. 11:35 the dual, lit. 'pair of crucibles', is explained by Jewish commentators as 'a pot with its cover'; LXX XuTponodEs [chutropodes] indicates a clay tripod, such as is occasionally found ; hence EV 'range for pots', mg. 'stewpan' ; in any case the utensil was of clay, as it was to be destroyed by breaking in pieces. Cp FURNACE, i (2).

For 8. nnS!i, sappahath, and 9. rrn W, selohith, see CRUSE, i, 3.

10. Zxy, 'eseb, Jer. 22:28 (with naphus, 'broken vessel' [RVmg., 'pot', AV 'idol' ; o-jceOos, vas fictile) ; cp IDOL, 1b). The allusion is probably to a broken terra-cotta figurine, a piece of modelled clay, cheap and fragile [cp below, 5 (2)].

4. Potsherds.[edit]

Besides the express terms already mentioned, earthen vessels, kele heres (enrr ^s), of undefined form are recorded as being in use :

1. For ritual purposes (Nu. 5:17, Lev. 4:5, 4:50).

2. For cooking, frequently - e.g., Lev. 6:28 [6:21], where it is clear that they are of unglazed clay, and consequently absorbent of contamination ; cp Ezek. 246, where the metaphor is from cooking, and 'rust' of AV, should be 'scum'. Cp Lev. 11:35 AV, 'range for pots', above (3:7); and Is. 30:14. Cp COOKING, 5.

3. To preserve documents, Jer. 32:14 ; cp buried treasure, 2 Cor. 4:7, which is frequently found thus protected.

The word heres (J[root] 'scratch', o<rrpoxei> [ostrakon], testa, vas fictile) is used of a whole vessel, Prov. 26:23 and as adj. Lev. 6:21, 11:33, 14:5, 14:50, 15:12, as well as of broken pottery ; as a ladle, Is. 30:14 ; as an extemporised brazier, ib., cp Thomson, The Land and the Book, 522 (1868) ; or, on account of the sharpness of its broken edges, as a scraper, Job 2:8.

All these makeshifts may be commonly observed still in the East.

4. To these we may add the making of concrete (mod. Ar. homrah ; cp jjon, hasaph, Dan. 2:33+, 6<fTpaKov [satrakon], fictilis, testa; EV 'clay', see 6 below). For this purpose broken potsherds are finely pounded and mixed with lime (cp Roman opus Signinum). It is as if for this purpose that Jeremiah is directed to shatter the 'potter's vessel' in Jer. 19:1-11, and the process may still be seen on the same spot outside the city (Neal, Palestine Explored, 116+ [1882]).

5. Proverbial references.[edit]

Proverbially, mention is made, especially in the later books, of

i. The plasticity and passivity of clay in the hands of the potter; frequetly - e.g. Is 29:16, 45:9, 64:6, Jer. 18:2+

2. the fragility of pottery in the kiln, Ecclus. 27:5, and in use; frequently - e.g., Ps. 2:9, Eccles. 126, Is. 30:14, 45:19, Jer. 19:1-11 (cp 4 [5]), 22:28, Rev. 2:27, cp Judg. 7:19-20.

3. Consequently, its small value - e.g. , Lam. 4:2, Zech. 4:13, Mt. 27:9.

4. Its menial uses - e.g., Ps. 60:8, 2 Thess. 2:20; but not Ps. 68:13 AV 'pots', RV 'sheepfolds' Che. Ps.W 'dunghills' ; Ps. 816 AV 'pots', RV 'basket', though the reference is, in fact, to work in a brickfield ; see below, 6.

5. Its dry and dusty texture, Ps. 22:15.

6. Clay.[edit]

The manufacture of pottery among the Israelites may be outlined from the same later sources, especially Jer. 18:1-3, Ecclus. 38:32-34.

Clay is usually "ICh, homer; mjAos [pelos], tutum; v""2 n , 'red', cp "i^Di hemar ; ao-^aAros [asphaltos], bitumen ; from the frequent red colour of pot-clay, especially of the surface clays of the Levantine limestones ; cp our chalk soil ; also Bibl.-Aram. NSDH (]pn, Dan. 2:33, see 4 [5]); m)A.os [pelos], lutum ; once t2 13, tit ; TnjAos [pelos], lutum, Is. 41:25, which is properly 'mud' for sun-dried bricks, Nah. 3:14, or merely 'mire'.

The clay is kneaded with the feet to the proper uniformity and consistency (Wisd. 15:7, Is. 41:25, cp Nah. 3:14, where brickmaking is meant, and Ecclus. 38:33 AVmg, 'tempereth with his feet' ). Even prepared clay, however, is liable to fail on the wheel (Jer. 184), in which case it can be worked up afresh ; or in the furnace (Ecclus. 27:5), in which case it is ruined utterly, and is cast aside among the 'wasters', which mark the site of many ancient potteries.

The same clay, HCh, is also used to receive the impress of a seal (Job 38, cp Jer. 32:14) ; and for baked brick, HJ3V, Gen. 113, Is. 45:9, cp Ezek. 4:1. See BRICK.

According to the MT the bronze castings of king Solomon were made in the clay ground between Succoth and Zeredah, in the plain of Jordan (2 Ch. 4:17, iv -no Tra^et TTJS -yrjs, in argillosa terra, cp 1 K. 7:46). The text is corrupt (see ADAM i.); but the Jordan furnishes a strong clay suitable for moulds. Cp BABYLONIA, 15 ; BITUMEN, BRICK, CLAY, SEAL.

7. The potter.[edit]

The potter (usually is v, yoser ; Kfpa/j.evs [kerameus], figidus, plastes ; ^/ns\ 'mould' ; and not confined to this kind of manufacture, Is. 46718; also Bibl. Aram. pehhar, ins ; figulus, Dan. 2:41) sits at his work, turning the wheel with his feet, and modelling the clay revolving upon it with his hands (Jer. 18:3, Ecclus. 38:32). Like many other craftsmen, the potters in Jerusalem appear to have formed a hereditary guild of the bne SHKLAH (q.v.), which is mentioned in 1 Ch. 4:23 at the end of an enumeration of the tribe of Judah (see GEDERAH, 2).

The Potter s Field, Aceldama (mod. Hakl ed-Damm), is traditionally situated in the lower part of the valley of Hinnom, south of Zion, where traces of former potteries are still seen. The furnaces of the valley of Hinnom were proverbial, and the area in question may have extended as far up the valley, and W. of Zion, as the 'Gate of Potsherds' (Jer. 19:2), if not even as far as the 'Tower of the Furnaces' (Neh. 3:11, 12:38). See ACELDAMA.

The 'Gate of Potsherds' (Jer. 192 Kre, RVmg.) obtained its name perhaps from the waste heaps of these potteries (to which it offered direct access from the city), perhaps from general refuse heaps, as this Gate is probably identical with the Dung Gate (Neh. 2:13, 3:13-14), see HARSITH, HINNOM [VALLEY OF, 4 (2)], and JERUSALEM, 24.

8. The potter's wheel.[edit]

[picture of FIG. 7. - Potter's wheel turned by the hand. Egypt about 1800 B.C. goes here]'

The wheel (D^aNn-^y, dual; tirl ruv \i6uv [epi ton lithon]; super rotam, Jer. 183, AVmg 'seats', 'frames' ; Tp&xos [trochos], rota, Ecclus 38:29; cp Ex ll6) appears from the Hebrew to have been originally of stone, but was, perhaps, also later of wood. Two types of wheel, both known in antiquity, and still used in the Levant, would suit the biblical passages.

1. That described by Abulwalid, Heb. Roots, Lex. (ed. Neubauer, col. 18), The instrument is double [expl. the dual form] upon which the potter turns earthen vessels. It consists of two wheels of wood, like a handmill ; the one is larger, which is the lower one ; the other is smaller, and this is the upper. This instrument is called 'obnayim 'a pair of stones', although not made of stone, because of their being like a handmill, which is generally made of stone. In this (fig. 7), which is the old Egyptian type (Wilk. Anc. g. 8164; Rosellini, Man. Civ. PI. L. ; Leps. Denkm. 2:13, 2:126 ; Erman, Life in Anc. Eg. 457 [figure]!), and persisted in the East, though not in NW. Africa (Abulwalid, l.c.) ; the lower 'wheel' is stationary, and serves merely as a base or pivot (Benz. HA 214).

[picture of FIG. 8 - Potter's wheel, turned by the foot, showing the two stones. Egypt, Ptolemaic. goes here]

2. Both wheels revolve with the same vertical axle, to which they are fixed at some distance apart. The lower is driven by the feet of the potter (Ecclus. 38:29) who sits on a bench (cp the interpretation of D^3N in Ex. 1:16, and AVmg. in Jer. 18:3) ; the upper wheel, as before, supports the clay. This more advanced type is first depicted in Greece in the sixth century B.C. (Annali dell Institute, 1882, pi. U, 2 ; Reinach, Repert. d. Vases Grecs, 1:346), and has spread over all Europe, and many parts of W. Asia (fig. 8). It appears to be the wooden wheel of the Talmud (p D , cippus, cp 1 K. 7:30 AV 'wheels', properly trunk of a tree ; \/T1D, bar, cp np, 'stocks', Job 13:27, 37:11), and is the common type now, in Syria (Thomson, The Land and the Book, 521, at Jaffa). Of these alternatives no. 2 suits Ecclus. 38:32 better than no. 1, as the wheel here is turned with the feet, but no. 1 by the hand, either of the potter or of an attendant (as in Harrison s work cited below, n. 1) ; in Jer. 183 either interpretation may be assumed.

9. The kiln.[edit]

[FIG. 9. Potter's kiln ; elevation and conjectural section. Early Greek : the Egyptian kiln is narrower and taller, and has no dome.]

The kiln (icdfuvos [kamunos], Ecclus. 27:5, 38:34) in which pottery is baked is not clearly distinguished from the furnace of the metallurgist, or the oven of the baker. See FURNACE. The burning fiery furnace of Nebuchadrezzar seems, from its large chamber, in which four men could walk, its side door (dvpa [thura], ostium), and its moderate normal heat, to have been a pot- or brick -kiln, such as David may be supposed to have used as an instrument of torture jaSa, (malben ; vXivOeiov [plintheion], fornax lateraria, 2 S. 12:31 ; cp Jer. 43:9, Nah. 3:14 ). 2 On this mode of punishment, see AHAB, 2 (col. 93), FURNACE. The potter's kilns represented on Egyptian (Wilk. Anc. Eg. 2:99, 2:192; Rosellini, Man. Civ. 2251; Leps. Denkm. 2:126) and early Greek monuments (Ann. d. Inst., 1882, pi. U, i) are, however, on a much smaller scale (fig. 9). Von Ihering (Evolution of the Aryan, 100, 416) points out the daily necessity for public kilns, when business documents were preserved, as in Babylonia, on tablets of baked clay.

Though the name of Nebuchadrezzar's furnace refers to its smoke, a clear fire and a clean kiln are essential to the production of fine pottery, and must be maintained night and day (Ecclus. 38:34).

1 Cp (in Greece) Harrison and MacColl, Greek Vase Paintings, 9.

2 But see BRICK, i, n. 3 ; DAVID, n c. ii., and especially Crit. Bib.

10. Glazing and glass.[edit]

The glazing in Ecclus. 38:34 EV (xpiff^a [chrisma] [B a NA], Xapifffjia [charisma] [B*"] linitionem] is properly a smearing with either slip or paint. Smearing with slip is common, in Palestine as elsewhere, on all but the commonest sorts of vessels, but would not call for special remark in this context. Smearing with paint - especially paint of a warm red colour, smeared over the whole surface of the vessel, and frequently polished by hand - is characteristic of the earlier 'Amorite' pottery (2) and persists to a late date. If ^dpta/na [charisma] be read, something of the nature of a pattern must be understood ( 2).

Actual vitrified glazing is rarely, if ever, found on Palestinian pottery before Roman times. The characteristic Egyptian glazed faience was imitated in Cyprus, and perhaps also in Phoenicia, from at least the beginning of the Jewish kingdom ; and glazed earthenware has been found occasionally on Jewish sites, but never of certainly native fabric, or of clearly pre-exilic date. The 'earthen vessel overlaid with silver dross' of Prov. 26:23 AV has been interpreted of a crucible, or broken potsherd, on which dross has been spilt ; but the Hebrew implies intentional 'overlaying' (cp 1 K. 6:20), and the use of dross or slag as glaze, though unsubstantiated, is not in itself unlikely, whether merely as a tour de force, or as a means of imitating a metallic lustre like the bucchero nero of early Greece and Italy.

GLASS [q.v.] itself hardly comes into use in Palestine before late Ptolemaic times, though opaque coloured glass was made in Egypt under the eighteenth dynasty, and imitated in Cyprus and elsewhere. For Palestinian specimens of the later transparent glass see Bliss and Dickie, Excav. at Jerus. 362, and Per. -Chip. op. cit. 1:358-359, fig. 251-252: j. L . M .


1. Mane (H3O; MNA. mina or mna), Ezra 3:69, etc. Cp MANEH, and see WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.

2. Au-pa [litra], Jn. 12:3, 19:39. See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.


(? KONioprcoN Mypeyoy [KNA, -eyiKoy W\,pulveris pigmentaris], mentioned along with myrrh and frankincense (Cant. 3:6+). See PERFUME.


(Acts 8:10), POWERS (Rom. 8:38, 1 Cor. 15:24, Eph. 1:21). There were many Svvd/Jifis [dynaes], or angelic 'powers', of the same class, but of different degrees ; Simon Magus, however, passed as 'that power of God which is called Great' (RV). It has been proposed to take megale (fjLeydX-r)) as a transliteration of the Samaritan name of the 'power' (N^JD or VjD - i.e. , 'he who reveals' ). 1 But Deissmann (Bibelstudien , 19, n. 6) quotes from a papyrus this invocation, 'I invoke thee as the greatest power which is appointed in heaven by the Lord God'. 2 See SIMON MAGUS ; ANGEL, i.


On the Roman office of praetor (i.e., proeitor, 'he who goes before', 'a leader' ), originally a military title, and in classical times a designation of the highest magistrates in the Latin towns, the reader may consult the works of Marquardt, Mommsen, and others ; a compendious account will be found in J. G. Frazer's article 'Praetor' in Ency. Brit. (^) 19655f-

In Acts 16:20, 16:22, 16:25 for aTpaTrjyoi [strategoi] (RV 'magistrates' ) RVmg. has 'Gk. praetors'. The meaning of this note is that ffrparriyoi [strategoi], the Greek name for the highest magistrates in a Roman colony, corresponded to the Lat. praetores. 'The title praetors was not technically accurate, but was frequently employed as a courtesy title for the supreme magistrates of a Roman colony' (Ramsay, St. Paul, 218). In Acts 16:19, however, there is already mention of the rulers (tipxavres [archontes]), so that the further mention of the praetors (ffTpaT-rjyoi [strategoi]) is matter for surprise. Meyer -Wendt, Comm. 281, explains dpxovres [archontes] as 'the more general, (rrparriyoi [strategoi] 'the more specialised' expression. Ramsay admits the difficulty of the text.

'It is hardly possible', Ramsay says, 'that v. 19-20 have the final form that the writer would have given them. The expression halts between the Greek form and the Latin, between the ordinary Greek term for the supreme board of magistrates in any city (apxoi/res [archontes]), and the popular Latin designation (o-TpaTij-yoi [strategoi], praetores), as if the author had not quite made up his mind which he should employ. Either of the clauses bracketed 8 is sufficient in itself; and it is hardly possible that a writer, whose expression is so concise, should have intended to leave in his text two clauses which say exactly the same thing' (217-218).

Ramsay's conclusion, with regard to the authorship of the narrative that as usual, Luke moves on the plane of educated conversation in such matters, and not on the plane of rigid technical accuracy ; he writes as the scene was enacted, is hardly satisfactory. M. A. C.