Encyclopaedia Biblica/Sacrilege-Sampsames

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



In Rom. 222 the question: 'Thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou rob temples' (AV 'commit sacrilege'; 6 /35eXucrcr6/ixei os TO. dowXa iepoffv\cis) is to be interpreted in the light of Dt. 7:25 where not only is it commanded to burn the graven images of the gods of the nations with fire, but it is also forbidden to covet the silver or gold that is on them or to 'take it unto thee ; for it is an abomination (mi;w) to Yahwe thy God, and thou shall not bring an abomination into thy house so as to become an anathema like it ; thou shall utterly detesl and abominale it, for it is anathema' (see ABOMINATION, 4 ; IDOL, 2d}. In Jos. Ant. 4:8:10, 207, this law is rendered 'Let no one blaspheme those gods which other cities esteem such ; nor may any one steal the sacred things of strange temples (/J.rjd( cri \dv iepa ^epi/cd) nor take any treasure that may be dedicated to any god'. In accordance with this, in Acts 19:37 we find the town clerk of Ephesus urging in the case of Paul and his Jewish companions that their offence has at least not been of the most aggravated kind, they being 'neither robbers of temples (iepoavXovs [hierosulous]) nor blasphemers of our goddess'.

As regards sacrilege against the temple in Jerusalem, 2 Macc. 4:39-42 records the sacrileges (iepocrvAj(naTa [hierosulemata]) committed in the city by Lysimachus with the consent of Menelaus, the riot it led to, and the death of the sacrilegious person (iepoo-vAos [hierosulos]) beside the sanctuary. The alleged attempt of Antiochus Epiphanes to rob a temple (iepoo-vAeii [hierosulein]) in Persepolis is alluded to in 2 Macc. 9:2, and in 2 Macc. 13:3-8 the death of Menelaus by precipitation from the tower for the punishment of 'him that is guilty of sacrilege' (iepo<ruAt <x [hierosulia]) or has attained any pre-eminence in any other evil deeds is related. In Ant. 16:6:2 Josephus records a decree of Augustus in the course of which it is enacted that the sacred things [of the Jews] are not to be touched (TO. re iepa eifat iv atrvAi a), and that 'if any one be caught stealing their holy books or their sacred money, whether from the synagogue (<raj3/Sart-i ov [sabbateiou]) or from the public school (avSplavot [androonos]), he shall be deemed a sacrilegious person (iepocrvAov [hierosulon]), and his goods shall be brought into the public treasury of the Romans'. In 18:3:5-6 the expulsion of the Jews from Rome in Tiberius's time is said to have been due to the wickedness of four Jews who embezzled Fulvia's gift of purple and gold for the temple at Jerusalem.


(SALA.VE), 4 Esd. 1:1 AV = SHALLUM, 6.


(ACTAA [A]), 1 Esd. 5:13 AV, RV ASTAD ; see AZGAD. The AV is derived from the Geneva version.


RV LODDEUS (AAAAAIOC [B]), 1 Esd. 8:45. See IDDO (i. ).


The word 231O, merkab, is in Lev. 15:9 rendered 'saddle' in EV, but AVmg has 'carriage' (cp 1 K. 4:26 [5:6]). The word literally means 'place of riding' - i.e., riding seat (cp CHARIOT, i, begin.), and in Cant. 3:10 it clearly means the seat of Solomon's palanquin (see RV and LITTKK). Not less evidently this sense will not suit in Lev. (l.c.). A suggested emendation is in7s [merker or merked], 'rug' (see TAPESTRY).

It is to be remarked that though riding was the most common mode of travelling in Bible days, saddles in the modern sense of the word were not used but only 'horse-cloths', or, failing that, a garment (Mt. 21:7). Furrer (BL 5:191) compares Ezek. 27:20 as showing that costly horse-cloths were brought to market at Tyre by the Dedanites. But the text is corrupt (cp AV and RV). For the most probable reading see CLOTH, n. i ; young steeds, not cloths, are referred to. On the camels 'furniture', see CAMEL, 2, end. The word for 'to saddle' (W]n, habash), Nu. 22:21 etc., literally means 'to bind'.


RV Sadduk (cAAAoyKoy [A], c&AAoy-AOYKOY []. ceAAoyK [L]), 1 Esd. 8:2. See ZADOK.


1. Name: current explanations.[edit]

The origin of the name Tsaddukim (D^p-ny, so probably, rather than D^pHV) has been explained in two ways :

  • 1. As if from tsaddik (pnx), the specially righteous - a most unsatisfactory derivation, although favoured by Jerome and other of the Fathers. The change from tsaddik (/,,-,-) to tsadduk (p'am) is warranted bv no analogy, nor is the name as explained at all appropriate. There is no evidence that the Sadducees ever made any special claim to righteousness, as understood by the Jews, and certainly they were not credited with it by their opponents. Such a claim was far more likely to be made by the Pharisees.
  • 2. From the personal name Zadok (pins). This is not much more satisfactory than the other, for it does not account for the well-attested double d in tsaddukim (D pnx), and besides there is no direct proof of a connection with Zadok. Three persons of that name have been suggested :
  • (a) a certain Zadok, otherwise unknown, who is said to have been with a certain Boethos, a disciple of Antigonus of Socho;
  • (b) an unknown founder of the aristocratic party ;
  • (c) Zadok the priest in the time of David and Solomon.

a. For the first (disciple of Antigonus) we have only the authority of the Aboth di R. Nathan, a late compilation, probably of the ninth century, which carries no weight with regard to historical events earlier by 1000 years. It is likely that this represents a Talmudic tradition, since the Boethusians are sometimes confused with, and (even in the Tosefta) put for the Sadducees. The story is, in the common Rabbinic manner, due solely to a desire to account for the supposed origin of Sadduceism from the well-known dictum of Antigonus (Pirke Aboth, 1:3) that we should serve God without expectation of reward, which is then said to have been perverted by his disciples to mean that there will be no retribution after death. Apart from the unhistorical nature of the story, however, the saying refers quite as much to rewards in this life as to the future, and, in any case, accounts only for one side of Sadduceism.

b. The second Zadok (a person assumed to account for the name), although supported by Kuenen, may be dismissed as purely hypothetical.

c. The least unlikely is the third (Zadok the priest, temp. David and Solomon). Ezekiel certainly insists strongly on the 'sons of Zadok' (pm 33) as the only legitimate holders of the priestly office ; but his prophecies were uttered in circumstances wholly different from those in which the Sadducean and Pharisaic parties became distinguished. In Kzekiel s time Israel appears to have been sunk in idolatry, and he depicts an ideal state of things which for the most part was never realised. A great gulf is fixed between his time and that of Ezra. Modern Judaism, a system quite distinct from anything pre-exilic, may be said to have begun with Ezra, and the people never again fell into idolatry. The breach of continuity is so definite that what might be true or desirable in the sixth century B.C. forms no argument for what was the fact in the third century. It must be remembered too that Ezekiel was himself a priest. A much stronger argument might be derived from the Hebrew text of Ecclus. 51:12 [51:9] (ed. Schechter), 'Give thanks to him who chose the sons of Zadok for priest', if the passage is genuine, as it probably is. However, there is evidence that this view did not prevail exclusively, for in 1 Ch. 24 the sons of Ithamar share in the priesthood, and in later times the priests are designated by the wider term, 'sons of Aaron'. The form of the name is not the only difficulty ; it does not appear that the Sadducees ever claimed to be, or were regarded as, sons of Zadok. Whilst they chiefly belonged to the priestly or aristocratic caste, that party was in its essence political, and the name, which denotes a certain set of doctrines, or rather the negation of them, seems to have been applied to them as a term of reproach by their opponents. That is to say, it was used as a theological, not a political term, referring not to the origin of a particular family, party, or caste, but to the special form of supposed heterodoxy which happened to be characteristic of that party, so that a man might have been described as a Sadducee on account of his views, although not necessarily being a member of the party - a case which, however, was unlikely to occur.

2. Another explanation.[edit]

3. A third explanation of the name may perhaps be hazarded, though with great diffidence. In modern Persian the word zindik is used in the sense of Manichaean, or, in a general sense, for infidel, one who does not believe in the resurrection or in the omnipotence of God. It has been adopted in Arabic (zindikun, plur. zanadiku and zanadikatun) with the meaning of infidel, and also in Armenian (cp Eznik [5th cent.] against heresies, chap. 2 on the errors of Zoroastrianism). Mas'udi (10th cent. ) says that the name arose in the time of Manes to denote his teaching, and explains that it is derived from the Zend, or explanation, of the Avesta. The original Avesta was the truly sacred book, and a person who followed only the commentary was called a Zindik, as one who rejected the word of God to follow worldly tradition, irreligious. But the term cannot have originated in the time of Manes (3rd cent. A.D. ), for the Zend 'commentary', whatever view be taken of its date, was by then already becoming unintelligible. It must be much earlier and have acquired the general sense of infidel very soon. Mas'udi, indeed, himself implies that ^Jj j was used long before in this sense, and makes Zoroaster the author not only of the Avesta, but of the Zend and Pazend (super-commentary), parts of which he says were destroyed by Alexander the Great. 1 Makrizi (15th cent. ), who borrows largely from Mas udi, confuses the Zanadikah with the Samaritans and Sadducees, and says that they deny the existence of angels, the resurrection, and the prophets after Moses, whence it has been suggested that Zanadikah is a corruption of Zaddukim. The reverse may, however, be the case. It is quite possible that the Persian word was used about 200 B.C. in the sense of 'Zoroastrian', 2 and if so, it might well be applied by opponents to a party in Judaea who sympathised with foreign ideas, and rejected beliefs which were beginning to be regarded as distinctively Jewish. It would thus have been used at first in a contemptuous sense, and later, when the original meaning was forgotten, was, in the well-known Jewish manner, transformed in such a way as to bear the interpretation of 'sons of Zadok' (pns ja) with a suggestion of 'righteous' (o pns). This would explain the daghesh (for suppressed :) with pathah, and the i for \ It may be mentioned, though perhaps as a mere coincidence, that zanadika is used for Sadducees in Arabic translations of the NT. That they did not hold Zoroastrian views is no objection to this explanation. In later Jewish literature Epikurus (omp Sx) is used for a freethinker, without any idea of his holding the views of Epicurus (see EPICUREANS), and is connected, by a popular etymology, with the root ips. Infact, after the real meaning of the name has been forgotten, Epikurus becomes in the Talmud doctrinally almost the exact representative of the earlier term Sadducee, the errors chiefly condemned in the 'sect' being their denial of the resurrection and the rejection of the oral law. It is very probable that Sadducee never had any more definite sense than this.

1 The question of the origin of the Zoroastrian writings is extremely difficult, and very little is certain except that the Gathas are the earliest stratum. See ZOROASTRIANISM.

2 The meaning of infidel would then be due to the later influence of Christianity and Islam.

3. History of Sadducees.[edit]

The beginning of the party naturally can not be traced. In its political aspect it must have existed actually or potentially ever since there was a Jewish state, if the view taken below is correct. Doctrinally too, if it is in essence the opposite of the Pharisaic development, its origin goes back to the first beginnings of a law which had to be interpreted. The uncertainty of the evidence and its paucity prevent our assigning any definite date for the first (Pharisaic) amplification of the Torah. We may, however, feel sure that the Law-book of Ezra enlarged the existing documents sufficiently to meet all the requirements of the time. It must have been later that the progressive school began to develop tradition. In the Mishna tractate Aboth, after the canonical authorities, the first link in the chain of tradition (nSapn n^s/re 1 ) is the 'Great Synagogue', 1 and the first personal name is that of Simon the Just (probably early in the 3rd cent. B.C. ). No doubt the first steps had been taken before his time ; but it seems that historical record did not go farther back. We shall perhaps not be far wrong in placing the actual beginnings of the new teaching about 300 B.C., and this agrees very well with the conclusion which has been drawn from other evidence, that after the time of Alexander the Great Judaism became powerfully affected by that Persian influence to which may be traced the increasing popularity of the doctrine of a future life with rewards and punishments. The rise of the liberal party, or school of theological development, implies the formation of a conservative opposition. It is not to be supposed that the two parties were from the first sharply divided, still less that they acquired distinctive names. It is historically more probable that the divergence increased gradually, and was intensified, and at last definitely realised in the religious revival of Maccabaean times. As to the first use of the name to indicate differences consciously felt, it does not occur in the OT or in Ecclus., and, in fact, the earliest documents which mention Sadducees are the Gospels (but not Jn.). There is, however, no reason to reject the testimony of Josephus that the name was used in the Maccabaean period, and if it was then well-established, we may assume that it was used, if not generally, at least sporadically, at an earlier time to denote opposition to doctrines which are afterwards known as Pharisaic. In Josephus they always appear as a definite political party, an inexact, though convenient, view which is due to the colouring of the historian. Under the earlier Maccabaeans, as would be expected, they are not much in evidence ; but with the Hasmonaeans they again come into prominence. John Hyrcanus definitely allied himself with them. Alexander Jannaeus, as being himself high priest, was supported by them (cp Sukkah, 48b), and his war may be regarded as a contest between the Pharisaic and the Sadducean parties. In their political relations they show a sympathy with foreign influences which was strongly reprobated by the nationalistic Pharisees. Thus we find them accused, perhaps justly, of tolerating Greek religious practices, and even of adopting them. This is the less surprising if it be considered that the Judaism which they professed can have had (to use a modern phrase) no religious hold on them. It was rather the machinery by which a certain political system was worked, and when circumstances changed, it could be adapted to the new conditions. In the Roman period their influence diminished again. The party, always in a minority, was not likely to be largely recruited. They apparently had no existence outside Jerusalem with the temple and its ritual, the centre of religious and political life. With the fall of Jerusalem they disappear from history, and a century later the Mishna knows of them only by tradition. (See, further, PHARISEES, 17-20).

1 The rabbinical accounts of the great synagogue are irreconcilable with the received chronology. If Ezra's date could be put a century later, as has been suggested, many difficulties would be removed.

4. Doctrine : negative.[edit]

It would seem that Sadduceeism is to be rightly regarded as negative. Wherever reference is made to it, the suggestion is that certain views are rejected. This naturally follows from what has been said above. Phariseeism represents the tendency which ultimately resulted in modern Judaism. It was at once exclusive in that it strenuously opposed all dealings with the foreigner, and popular in that it provided for the spiritual needs of the people. The doctrines which we find the Sadducees rejecting are precisely those which had been deduced from the law and the prophets to suit the requirements of the time. If Judaism was to continue as a living system, it became necessary to adapt it to altered conditions not contemplated by the law of Moses, and hence arose the whole body of oral tradition ("jpat? mm ns). At a time, too, when theological speculation was widely cultivated, it was equally natural that Judaism should be affected by the striving after those spiritual hopes which at all times have been, rightly or wrongly, the most cherished source of comfort in human suffer ing. Hence arose the doctrines of a future life with rewards and punishments compensating for the apparent incompatibility between virtue and happiness in this life. How keenly this problem appealed to the Jewish mind is evident from the Psalms (e.g., Ps. 73). Perhaps to no people has it appealed, for various reasons, more poignantly. Naturally, however, it was to the poor, the weak, and their sympathisers, that the need for a future rectification in the cause of justice was most apparent. It is, therefore, only what would be expected when we find that those who reject such comfortable words are a relatively small party of the well-to-do (TOI)S evirbpovs fj-ovov ^XOVTWV). Whilst, however, it appears to have been generally the case that Sadducean views were held by the aristocratic (i.e., primarily, the priestly) party, we must beware, as suggested above, of regarding aristocrat, priest, and Sadducee as convertible terms. Many of the priests were Pharisees, as we see, e.g. , from the names of doctors quoted in the Mishna with the title 'priest' (jro), etc., and, moreover, the separation between the higher and the lower classes of priests was as great as between the aristocratic party and the common people. Nor again was the difference between Pharisees and Sadducees politically insuperable. They could sit together on the Sanhedrin (Acts 23:6), and priests and Pharisees could combine in a common cause (Jn. 7:32, 7:45). That the Sadducees were, however, in an oligarchical minority is evident from the fact that they seem to have found it advisable to conform at times to the more popular Pharisaic practice - e.g., Yoma 19b, 'although we are Sadducees we are afraid of the Pharisees' (c E nsn jo j KTnD UN ppmc 1 fi y ), where the whole passage shows a strong anti-Sadducean feeling. Cp also Jos. Ant. 18:1:4.

1 This seems possibly true to the circumstances, though Talmudic references are not to be implicitly accepted. The Gemara is not to be trusted for distant historical facts, but may represent a true traditional attitude.

5. Data.[edit]

Taking then the view that Sadducean opinions were held mainly by members of the dominant aristocratic class, we have now to consider those opinions in detail. The data furnished by the NT, though clear, are meagre. The account in Josephus is fuller (see especially Ant. 18:1:2-4, BJ 2:8:14). His statements are, however, coloured partly by his own strong Pharisaic prejudice, and still more by a desire to express himself in terms of Greek philosophy. It must be remembered that philosophical notions which appealed to the Greek mind were entirely foreign to the methods of thought underlying Sadducean belief or disbelief. In this respect Jew and Greek start from different premises, representing a racial distinction. Roughly speaking, the one founds his faith on the will of God and the revelation bound up with it, the other deduces his scheme of the universe from a metaphysical conception of the necessary conditions of being.

The distinctive Sadducean views may be classed (as by Schurer) under three heads :

  • (1) they denied the resurrection, personal immortality, and retribution in a future life ;
  • (2) they denied angels, spirits, and demons ;
  • (3) they denied fate (ei/j.ap/J.{vri [eimarmene]), and postulated freedom of action for every man to choose good or evil, and work out his own happiness or the reverse.

6. Resurrection.[edit]

1. With regard to the first point, Sadduceeism undoubtedly represents the old Jewish standpoint. Whatever doctrines may be inferred from the Torah, it is evident that the theory of a future life and future retribution is not inculcated in it. The object of, at any rate, the earher parts of the Torah was not spiritual teaching, apart from the edification to be derived from the historical narrative, but to set forth the practical details of the ritual of Yahweism. Such words as 'holiness' and 'purity' had a technical religious meaning quite distinct from the moral content which has been put into them by later theology. From a law-book the poetical, the spiritual, the emotional were fittingly excluded. Into the causes of the development which we find in the other canonical books, in Phariseeism, and in later Jewish thought, we need not enter here (see PHARISKES). That development was necessary. Sadduceeism only emphasised the earlier point of view by rejecting the new doctrines with unvarying conservatism. When we consider that the Sadducees had a certain sympathy with Greek and foreign influences generally, this attitude may be thought remarkable. It is not so if we rightly understand the nature of the original Torah and the Semitic mind which is deeply interested in the problems of the present, but shows only a slight capacity or inclination for dealing with the questions of modern theology. The Jewish mind can indeed insist on the oneness of God ; but how misplaced in a Midrash, nay, how impossible, would be for instance a discussion of the doctrine of homoousia, even if it could arise. Such questions have, or had, an attraction for the western mind. They have none for the Jew. Moreover, we may well suppose that in the aristocratic party a certain materialistic tendency would show itself, that practical politics would absorb attention to the exclusion of more contemplative pursuits. Whilst thus holding to primitive, formal Judaism, the Saclducees would, so far as they were disposed to be controversial, look with suspicion on Pharisaic developments, as tending, by a sort of self-contradiction, to vitiate the observance of the Law. The Pharisee was, indeed, exact in paying tithes of the mint and the cummin ; but a later teacher could say, 'Whoever gives a poor man a coin attains six blessings ; but he who addresses to him soothing words attains eleven blessings' ( n&c i Tnno jj*"? rmne jnun hi mD-a sr:i -pans C-ITU iD"2cm nn-n). Besides the danger of such teaching in undermining the foundations on which the Sadducean position rested, there may also have been a conscientious desire to arrest the breaking up of that system by which alone the nation could rightly serve God. They accordingly rejected entirely the oral tradition (ns Si Ds? min) by which the Pharisees supplemented the written Law. According to Pharisaic doctrine this was of equal authority with the written Law, and in a sense even more binding, since it provided for what was not to be found in the Law. Later teachers claimed that the whole of tradition was revealed to Moses, who transmitted it orally to Joshua and the seventy elders. The difficulty of preserving it intact through so many centuries was evaded by the theory of a sort of apostolic succession (n^apn rbxhw), a series of authoritative teachers. The whole of this superstructure, and therewith the doctrines deduced by it, chief among which was that of the future life, were ignored by the Sadducees.

7. Angels.[edit]

2.. With regard to the second specific point - the disbelief in angels, spirits, and demons - the Sadducean position was probably in advance of the Torah, where we still find traces of the belief, common to all primitive peoples, in the existence and power of demons. How they could abandon this, still more how they could explain it (e.g. , the rite connected with Azazel) we do not know. It is, however, a natural consequence of the materialistic tendency and of the attitude described above. No doubt it was also emphasised by opposition to the Pharisaic development of angelology and demonology. Already in the Book of Daniel angels have names ; in the Midrashim and the Talmud the system is further extended, and later, in the 'practical Kabbalah', it passes all bounds.

8. Free-will.[edit]

3. For the third point - the freedom of will and the denial of fate - we have only the authority of Josephus. Schurer points out that this way of stating the case is entirely un-Jewish, although the question of God's providence was undoubtedly discussed. In spite of its not being confirmed by other evidence, it is very probable that Josephus account is substantially correct. The doctrine is in agreement with the worldly, materialistic character of Sadduceeism, noted above, and with their tendency to keep to the simplest elements of faith, rejecting all admixture of the supernatural. It also probably represents the point of view of the Pentateuch (e.g., Dt. 4 and 6). The Sadducees would not have denied that good and bad actions brought their respective consequences in this world, for a moral sanction is necessary ; but they would reject any theory of predestination as well as that of future retribution. Possibly Persian influence may be traceable here.

9. Torah.[edit]

There remains yet a fourth point to be considered. According to the church fathers (Origen, Jerome) the Sadducees accepted only the Torah, rejecting all the other canonical books. This seems to be a misconception based on Mt. 22:31-32. Why should Jesus have chosen an argument from the Pentateuch, when others more obvious were to be found in the other books, unless the Sadducees acknowledged only the authority of the Pentateuch in such matters ? We have, however, no evidence for such a view, which could hardly fail to be laid to their charge if there were the least ground for it. The argument from silence is not conclusive ; but it is very strong here, for nothing could have been better calculated to damage an opponent than to show that he rejected any of the canonical books. The truth is, however, that the Jews have always regarded the Torah as on a wholly different level of holiness and authority from the other books. In the time of Ezra, which may be regarded as the starting-point of Judaism, as we understand it, the Torah must have been the only sacred writing. Other documents won their way only gradually to a canonical position. The conservative Sadducees would, no doubt, hold more rigidly than others to the supreme position of the Torah, and would view with a certain suspicion any enlargement of the canon as showing a Pharisaic tendency. (Cp the attitude of the Protestant churches towards the Apocrypha.) It must be admitted too that the prophets and hagiographa generally lend more countenance to Pharisaic views than the Torah, and were, in fact, a result of the same development. Though we need not suppose, therefore, that they rejected them, the Sadducees may well have used them only 'for example of life and instruction of manners' ; and the argument in Mt. 22:32 is probably chosen from the Torah in order to be above criticism. The statement of the fathers is no doubt partly due to a very common confusion with the SAMARITANS (q.v. ), who did accept only the Torah (for the same reasons which caused the Sadducees to regard it with special veneration), and, curiously enough, use the very passage quoted in Mt. as an argument for the future life.

A. E. C.

For the literature see SCRIBES AND PHARISEES, 21.

1 See the discussion in Fluck. and Hanb. (2) 66:4-5


i. (SADOCH] 4 Esd. 1:1. See ZADOK.

2. (<raS<aic [sadook] [Ti. WH]), Mt. 1:14. See GENEALOGIES ii.


(Din?, karkom ; KROKOC, Cant.4:14 t).

The Hebrew word is probably identical with Syr. kurkema, Ar. kurkum, both of which denote the crocus or saffron. The same word is found in Persian and Armenian (in the latter probably borrowed from Heb. ; Lag. GA 58, Arm. St. 161), and the common origin seems to be Sans, kunkuma. The source of saffron is Crocus salivas, L. , a plant of doubtful origin, 1 which, though found in Palestine (FFP 422), is not apparently indigenous there. D. H. Muller, on the other hand, separating karkom from the other words mentioned above, connects it with Ar. kamkam (Sab. C3D3) and Gk. KdyKa/j-ov [kagkamon], 1 and so takes it to be the resin of the dirw or mastic tree - i.e. , tsori >-/,is (Sab. Denkm. 82). But Muller s identification of Ka.yKa.iJ.ov with the resin of the mastic tree is a mistake : KdyKo.fi.ov [kagkomon] is, according to Fraas (Syn. Pl. Fl. class. 87), derived from Amyris [= Balsamodendron] Kataf,{2} and is in all probability therefore the fragrant gum much esteemed in the east as 'Bissa bol' - in fact, an inferior kind of myrrh. Mordtmann does not believe in the connection of cins with kamkam and K ay K a [MOV [kagkamon] : and it seems best to follow ancient tradition in identifying the Heb. word with saffron.

N. M. - W. T. T. D.

1 On this see Diosc. 1:23. Plin. HN 12:44.

2 Sprengel (Hist. rei Herb. 1172) calls this Amyris Kafal, which is possibly the same thing.


i. tnSD, miphrash; crpooMNH, Ezek. 27:7, 'Thy sail to serve as ensign' (D3 ; 6da).

2. DJ, nes ; OTj/neiov [semeion] or TO. i<7Ti a [ta istia] ( ?), Is. 33:23, The many-coloured sails served in ancient times as distinguishing marks. See SHIP.


1. Use of terms.[edit]

We have to deal, in this article, not with the subject of Christian, or rather biblical, 'perfection', but with the use of 'saint' and 'holy' in the EV. The former word, as a rendering, either of kadosh or of hasid, has had the unfortunate effect of obscuring characteristic biblical ideas. Readers of the EV must therefore supply for themselves the necessary mental correction or interpretation. AV applies the term in OT :

1. To the angels (kedoshim, G uhp), Job 5:1, 15:15, Ps. 89:5, 89:7 [89:6, 89:8], Zech. 14:5. RV, however, calls the angels 'holy ones'. Whether even this phrase conveys the right idea to a modern reader may be doubted (see c), and we may well be grateful to Budde (note on Job 5;1) for his suggestion 'heavenly ones'.

2. To persons who are 'holy' - i.e., consecrated (kadosh, c ; np, kaddish, o^g) - e.g. , Ps. 106:16 (Aaron), 34:9 [34:10] Dan. 7:18, 7:21-22, 7:25, 7:27 (faithful worshippers of Yahwe). So, too, RV.

3. To Israelites who fulfil the duties of piety (hasid, Ton ; ocrios [osios], sanctus, see LOVINGKINDNESS), 1 S. 2:9 (LXX Shaw [dikios] or om. ) Ps. 16:10, 30:4 [30:5], 50:5, 52:9 [52:11], 79:2, Prov. 2:8 (LXX, (vXafiov/iifvuv [eulaboumenoon]), etc. ; so RV, except in 1 S. 2:9, where it gives (not happily) 'holy ones', and in mg. 'godly ones'. 'Loyal ones' would give one side of the meaning (cp Ps. 50:5 ?). In NT (see above) the EV uses 'saints' often of Christians. It may be a convenient term ; but if ideas are to be translated, 'God's people' would perhaps be a better rendering, with a marg. 'holy ones - i.e. , consecrated ones'.

Two passages in Rev. deserve attention. In 15:3, AVs 'thou king of saints' (6 /SacrtAeus -riav ayiuiv [...... agioon], TR, Ti.WHnig. o /3. T. Uyiov) has become in RV 'thou king of the ages' (6 /Sa<r. TMV aituviav [.... aioonoon], RV, WH) ; and in 18:20 AV's 'ye holy apostles and prophets' has become 'ye saints, and ye apostles, and ye prophets'. Textual criticism certainly has had its rights; but the rendering 'saints' seems an unnecessary coneession to a usage more honoured in the breach than in the observance. 'Ye holy ones' would surely have been adequate.

2. Meaning of hesed.[edit]

There are also great difficulties connected with EV's use of the rendering 'holy', especially when it is used for hasid ( on which cp Dr. Par. Ps. 443-444; Kirkpatrick, Psalms, 544-545; BDB, s.v.)

i. Ps. 86:2, 'Preserve thou my soul, for I am holy' (hasid} ; so AV, cp Vg. and Jer. ; but RV 'godly'. AV is here even more misleading than in 50:5 ( 'gather my saints [hasiday] together unto me' ). 'Who can be the speaker of these words but the Sinless One?' asks Augustine. This of course is theology, not exegesis (cp OPs. 260), and even if we take Ps. 86 to be a psalm of the pious community (Smend, Ba. , etc. ), yet, like Job, the community, while maintaining its consciousness of righteousness, would abstain from calling itself subjectively 'holy' or 'sinless'. It is not to the state of holiness that the Psalmist lays claim, but to the over mastering affection of moral love, the same in kind as that of which he is conscious towards his brother Israel ites, and in some degree towards his brother men. To a good Israelite there is no boastfulness implied in such a claim as the Psalmist's. Whom should he love but Yahwe, who has granted Israel a 'covenant ordered in all things and sure', a covenant based on the presupposition that those who desire its benefits are bound by practical love to each other, and, both as individuals and as a community, by worshipping and obedient love to Jehovah (Aids, 345-346) ? Kirkpatrick (op. cit. ), however, following Hupfeld, thinks the passive sense, 'be loved' - i.e. , the object of thy lovingkindness, 'far more suitable'. See LOVINGKINDNESS.

2. Ps. 16:10, 'Neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One' (hasid), etc. RV removes the capital letters; RVmg 'Or godly ; or beloved'. Any rendering would be better than 'holy one' or 'Holy One'. Perhaps 'thy loyal one' gives the most important part of the sense best. The phrase implies an argument ; 'thou wilt preserve me because of the covenant-bond of lovingkindness'.

In Ps. 35:16, too, the same idea underlies the text, if Gratz is right in emending the very doubtful yahid (Trr) into hasid (l 2n), 'have mercy upon me, for I am loyal (to the covenant)'. In all such passages pious Israel is the speaker, not an individual (though a Christian application can be reasonably defended). In Ps. 16 the reading of the text (Kt.) is 'thy holy ones'. EV, however, in following the Hebrew margin (Kr.) has the authority of the versions, and the best MSS and editions. The case with Ps. 89:19 [89:20] is somewhat similar.

3. Ps. 89:19 [89:20], LXX wots [niois], AV 'Thou spakest in vision to thy Holy One' (hasid} ; RV 'to thy saints', because 'Holy One' (kadosh) precedes in v. 18, and because the text (Kt. ) and the versions have the plural, though the singular is supported by the Heb. marg. (Kr. ) and by some MSS and early editions. Certainly the 'vision' of 2 S. 7 was to an individual (Nathan) ; though ultimately it belonged to all the hasidim. 'Godly ones (or one)', as Driver, or 'to thy loyal ones (one)', 1 would be an improvement on AV's rendering.

4. 1 S. 2:9, 'He will keep the feet of his holy ones', RVmg 'of his godly ones' (hasidaw, Kt. ; but hasido, Kr. ). EV is unfortunate.

5. and 6. 1 Tim. 2:8, EV 'holy hands' ; Tit. 18, 'just, holy, temperate'. 6 crtos [osios] is never = ayios [hagios]; it comes nearer to dlKaios [dikaios], and denotes the righteousness of him who regards not chiefly the law, but the lawgiver ; in short, piety. So Philo, offiorris /j.tv wpbs Qebv, 5iKaio(nJvT) 5 irpbs dvdpunrovs deupelrcu (Op. Mangey, 2:30).

3. A designation of God.[edit]

But there are difficulties of another order - difficulties inherent in the prevalent system of translation. Are only words to be translated, or ideas also? Must not, in certain cases, a concession be made to a wider theory of translation than that which is possible in a mere revision of an old version? The names of God, at any rate, it would seem, need to be retranslated, at least in the margin. 'The Holy One of Israel' is a phrase which, taken simply as it stands, scarcely conveys any idea. Kedoshim and Elohim being so nearly synonymous terms, we might give as an alternative rendering 'the Majestic One whom Israel worships'. 'The Devoted One of Israel' - i.e. , 'He who is devoted to Israel' (Duff, OT Theology, 1:190) - can scarcely be the meaning ; Kedosh implies one who dwells in unapproachable light, and has no contact, save by acts of judgment or by covenant favour, with earthly things ; Ezekiel once has the phrase 'the Holy One in Israel' (Ezek. 39:7; see Davidson, ad loc.). Israel is 'holy (i.e. , devoted, dedicated) to Yahwe', no doubt ; but this phrase implies a secondary sense of the word 'holy'. The rendering 'Majestic One' (majesty and dazzling purity are connected ideas) will suit also in Hos. 11:9 (of which Duff also gives an unusual exposition, OT Theology, 1:108), which contains the words, 'I am God, and not man, the Majestic One in the midst of thee'. Hosea announces the destruction of Ephraim or Israel (see Nowack), because God is not, like an impressionable human being, to be cajoled into forgiveness ; he is in the midst of Israel in all his awful majesty, and must sweep out of existence those who persistently reject his gracious condescension. 'Holiness', as early as the age of Hosea, tends to become ethical. On the holiness of Israel and of Israelites, cp Weber, Jud. Theol. 52 ff.\ Lazarus, Die Ethik des Judenthums, 311 ft (1898). T. K. C.


(CAA& [Ti. WHj), Lk. 8:35; and SALAH (r6l ; , Gen. 10:24); RV SHELAH.


(C&AAMIHA [BA]), Judith 8:1 RV. See SHELUMIEL.


(c&A&MlC. Acts 13:5). Salamis (represented by the modern town of Famagusta) was situated on the eastern side of Cyprus, near the river Pediaeus which traverses the fertile plain which runs inland to Nicosia, the present capital of the island. It had the advantage of a good harbour, which in history is famous for the double victory of the Athenians over the Phoenicians in 449 B.C., and the great sea-fight in which Demetrius Poliorcetes defeated Ptolemy I. in 306 B.C. From prehistoric times Cyprus was famous for its copper mines (copper in fact deriving its name from that of the island ; see CYPRUS), and its valuable timber supplies. From the ninth century B. C. iron also was worked (cp Plin. HN 34:2). The forests, though much reduced by the continual export of timber, had not wholly disappeared even in imperial times (Strabo, 684). Corn, wine, and oil were also exported, and salt was prepared at Salamis and at Kition (Plin. HN 31:84). In all these natural advantages Salamis largely shared, and in fact became by far the largest and most prosperous town in the island, to a great extent owing to its favourable situation with respect to the Syrian coast and also to that of Cilicia. Even distant Lebanon is visible from the mountain Stavrovuni (2260 ft. high) above Larnaka (anc. Kition) on the SE. coast (cp Is. 23:1, 'from the land of Chittim it is revealed to them' - i. e. , the smoke of burning Tyre). l Much more readily then is the opposite coast in the neighbourhood of Seleucia and Antioch visible from Salamis.

The natural result was that Cyprus displayed a long-continued struggle between Phoenician and Hellenic civilisations. Greek tradition, however, consistently claims Salamis as a very early Hellenic colony, along with Curium ; and we now know that both were centres of the civilisation called 'Mycenaean', which is certainly not Semitic. Nevertheless, in Salamis as elsewhere, Phoenicians and Greeks were settled side by side, and although Hellenic influences had a firm hold upon the town, this affected little the general condition of the island, where upon the whole the original basic population was in affinity with the Phoenician element. After the withdrawal of the Greeks from interference in Cyprus upon the conclusion of the Peace of Cimon, there took place a reaction against Hellenism, until about 410 B.C., when Evagoras won back his ancestral throne of Salamis. Salamis was thus once more open to Hellenic influences and was connected by close bonds with Athens (Isocr. Evag. 47-48, CIA 2397). Subsequently it was to Egypt that Cyprus succumbed ; for in 295 B.C. Ptolemy reconquered the island, and under the Ptolemaic regime large numbers of Jews settled in it (cp 1 Macc. 15:23). Their numbers would be increased under the early Empire owing to the fact that Herod the Great farmed the Cyprian copper mines (Jos. Ant. 16:4:5). Hence we find apparently more than one synagogue at Salamis, whither of course the majority of the Jews would congregate (Acts 13:5).

Various reasons account for the fact that Salamis was the starting-point of the missionary work of Paul and Barnabas. Not only was Barnabas himself a Cypriote (Acts 4:36, Ki Trpioj r(f yevei), possibly, for aught we know to the contrary, a native of Salamis ; but many natives of the island were Christians and had set the example of missionary enterprise (Acts 11:19-20); and lastly, the number of the Jews established there and in other parts of the island was a guarantee of the existence of a proportionate number of proselytes. If Cyprus was to be visited at all, entry would be most naturally made from Syria at Salamis, which besides was connected with Paphos by two good roads - one by way of Soli, the other along the S: coast by way of Curium and Citium (vid. Tab. Peut.}.

As regards the later history of Salamis, mention should be made of the great insurrection of the Jews in the time of Trajan (117 A.D.), in which a large part of the city was destroyed. Hadrian in consequence expelled all Jews from the island and closed it to them under penalty of death (Milman, Hist, of the Jews, 3:111-112). In Constantine's time, having been ruined by earthquakes, Salamis was rebuilt, and renamed Constantia (cp Jer. Philem.). In the fourth century A.D., consequent upon the discovery of the relics of Barnabas, with a copy of the First Gospel, at Salamis, Cyprus was made autonomous and the patriarch has ever since enjoyed the right of signing his name in red ink.

W. J. W.

1 [One form of the ordinary view is thus expressed by Delitzsch (Isaiah, ET, 1:405), Cyprus, the principal Phoenician emporium, is the last place of call. As soon as they put in here, what they had heard as a rumour on the high sea is disclosed to these crews (,i^jj) - i.e., it becomes clear, undoubted certainty. But this does not exhaust the possibilities of meaning. See, further, Crit. Bit.]


(c&A&c&A&l [A]), Judith 8:1. See ZURISHADDAI.


?Wf$, 1 Ch. 3:17 ; C&A&6IHA [Ti.WH], Lk. 3:27), RV SHEALTIEL.


RV Salecah (H^D ; [c]eAx& [BAFL]), an ancient city on the E. border of Bashan (Josh. 13:11, &X& [^]) possibly also the name of a district (cp 12:5, C6KXA.I [B], <NCeA\A [A]), which belonged to the b'ne Manasseh (Dt. 3:10, AV Salchah) and later to Gad (1 Ch. 5:11). Salcah, the mod. Salhat or Sarhad, is situated four or five hours E. of Bosra, on an eminence (probably once a crater) in a very strong position on the S. extremity of the Jebel Hauran. It seems to have been hotly contended for by the Aramaeans and the Israelites respectively, and may have played a prominent part in the legends, legendary genealogies, and history of the Israelites, though Cheyne thinks a geographical confusion may well be suspected, see GILEAD, RAMOTH-GILEAD, cp also ZELOPHEHAD. It was well known to early Arabian geographers. The Nabataeans called it in7^Si and an inscription found there (of 66 A.D. ) refers to the fact that the goddess al-Lat (nSn) was especially honoured by its inhabitants (CIS 2182). For descriptions of the modern place see Burckhardt, Reisen, 180; de Vogue 1 , Syr. Centr. 107-109; cp also Buhl, Pal. 252.


or rather SHALEM (D 1 ?, Gen. 14:18 [ADL]; C^AHM, Ps. 76:2 [ 76:3 ], N GIRHNH [BNRT]). See JERUSALEM, SHILOH, MELCHIZEUEK, SODOM.


(TON AyAcoNA c<\AHM [BNA], Syr.D^jn K3lVlK), one of the localities where the Jewish inhabitants took defensive measures against Holofernes (Judith 4:4). Some well-known place must be meant not, therefore, the Salumias of OS 149:18, 8 R. mi. from Scythopolis (Reland), or the Salim near Nablus (Wolff). Probably the whole verse should run thus, '. . . Samaria, and CYAMON [q.v.], and IBLEAM (see BELMEN), and Jericho, and the circle of Jordan (Syr. ; see CHOBA), and to Esdraelon'. The words KCL! aifftapa Kai TOV av\u>va ffaXrjfj. seem to be made up of three fragments of ecr8pri\<i>v fffSpi)\wfJi [esdreloon esdreloom]. (Cp oi Xwi OJ [auloonos] for -riSx in Dt. 11:30, oi XOITTOC in Hex.)

T. K. C.

1 Owing to the fact that in nearly every case the Gk. name follows o [eoos], the initial of the name has been often dropped, and it appears under the form f\\a [elcha].


(s.4L.4M), 4 Esd. 1:1 RV. See SHALLUM, 6.


(cAAeiM [Ti.WH], .-/. c <\AAeiM [A], C&AHM [V, Bus. Cyr. Theophylact)], a place, on tlie W. of the Jordan, near which was Aenon, where John baptized, Jn. 3:23 t. The reason given for the choice of Aenon (=a place of fountains) is, 'because there were many springs (vdara [hydata]) there', so that a multitude could spread themselves out, and John could pass from one spring to another baptizing them. Eus. and Jer. (OS 245:91, 134:25) place Aenon 8 R. mi. S. of Scythopolis, 'juxta Salim et Jordanem', and it is true that about seven miles from Beisan there is a large Christian ruin called Umm el-'Amdan, near which are several springs. But no name like Salem or Aenon has been found there. Conder himself, who points this out, identifies Aenon with the springs between the well-known Salim (near Nablus) and a place called 'Ainun, in the Wady Fari'a. The place is accessible from all quarters, especially from Jerusalem and Galilee (see the attractive description in Tent Work, 2:57-58). But the distance of the springs from Salim (about seven miles) is rather against this identification. It should be noticed, too

  • (1) that Jesus, as we are told, was at this time baptizing in the country districts of Judaea (v. 22), and was apparently not very far from John, and
  • (2) that 'near Salem' is really mentioned to explain the ready access of the Jews to John (#ri i)dara TroAXa fy tnei has the appearance of being a gloss).

Considering the frequent errors of the text connected with Salem, it is very plausible to correct rov ffa\rj/a [tou salem] (see above) into tepoviraXrifj [ireousalem]., 1 in which case it becomes natural to identify Aenon with 'Ain Karim, which boasts of its beautiful St. Mary's Well, and to the W. of which is the 'Ain el-Habs (the Hermit's Fountain), connected by a very late Christian tradition with John the Baptist. The legendary connection should not prejudice us against the view here proposed, which rests solely on exegetical and geographical considerations. Cp BETH-HACCEREM, and, for an analogous emendation, NAIN.

On the tradition connecting 'Ain Karim with John the Baptist, see Schick, ZDPV 22:81+ [1899]

T . K. C.

1 It is true that the Fourth Evangelist, according to the MSS, invariably uses iepo<7oAvfia [ierousoluma]. Hut he may now and then have used tepovcraArjm [ierousalem] like other evangelists.


(c^AeiMooe [B]), 1 Esd. 8:36 RV = Ezra 8:10, SHELOMITH, 4.



i. Neh. 12:20; in 12:7 SALLU (q.v. 11).



(cAAAoyMOC [B*A]), 1 Esd. 9:25 = Ezra 10:24, SHALLUM, 11.


(N;>D [Neh.], N-1;>p [Ch.]), a Judaean Benjamite ( BENJAMIN, 9, iii. ), temp. Nehemiah (Neh. 11:7; CHAoo [BN*A], cnAooM [S c - a ], C&MAA [L] ; 1 Ch. 9:7 ; C^ACOM [BL], c*Aco [A]). Cp SALU.


(t pD), a priest enumerated in one of the post-exilic lists (Neh. 12:7 CAAoy&l [N c - a " SU P-], C&AOYIA [L], om. BX*A). In Neh. 12:20 the name is SALLAI (-*a; craXXcu [X c - ara e- inf ], (rctXowu [L], om. BS*A) ; and the head of Sallai's father's house in the time of Joiakim, Joshua s successor, is said to have been KALLAI (^p_).


(HD/SP), the name of the clan which was reckoned as the father of Bethlehem, 1 Ch. 2:51, 2:54, and introduced into the genealogy of Jesse, v. 11. According to Wellhausen (CH 358, cp De gent. 29), Salma is the father of Bethlehem after the exile. But to the present writer there is good reason to suppose that the Bethlehem intended is not the Bethlehem in Judah, but another Bethlehem - i.e. , Beth-jerahmeel, in the Negeb (RUTH, 4). It will be noticed that the 'sons' of Salma include Netophah and Atroth-beth-Joab. Now Netophah is most probably a modification of Nephtoah or Naphtoah (cp NAPHTUHIM, SALMAH, 2), and Atroth of Ephrath. See JABEZ, SHOBAL, and, on the Arabian affinities of this clan, SALMAH (vv. 51, 54 craXwjU.wj [BA], (ra/u.a, -aa [L]; v. n, ffa\/j.uv [BL], -av [A]).

T. K. C.


(n?fe> ; C&AMCON [AL], - AN [B]).

1. Ruth 4:20 RV mg, according to MT's reading. See SALMA, SALMON.

2. The name of an Arabian people mentioned in several OT passages - Cant. 1:5, i K. 4:11, Nu. 24:23, Ezra 2:55, 2:58 (and || passages), Neh. 113.

  • (1) In Cant. 1:5 the poet couples the 'tent-curtains of Salmah' (read na^sy, not nbV^) with the 'tents of Kedar' (see CANTICLES, 6). Now the tribes of KEDAR [q.v.] tenanted the region afterwards appropriated by the Salmaeans (laSr), and the Salmasans were followed by the Nabataeans. The two latter peoples are mentioned together in a Nabatasan inscription (CIS 2:197:9).Pliny mentions the 'Salmani et Masei Arabes' (NH 6:30), and Steph. Byz. , quoted by Euting, refers to the ZaXd/uot [salamioi] as an Arab population in alliance with the Nabataeans. The emendation in Cant. l.c. is due to Wellh. (Prol.(5) 218, n. i); cp Wi. AOF 1:196, 1:292.
  • (2) Most probably in 1 K. 4:11 nO^Brna should be pointed nc x TQ- This suggestion assumes that two of Solomon's prefects, supposed to have had daughters of Solomon as wives, really married Salamian or Salmaean women. One of these is called Basemath (nctso), a corruption of 'Ishma'elith' ; l the other TAPHATH, perhaps a corruption of Naphtuhith (cp 1 Ch. 2:54, reading Naphtuhi).
  • (3) The impossible words *?N icc-p in Nu. l.c. should be emended into no^B-D or c NcStra. The context relates to the Kenites. Observe that in the Targums K7oW is the equivalent of the Heb. yp. See, however, BALAAM, 6 ; Wi. AOF 2:423.
  • (4) On the passages relating to the naStf 13J? in Ezra-Neh., see SOLOMON'S SERVANTS, SONS OF.

Winckler(AOF 2:545+) proposes to substitute the 'Salamians' for 'Shalman' in Hos. 10:14, as the barbarous captors of Beth-arbel. In this he shows much acumen ; but it is more probable that 'Shalman' is the name of one of the N. Arabian kings who invaded the Negeb. He was apparently a king of the N. Arabian Cusham or Cush (see Crit. Bil>. on Hos. 10:14 Am. 1:3).

This article illustrates the names SALMA, SAMLAH, SALMON, SAMLAI, SHELUMIEL.

T. K. C.

1 This explanation of Basemath accounts for the double name of Esau's wife - Basemath and Mahalath - i.e., 'Ishmaelite' and 'Jerahmeelite'. The initial B (or M ? see LXX) is secondary.


PP [ord. text]), Neh. 7:48 RV, AV SHALMAI.


(Salmanassar], 4 Esd. 13:40 ; in Kings, SHALMANEZER.


(JID^V). Ps. 68:14 [68:15] t RV, AV ZALMON, 2.


(pob ; C^AMAN [B] : -MCON [AL]), father of Boaz, Ruth 4:20-21 (a variant to MT's SALMAH in v. 20. cp LXX, Vg.), Mt. 1:4, Lk. 3:32 (EV CAAM60N [ C AD]; but c^AA [sala] [K*B]). See RUTH, 4. Mt. (1:4 ) makes him the husband of RAHAB, whom, however, Talmudic tradition makes, as a proselyte, the wife of Joshua. Cp Nestle, Exp. T 10:91, and see GENEALOGIES ii. , 2.


(C^AMOONH Ti.WH), a cape at the eastern extremity of Crete, as appears from the passage in Acts 27:7, where it is spoken of as the first land sighted after leaving Cnidus.

The ship on which Paul sailed beat up with difficulty (noAt? [molis], v. 7) to the latitude of Cnidus from Myra. A true course W. by S. from Cnidus would have taken her by the N. side of Crete. As she was unable to hold that course, but was yet able to fetch the eastern cape of the island, which bears SW. by S. from Cnidus, we may infer that the wind blew from between NNW. and WNW. (assuming that the ship could make good a course about seven points from the wind). The wind, therefore, in common language would have been termed NW. (see Smith, Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul, 74-75). Such winds prevail in the eastern Mediterranean in the summer, and are the Etesian winds of the ancients (Aristotle, De Mundo, 4:15; Pliny, HN 2:47).

As regards the identification of Salmone some doubt is possible. The name appears in various forms.

lloA/iuii T) [salmone], Acts 27:7; iaA/j.ioris dxpa [salmonis akra], Apoll. Rhod. Argon. 4:1693;{1} SaAfiwi iOP [salmonion], Str. 106; {2} the most frequently recurring form is ^a/buociop [samonion] (Str. 472, etc., Stadiasm. m.m., 318 and 355, Ptol. 3:17, Plin. HN 4:20 [Sammonium]).

The extreme NE. cape, now called Cape Sidhero (the Iron Cape ) or C. Salomon, is generally supposed to be the ancient Cape Salmone ; but it is perhaps more probable that Cape Salmone should be identified with the promontory called Plaka, some 7 mi. to the southward (so it is in the map in vol. i. of Spratt's Travels and Researches in Crete ; see discussion of the point, ibid, 189-190) It is very possible also that the usage of the name may have varied in ancient times in the case of two conspicuous promontories lying so close together.

W. J. W.

1 SoAjitoi i? icou SoAjucoytov, aKpioTT/jpiov Kpijrjjs, Schol. in loc. Cp Dionys, Perieg. 110-111.

2 Cp AOapaia SaA/nwria [athanaia salmoonia] in CIG 2555, l. 13.

3 Certain parts of this article which it has not been deemed necessary to indicate specially are taken from Professor Robertson Smith's contribution to the article 'Salt' in Ency. Brit.(9).


(CAA9AC [B]), 1 Esd. 9:22 RV= Ezra 10:2, ELASAH, i.


(cAAuiM [ANY]), 1 Macc. 2:26 AV, RV SALU.


(CA.\COMH, see NAMES, 50, cp 'Shelomi', 'Shelumiel' ; or, perhaps, 'Salma', 1 see ISRAEL, 79, ad fin. and cp SOLOMON, i), one of the women who witnessed the crucifixion and afterwards visited the sepulchre of Jesus, Mk. 15:40, 16:1 t. She is almost certainly to be identified with the wife of Zebedee, the mother of James and John; see Mt. 27:56, and cp CLOPAS, 2.

The name Salome was borne also

  • (1) by the daughter of Herodias; see HEROD, 10 ;
  • (2) by the wife of Alexander Jannaeus ; see ISRAEL, 80.


(n?E> LXX &Ac- also A.AA.C. &A<\)- 3

1. Domestic uses of salt.[edit]

Indispensable as the use of salt appears to us, it must have been quite unattainable to primitive man in many parts of the world. Indeed where men live mainly on milk and flesh, consuming the latter raw or roasted, so that its salts are not lost, it is not necessary to add sodium chloride, and thus we understand how the Numidian nomads in the time of Sallust and the Bedouins of Hadramaut at the present day never eat salt with their food. On the other hand, cereal or vegetable diet calls for a supplement of salt, and so does boiled meat. The important part played by the mineral in the history of commerce and religion depends on this fact. At a very early stage of progress salt became a necessary of life to most nations, and in many cases they could procure it only from abroad, from the sea-coast, or from districts like that of Palmyra, where salty incrustations are found on the surface of the soil. The Hebrews had ready access to an unlimited supply of this necessity of life in the waters of the Dead Sea, and in the range of rock-salt at its south-western extremity.

When the waters of the 'Salt Sea' (see DEAD SEA) subside after the spring floods have caused them to rise several feet beyond their normal level, the heavily impregnated water, left in the marshes on its borders, rapidly evaporates, leaving a deposit of salt. The Dead Sea is said to yield by evaporation 24.57 lbs. of salt in 100 lbs. of water, as compared with 6 lbs. from the same quantity of water taken from the Atlantic Ocean (Hull).

It has been adduced as evidence of the 'practical turn of the prophet's mind' (Dr. Intr. (6) 294) that the marshes found on the western shore of the Dead Sea in Ezekiel's day are expressly exempted from the sweetening and reviving influence of the river of the prophetic vision (Ezek. 47:11). The second source of supply, above referred to, was the famous ridge of Jebel Usdum, whence probably came the melah sidomith (rrpiip nSc) or 'salt of Sodom' of the Talmud. This ridge, which geologists tell us must once have formed the bottom of a larger lake, consists mainly of rock-salt, the friable nature of which, under climatic influences, causes portions of the range to assume fantastic shapes. One of these, a pillar resembling in outline a gigantic female form, gave rise in the prehistoric period to the familiar legend of Gen. 19:26 (cp Wisd. 10; - where the pillar of salt is characterised as 'a monument of an unbelieving soul' - Jos. Ant. 1:11:4 [ 203], and the illustration in Stade, GVI 1:119). To one or other of these sources of supply reference is made in the obscure mikreh melah (n^D rnao) of Zeph. 2:9 (EV 'saltpits' ; LXX Ot^uvia. &\(i}vos [thimoonia aloonos]), it being uncertain whether the expression signifies salt-pans for evaporation (ras rou d\6s \lfjLvas of 1 Macc. 11:35), or salt-pits for the excavation of salt.

As among ourselves, salt entered in countless ways into the domestic and social economy of the Hebrews. A morsel of bread and salt and 'water by measure' ( Ezek. 4:11) are given by a late Jewish thinker as the irreducible minimum of human sustenance (Pirke Aboth 6:4).

Similarly, among the principal things for the whole use of man's life, the son of Sirach assigns a prominent place to salt (Ecclus. 39:26, cp Job 6:6).

Bread (n|?23 np, Aboth l.c.) and olives (Ma'aser. 4:3) dipped in salt were the poor man's fare ; or the salt might be dissolved in water for this purpose (Shabb. 14:2 , cp Erub. 3:1). In a stronger form as brine ( D ^ - i.e., OA^TI), salt water (HpSDH D) was used for pickling vegetables and meat (Baruch, 6 [Ep. of Jeremy) 28) and in the preparations of olives for the table (FRUIT, 9 ).

The practice of rubbing the flesh of newly killed animals with salt for the purpose of depleting it of every particle of blood required a large supplv of salt. So, too, the process of pickling (roptxetfw [taricheuoo]) and preserving fish, which formed so important an article of commerce (for methods adopted see FISH, 7). Salt was also employed for preserving hides (Middoth, 63). In the Messianic age, even the domestic animals are to share in the material joys of the period by having their provender seasoned by the addition of saline herbs ( Is. 30:24 j"pn, RVmg 'salted' ). Besides the natural sea- and rock-salt, the Jews of later times were familiar with the sal conditum or spiced salt of the Romans (n^jsho Ab. Zar. 26 - for other readings and explanations see Jastrow, Dict, of Targ. etc., s. v. ). Salt was also used medicinally. A grain of salt in a decayed tooth was reckoned a cure for toothache (Shabb. 65). Here, too, may perhaps be classed the rubbing of new-born babes with salt, attested by Ezekiel (16:4, see FAMILY, 9), varied by washing in salted water (Yan Lennep, Bible Lands, 569), although it probably had its origin in a quite different circle of ideas as a safeguard against demonic influence (cp Bekhoroth 40a, where salt at meals is alleged to have this effect). For the medicinal properties of the water of the 'Salt Sea' see DEAD SEA. Many other illustrations of the curative properties of salt itself, as employed among semi-civilised races, are given by Trumbull in his exhaustive treatise The Covenant of Salt, 1899. The economic importance of salt is further indicated by the almost universal prevalence in ancient and mediaeval times, and indeed in most countries down to the present day, of salt taxes, or of Government monopolies.

An interesting and exhaustive study of the working of the salt monopoly in Egypt under the Ptolemies is given by U. Wilcken in his recent work Griechische Ostraka aus Aegypten, etc. (1:141+, r/ aAucrj [e alike], salt-tax). In Palestine under the Seleucids, the salt-pans on the shore of the Dead Sea were also a government property, as we learn from the remission of the royalty upon salt (rj Ti(xi) TOV dAos) 1 decreed by Demetrius in the hope of gaining the support of the Jews (1 Macc. 10:29, 11:35). We have no further information, unfortunately, as to the details of the operation of this tax.

1 The identical expression dirb TI/^TJS dAov [apo times alos] is found upon an Egyptian ostracon (Wilcken, op. cit. 1:144).

2. Salt in the sacrificial ritual.[edit]

That a religious significance was attached to a substance so highly prized, which was often obtained with difficulty, is no more than natural. But it must also be remembered that the habitual use of salt is intimately connected with the advance from nomadic to agricultural life, - i.e. with precisely that step in civilisation which had most influence on the cults of almost all ancient nations. The gods were worshipped as the givers of the kindly fruits of the earth, and, as all over the world 'bread and salt' go together in common use and common phrase, salt was habitually connected with offerings, at least with all offerings which consisted, in whole or in part, of cereal elements. This practice is found alike among the Greeks and Romans, and among the Semitic peoples (Lev. 2:13) ; Homer calls salt 'divine', and Plato names it 'a substance dear to the gods' (Timaeus, 60 ; cp Plutarch, Sympos. 5:10).

Bread and salt were the chief and inseparable constituents of the Hebrews' daily food. It was, therefore, to be expected that every offering - was it not the 'bread of God' (oTiVx cnh Lev. 21:22) ? - laid upon the altar should also have the accompaniment of salt. It is immaterial whether we regard the actual provision of Lev. 2:13 c : 'With all thine oblations thou shall offer salt' as younger than the more special provision of 2:13a 'every oblation of thy meal offering (minhah) shall thou season with salt' (RV), as Dillmann and some olhers are inclined to do (but see Ezek. 43:24), since both the fundamental conception of primitive sacrifice and the extant teslimony to the actual practice in historical times point to the constant practice of adding salt to every species of offering, animal and vegetable alike.

Hence the statement of Mk. 9:49b, 'every sacrifice shall be salted with salt', though absent from the oldest authorities, is a statement of fact (cp for the NT times Jos. Ant. 3:9:1, Mishna, Zebah. 6:5-6). Even incense was not excepted (see INCENSE, 6), and the Greek text of Lev. 24:7 is doubtless right in adding salt to the SHEWBREAD (which see, and cp Philo, Vit. Mos. 3:10 [ed. Mangey, 2:151] 'loaves and salt' ). Grants of salt for the services of the restored worship of the returning exiles were thus entirely in place (Ezra 6:9, 7:22; cp for a later period the decree of Antiochus '345 medimni of salt', Jos. Ant. 12:3:3 [ 140]).

Whilst, however, the origin of the presence of salt in the cultus is to be traced to a primitive conceplion of sacrifice, it must be borne in mind that at the stage of religious thought reflected in the priestly legislation, the use of salt has already become symbolical (see 3).

In the cults of Greece and Rome we find the same appreciation of salt, as is shown by the frequent references in classical writers (see Di.-Ryssel, Kurzgef. exeget. Handb., on Lev. 2:13; also Hehn, Das Salz, 5+, Schleiden, Das Salz, 73+ [1875]). It also appears in the lists of offerings in the older cultus system of Babylonia (Zim. Beitrage zur Kenninis der Babyl. Religion 1901, 95). Cp RITUAL, 10, col. 4123.

3. Salt in symbol and metaphor.[edit]

The absolute barrenness of the region bordering on the Dead Sea, owing to the saline incrustations with which the ground is covered, naturally suggested the employment, by various Hebrew writers, of salt as a figure for barrenness and desolation (Dt. 29:23 [29:22] ; cp Job 39:6, Jer. 17:6). Such a barren waste, innocent of every form of vegetation, formed a fitting contrast to The fruitful land (Ps. 107:34 render with RV 'a salt desert' [nnSp] for 'barrenness' of AV). This figurative use of 'salt' and 'saltness' is not confined to Hebrew, being found in several of the other Semitic dialects (Toy, Ezekiel, SBOT, 74 ET). The same idea has usually been regarded as underlying the expressive symbolical act, once referred to in the OT, of sowing a city that had been put under the ban (herem, see BAN) with salt (Judg. 9:45). It is more probable, however, that this practice is to be brought into connection with the use of salt in sacrifice (Rel. Sem. (2) 454 n. ), the idea of the complete dedication of the city to Yahwe, as symbolised by the strewing of it with salt, being more in harmony with the fundamental conception of the 'ban'. 1 This practice is also attested for Cyprus (Rel. Sem. (2) l.c., Schleiden, Das Sals, 95, who adduces as hislorical parallels the tradition that Attila so treated Padua, and Friedrich Barbarossa, Milan). [Cp also Zimmern's correction (in Gunkel, 'Gen'. in HK, 193) of the translations of Assyrian inscriplions (Tiglath-pileser and Asjur-bani-pal) in KB 137 2207, where 'salt' should be read for 'stones' and 'dry sand'. ]

As covenanls were ordinarily made over a sacrificial meal, in which salt was a necessary element, the expression 'a covenant of salt' (Nu. 18:19) is easily under stood ; it is probable, however, that the preservative qualities of salt were held to make it a peculiarly fitting symbol of an enduring compact, and influenced the choice of Ihis particular element of the covenant meal as thai which was regarded as sealing an obligation lo fidelity. Among the ancients, as among orientals down to the present day, every meal that included salt had a cerlain sacred character, and created a bond of piety and guest-friendship between the participants. Hence the Greek phrase aXas (cat rpdire^av Trapafiaiveiv, the Arab phrase 'there is salt between us', the expression 'to eat the salt of the palace' (Ezra 4:14 RV ; not in LXX{BA} ), the modern Persian phrase namak haram, 'untrue to salt' - i.e., disloyal or ungrateful - and many others. The OT expression 'covenant of salt' (Lev. 2:13, Nu. 18:19) is therefore a significant figure of speech, denoting the perpetual obligation under which the participants in the covenant of God with Israel (having in the sacrifice and sacrificial meal partaken of salt together) lay to observe its conditions. 2 So also in 2 Ch. 13:5 the expression may legitimately be rendered without a figure by 'a perpetual irrevocable covenant'.

Although salt, from one aspect of its effects in nature, might be used, as we have seen, by Hebrew writers as a figure of desolation and death, on the other hand, in virtue of its giving piquancy and, so to say, life to otherwise insipid articles of diet (cp Plutarch, Sympos., cited by Trumbull, Covenant of Salt, 53), or it may be, as Trumbull suggests (l.c. ), from its being associated with blood in the primitive mind, 'salt seems to stand for life in many a form of primitive speech and in the world's symbolism'. It is as a symbol of life that salt is employed by Elisha in healing the death-dealing spring at Jericho (2 K. 2:19+).

Here, too, may be classed the familiar description of the true followers of Jesus as 'the salt of the earth' (Mt. 5:13), the living embodiment of the highest ideals of life, a permanent and pervasive influence in the world making for righteousness. Paul's exhortation to the Colossians (4:6) to have their 'speech seasoned with salt' is not to be understood of 'wit', the 'Attic salt' of the ancients, but rather of sober, good sense, as contrasted with 'profane and vain babblings' (1 Tim. 6:20, 2 Tim. 2:16).

For the many inlerpretations of the crux interpretum, Mk. 9:49a ( 'salted with fire' ), reference must be made to the commentaries (cp also Trumbull, op. cit. 6:5-6) Finally the much discussed reference to the impossibility of restoring to salt its lost savour (Mt. 5:13 and parallels) is ingeniously connected by Robertson Smith with the oppressive taxation of salt, referred to above, one result of this being that the article is apt to reach the consumer in a very impure state largely mixed with earth. 'The salt which has lost its savour' is 'simply the earthly residuum of such an impure salt after the sodium chloride has been washed out'.

The use of salt in various rites of the Christian church, as in the baptism of catechumens, in holy water, etc., falls without the scope of this article (see Smith's Dict, of Christ. Antiq., s.v., Trumbull, op. cit.).

W. R. S. - A. R. S. K.

1 This view is also preferable to that suggested recently by Schwally, Semitische Kriegsaltetumer (1901) 32, that the 'strewing with salt denotes dedication to the demons of solitary and barren places'.

2 For a slightly different explanation of the origin of the expression see Kraetzschmar, Die Bundesvors tellitng ivi A 7M6 n. 207. Cp Rel. Seni.V) 479 (the Arab oath taken over salt strewn upon a fire). For other examples of salt in covenants and oaths see Wellh. Heid. (2) 124, 189, Landberg, Arabica, 5:134, 5:157 (Leyden 1898).


(P6sn Ttf ; AI noAeic CAAcoM [B], AI rroAic AAu>N [A], AI noAeic TOON AAtoiM [L]), one of the six cities 'in the wilderness', grouped with NIBSHAN and EN-GEDI [q.v.] in Josh. 15:62. If the VALLEY OF SALT [q.v.] or rather 'Valley of ham-melah', is the Wady el-Milh, the Ir ham-melah may be placed on the site now known as el-Milh, a little to the SE of Kh. Sa'we (the ancient SHEMA or JESHUA?) on the great route from Hebron to the Red Sea through the 'Arabah (cp MOLADAH).

In this case, it is plain that, as, e.g., in 1 S. 23:29, 24:1, En-gedi must have come from En-gadish , En-kadesh (Kadesh-barnea), and the wilderness be that of Arad (Judg. 1:16, if we may read -\-\y 1313; see KENITES), the term Ir ham-melah is a corruption of ir jerahmeel, 'city of Jerahmeel'. A 'city of Jerahmeel' is referred to in 1 S. 15:5; also probably in Judg. 1:16 (crit. emend., see KENITES). See JERAHMKEL, 4.

T. K. C.


irDlfn 3, in Chronicles and Psalms [H]KOIAAC [or 4>ARAr5] TOON AAooN ; in Samuel and Kings peBeAe/VA. pCMeAe [B], fHMAAA, fAIVkeAA [A], f M weAAX, ~ex [ L l> the scene of encounters between the Israelites and the Edomites (or rather, perhaps, Aramites - i.e. , Jerahmeelites), first under David (2 S.8:13 [DIN], 1 Ch. 18:12 [onx], Ps. 60 heading [both DIN and onx]), 1 and then under Amaziah (2 K. 14:7 [ovm], 2 Ch. 25:1 [see closing sentence]). The 'Valley of ham-melah' has been identified with the great marshy plain (es-Sebkhah) at the S. end of the Dead Sea (see DEAD SEA, 3), which is strongly impregnated with salt. It is true, it is described as at the present day 'too spongy to walk upon', nor can we easily understand how it can ever in the historical period have been otherwise than marshy. An examination of the text of the passages referred to, however, makes it seem in the highest degree superfluous to choose this site for the famous battlefield. It is plausible (Buhl, Pal. 88) 2 to identify the 'valley of ham-melah' with the Wady el-Milh, one of the two wadys into which the W. es-Seba parts at Beersheba. This wady and the W. es-Seba may be regarded as forming a first frontier between Canaan and the steppe-country.

It is important to notice that ham-melah (in the Hebrew name) is an easy corruption of JERAHMEEL (q.v, 4), and that the Wady el-Milh would naturally enter into the Negeb of the Jerahmeelites. Most probably we should read C^N ('Aram', a popular corruption of Jerahmeel) instead of C1K in all the passages quoted above, except the last (2 Ch. 25:11), where T>B "J3 should be emended into flXD~ ;i2 - i.e., the Misrites. Cp JOKTHEEL; SALT, CITY OF ; SALT SEA.

T. K. C.

SALT SEA[edit]

(r6sn DJ; see DEAD SEA, i), a name of the Dead Sea, Gen. 14:3, Nu. 34:3, 34:12, Dt. 3:17, Josh. 3:16, 12:3, 15:25, 18:19 t. It is an expressive name, no doubt (cp Hull, Mount Seir, 108), but need not on that account be original. If the ge-hammelah (see SALT, VALLEY OF) has arisen, by a popular corruption from ge-yerahme'el (valley of Jerahmeel), the presumption surely is that yam ham-melah (EV 'salt sea' ) has arisen in the same way out of yam yerahme'el ( 'sea of Jerahmeel' ), which is most naturally viewed as the original Hebrew name of the Dead Sea. Winckler, how ever (GI 2:36), thinks that the identification of the 'Salt Sea' with the 'vale of SIDDIM' [q.v. ] is due to a mistake on the part of the second editor or reviser of the original narrative. His theory is that the first editor or reviser meant Lake Huleh (cp MEROM), called by William of Tyre Melcha, on the NW. side of which is a fountain still called Ain el-Mellaha. The water of Lake Huleh, however, is not salt. The same editor, it is added, interpreted the phrase 'the vale of Siddim' (?) as referring to a wady running towards Lake Huleh, the same in which the Ain el-Mellahah is situated. Winckler (GI 2:92-93, 2:108) also offers a new explanation of 'salt sea'. He connects the phrase with the wide spread Oriental myth of sweet and bitter waters (cp MARAH). It may be remarked, however, that place-names compounded with malih, malik, and the like, are at the present day of not infrequent occurrence in Palestine. See SODOM AND GOMORRAH.

T. K. c.

1 The latter part of the heading is evidently a later addition, which was made after the probable original text of the heading had assumed its present form. That text may have been -MO CINI ^Kany onx j-nVa (PSALMS, BOOK OF, 45 ; cp 28, iv.)i

2 In Gesch. der Edomiter, 20(1893), Buhl had accepted the ordinary identification (es-Sebkhah). Cp also EDOM, 6.


(n15IU), Job 30:4 RV, AV MALLOWS.


(N-17D, cp SALLU), a family of SIMEON (q.v.), Nu. 25:14 (CAAMCGN [B], cAAco [A], -M [FL]), 1 Macc. 2:26 (cAAcoM [ANV], AV SALOM). Jer. Targ. identifies the name with Shaul of Gen. 46:10.


i. (cAAoy/v\ [A]), 1 Esd. 5:28 = Ezra 2:42 = Neh. 7:45, SHALLUM, 8.

2. R V SALEM, o-oA^ou [HA], 1 Esd. 8:1 = 1 Ch. 6:12-13 [5:38-39], Ezra 7:2, SHALLUM, 6.


To 'salute' is EV's equivalent for Heb. B Dvtv /Nt , lit. 'to ask after the welfare of some one' (2 S. 11:7 and elsewhere), and DP SWJ Di/t?V, 'to ask some one as to welfare' (1 S. 10:4 and elsewhere), and for Gk. d<rird^o/j.ai [aspazomai] (Mt. 5:47 Rom. 16:3+ and often) whence dirTracr/Aos [aspasmos], 'salutation' (Mt. 237 and elsewhere).

The Hebrew phrase, however (cp Lat. salutatio, 'wishing health' ) means 'to greet', whereas the Greek includes both greetings and embraces. In Rom. 10:16, 1 Cor. 16:20, 2 Cor. 13:12, 1 Thess. 5:26, 1 Pet. 5:14 we have the phrase a.cmdcraaOf er <f>t\rifiaTi [aspasasthe en ....] (ayiia [agioo] or [1 Pet.] <rydjn [agapes]) ; see 3).

We take salutation here in the widest sense, and begin, not with formulae of greeting, but with those conventional gestures which are even more significant.

1. Prostration.[edit]

Of prostration as a sign of deep humility and respect, not much need be said. 1 David bowed himself three times before his friend Jonathan (1 S. 20:41) ; Jacob, seven times before his offended brother Esau (Gen. 33:3). The lowly prostrations exacted by sovereigns are too familiar to require examples from the OT or illustrations from other nations. The prostrations of women before men (or, at least, men of rank) are more startling (Gen. 24:64 1 S. 20:23); K. Niebuhr found the same custom in Arabia. Kneeling will be referred to later (see 5).

1 On Mordecai's refusal to prostrate himself before Haman, see ESTHER, 4.

2 Compare the recognition scene in Hom. Od. 21:223.

2. Kissing.[edit]

The custom of embracing and kissing calls for fuller treatment. When Esau ran to meet Jacob, he 'embraced him, and fell on his neck, and kissed him' (Gen. 33:4); and Joseph's recognition of his brethren, and especially of Benjamin (Gen. 45:14-15), and the meeting between 'the prodigal son' and his father (Lk. 15:20), are described in exactly similar terms. 2 In the last two biblical passages AraTa^iX^w [kataphileoo] is the word used in the Greek ; but in Gen. 33:4 <t>i\(u [phileoo]. There is no strongly marked distinction between them, nor is there more than a theoretical difference between Heb. nashak and nishshek (Piel indicating a formal kiss).

Parting friends quite as naturally used these conventional acts. Thus, after his fathers death, Joseph 'fell on Jacob's face, wept upon him, and kissed him' (e(f)i\Tf)<T(v [ephilesen] Gen. 50:1), and the disciples from Ephesus 'wept sore, and fell on Paul's neck and kissed him' (Karf(f>i\ow [katephiloun], Acts 20:37), when he continued his journey to Jerusalem.

Such is still the mode of exchanging salutations between relatives and intimate friends practised in Palestine. Each in turn 'places his head, face downwards, upon the other's left shoulder and afterwards kisses him upon the right cheek, and then reverses the action, by placing his head similarly upon the other's right shoulder, and kissing him upon the left cheek' ; 1 'or, again, a man will place his right hand on his friend's left shoulder, and kiss his right cheek, and then lay his left hand on his right shoulder, and kiss his left cheek'. A third mode of salutation may be mentioned. The person who gives the kiss lays the right hand under the head of his friend and supports it while it receives the kiss. This custom is referred to in the account of Joab's assassination of Amasa (2 S. 20:9). One or the other of the two former customs may explain the account of the entertainment of Jesus by Simon the Pharisee, in which none of the usual courtesies were granted to the wandering teacher - 'thou gavest me no kiss' (Lk. 7 :45). Absalom's self-seeking geniality to the common people (2 S. 15:5) may best be brought into connection with the second form (the hand on the shoulder).

The cheek, the forehead, the beard, the hands, the feet may be kissed, but not (in Palestine) the lips.

Two passages of AV seem to contradict this. In the MT of Gen. 41:40 (literally rendered) the Pharaoh is made to say to his Hebrew vizier, 'Upon thy mouth shall all my people kiss'. Dillmann and Delitzsch render 'According to thy mouth ( = command) shall all my people order themselves' (so too RVmg.). This is, at any rate, not against the social customs of the East ; but no Hebrew writer would have expressed his meaning thus. It is better to read 'shall obey thee' (3 t^V T^V} ; see Crit. Bib.). The other passage is Prov. 24:26 '(Every man) shall kiss (his) lips that giveth a right answer'. EVmg. gives a less objectionable rendering, 'He kisseth with the lips that giveth a right answer'. But yishshak should be yakshibu, and the passage (see Crit. Bib.) should be rendered

26 Even the simple will listen
To him who gives a right sentence,
25 And those that rebuke will they trust,
And upon such a blessing will come.

Kissing the hands or even the feet, or the hem of the garment, is at present the respectful salutation given to a superior. Kissing the feet of Jesus was the grateful tribute of the sinful but reclaimed woman at Simon s feast (Lk. 7:45, /cara^iAoDcra [kataphilousa]). A kiss on the hand is nowhere expressly mentioned in OT or NT. Still, such a kiss may be meant in the narrative of the betrayal of Jesus (Mt. 26:49, Mk. 14:45 ). If Delitzsch is right in supposing the kiss of 1 S. 10:1 to be the kiss of homage, we may further conjecture that Samuel raised the hand of Saul respectfully to his lips. More probably, the narrator means that Samuel greeted the new king as a friend, on the cheek. In the Assyrian inscriptions the vassals of the great king are said to signify their submission by kissing his feet (see BABYLONIA, 69). No Hebrew phrase of this sort occurs, though the phrase 'to lick the dust' in Is. 49:23, Ps. 72:9 may be suggested by the custom of kissing the ground on which a superior has trodden ( 'to smell the dust' is a parallel Egyptian phrase). The Assyrian kiss of vassalage may also perhaps have been less humiliating than it seems ; primitive usages early began to lose their original crudeness. In modern Syria, when a man seeks to propitiate one placed over him, he will just touch the feet of his superior with his right hand, and then kiss the hand and place it on his forehead. 2 This, or some other modification of the complete ceremony, may be meant by Ziba's 'I do obeisance' in 2 S. 16:4 (see OBEISANCE).

There is only one OT passage in which, if the text is correct, the kiss of homage (whether given to hands or feet) must be referred to, - viz., 'kiss the Son' (-Qiptn) in Ps. 2:12. Acting on the principle that a text which contradicts the social usages of Palestine cannot be correct, we are bound to try all available means of emending the text. 3 Such a cautious critic as Baethgen admits 'kiss the Son' into his version only with a parenthetic note of interrogation.

1 Neil, Kissing : its curious Bible mentions, 37 (1885).

2 Neil, op. cit., p. 7.

3 LXX renders ip<ifa<r0e jraiSei a? [draxasthe paideias]; Tg. NJB JIN l|? 3pi perhaps reading 10133. See Lag. and Baethgen, ad loc., and, for a new solution [since proposed independently by Marti and J. D. Prince], Che. Jew. Rel. Life, 112. Hupfeld's suggestion 13 1pK : J, though often referred to, is inadmissible, because unidiomatic.

3. The 'Holy Kiss'.[edit]

It hardly needs to be remarked that freedom of intercourse between the sexes was unknown to the Jews in the period of the rise of Christianity. Ecclus 42:12 (cp Jn. 4:27) is proof enough that the exchange of a kiss between men and women, as a sign of their common membership in a religious society, must have shocked Jewish sentiment. It appears to be the received view that such a shock to Jewish sentiment was really given in early Christian worship, and whenever recognition of a common Christian standing was called for. In the article 'Kiss' in Wace and Cheetham's Dict, of Christian Antiquities, it is stated that 'the primitive usage was for the "holy kiss" to be given promiscuously, without any restriction as to sexes or ranks, among those who were "all one in Christ Jesus",' and that only when this indiscriminate use had given rise to scandals was it restricted by the church authorities. The evidence, however, is not so distinct and certain as to justify so positive a statement. 1 Paul (reff. above) does not expressly direct this startling mode of applying the truth that 'ye all are one man in Christ Jesus'. We know, however, that he does enjoin that women should have their heads veiled in the Christian assemblies (1 Cor. 11:6), which implies that he was on his guard against the occurrence of scandals. We also know that the Apostolical Constitutions (2:57, 8:11) direct that the men of the laity should salute the men, and the women the women separately, and that the Didascalia (early in 3rd cent.), on which Book II. of the Constitutions is based, distinctly refers to the separate places of men and women, though the kiss of peace is not referred to at all.

It seems very possible that the Constitutions do, in fact, represent the mind of the original founders of the churches on this subject, and that we are not compelled by a somewhat obscure passage in Tertullian (Ad Uxorem, 2:4), who can only speak for Africa, to suppose a violation of Jewish sentiment in any of the earliest Christian assemblies. There may, however, of course, have been a deviation in some places from the earliest church practice.

4. Kiss of Adoration.[edit]

We have still to refer briefly to the kiss of adoration.

'It was dim night', writes Doughty, 'and the drooping clouds broke over us with lightning and rain.
I said to Thaifullah, " God sends his blessing again upon the earth".
"Ay, verily," he answered devoutly, and kissed his pious hand toward the flashing tempest' (Ar. DCS. 267).

But there was a time when this religious hand-kiss was a sign of idolatry. Job denies having practised it, for it would have proved him a worshipper of sun and moon, and not of him who created both (Job 31:26-28). In Farther Asia as well as in Greece the rising sun was greeted by his worshippers with a hand-kiss (Lucian, De Saltat. 17). This was, in fact, a substitute for the kiss which would be offered to an idol - such a kiss as is referred to in Hos. 13:2, 'The men that sacrifice kiss calves' 2 (see CALVES, GOLDEN), and in 1 K. 19:18, 'Every mouth which has not kissed' (Baal).

5. Kneeling.[edit]

The ordinary salutations of worship were two - prostration, and spreading forth the hands (see the Pss. passim, Ex. 20:5, 2 K. 5:18 for the former, and 1 K. 8:22, 8:38, Is. 1:15 for the latter). A substitute for prostration was kneeling, which Hebrew custom set apart as an act of homage to the Deity ( 1 K. 8:54, 2 Ch. 6:13, Is. 45:23, Dan. 6:10, Lk. 22:41, Acts 7:60 and elsewhere), though from Mk. 1:40, 10:17, 15:19, Mt. 17:14, 27:29 we may infer that, when haste was required, kneeling might take the place of prostration as a sign of respect to a man of rank.

1 Cp Neil, op. cit., 27+, 78+. On the 'holy kiss', etc. Conybeare (Expos. 1894 a, 461) points out two passages in Philo's Quaestiones in Ex., preserved in Armenian, which seem to imply that the 'kiss of peace' or 'of concord' was a formal institution of the synagogue.

2 There is some difficulty in this passage. But at any rate the phrase 'kiss calves' is possible. Cp Crit. Bib.

6. Greetings.[edit]

Formulae of greeting are either inquiries as to the welfare of the friend, or prayers for his continued prosperity. The treacherous Joab addresses Amasa, 'Art thou in peace, my brother' (LXX ei i>yiaivtis [crii] adt\(}>{ ; 2 S. 20:9). Jesus bids his disciples say, on entering a house, 'Peace be to this house' (Lk. 10:5). Boaz, when he meets his reapers, says, 'Yahwe be with you', and the friendly answer is, 'Yahwe bless thee' (Ruth 2:4; cp Ps. 1298). Saul piously addresses Samuel with the words, 'Blessed be thou of Yahwe' ( 1 S. 15:13). To a king the loyal salutation was, 'Let the king live' (1 S. 10:24, 2 S. 16:16, 1 K. 1:39, 2 K. 11:12), or 'Let the king live for ever' (1 K. 1:31 ; cp Dan. 2:4, 3:9, 5:10, 6:6, 6:21, Neh. 2:3), possibly with an allusion to legendary tales of highly favoured mortals who had escaped Sheol. In the NT we find the Greek expression x a ^P [chaire], as a substitute for 'Peace be to thee' (Mt. 26:49, Mk. 15:18, Lk. 128, and elsewhere). For epistolary greetings, see Ezra 4:17, 7:12, Acts 23:26, 23:30, and the close of Pauline Epistles.

'Peace be on you' is still the commonest form of salutation among Moslems. The conventional reply is, 'And on you be the peace (of God)', to which it is usual to add, 'and the mercy of God, and his blessings'. This salutation may not be used by or to an infidel ; a Moslem who finds that he has addressed it by mistake to a wrong person generally revokes his salutation. He may also do so if a Moslem refuses to return his greeting, saying, 'Peace be on us and on (all) the right worshippers of God !' This seems to Kitto (Bid. Cyclop., s.v. 'Salutation' ) a striking illustration of Lk. 10:5-6, 2 Jn. 11. The salam, however, is only the beginning of a string of conventional formula; which take up much time, and are evaded by persons in haste. Specimens of these are given by Lane (Mod. Egyptians, 1:253). No doubt Jewish politeness had also its optional formulae, which would be evaded in circumstances such as are described in 2 K. 4:29, Lk. 10:4.

T. K. c.


/c&AAMiHA [BA]), Judith 8:1 AV, RV SALAMIEL ; the same as SHELUMIEL.



1. 1 Esd. 1:9 = 2 Ch. 35:9 SHEMAIAH, 15.

2. 1 Esd. 8:39 = Ezra 8:13, SHEMAIAH, 16.

3. 1 Esd. 8:44 = Ezra 8:16, SHEMAIAH, 17.

4. Tobit 5:13, see SHEMAIAH, 23.


(c&N&MACC&pco [B], 1 Esd. 2:12 RVmg), see SHESHBAZZAR.


(| n)?b ; ; the Aram. pEC*, whence the Gk. CAMA.p[e]l&. has become assimilated to names like Mananaim, Ramathaim [cp NAMES, 107]; Ass. Samerina). 1

1. Names.[edit]

The city so called is said in 1 K. 16:24 (cp Jos. Ant. 8:12:5) to derive its name from -\QS? (SHEMER), the owner of the hill on which it was built. 2 Shemer may in fact quite well be an ancient clan-name, though it is plausible enough to derive the name of such a loftily-placed city from TDB> [ShMR] in the sense of 'outlook' (so GASm., HG, 346). Shomeron may denote

  • (1) the hill,
  • (2) the city built on it,
  • (3) the whole district of which the city came to be the capital.

In the last sense Shomeron, EV 'Samaria', is equivalent to the Northern or Israelitish kingdom (Hos. 7:1, 8:6, etc. [Wellh.]), and hence p-icE* ny means Israelitish cities (2 K. 17:24, 17:26, 23:19). 3

1 On the question whether Samerina always means Samaria, see MENAHEM.

2 According to Stade (ZATW, 5:171), the punctuation with Holem implies an erroneous explanation of the Aramaic forms with a. The lateness of this pronunciation may be inferred from LXX's representation of rrKV in 1 K. 16:24, which is

  • (1) <rtfj.epiai> [semeroon] [B], ffitpiav [emeroon] [A], <rofj.optav [somoroon] [L],
  • (2) a-a.tpr)ptav [saemeroon] [B], tro^ptav [someroon] [A], <ro/Liopuii/ [somoroon] [L].
Cp, however, Kittel's note in SBOT on 2 Ch. 13:4, and note in HK on 1 K. 16:24.

3 [On the possibility of frequent confusion between Samaria, and piaip, Shimron in the Negeb, see PROPHET, 8, 35, SHIMRON.]

2. History.[edit]

The city is situated close to the borders of Ephraim and Manasseh, in Mt. Ephraim, about 6 mi. NW of the earlier capital Shechem. Of its foundation we have a definite account in 1 K. 16:24, where it is stated that Omri purchased the hill from Shemer for two talents, and built on it the city which he called after the name of the former owner. Kittel confirms the accuracy of this notice by a reference to the case of David in 2 S. 24:21+. From Omri's time (about 925 B.C.) it became the capital of the northern kingdom, although it never attained to the religious prestige of the older Shechem. Ahab adorned it with a temple of Baal, and Baal-worship soon became recognised there as on a level with the original Israelitish calf-worship. The city was in a naturally strong position (cp Jos. Ant. 13:10:2), standing on an oblong isolated hill which is precipitous on the one side, and easily fortified on the other.

In the reign of Ahab it was besieged (901 B.C.) unsuccessfully by the Aramaeans under Ben-hadad (1 K. 20), and again in the reign of Joram (892 B.C. ), when it was relieved by a panic among the Aramasans (2 K. 6:24). It was captured by the Assyrian army in 721 after a siege of three years, many of the inhabitants were deported and the kingdom of Israel was finally brought to an end. For its colonisation and the little that can be gathered as to the history of the district down to the time of Nehemiah, see SAMARITANS.

It was again taken by Alexander the Great who deported many of its inhabitants to Shechem, and substituted Syro-Macedonian settlers. The district, a/j.apfiTL 5 "x_(i3pa. [samareitis choora], was then given over to the Jews. The city seems to have remained in the occupation of Alexander's settlers until the time of John Hyrcanus, who completely destroyed it (109 B.C.) and seized the whole district (Jos. Ant. 13:10:3). It was partially restored under Gabinius (Jos. Ant. 14:5:3), and shortly afterwards (in 25 B.C.) entirely rebuilt on a large scale by Herod the Great (ib. 15:8:5), who named it Sebaste[ia] ( Ze/Jaorij or e/3daTa ; Rabb. BD^D or >BDI;D) in honour of the Emperor. After Herod s death in B.C. 4 the kingdom of Samaria together with that of Judaea went to his son Archelaus. In the NT the city is not mentioned ; the name Samaria denotes the district. As Samaria lay between Galilee and Judaea, Jesus passed through it on his way S. to Jerusalem (Lk. 17:11, Jn. 4) although the Jews ordinarily avoided doing so. Later, Christianity was preached there (ets rr\v iro\tv rijs ^djuapeias) by Philip the evangelist (Acts 8:5+). The subsequent history of the city is obscure, and there is no record of its final destruction. According to Jerome Sebaste was believed in his time to be the burial-place of John the Baptist, as well as of the prophets Elisha and Obadiah. It apparently was a place of some importance in the early centuries of the Christian era, since we find a Bishop of Sebaste at the Council of Nicaea (325) and again at that of Jerusalem (536). It was occupied by the Crusaders, and a bishopric re-established there in 1155. The site is now represented by a village named Sebustiyeh, where is the interesting half-ruined church of John the Baptist, with other Christian remains. Not far off, at about the same level, run the streets of columns with which Herod adorned the city.

A. E. C.


Origin (1-3a). History (3b). Literature (4a, 5a-c). Beliefs (4a-c). Institutions (4e). Language (5d). Bibliography (6).

1. Name.[edit]

The Samaritans are called once in the OT (2 K. 17:29) Shomeronim (D^ICty), a name which becomes common later. It is a gentilic form from -|JOf [ShMR]. In Rabbinical literature they are called kuthim (o nis), a term intended to be contemptuous, referring to the colonists from Cuthah. The Greek Za/uaperrcu [samareitai] properly means inhabitants of the district of Za/udpeta [samareia]. They call themselves ^vrte* 33, or specifically o"icfe> from nor, properly keepers, sc. of the Law. On the name of the place, see SAMARIA.

2. Colonisation.[edit]

The history of the Samaritans, as such, begins where that of the northern kingdom ceases. We read in 2 K. 17:3+ that Shalmaneser went up to Samaria, and that in the ninth year of Hoshea, the king of Assyria took Samaria, and carried Israel away into Assyria and brought men from Babylon, and from Cuthah, and from Avva, and from Hamath and Sepharvaim and placed them in the cities of Samaria. In Ezra 4:2 it is 'Esar-haddon, king of Assyria, who brought us up hither'. Lastly in Ezra 4:10 they are the 'nations whom the great and noble Osnappar brought over'. 1 The importation of foreign colonists is thus attributed apparently to three several kings, the last of whom bears a name not otherwise known. To these names yet a fourth must be added. It is noticeable that in 2 K. 18:9-10. it is stated that Shalmaneser besieged Samaria, and 'at the end of three years they (not he) took it'. It is now known that SHALMANESER [q.v.], who began the siege, died in 723 B.C., and that it was his successor, Sargon II., who actually took the city in 721. Perhaps the death of Shalmaneser may account for the length of the siege. It is natural therefore to infer from the accounts in 2 K. that Sargon introduced the (first) settlement of colonists, and this is definitely stated to be the case in the annals of Sargon. 2 With regard to the other names, most recent critics rightly identify Osnappar with Ashur-bani- pal. The accounts are further simplified if Esar-haddon be taken as a corruption of the same name, due to the similarity of the first element in each (see ASNAPPER). We shall thus have two colonisations, the first by Sargon, the second by Ashur-bani-pal. As to the list of cities from which the colonists were drawn, Sepharvaim should no doubt be the Babylonian Sippar. The cuneiform account expressly states that Babylon, Cuthah, and Sippar opposed Ashur-bani-pal, and it would be consistent with Assyrian policy to deport the inhabitants of those cities to the distant province of Samaria. On the other hand, it would be altogether an unusual step to transfer the inhabitants of Hamath or of Avva (in Syria ; but cp AVVAH) to a neighbouring district. See HAMATH. Sargon may indeed have brought colonists from Hamath, which he reduced in 720, and the combination of the two sets of malcontents may have led to the necessity of his reducing Samaria for the second time in 720 ; but there are no grounds for such a conjecture. It is far more consistent with the facts to suppose (with Winckler) that just as the Deuteronomic redactor has combined into one the two Assyrian kings, and inserted a long passage to point the moral of the story, and imparted to the whole a tone hostile to the Samaritans, so he has combined the two colonisations into one, and amplified his account from 2 K. 18:34 which he took to refer to the same events. But this last passage has not necessarily anything to do with the colonisation of Samaria. The Rabshakeh is there citing instances of towns which have fallen before Assyria, so that Hamath, Sepharvaim, and Ivvah (see AVVAH) are quite in place as being comparatively close at hand and therefore the more likely to appeal to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. The redactor s view was doubtless based on a confusion of Sippar (in Babylonia) with Sepharvaim (in Syria) ; see SEPHARVAIM. From the biblical and the Assyrian accounts together we thus restore the history as follows : Shalmaneser besieged Samaria but died during the siege : Sargon took the city in 721, deported 27,290 of its inhabitants, and introduced in their place (? in 715) colonists from other conquered cities : in 720 the country had to be subdued again : later Ashur-bani-pal further colonised the country.

1 Cp Winckler, Alttest. Unt. 97+; also EZRA-NEHEMIAH, 9

2 Winckler, Keilinschrift-texte Sargons, 1:5, 1:7, 1:21.

3. The Samaritan people.[edit]

a. Population.[edit]

The resulting population was called by the general name Samaritan. How far must it be considered foreign (** x 7"fr. [allogenes] Lk. 17:8)? The later Samaritans have always claimed very strongly to be "?>ne" > :3 , regarding Joseph especially as their ancestor (cp Bireshith Kabba, 94, on Gen. 46:13). On the other hand, the Jews deny them any right to the name of Israel, representing them as merely descendants of the Assyrian (Cuthaean) colonists. The truth lies midway. It is now generally admitted that the deportation under Sargon was not complete. A district so important as Samaria would not have been entirely depopulated by losing 27,290 of its inhabitants. (When a similar fate befel Judah, upwards of 200,000 went into captivity.) The number undoubtedly represents the persons of importance (including the priests), who alone were likely to be dangerous, whilst the poorer class were left as before and the inhabitants of the outlying towns and villages were probably hardly affected. This seems indeed to be definitely stated by Sargon, though the passage is not very clear. The account in 2 K. 17 is written from the Jewish point of view ; but the real state of the case comes out in the later history - e.g. , when Josiah, a century afterwards, put down idolatry 'in the cities of Samaria' (2 K. 23:15, 23:19-20) obviously among Israelites (cp 2 Ch. 34:6-7), and collected money for the repair of the temple from 'Manasseh and Ephraim, and of all the remnant of Israel' (2 K. 23:9). There can hardly be a doubt that in Nehemiah's time, for example, the population of the district of Samaria consisted of the 'remnant of Israel' with an admixture of foreigners. What was the proportion of the two elements to one another cannot now be determined. Nor have we any means of knowing how far they were intermixed, and how far the colonists really adopted the religion of the 'God of the Land'. So long as the name 'Samaritan' meant only the inhabitant of Samaria and the surrounding country, it no doubt included all the mixed population ; but when the name of the city was changed the term acquired a purely religious significance, and then probably denoted the descendants of the 'remnant' together with such of the colonists as had become proselytes and intermarried with Israel. But it was just this (perhaps slight) admixture which gave colour to the Jewish taunt implied by the term Cuthaean.

b. History.[edit]

As to the early history of the Samaritan people, we have little information. We are indeed told in 2 K. 17:25 that the country was infested by lions (Jos. Ant. 9:14:3, 289, says a pestilence) and that the inhabitants in consequence made request to 'the king of Assyria' for a priest who was accordingly sent to 'teach them the manner of the god of the land'. Josephus says, 'some of the priests', and it is probable that this was the original reading of 2 K. 17:27, since the text still preserves the strange plurals 'let them go and dwell' (latri ID^ I). The idea is quite in keeping with the common view of a tutelary deity whose protection was necessary in his own land and whose power was connected with and restricted to it. Cp a similar incident in the story of Naaman, 2 K. 5:17. It is generally thought that this request could only have been made by the foreign colonists ; but since the 'remnant' consisted of 'the poorer sort', the people of the land (!7Xn cy) who in Rabbinical literature are proverbially ignorant of the law, it is only natural that all alike should require a teacher who understood the technicalities of Yahwe-worship. So 'they feared Yahwe, and served their own gods' (2 K. 17:33). However, the high-places which Josiah suppressed need not have been idolatrous : they may have been merely unauthorised Yahwe-shrines. That 'the remnant' joined with Judah in the use of the temple at Jerusalem at this period, may be inferred from 2 Ch. 34:9 and also from Jer. 41:5 where it is mentioned that eighty men came 'from Shechem, from Shiloh, and from Samaria' to make their offerings there(cp SHECHEM, 2, SHILOH, 2). It is unlikely that these were apostate Jews : they can only have been Samaritans.

After another period of nearly a century, during which we have no information about the Samaritans, they are mentioned in the account of a return of Jews from Babylonia under Cyrus, when they ask to be allowed a share in the building of the new temple - a request which was refused (Ezra 4:5). It is usually considered that this refusal was the cause of a mutual estrangement and an implacable hatred between the two peoples. There can be little doubt, however, that the real cause was something deeper and went back farther than this mere incident. If we admit the presence of a strong Israelitish element in the Samaritan people, we shall not be far wrong in seeing here the old spirit of opposition between Israel and Judah, always ready to break out, which definitely asserted itself under Jeroboam, the refusal to recognise Judah's claim to a hegemony, the revolt against centralisation. It was based on a difference of race, an incompatibility between N. and S. , and was more political than religious. No reason is assigned for the refusal : the Jews do not charge their 'adversaries' with idolatry, nor even with heresy. 1 Indeed it would seem that Israel continued to be willing, and were allowed, even after this, to join in Jewish worship in Jerusalem, if Ezra 6:21 is to be so understood.

On the other hand the Jewish policy, while purely patriotic, was rigidly exclusive. It aimed at fixing the worship of Yahwe as the religion of Judah, purifying it from all foreign elements, and making Jerusalem its headquarters. Hence it was out of the question that they should allow the participation of a race whose devotion to Jewish ideals was open to suspicion and whose origin was perhaps mixed. The Jew could not risk contamination by having any dealings with the Samaritan ; but, as we see from Ezra 6:21 and Jer. 41:4, there was no barrier of the kind on the Samaritan side. Only when Judah, by refusing their help, proclaimed an exclusive policy, did a political separation become inevitable, and it then became necessary for the Samaritans to pursue something of the same policy. No doubt, in their condition of social and religious disorganisation, the restoration of a Jewish state at Jerusalem appearedan imminent danger, and accordingly we find them endeavouring by truly Oriental intrigues to prevent first the building of the temple and afterwards the erection of the walls (Ezra 4:4+, Neh. 4:7+); cp EZRA-NEHEMIAH, 10. In this they were unsuccessful, and matters must have continued in much the same state of political separation, with a good deal of individual intercourse, until the building of the temple on Mt. Gerizim, which made Shechem the religious centre of Samaria and finally rendered re-union impossible. 2 A sanctuary once established on their own sacred mountain, it became a point of honour to refuse to recognise the temple at Jerusalem. Of the Samaritan temple we have no mention in the OT, and the occasion and date of its erection are alike difficult to ascertain. According to Josephus (Ant. 11:7:2, 11:8:2) the satrap of Samaria under Darius Codomannus (336-330) was Sanballat, who gave his daughter in marriage to Manasseh, the brother of Jaddus the Jewish high priest. Manasseh was ordered by the elders and Jaddus either to give up his foreign wife or to renounce the priesthood, and thereby the possible succession to the office of high priest. He thereupon complained to Sanballat, who urged him to migrate to Samaria, promising to get him established there as high priest under state protection, and to build a temple. He was joined by other Jews who had foreign wives or were discontented with the reforms at Jerusalem, and the rival temple was ultimately built in 332 under the sanction of Alexander the Great. This account njust however be received with caution.

Where Josephus differs from Isehemiah we so often find him to be in the wrong that his narrative is open to suspicion where we have no such check. In this instance, from whatever cause, he seems to be confused, and to place his account (which may very likely represent the facts) a century too late. After the enactments mentioned in Ezra 9, 10:5, Neh. 10:31, 13:23, 13:28, it is improbable that foreign marriages would still be occurring in Jerusalem in 333.

On the other hand the story fits on very well to the events mentioned in Neh. 13:28, so that it would seem that Josephus confounds Darius Nothus with Codomannus and fills out his story accordingly. It is possible that he is following a trustworthy tradition in ascribing the foundation of the temple to the time of Alexander, and that he intentionally connects with it the story of Manasseh in order to cast discredit on the Samaritan religion as being founded by a renegade priest. Cp SANBALLAT. We may therefore put the secession of Manasseh soon after 432, and perhaps accept Josephus account that the temple was built about 332.

The Temple continued to exist till 128 B.C. when it was destroyed by John Hyrcanus, in pursuance of the same exclusive policy noticed above. From the time of Alexander, Samaria shared the varying fortunes of its neighbours, gradually losing any political importance it ever possessed. A few events only need be mentioned. The city of Samaria was embellished by Herod the Great and renamed Sebaste in honour of Augustus. The temple on Mt. Gerizim was rebuilt by the Romans is a reward for Samaritan help in the suppression of Bar Kokhba's revolt. But such favourable treatment was not often received or deserved by them. After the national existence of Judah had been destroyed under Titus and Hadrian the animosity of the Samaritans turned towards the growing power and claims of the Christians. Their excesses were repressed by Justinian with a severity from which they never recovered.

During the middle ages only scattered notices of the Samaritans occur, and the native records are little more than lists of names. Colonies are mentioned by Benjamin of Tudela (died 1173) as living in several cities besides Nablus (Shechem), and Obadiah of Bartinoro (circa 1487) speaks of them in Cairo. There certainly was a community in Damascus, and probably also in Cairo, as late as the seventeenth century. In more modern times communications were opened with them by Scaliger and continued by Huntington, Ludolf and others. At the present day the only remnant of them is at Nablus (Shechem). They number about 120 persons, and 'the forty' (families) have become locally proverbial. According to a recent traveller attempts are being now made to save the tribe from extinction by encouraging intermarriages with the neighbouring Jewish families, but hitherto with little success, although no difficulty seems to be felt on religious grounds.

1 In Ezra 4:12 'to us' suggests that Samaritans had been accustomed to use Jerusalem as a sacred place before the return.

2 [On the constitution of the Samaritan community see further Duhm's commentary on Isaiah (chaps. 56-60); Che. Introd. Is. 316-317, 322, 364-374 385 ; Jew. Rel. Life, 25-68.]

4. Doctrine.[edit]

a. Books.[edit]

i. Sacred books. - The Samaritans are by no means a Jewish sect. Though they started from the same point the development of their respective systems has proceeded on independent, though naturally parallel, lines. Their only sacred book is the Pentateuch, of which they possess a recension agreeing essentially with the Jewish (Massoretic) text. (See TEXT AND VERSIONS, 45.)

At what time they first received the Pentateuch cannot now be determined ; but it is most natural to suppose that a copy (or copies) of the law would be carried by Manasseh to Samaria at the time of his migration thither. It is not probable that any but the priestly caste would possess, or would be allowed to possess, a copy of it at that time. If then Manasseh took with him a book of the law as part of his priestly equipment about 430, this would explain the fact that the Samaritans accepted it in its final form, which, according to modern criticism, had probably been attained about that date.

The reason why the Pentateuch alone of Jewish books was taken over is obvious. The Torah is of the highest importance, not for its historical contents, but as containing practical rules for the ritual 'of the God of the land', and the halakhah or regulations by which the daily 'walk' of Jew and Samaritan alike must be governed. These things alone are of vital importance ; matters of faith and theoretical doctrine are secondary. Moreover, even among the Jews, the other books had not yet acquired the authority which they possessed at a later time. Having once accepted the Torah, the Samaritans followed its injunctions with a rigidity recog nised even by the Jews. For example, in Jn. 4;8 the disciples went into a Samaritan city to buy food, apparently as a matter of course, whilst the question in v. 9 probably refers to the asking of a favour, and the following comment is a later gloss. At a later time Jewish opinion became more hostile, and various charges were laid against them, mostly, it would seem, without foundation. 'He that eateth bread of a Cuthtean is as one that eateth swine's flesh'. They were accused of worshipping a dove and a god Ashima. For the former there is no evidence, nor is it even probable from what we know of them otherwise ; the latter is due to a malicious misunderstanding of the Samaritan pronunciation of i7DW (eshma, 'the name') which they everywhere substitute for mrr [YHWH], just as the Jews read <:-IN [ADNY] (and earlier cs?n [HShM]), from motives of reverence. But while holding closely to the Levitical law as the one thing needful, the Samaritans did develop theoretical doctrine, based upon the Torah, if not derived from it. The earliest evidence for anything of the kind is contained in Jn. 4.

b. Eschatology.[edit]

ii. Eschatology.- The belief in a Messiah is already established, in Jn. 4, and from later Samaritan sources we now know its character.

The Messiah is called rcnOi the Taheb, a term variously explained to mean 'he who returns' or (more probably) 'he who restores', and the belief is founded on Dt. IS 15. He will bring to an end the period of Fanuta (nrtUB), which has lasted since the schism of Eli who removed the tabernacle to Shiloh, and, as the name probably implies, he will restore the period of grace (ridwan, nrtlrn) with the tabernacle and the worship of the Lord on Mt. Gerizim, as well as the temporal prosperity of the nation, after which he will die.

The chief external information on such points is in the writings of the Christian fathers, who assert that the Samaritans did not believe in angels, the resurrection, or a future life. These statements are due partly to a confusion, and partly to a disregard of the development cf theological speculation, since we know from native sources that all these doctrines were held at least from the fourth century onward. Nevertheless the patristic account very probably rests on a basis of genuine tradition.

If the Samaritans acquired their law and their priestly system about 430 B.C., they no doubt took over with them the set of beliefs current at the time in Jerusalem. But in the fifth century B.C. Jewish theology was not concerned with eschatological doctrines, or at any rate had never formulated them, and the Samaritans, being essentially conservative, probably developed doctrine more slowly than the progressive Pharisaic party in Judaea. (Cp ESCHATOLOGY, 45.)

The native literature, from which alone we can safely judge of the beliefs of the Samaritans, begins only in the fourth century A.D. , and we then find them in full possession of those doctrines which the Christian fathers denied to them. It would therefore seem that the patristic account perpetuates a tradition which had once been correct but had ceased to be so. In the liturgies frequent references are made to the Taheb. Closely connected with that belief is the doctrine of the final judgment, which shall be after the death of the Taheb, when the righteous shall go into the garden of Eden, and the wicked be burned with fire.

The full expression is BTBfl Cp3 DV (sometimes r<2~\ fin DV) derived from Dt. 32:35, where the Samaritan text reads crS [LYZM or LYVM or LYOM or LYWM] for the Massoretic ik [LY] The character of the future life to be enjoyed by the righteous is not further described. It would seem that the condition of the dead in the interval between the present time and the final judgment is capable of alteration, since prayers are offered on their behalf.

c. Angels.[edit]

With regard to the belief in angels the case is quite as clear. It has often been said that angels were considered merely as aspects of the divine energy, virtutes del, and this view was supported with much ingenuity by Reland. It is indeed true that such apparent abstractions as i711]] and n]'m are often mentioned ; but there can be no reasonable doubt that these were considered as the names of real persons, nor have we any ground for supposing the Samaritan mind capable of any more abstract concep tion. In their Targum an angel is regularly introduced instead of the name of God wherever it is possible so to avoid anthropomorphism. Man is formed in the image of the angels, and it is an angel who spoke with Moses from the bush. This is only one instance, out of many, of their spiritual conception of God. He is eternal, without beginning, without a companion. He uttered a word without a mouth and the world was created from nothing. He rested on the seventh day, but not from weariness. Possibly owing to the unapproachable attributes of God we find prayers offered through the mediation of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, of Joseph, the seventy elders, the holy angels, and more especially of Moses. Thus the development of Samaritan theology corresponds in the main with the development of Jewish belief, by which, no doubt, it was in some respects influenced.

d. Gerizim.[edit]

iii. Mt, Gerizim. - The essential points of difference were with regard to Moses and Mt. Gerizim. Moses is the only prophet and apostle of God, of miraculous birth, destined from the creation to reveal the law to Israel. In Dt. 34:10 the Samaritans read cip N 1 ? [L' YQVM or L' YQOM or L' YQZM] for cp N 1 ? [L' QM], and on this ground admit no later prophets. From the Jewish point of view the most insurmountable difference was the Samaritan reverence for Mt. Gerizim. It is called the 'blessed mountain', the house of God, and is regarded as the place which Yahwe chose to place his name there.

On Gerizim are still shown the sites of the altars built by Adam and Seth, the altar built by Noah after the flood, and the altar on which Abraham was about to sacrifice Isaac. A few yards off was the thicket in which the ram was caught, and on this spot afterwards stood the Holy of Holies of the Samaritan temple. On Gerizim, too, are the stones brought up from the Jordan whereon Joshua wrote the words of the law (Dt. 27:4, Gerizim being read for Ebal), and there are still celebrated the most sacred rites of the community.

e. Institutions.[edit]

iv. Priesthood and festivals. - The priestly family of the house of Aaron died out in 1624 A. D., and the office is now held by Levites of a younger branch, who do not bear the title of 'high priest' (,131 funs)- The festivals observed are the same as those of the Jews in so far as they are authorised by the Pentateuch. They do not therefore keep Purim, nor any of the later and more specially Jewish ceremonies, such as Hanukkah or the 9th of Ab. Half-yearly, sixty days before Passover and Tabernacles respectively, they keep the assembly (mcs, also an astronomical term, 'conjunction' ) of those feasts, when every man pays to the priest a half shekel, and a calendar for the ensuing six months is fixed. The Passover is still celebrated by the offering of sacrifice on Mt. Gerizim. The whole congregation assembles before dawn at the door of the synagogue, and then proceeds in pilgrimage (the meaning they attach to the term jn, hajj) up the mountain, where specially selected lambs are sacrificed, baked entire for some hours in a hole in the ground, and then, at sunset (c 3iJM } 3), eaten in haste. Then follow the seven days of unleavened bread, on the last of which they again make the pilgrimage. The day of Pentecost is kept as the anniversary of the giving of the law. For these, as well as for New Year, the day of Atonement, the feast of Tabernacles, and many minor occasions, there arc special services, besides the ordinary prayers for Sabbath. There are also services for circumcision (which must be performed on the eighth day, even though it be a Sabbath), for marriage, and for burial.

With regard to the sects alleged to have existed among the Samaritans, it is impossible to arrive at any certain facts. The accounts are confused, and there seems to be no mention of them in the native literature.

5. Literature.[edit]

a. Torah and Targum.[edit]

The native literature naturally centres in the one sacred book, the Pentateuch, which has been preserved, as mentioned above, in a recension agreeing in all essentials with the MT. It first became known in Europe from a copy brought, together with the Targum, from Damascus by the great traveller Pietro della Valle in 1616, and now preserved in the Vatican library. The text was published in the Paris Polyglott from which it was afterwards copied by Walton, and its variations from the MT gave rise to the keenest controversy. The question is by no means settled yet, nor can it be so until we have a thoroughly critical edition of the text. The many passages in which the Samaritan agrees with the Septuagint against the Massoretic, show that a study of it is important. The MSS are many, mostly dated, but not of great age.

The copy in the synagogue at Nablus is regarded with great veneration as having been written by Abisha the great-grandson of Aaron, thirteen years after the entry into Canaan. No scholar has ever had the opportunity of examining it with a view to determining its date ; but there are no reasons for supposing that it is much older than the twelfth or thirteenth century, about which time its 'invention' is chronicled by Abulfath.

Several translations of the Pentateuch were made.

  • 1. Perhaps it was translated into Greek. TO 2a/zapfiriKov [to samaretikon] is quoted by the early fathers ; but we have

no certain information about it, and cannot even say whether it was a distinct version or whether the citations of it are only a loose way of citing the Sam.-Hebrew text.

  • 2. It was translated into Samaritan proper, or Aramaic. The most noticeable feature of this Targum is its frequently close resemblance to Onkelos. Until this fact has been thoroughly investigated the most reasonable explanation of it seems to be that both Targums go back to an oral tradition current in Palestine at the time when Aramaic was the common language of the people, and that they were subsequently reduced to writing independently, and with local variations, in Samaria (probably in the 4th cent. A. D. ) and in Babylon. It was brought to Europe, as mentioned above, in 1616, and first printed in the Paris Polyglott. MSS of it are very scarce, since the language died out before the eleventh century, and copies were no longer multiplied.
For the same reason the text has suffered much corruption and is by no means yet definitely settled even in the best edition. In character the Aramaic translation is very literal ; it very carefully avoids anthropomorphisms. It seems to be by several hands, and to have received interpolations at a later period. These and the corruptions of copyists are, according to the latest researches, responsible for most of the enigmatical words formerly supposed to be specially Samaritan.
  • 3. The origin of the translation into Arabic is obscure. It was perhaps made by Abulhasan of Tyre in the eleventh century, and revised early in the thirteenth century by Abu Said. There are many good MSS of it. The translator apparently made use of the Jewish Arabic version by Saadiah Gaon.

b. Chronicles.[edit]

The Chronicles which have come down to us are :

  • (1) A Book of Joshua, in Arabic, giving the history of Israel {i.e. , the Samaritans) from the time of Joshua to the fourth century A.D. It is a compilation, dating perhaps from the thirteenth century. As history its value is very small, since it consists mostly of fabulous stories of the deeds of Joshua, whilst its later chronology is of the wildest.
  • (2) El-Tolideh. in Samaritan-Hebrew with an Arabic translation. It contains the history (or rather annals) from Adam to the present time. The original part of it is ascribed to Eleazar b. Amram in the middle of the twelfth century, and it has been carried on by various writers from time to time. The history, if used with caution, is generally trustworthy, especially for the period just preceding the date of each several author.
  • (3) The chronicle of Abulfath written, in Arabic, in 1355 A. D. , is a compilation from earlier works. By a comparison of these two (El-tolideh and Abulfath) it is possible to arrive at a tolerably trustworthy account of the Samaritan families in the Middle Ages.

Of commentaries and theological works there is a considerable number in MS ; but very little has been published.

One of the most interesting is a fragment on Genesis by an unknown author, in Arabic, remarkable as quoting from many books of the OT and from the Mishna. A commentary by Markah on the Pentateuch survives in a late but apparently unique MS in Berlin, and is linguistically important as being composed in the Samaritan dialect of which there are few specimens outside the Targum. Others are, a book of legends of Moses in Arabic, and a commentary by Ibrahim of the sons of Jacob, from which extracts have been given by Geiger.

c. Liturgies, etc.[edit]

The liturgies form a very large and important branch of the literature. The earliest pieces which can be dated with any certainty, are those of Markah and Amram, composed in Aramaic in the fourth century A.D. at the instance of Baba Rabba, a sheikh of some eminence in his time, who, according to El-Tolideh, restored the services of the synagogue. These are called par excellence the Defter or 'book'. The later portions are in Samaritan-Hebrew mostly of the fourteenth and subsequent centuries down to the present time. MSS of the later liturgies are very numerous.

Finally, there are several letters in existence, written by Samaritans to scholars in Europe. The first of these, in 1589, was an answer to one from Jos. Scaliger; others were addressed to Huntington, Ludolf, De Sacy, Kautzsch (in 1884), and recently to the present writer.

d. Language.[edit]

The Samaritan language proper is a dialect of Western Aramaic as commonly spoken in Palestine, and is found in the Targum and in the earlier liturgies. It may best be compared with the Aramaic of the Jerusalem Talmud, and with Palestinian Syriac. The 'Cuthaean' words formerly supposed to be found in it, have been shown by Kohn to be mostly corruptions of good Aramaic forms. The native dialect probably began to be supplemented by Arabic soon after the Mohammedan conquest of Syria, and was no longer commonly understood in the tenth century, although used for ritual purposes. From that time onward Arabic has been the language used both in ordinary life and for literary purposes. The later liturgies, however (and the letters), are written in a corrupt Hebrew.

6. Bibliography.[edit]

In the following bibliography early works which have been superseded, and most articles in periodicals have been excluded.

i. Pentateuch. - In the Paris Polyglott, 1645, and the London Polyglott, 1657 ; Blayney, Pentateuchus Sam. 1790 (in square character) ; Ges. De Petit. Sam. origine, 1815; Barges, Notice sur deux fragments . . ., 1865; Kohn, De Pent. Sam., 1865.

ii. Targum. - Besides the Polyglotts, Brill, Das Sam. Tar- gutn, 1874, etc. (a reprint of the Polyglott text, in square char acter) ; Petermann - Vollers, Pentateuchus Sam., 1872, etc. (Targilm text with apparatus criticus) ; Nutt, Fragments of a Sam. Targum, 1874(366 also appendix to Brill op. tit.) ; Winer, De versionis Sam. indole, 1817 ; Kahle, Textkritische . . . Bemerkungen, 1898 ; Kohn, Samaritanische Studicn, 1868, and Zur Sprache . . . d. Sam., pt. ii. (in Abh. f. d. Kunde d. Morgcnlandes, 64), 1876.

iii. Arabic Version. - Hwiid, Specimen ined. vers. Arab.- Sam., 1780; Kue. Specimen . . . exhibens Librum Geneseos . . . 1851 (Gen.-Lev.); Bloch, Die Sam. -atal>. Pent.- Utters. Dt. i-xi, 1001.

iv. Commentaries. - Neubauer in Jour. As., 1873; Drabkin, Fragm. Comm. . . . Sam.-Arab., 1875; Kohn, Zur Sprache . . ., pt. i., v. sup. (part of Marqah s Commentary on the Penta teuch): ,an<*\\, DesSamaritanersMarqah . . . Abhandlung, 1888 (part of the same); Munk, Des Sam. Marqah Ei~ah- lung . . ., 1890 (part of the same) ; Heidenheim, Der Comm. Marqah s . . ., 1896 (bks. i., ii., iv. of the same; to be used with caution); Emmerich, Das Sicgeslied, pt. i., 1897 (part of the same) ; Hildesheimer, Des Sam. iMarqali Buch d. ll under, 1898 (with corrections of Heidenheim).

v. Theological. - Ges. De Sam. theologia, 1822; Kirchheim, Introd. in lib. Talm. de Sam., 1851 (in Hebrew); Leitner, Die Sam. Legenden Jtfosis. trans, in Heidenheim s Vierteljahrs- schri/t, 4 184 Jf. \ Taghcht, Die Kuthaer als Rcobachter des Gesetzes, 1888; Wreschner, Sam. Traditionen, 1888; Cohn, Die Zaraath-Gesetze, 1899; Morgenstern, Die i erleumdungen . . . d. Judengegen d. Sai. (Berlin, n.d.).

vi. Liturgical. - Ges. Cannina Sain. {Anecdota Orientalia, fasc. i.), 1824, re-edited by Kirchheim, op. cit. ; Heidenheim s I ierteljahrsschrift, passim, and Die Sam. Liturgie, 1885, etc. (in both the text is often faulty ; cp the criticisms of Geiger in ZD.MG lli-22) ; Rappoport, La. Liturgie Sam., 1900.

vii. Historical and General. - Juynboll, Commentarii in hist, gentis Sam., 1846, and Chronicon Sam. . . . lib. Josuce, 1848; Petermann, Reisen, 1860; Vilmar, Abulfathi Annales Sam., 1865. Payne Smith, The Sam. Chron. of Abu l Fatah (with trans.) in Heidenheim s / ierteljahrsschrift, 1 304^ and 43 2 ff- (incomplete). Neub. Chronique Sam. in Journal Asiatiqtie, 1869. The letters in Notices et Extraits, vol. xii., 1831 (collected by De Sacy). Hamaker, Aanmerkingen over de Sam. en hunne briefwisseling (e.xtr. from A rcliicf voor Kerk. Gesc hiedenis, 5). Kautzsch, Ein Brief des Hohenpriesters . . . Ja kub (in ZDPl S). Almkvist, Ein sam. Brief an Konig Oscar (Skrifter utgifna of A". Humanistiska I etenskapssam- fiindet i Upsala, 5 2). Knobel, ZurGeschichte d. Sam. (extract, 1847); Barges, Les Sam. de Naplouse, 1855; Mills, Three Months Residence at Nablus, 1864 ; Appel, Qua-stiones de rebus sam., 1874; Nutt, A Sketch of Sam. History, 1874 (an excellent general account). Freudenthal, Hellenistische Studien, i., ii., 1875 ; Brill, Zur Geschichte it. Literatur d. Sam., 1876 ; Spiro, Etude sur le peuple Sam. (from the Revue Chretienne. n.d.).

viii. Linguistic: - Castellus, Lexicon Heptaglotton, 1669; Uhlemann, Institutiones ling. Sam. 1837 ; Nicholls, A Grammar of the Sam. language, n.d. [1858]. Ndldeke, Ueber einige Sam.-arab. Schriften (in GGN nos. 17 and 20), 1862 ; Petermann, Versuch einer hebr. Formenlehre, i86S (Abhand- litngen f. d. Kunde d. Rlorgenlandes, 5 i), and Hrevis ling. Sam. Gramm. (Porta Lingg. Or. 3), 1873 (containing a biblio graphy of earlier works) ; Kohn, Sam. Studien, 1868, and Zur Sprache, etc., see above.

ix. Catalogues of Manuscripts^ : - for the Bodleian Library see in the Oriental Catalogue of Uri, with the corrections in pt. ii. by Nicoll and Pusey, and in Neubauer s Catalogue of the Hebrew MSS, 1886. For the British Museum, G. Margoliouth s Descriptive List of the Hebrew and Sam. A[SS, 1893 (the full catalogue is in progress). For Paris [Zotenberg s] Catalogue des MSS Heb. et Sam. [Paris, 1860]. For St. Petersburg, Harkavy s Opisanie samarityanskikh rukopisei, 1875 (vol. ii. pt. i. of the Catalog d. hebr. u. sai. Handscliriften, dealing with the Pentateuch MSS, text and targum. In Russian).

A. E. C.


(cAMATOc[BA]) 1 Esd. 9:34 = Ezra 10:42 SHALLUM, 12.


RV Sameus (CAMAIOC [A]) 1 Esd. 9:21 = Ezra 10:21 SHEMAIAH, 18.


(cAMeAAioc [B]) 1 Esd. 2:16 RV = Ezra 4:8 SHIMSHAI.


( nr"l5OD with Bit., Gins., not inrD ; cAMArwe [BN], -r^e [A], -A [Q]. -p [Q mff -]), apparently a Babylonian name (Jer. 39:3). According to Schrader the words are Hebraised from shumgir-nabu, 'be gracious, Nebo' (KAT^, 416); but Giesebrecht conjectures a corruption of aa -\c, sar-mag, equivalent to iC 31, rab-mag, which implies virtual dittography. LXX connects vafiov [nabou] wiih the following name (see SARSECHIM).

The truth, however, probably is, that the editor had a corrupt text before him, and tried in vain to make Babylonian names out of the false readings. 123 might come from 3~U, NODAB (q.v.) , i:DD from csmfol- SARSECHIM (q.v.) was therefore written twice over, and once it has taken the place of ib (before 3nj). Read therefore 'and the prince of Nodab' (one of the Jerahmeelite princes in the army of king Nebuchadrezzar, at least, if some other name - not Babylonian - does not underlie Nebuchadrezzar ). See NERGAL-SHAREZER.

T. K. C.


RV Sabi (cABei [A], om. B) 1 Esd. 5:28 = Ezra 2:42 SHOBAI.


(coMeeic [BA]) 1 Esd. 9:34 = Ezra 10:38, SHIMEI, 16.


(rhl?y, in Gen. CAAAMA [A], C AM*AA [>]. A^AMA, CAA/V\A[E]), CAMAA [L] ; in Ch. CAMAA [A; B in v. 51], ( :ABAA [L]) ; the fifth Edomite king, Gen. 36:36-37, 1 Ch. 1:47-48. See MASREKAH. The evidence offered by Prof. Sayce (Hibb. Leer. 54, n. ) for a connection between Samlah and Semele is unsound (cp Tiele, Th. T, 1890, p. 96). Beyond reasonable doubt we should read Salmah (see SALMAH, and SOLOMON, i). Was this king of the Salmaean race?

T. K. C.


(CAMMOYC [A] -oy [BJ) 1 Esd. 9:43 = Neh. 8:4, SHEMA.


(CAMOC. 1 Macc. 15:23, Acts 20:15s).

The third in size of the four large islands (Lesbos, Chios, Samos, and Cos ) which lie off the western coast of Asia Minor, all appearing in the narrative of Paul's journeys.

1. Geography and history.[edit]

Samos lies at the mouth of the bay of Ephesus, into which the Cayster flows, and so midway between Ephesus and Miletus by the sea route. It gained its name from the line of 'lofty broken summits' (so described by Tozer, Islands of the Aegean, 1577.) running from E. to W. through the island ; for the name Samos means 'height' (Str. 346, crd/xoi;s e tfdAow TO, V\l/r [samos ekaloun ta hypse]). Cp id. 457, and see SAMOTHRACE). The highest point, Mt. Kerki (anc. Kerketeus) is 4725 ft. high, a conspicuous feature from all the surrounding islands. Between the eastern extremity of the island (Cape Colonna, anc. Poseidium) and the long well-wooded ridge of Mycale on the mainland (Herod. 1:148) there is a narrow 'marine pass' about one mile in width ; this strait was the scene of the Greek victory over the Persian fleet and army in 479 B.C. (Herod. 9:100-101).

The Samians at an early period were distinguished for their maritime enterprise (cp Paus. 6:2:9) ; it was a Samian who first ventured through the pillars of Herakles into the western ocean (Herod. 4:152 ; cp Thuc. 113; Plin. HA 7:57). Samian power and splendour reached their highest pitch under the so-called tyrant Polycrates (c. 533-522 B.C.) who made the island for a short time the mistress of the eastern Aegean. At this period Samos had extensive commercial relations with Egypt (Herod. 2:178). She produced oil in abundance ; but her wine was not of the best quality (Str. 637). Her trade was largely in pottery (cp Plin. HN 35:46, Samia in esculentis laudantur). 1 Many Jews resided in the island (1 Macc. 15:23) ; and they, and the Samians generally, enjoyed the liberality of Herod the Great, who with Agrippa was in the island in 14 A.D. (Jos. Ant. 16:2:2 ; BJ 1:21:11, TOS eis AVKIOVS i) 2a/uioi>s dupeds). In Paul's time Samos was a libera civitas (Plin. HN 537; Dio Cass. 549) in the Province of Asia by the favour of Augustus ; Vespasian deprived it of this privilege (Suet. Vesp. 8).

2. NT reference.[edit]

The island and its chief town bore the same name. The town (now Tigani) lay on the SE. shore, whereas the modern capital, Vathy, is on the N. of the island. The question of the meaning of the word in the account of Paul's voyage is difficult (cp the case of Chios, Acts 20:15). In neither case apparently did the ship stopatthe town or its harbour itself, nor did Paul land. 'The ship evidently stopped every evening. The reason lies in the wind, which in the Aegean during the summer generally blows from the N., beginning at a very early hour in the morning ; in the late afternoon it dies away ; at sunset there is a dead calm, and thereafter a gentle S. wind arises and blows during the night' (Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, 293). It stopped at a point opposite Chios (KarTjvrri- ffa.fj.ev &VTIKPVS Xiov, 'came . . . over against', EV), i.e., probably in the strait between Chios the capital of the island, and Cape Argennum on the opposite mainland. Next morning they struck across to Samos making a course either E. of S. , to the western extremity of that island, by the Great Boghas (so Ramsay. l.c.), or more easterly across the Caystrian Bay to the eastern extremity of the island, so as to pass through the Little Boghaz or strait of Mycale. In either case, the failure of the breeze from the N. found them at Trogyllium (the reference to which should undoubtedly be retained from DHLP : see TROGYLLIUM), and there is no need to understand Samos to be the town, and not rather the island merely ; for the Greek word translated 'arrived at' (n-ape/JctXo/xei [parebalomen] , so AV ; 'touched at', RV) does not necessarily imply stoppage or landing at the harbour of Samos. Probably it was this erroneous idea that was largely responsible for the omission of the reference to Trogyllium ; for the distance between the town of Samos and the anchorage of Trogyllium (5 mi. , according to Strabo 636) is too small to make a distinct stage of the voyage. It ought, however, to be noticed that fj.eivai>Tfs [meinantes] need not be restricted to spending the night at anchor, but might indicate a short stop occurring during the final run between Samos and Miletus ; but the order of the words seems to be opposed to that interpretation.

W. J. W.

1 Cp Vulg. in Is. 459, testa de Samiis terrae.


RV, AV Samothracia (CAMO0RAKH. Acts 16:11). The two conspicuous features of the Thracian sea are Mt. Athos and the island of Samothrace. The island is described as a 'huge boulder planted in the sea', towering above Irnbros and conspicuous from the Thracian and the Asiatic shore.

Homer, who calls the island the 'Thracian Samos', describes the seat of Poseidon on its topmost peak overlooking 'all Ida, with the city of Priam and the ships of the Achaeans' (Il. 13:12, vif/ov en dicpOT-anjs K0pv(j>r)s Sajiov uAT)e <r<7T)f pjjiici ijs K.T.A. cp Verg. Aen. 7:208, Threiciamque Samum, quae nunc Samothracia fertur; Strabo, 331, frg. 50, e/caAfiro e TJ SajuoSpaKrj 2oiju.o? rrpiv).*

So excellent a sailing-mark, placed also at a convenient distance in the passage from the Asiatic to the Thracian and Macedonian shores was certain to arrest attention. The ship in which Paul sailed from Troas (Acts 16:11) 'ran before the wind' (fvdv5po^ffa.iJ.ev [euthydromesamen], 'came with [RV 'made' ] a straight course' ) to the island, passing probably to the E. of Imbros, in order to avoid the Mythonaes reef which lies off the coast of Lemnos. Although the island possesses several good anchorages, it has no good harbour (vel importuosissima omnium, is its description by Plin. HN 4 23). The safest landing-place is near the promontory Acroteri at the western end of the island, and there was probably the ancient anchorage Demetrion, in which Paul s vessel may have spent the night at anchor. The old capital (now Paloeopoli] is on the northern side. The voyage to Macedonia thus occupied two days (v. 11), whereas the reverse journey on a subsequent occasion took five days (Acts 20:6).

In history Samothrace is chiefly famous as the main seat of the worship of the Cabiri and the religious mysteries connected therewith. The Cabiri were known to the Greeks as 'the Great Gods', and were probably pre-Hellenic and in the main of Semitic origin. Their worship was of great celebrity and lasted to a very late time. Both Philip of Macedon and his wife Olympias were initiated into the Cabiri mysteries (Plut. Alex. 2). After Delos, Samothrace numbered more votaries than any other spot in the Aegean (see Herod. 2:51 ; Aristoph. Pax, 277 ; Tac. Ann. 2:54). The cult was in full vigour in Paul's time. It was owing to its celebrity that Samothrace, which belonged to the Thracian kingdom, became a free state when Thrace was reduced to a province in 46 A. D. by Claudius (cp Tac. Hist. 1:11).

Literature. - Conze, Hauser, and Niemann, Archaologische Untersuchungen auf Sainotkrake (Vienna, 1875 Jf.) ; Conze, Reise auf lien Inseln des Thrakischcn Mecrcs (1860). Popular account in Tozer, Islands of the sEgean, 3ioyC w. J. \v.

1 Samos = height : cp Strabo, 346, <ra/aovs tKaXovc TO. v</oj. The word is of Semitic origin. The Samothracian coins are all subsequent to the time of Alexander. On an imperial coin of Hadiian occurs the remarkable inscription Sa^uW cv fr>paT) [samioon en thrake]. On some the fore-part of a ram, or a ram s head, occurs, a symbol of the cult of lower-world divinities of a pre-Hellenic type. See Head, Hist. Numm. 226.


(cAMyAKH [A], CAMVAMH [SV], lampsaco [whence EV nl e- LAMPSACUS], samsamie [Vg. ]) a locality mentioned first in a list of peoples and countries in 1 Mace. 15:23. According to Grimm, identical with Samsun, which is described by Abulfeda as lying on the Black Sea between Trebizond and Sinope. But some better known people or place is surely meant. The reading crafj.\^aKrj [sampsake] (cp Vet. Lat. ) is almost certainly an intentional corruption arising from the difficulty felt in identifying Sampsame (so, rather than Sampsames).