Encyclopaedia Biblica/Consulter with familiar spirits-Council

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search



(^Xb* a'lN), l)t. iSii. See DIVINATION, 4(ii.).


{'SI? N-1|5p). E.x.12.6. See .Vssi-.MHi.v, 3.


(iTjnr), 2S. 19 18 [19], RV^e-, EV FERRY BOAT (-/.t-.).


1. Kitchens[edit]

The task of preparing; the daily food naturally fell to the women of the household, even women of the highest rank attending, on occasion, to this part of the household duties (2 S. 1.38/. ; cp below). An apartment or apartments specially devoted to the preparation of food in other words, a kitchen can have been found only in the houses of the wealthy. We can realise without dilViculty the kitchen of the Hebrew kings and nobles from the life-like picture of that of Rameses 111. as figured on his tomb at Thebes (reproduced in Wilk. .}//<. Kgyl^t. 23234). In such establishments there were cooks, male(o'n3a: i S- 823/) and female (nin2D: i s. 8 13). In connection with the great sanctuaries, too, such as Shiloh (iS. I49) and Bethel, there must have been something of the nature of a public kitchen, where the worshippers had facilities for preparing the sacrificial meals. In his sketch of the restored temple at Jerusalem, Ezekiel makes provision for such kitchens (both for the priests [4tii9/". ] and for the people [21-24]), which are here called 'boiling-places' (ni'?r23, Mttveipe'tt [BAQ] : v. 23) and 'boiling houses' (RV V. 24 Q-SKinSTi'a, oiKOt tC}v fj.ayeipwi'). See CLEAN, 2.

2. Culinary arrangements.[edit]

In an ordinary Hebrew household, whose food, except on great occasions, was exclusively vegetarian, the culinary arrangements were of the simplest kind. Two large jars (ir. -^w-Z/t, => j > . the vSpia of Jn. 428 '16 jf.) of sun-dried clay had a place in the meanest house, one for fetching the daily supply of water from the spring carried then as now upon the head or on the shoulder 1 by the women of the household ((ien. 24 15/. ; cp i K. 18 33 [34]: EV 'barrel') the other for holding the store of wheat or barley for the d.iily bread ( i K. 1 7 12 14 16 : EV ' barrel ' ). In both the passages last cited the American revisers rightly prefer the rendering ' jars. ' To these we must add some instrument for crushing or grinding the grains of the various cereals used as food, in particular wheat and barley (see Food, i, Bkkad, i). The most primitive method was simply to crush the grains between two stones or rather to rub them upon a fiat stone by means of another. Such primitive corn-grinders or ' grain-rubbers ' (as they were called in Scotland) were found by Mr. Bliss at all stages of his excavations in Tell el-Hesy the probable site of Lachish ' long slabs flat on one side and convex on the other, w ith rounded ends' (Bliss, A Mound of Many Cities, 83, illustr. p. 85). They are found also tjoth in ancient and in modern Egypt (see illustr. in Erman's Egypt, 190, for the former; for the latter, Benz. //./ 85, Nowack, //.-/ liio). The pestle and mortar (see Moktak) re- present a later stage in the art of preparing food. The still more effective hand-mill or quern (n'nn) with its upper and nether millstones hence the dual form is the last to appear (Erman, op. cit. 189 ; see also MILL).^

J The practice varies in different part.s of S>Tia. In some parts the jar when empty is carried on the head ; when filled, on the shoulder (/.DMC 11 516).

2 Cp DouKhiy, Wr. />. 2179: 'After the water-skins a pair of millstones is the most necessary husbandry in an Arabian household.'

Milk (y.w.) was kept in skins (Judg. 419), but more usually in bowls, wine in skin bottles (see Botti.E, 1), oil and honey in earthenware Jars (see Cku.>^k, 2). Olives, grapes, figs, and the other fruits of the soil were no doubt kept partly in similar jars, partly in baskets, of which several varieties are named in OT and NT (see Basket). Such were the sal (Sp. Gen. 40 17 etc.; K0.VOVV [.ADEL]), a basket of wicker-work ; the thie (nj;:, Ut. 2ti2; KctpraWos [BAFL]; canistrutn, cp \'erg. A^.ii. 8180) for carrying wheat from the threshing-floor, to judge from the passage Dt. 28$ 17 (' blessed shall be thy basket and thy kneading-trough ' RV ; aX dirod?]- Kai ffov) ; ^ and the dud (in), a basket in which figs were gathered (Jer. 242 Ps. 81 6 [7] RV). The preparation of bread, always the staple article of diet, recjuired the kneading-trough (niNC'D) of wood, earthenware, or bronze according to circumstances, and the oven (tjb) men- tioned together Ex. 83(728) for which see Brkad, 2^.

3. Preparation of food[edit]

Coming now to cooking, in the ordinary sense that is, the preparation of food by the agency of fire - we find that various methods of cooking to which reference is made may be grouped under two heads.

The food w.as cooked either ( 1 ) by bringing it into immediate contact with the source of heat, whether as in the case of the ash-cakes {s///fiinericius pa?iis, i K. 196, described under Bkkad, 2 ) or in the rough and ready method of roasting on the live embers (see below) or in the more civilised method of roasting by means of spit or gridiron ; or (2) by using a suitable liquid as the medium for transmitting the heat required such as water, milk, oil, or fat (in frying). It would' seem that the Hebrews originally included these various processes under the general term '?c'3.

The original signification of this verb.il root was evidently ' to be or to i)ecome ripe,' 'to ripen' applied to grain (Joel 3(41 13) and fruit ((ien. 40 10), from which the transition to the idea of ' making (food) eatable ' i.e., cooking was easy (cp post-biblical TC'^, something cooked, a ' dish ). Hence we find C'K3 7r3 'cooked with fire' (2Ch. 35i3) and D"23 7B\20 'cooked with (or in) water' (Ex.129), when it is important that 'ro.-jsted' and ' boiled shall l>e precisely distinguished. In ordinary langu-ige, however, ?C'3 was used only in the sense of 'boil,' while for the various forms of ' roasting ' indicated under (i) above (i S. 215 Is. 44 16 19) use was made of the word nh'i- That which was roasted, a roast, was '?S (Is. 44 16 ; cp "Sj7 roasted or parched corn ; see Food, i). In the Talmud a third verb is frequently found alongside of n7S and 7S'3 viz., PPf", which is applied not only to the cooking of flesh but also to the boiling down of fruit to make preserves (.Ma'as. 4i, AV/. 88). These three verbs are generally taken to represent the Latin assare, coqiiere, and elixare respectively, in which case yhv would signify ' to boil thoroughly ' (cp Cn.l in Ezek. '24 10, R V ' to boil well,' and nm. "^- 7'. 5) : it is probably equiva- lent to our 'stew,' since in the absence of knives and forks (see Meai..s) the Oriental has to stew his meat till it can be readily pulled in pieces by the hand.

WTien the meat was boiled in a larger quantity of water than was necessary for stewing, the rich licjuor which resulted was known as pio. mdrdk (Judg. 6 19/. Is. 604 kr. [Kt. pnE] EV ' broth '), also perhaps as ""Ji^'O (Ezek. 24 10, RV 'make thick the broth'). The meat and the broth might be served together or separately (the latter by Gideon, Judg. loc. cit.). When the meat, on the other hand, is set on with a smaller quantity of water, to which onions or other pungent vegetables or spices have been added, the result is the favourite Arab stew yahni {^.), perhaps the p^Vr [Ned.1) and nip^c* (^Ab. Z.ar. '2s) of the Mishna. The ' savoury meat ' (ceyBOi Gen. 274 : cp Prov. 283) which Rebekah prepared from ' two kids of the goats ' was doubtless a spicy stew of this kind.

1 The Mishnic Heb. 'po is a large metal basket ; cp BDB, and, for this and other vessels, J. Krengcl, Das Hausgerat in dtr Mishnah, 1 Theil, 1899 (see index).

A reference to another modern dish, kibbeh, which has been called the national dish of Syria, has been fuund by various scholars in Prov. 'JTaa kV : '1 hough thou shoulde'st bray a fool in a mortar with a pestle anions bruised corn, yet will not his foolishness depart from him.' This exactly describes the opera- tion of inakiniJ kihhth : the mutton is first (K>uiidcd to shreds in a wooden or stone mortar ; it is then mixed with hurghul (see Kdoo, ( i). and the whole boiled and served. I [Hut on the text SCO Exp. T. viii. I '97], 432; where niB'in 'bruised corn' (?) is emended to Vian, 'his fellows.'J

When an animal of the herd (npa) or of the flock (|^is see, further, Food, 11, and Sacrifice) was to l>e prepared for food it was first slaughtered accord- ing to the prescrilxxl method and the carcase thoroughly drained of its blood. For skinning. Hint knives (cp rhzva Judg. 1929) were used in early times (cp Josh, iiiff., RV

  • knives of Hint ') such as those recovered from Tell-el-

Hesy (Bliss, op. cit. 194, illustr. 106). Sacrificial knives were later known as D's'^no (F-zralg; cp post- biblical fii57n) ; a knife for ordinary domestic purposes was |'2r (I'rov. 2^2) in later Hebrew always pso. The animal was then cut up, the technical term for which was nn: (Lev. 16 12, and often) a single p'ece nnj" the priests received the portions that were their due and the remainder was consigned to the pot. The latter, if of copper, had in later times to be scrupulously scoured (p-c) and rinsed (rcc-, Zebah. \\i,ff.; cp Mk. 74) when the cooking was over.

4. Firing[edit]

The primitive hearth was formed of a couple of stones by which the \>o\. was supported, room being left beneath for the fuel - wood or dung (see COALS, 2). Large pots might be placed on the top of the tatiniir or baking oven, as at the present day ; such an arrangement was found to have been in use in the ancient Lachish (see Bliss, op. cit. 97). The sinaller pots were boiled on a chafing dish or pan containing charcoal (c'n its, Zech. 126 AV 'hearth of fire,' RV 'pan of fire'), as in Rameses' kitchen. In Lev. 11 35 there is mention, alongside of the tannur or oven, of the kiraim (d'TD, Kvdpbirohi% [BF], xi'-rpoTToSes [AL] ; EV ' range[s] for pots,' RV"'S- ' stew-pan '). According to the Talmud, it was a port- able cooking-stove, capable of holding two pots (hence the dual) as distinguished from the kuppdh (,1313, better nsz), a stove which had room for only one pot (Jastrow, Diet., S.V.). Like the tannur, it was of baked clay, and, therefore, easily broken (cp Di. in lac. and Now. HA 2280, n. ). The kirHh (in the sing. ) and the kiippdh are frecjuently mentioned together in the Mishna (see esp. Kflim). For carrying the necessary charcoal a ladle or firepan (nnns) was used (E.\. 273883 ; in Num. 166^ 'censer' ; Kel. 237) ; for stirring and adjusting it, a pair of tongs (D;ni;'?p Is. 66) ; 07; shovels {pala or rutrum), for removing the ashes, are mentioned, but only in connection with the great altar (see Ai,t.\r, 9). The bellows (nsp ; <pv<TriT-fip [BNAg]) of Jer. 629 was probably used only by the metal smelters for a descrip- tion and illu-stration, see Wilkinson, op. cit. 2312. The ordinary housewife was content to fan the charcoal with a fan (nsjs, AV/. I67) of feathers, as pictured in the representation of Rameses' kitchen referred to above.

1 For other modern dishes see Lane (.^/ol/. Egypt. 5) and esp. the elaborate menu of a native dinner in Klunzinger (.Upper Kgypt, 59/).; see also, for Syria, Landberg {Fr<jver6es et Dictons, passim).

a The j;ood piece ' (.W) or ' portion ' (RV) of flesh which David distributed among the people at the inbrinying of the ark (2 S. 6 19 I Ch. 16 3) is only one of several traditional renderings of the doubtful Heb. word ff , the real signification of which has been lost. See Dr. TBS in loc. [Since the word appcars to be corrupt, the emendation "IKJr Dp, 'a piece of flesh," has been suggested by Cheyne. This easy alteratioti suits the context.]

5. Cooking utensils[edit]

The names of various utensils in which food was actually cooked are differently rendered in EV without any attempt at consistency : pan, kettle, cauldron, pot (this order is the list given in I .S. 2 14). The data at our command do not permit of these being accurately distinguished one from another. In the houses of the poor they were doubtless of glazed or even unglazed earthenware ('Va fcnn, Lev. 628[2i]; see roTTKKY) ; in those of the wealthier classes, of bronze [^f^\ "^3, loc. cit., Ezek. 24 11). The difference of rank (so to say) Ijctween the two materials gives point to Ben Sira's illustration. What fellowship shall the earthen jxjt have with the [brazen] kettle?' (x"T/)a irp6j X^/iT/ra : Ecclus. 182/ ). In connection with the temple we read not only of pots and caldrons made of bronze (i K.745 2 K. 2i)i4 Jer. 52 18) but also of such vessels of silver and gold (Jer. 52 .9).

  • i. For boiling meat various vessels were employed

(cp I S. 214). (a) The most fre(|uently mentioned is the TD. sir, pot or caldron. It was used for cooking the ordinary family meal (2 K. 438/ Mic. 83 Ex. I63 [flesh pots of l':gypij), and for boiling the sacrificial flesh (Zech. 1420). It served also for a ' wash pot ' (Ps. 608 [10]). It must have Ijeen one of the largest of the cook- ing vessels, to judge from the incident rc-corded in 2 K. 438^ ('the great pot' for the whole comjjany of the prophets). (/>) 'Y\\<i kiyydr (^y-^) must have been a wide, shallow pot of considerable size, since the same name is given to the ' laver of brass ' (E.\. 80 18) at which the priests were to wash their hands and feet. It served as a chafing-dish (Zech. 126). Wherein the kiyyor differed from (<r) iha pdrur (nns) in which the manna was boiled (Nu. 118 RV), and {tf} the i//,ct (n^r,, Job 41 2o[i2]), and {e) the kalldhath (nn'";;, Mic. 83), we do not know.

In Job 41 20 [12] caldron (AV) is a mistranslation of pcJK (see

Rush, 2). In 2 ti 1^9 MT has nnc'S, not found elsewhere (EV pan); but the true re.-iding is probably '[and she called the] servant ' (mro : so Klo. followed by Ki. and liu.).

These various pots, pans, etc., were probably used without a

lid (in late Heb. '?E2), although the obscure TCS of Nu. 19 15 is taken by some to have this signification.

  • ii. A fork (jSip, jSia) of two or three (iS. 213)

prongs was used to lift the meat from the pot, and also to stir the contents of the latter (see illustration, Wilkin- son, op. cit. 32).

  • iii. The spoons (niss) mentioned among the furniture

of the table of shewbread (Ex. 2529) and elsewhere were more probably shallow bowls. We find, however, in the Mishna, real spoons (inn) made of bone {Shabb. 8 6, AV/. 17 2) and of glass (AW. 30 2). There is also mention of a wooden cooking ladle (ry ttb Besdh, 1 7), which was probably used for removing the scum (,nxVn, Ezek. 246 n, so AV ; but this word is more probably ' rust ' as RV) from the contents of the pdrHr or pot (otherwise explained by Levy, s.v. -ins).

6. Roasting[edit]

While boiling, to judge from the comparative frequency of the OT references, was the favourite mode of cooking flesh-meat, there need be no hesitation in saying that roasting also was practised from the earliest times. In its most primitive form, roasting, as we have seen, consists in laying the meat directly on the ashes or other source of heat, either kindled on the ground or in a pit specially dug (Burckhardt, A'otes, etc. 1 240, Rob. jyA' ['41], 1 118 304). The fish of which the disciples partook by the lake of Galilee was cooked by being laid on the charcoal (6\pa.piov iTrLKfifjiivov, Jn. 2I9).

The spit, the 6(i(\6s of the Homeric poems, is not mentioned, as it happens, in the OT ; but of its use there need be no doubt. In Egypt, Erman tells us, ' the favourite national dish, the goose, was generally roasted over live embers ; the spit is very primitive, a stick stuck through the b<'ak and neck of the bird. They roasted fish in the same way, sticking the spit through the tail' (E^pt, 189, illustr. ib., and Wilk. 23s). The wooden spit was favoured by the Romans (cp Verg. Georg. 2396, ' Pinguiaque in verubus torrebimus exta colurnis).' Later Hebrew legislation - in this, no doubt, perpetuating an ancient practice - required that the Passover lamb should be roastetl on a spit of pomegranate (jisy'jr nSsp [Levy, nttr] ^". 7i). The ordinary spit, being of iron, so much we may infer from llie demand that a spit purchased from an id(jlater must be cleansed in the fire (Ai. Zara. 612) was not allowed for the above-mentioned purpose ; neither was the gridiron (n^roK. Pes. 7 2). The spit, we may sup- pose, rested on andirons ^ (/Sdo-ets, vara), on which it could be turned by the hand.

The passage of the treatise Pesahim above referred to speaks further of roasting, or more exactly of broiling, on a gridiron placed apparently ovir the mouth of a tanniir or baking oven. The gridiron was perhaps used to prepare the piece of broiled fish [ix^vo^ diTToO fji^poi) of Lk. 2442. Not only flesh and fish but also eggs, onions, etc., were roasted by the Jews (SAadi. 1 10).

The favourite mode of roasting meat for ordinary household purposes at the present day in Syria is by means of skewers. The meat is cut into small pieces, which are stuck upon the skewers and roasted over a brazier. Meat thus prepared is termed kfbiib.

7. Vegetable food.[edit]

With regard to the food-products of the vegetable kingdom (see P'ood), many vegetables were of course eaten raw (wm6j. in Hebrew 'n. literally 'living', a word applied not only to raw animal flesh [i S. liis Lev. 13io_/], but also to fish [AV(/ar. 64]. to vegetables \ib.\ and even to unmixed wine). They were also cooked by being boiled, alone or mixed with various ingredients such as oil and spices. The Hebrew housewives, we may be sure, were not behind their modern kinsfolk of the desert, of whom Doughty testifies that ' the Arab house- wives make savoury messes of any grain, seething it and putting thereto only a little salt and samn' [Ar. Des.2130). Thus, of the cereals, the obscure 'drisdh j (,iDny. Nu. 1520/".) was probably a porridge of barley 1 groats (see, further. Food, 1), whilst Jacob sod for ! himself a dish (rij. EV 'pottage') of lentils (Gen. j 252934) ; the same name is given to the vegetarian dish prepared for the sons of the prophets (2 K. 438/:; cp H.igg. 212). In NT times, at least, it was known that the pulses or pod-plants were improved by being soaked (MH .mc-) before being boiled. \'arious kinds, such as beans and lentils, miglu l>e b(jilod together (Orlah. I7): they might also, like our French beans, j be boiled in the pods (niS-Sp). In the OT we find men- 1 tion of the mahabath (nano, TTp/a.vov, W 'pan,' RV 'baking-pan,' mg. 'flat pkate,' Lev. 2s 621 [14], etc.) | and the marhisheth (nrn-C, LV 'frying pan,' Lev. 2? j 79). The mahabath certainly (see Ezek. 43), and the | marht'shcth probably, was of iron ; and, although both are u.sed with reference only to the s;icrificial cakes (see B.\Ki:MiiAr.s, Bkkad), we may legitimately infer from the fact that the martyrs of 2 Mace. 7 were roasted alive on the r-r)'ya.vov [vv. 35; cp late Heb. word jj-a) that both may have been used also in the preparation of meat.

To judge from the prepositions employed ('7^, 'on', and 3, ' in"), the mahabath was deeper than the marMsheth. This inference is confirmed by the tradition, which we find in the Mishna, that the difference between the marliishtth and the tnaJtdbath consisted in the former having a lid ("Dr) while the latter had none ; to which another authority adds that the former is deep and its contents fluid, the latter flat and its contents firm (Menali. 58). The mahabath, in sliort, was a stewpan, the marhtslitth similar to a Scotch ' girdle,' a flat iron plate on which oatcakes are baked. A striking illustration of Kzek.43 is furnished by Doughty (Ar. Des. 1 593), who describes an iron -plated door in the castle of Hayil : ' the plates (in the indigence of their arts) are the shield-like iron pans (tannur) upon which the town house- wives bake their girdle-bread.'

1 Some would give this or a simitar sense to rthjDtt- See Jastrow, Diet, j.j:

Other utensils named or implied are {a) the sieve, ndphdh (,iBj, Is. 3O28; SAaM. 82, AiotA, bis), for sifting the flour, and (6) the strainer, m/Iamm^re/A, n-nvD (Shabb. 20 1, Ab. ;i5 [especially for wine] ; cp Is. 256, Mt. 23 44). An ordinary bowl, however, might be perforated so as to serve as a strainer, as we see from the pottery of Tell-el-Hesy (Bliss, op. cit. 85). To these may be added (f) one of the commonest of the post-biblical terms for a jxjt, ,TTip ; hence .ttij? .irj'3 came to signify 'cooked food' (Nedar. 61). For the vessels used for serving food, see MicALS, 8.

8. Condiments.[edit]

The importance of oil in the Hebrew kitchen will \x: noticed under OIL (q.v.). In early times the custom, so popular among the modern Arabs, of boiling flesh in milk seems to haveprevailed among the Hebrews. The oldest legislation - confirmed by the Deuteronomic - limited this practice so far as to forbid (for reasons that are still obscure : cp Foon, 13, and see Magic, Sackifick) the seething of a kid in its mother's milk (Ex. 23 19 3426 Dt. 14 21). In NT times this prohibition had been extended far beyond its original intention.

Thus we read in the Mishna : ' It is forbidden to seethe (Sv!Z) any sort of flesh in milk, except the flesh of fish and locusts ; it is also forbidden to set flesh upon the table along with cheese ' (with the same exceptions, Khullin, 8 i). It was still delated whether the prohibition applied to fowls and game or only to cattle, sheep, and goats (ih, 4). In the course of time, however, it became part of the Jewish dietary law, that two distinct sets of cooking utensils one for meat alone, and another for dishes into the preparation of which milk or butter enters are required in every orthodox Jewish kitchen (see on this law of ::'7na '\Z'1 esp. Wiener, Die jiid. Speisegesetzt, 41-120 ['95]). Extreme purists have gone the length of using three (Jb. 115/O and even four such sets. A. K. S. K.


or rather, as in RV and i Mace. I523 EV, COS (kcoC I ow Stanchio i.e., es Ty)v koj), the least and most southerly of the four principal islands off the coast of Asia Minor. It lies at the entrance to a deep bay, on the two projecting promontories of which were Cnldus and Halicarnassus. It owed its fertility to its volcanic origin, and its commercial importance to its position. It lies on the high road of all maritime traffic between the Dardanelles and Cyprus : vessels coasting in either direction must pass within half a mile of the capital (also called Cos), which was on the E. extremity of the island, and had a good anchorage and a port sheltered from all winds except those from the SE. Lucan {Phar. 8243) thus sketches the usual route of ships:

Ephesonque relinquens Radit saxa Saiiii ; spirat de litorc Coo Aura Jiuens : CnidoH inde/u^it, claramque relinquit Sole Rhodon.

In precise agreement with this is the account of Paul's voyage from Macedonia to Palestine (Acts 21 1). His ship ran before the wind (ei^^uSpo/u^ffavTes) from Miletus, about 40 ni. to the N., down to Cos {i.e., either the island or the capital : probably the latter is meant ) ; next day it reached Rhodes.

In spite of its geographical advantages, Cos remained historic- ally unimportant. Its inhabitants, apparently of deliberate choice, eschewed foreign relationships, and devoted themselves to the development of internal resources. No colonies were sent out ; for long the capital was in the west of the island ; the strategic and commercial importance of its present site was ignored until 366 B.C. When at last the Coans were compelled to emerge from their seclusion, it was only to echo the voice of Rhodes in all matters of foreign policy. The success of this concentration of energy is indicated by the fact that Cos ranked with Rhodes, Chios, Samos, and I^sbos as one of the fioxcipuf iWjtroi (Diod. Sic. 581 82), and by the existence of the saj-ing 'He who cannot thrive in Cos will do no better in Egypt.' 1 Allied with this material prosperity was the development of liberal arts. Under the Ptolemies Cos became an important literary centre. With it are connected the names of Theocritus the poet, BerOssus the historian, Apelles the painter, and, at an earlier date (5th cent. B.C.), Hippocrates the physician. Cos was one of the great centres of the worship of Aesculapius, and of the caste or medical school of Asclepiadae. Claudius in 53 A.D. gave the island the privilege of immunity, mainly for its medical fame (Tac. Ann. 126i).

1 &i> ov Opiifiti Kwt ixtivov ovSi Alyvirrot.

Among the commercial proclucts of the island were unguents, two kinds of wine, poUery (amphora- Cotr, Pliny, //.V .15 i6i), and silk for Konian ladies (C'lxr pur^unr, Hor. Oii. iv. 13 13 vtites tenues, Tibull. ii. 3 55). Cos Is still an active port. .Strabo (657) notes the fair aspect of the city to one entering the roads.

Interesting is the connection of Cos with the Jews. As Mithridates seized 800 talents deposited in the island by the Jews of Asia (Jos. Ant. xiv. 7 a), there must then have been a Jewish settlement there engaged in banking. In I Mace. 1623 Cos is mentioned in the list of places to which the circular letter of the Roman senate in favour of the Jews [circa 139-8 B.C. ) is said to have been addressed. In 86 n. c. (Jaius Fannius wrote to the Coan authorities enclosing a setia/us cofisiiltum to secure safe convoy for Jewish pilgrims to Jerusalem. The island was connected also with Herod the Great (Jos. B/ i. 21 11), and with his son Antipas (Boeckh, 2502).

Best authority, Inscriptions 0/ Cos, hy I'aton and Hicks, 1891 ; an attempt at direct combination of cpigrai)hy and i history. W. J. VV. 1


(n'^'m ; x&Akoc ; cp Bk.\ss). The compound of copper and zinc that we call brass appears to have been little known to the ancients ; but we have abundant evidence that copper was early known, and that it was hardened by means of alloys into bronze.

1. In Egypt[edit]

Seneferu, a conquering pharaoh of the fourth dyn;isty, worked the Sinaitic j copper mines, and M. de Morgan has found some articles of cop[x;r in the tomb of .Menes (traditionally regarded as the first king of I'"gypt), explored by him in j 1897. M. Amclineau appears to have proved that j copper was known at an even earlier date, and from his researches and those of Mr. Quiljell at Kuni el- .Mimar we may probably conclude that the Pharaonic ] l-",gyptians were from the first not ignorant of the use j of gold and copper [hint). Theinines in the Sinaitic I pLMiinsula continued to be the chief source from which 1 the Kgyptians drew their copjjer (see Masjjero, Dawn of 1 Civ. 355, and cp .Si.SAi) ; but in the fifteenth century I they obtained it also from Al.a.sia i.e., CvHKUs' (see Am. Tab., 25 and 27), where Cesnola has found both copper and bronze celts in Thoenician remains.

2. In Babylonia.[edit]

The oldest Babylonian specimens of copper are those found by M. de Sarzec at Tello (lx;fore 2500 B.C.); at Tell es-.Sifr, in the same neighbourhood Mr. Loftus found even a large copper factory (1500 B.C.). In Babylonian graves, and also in what Dr. J. P. Peters calls a jeweller's shop (at Nippur), objects made of copj^er (belonging to circa 1300 n. c. ) have been found. Honimel thinks, on philological grounds, that the Semitic Babyloni.ans as metallurgists were pupils of the .Sumerians, and dates their acquaintance with copjjer and iron very early.- The inscriptions make frecjuent mention of copper [.yiparu] and bronze ^ [crU, also ku, and urudu ; cp Lat. rc.udus = <es infect urn). The ancient hymn (in Sumerian and .Assyrian) to Gibil, the tire-god, e.vtols him for his services in the mixing of cop;>;r and tin (cp Tulxil-c.ain, and see C.\initks, 10). The .\ssyrians used bronze a.\es as late as the ninth century. They derived their copper and bronze largely from the so-called Nairi countries ; ultimately, therefore, from Armenia ; the copper in the tribute paid to Kanunan-nirari III. by Damascus is mentioned elsewhere (Iron).*

1 Flinders Petrie also accepts Winckler's identification of Alalia in .Am. Tab. with Cyprus (where copper was worked). See his argument, Syria ami Kgypt, 44 ('98).

a Diesftnif. /'^y/Xrr, I410.

3 Cp Lenornuint, TSHA 6334^

  • On iron and bronze among the Babylonians and Assyrians,

cp Winckler, AOt\ ii^fT.

  • Cp the important descriptive phra.se quoted in Del. Par.

333, &id Ba'ali-sapOna sadu rabO siparri the mountain Baal-sapun, great moimtain of copper ' ; also Sargon, .Ann. 23. where ba'il-japuna, ' llie great mountain,' is spoken of as containing mines (copper?).

3. In Canaan.[edit]

The Canaanites, naturally enough, were well acquainted with copper. According to Ritter ( Erdk.\'i 1063, cited by Knobel), there are still traces of ancient copper-mines in the Lebanon ;' this is confirmed by what seems to be an assertion of the fact in Dt. 89 and Zech. 61 (see below, g 5). On the E. of the Lclxmon range copper nmst have been abundant in the 'land of Nuhassi ' [Am. Tab.), which HaLevy ingeniously identifies with ZOBAH ; and in later times there were cop[jer mines in Edoni at Phainon, or Phenon (cp Pino.n). 1 he Phoenicians early employed bronze for works of art,' and the great mound of lell el-lle.sy, believed to l)c Lachish, proves that the Amoritcs who dsvelt there had usetl their opportunities. ' In the remains of the Amorite city (iH;rhaps 1500 B.C.) there are large rough weapons of war, in.ade of copjK'r without admixture of tin ; alxjve this, dating perhaps from 1250 to 800, appear bronze tools, but the bron/e gradually becomes scarcer, its place being taken by iron"-* (see IRON).

4. In Israel.[edit]

Whatever, therefore, be the date of 1 Samuel 17:5 as a document, we may feel quite certain that the Philistine warriors had armour of bronze ; indeed, their ancestors in Asia Minor doubtless had bronze weapons long Ix;fore Davids time."* Goliath, however, uses weapons of attack made of iron (the kidon [?] of bronze can hardly be a javelin ; see Goliath).

The statement in Josh. 624 (copper or bronze vessels found in Jericho) will be in the main correct ; al.so that in 2 S. 8 8, in as far as it relates to the abundance of bronze in Syria. Whether the serpent of bron/e called Nkhlshian \q.v.'\ was earlier than the temple of Solomon may, perhaps, be doubled. At any rate, the notice in Xu. 'i-lg (JK) is as much of an anachroni.sm as that in Ex. 382-8 (P). The Israelites in the wilderness had no workers in bronze. Nor could David find a competent bronze-worker in all Israel ; the statements resjiecting Hiram the artificer in i K.7i3# are no doubt historical.'* In the later regal period it was, of course, quite otherwise (cp Jer. 628/! Ezek. 22 18 20). From 2 K. 25 13/'. Jer. 52 17 / we learn that the Babylonians broke the sacred vessels of bronze and carried away the metal to Babylon ; no doubt Rehoboam's shields of 'brass' (i K. I427 2 Ch. 12io) went there too ; but the chief losses were probably repaired. The cymbals in the second temple were certainly of copper or bronze, as we may infer from I Ch. 15 19 Jos. Ant. vii. I23 (cp i Cor. 13 1). Gates of ' brass' are mentioned in Ps. 107 16 Is. -102 (cp Herod. I179, and see Mr. Pinches' account of the bronze gates of Balawat) i' mining implements of ' brass ' in Ecclus. 48 17 (Heb. Text).

6. OT usage.[edit]

That ' brass ' (bronze) should be used to symlxilise hardness and strength is natural. In time of drought, it seemed as if the heavens were bronze, so that no rain could pass through them (Dt. 2823), or as if the earth were bronze, so that it could never be softened again (Lev. 2619). A sufferer asks if his ' flesh ' [i.e. , body) is of brass (Job6 12), as the Ixmes of Behemoth (Job 40 i8)and the brow of disobedient Israel (Is. 484) are, by other writers, said to be. To \x com- pared with brass is not, however, the highest distinc- tion. It was the third empire in Nebuchadrezzar's vision that was of ' brass' (Dan. 239 cp f.32). On the other hand, ' brass ' in the obscure phrase ' mountains of brass " (Zech. 61) has no symbolic meaning : ' brass ' [i.e. , copper) is merely mentioned to enable the reader to identify the mountains (cp Nuhassi, the ' copperland ' ; see 3).

1 Perrot and Chipicz, A rt in Phimicia and Cyprus.

2 Dr. J. H. Gladstone, 'The Metals of .Vntiquity, ' .Va/rr, April 21, 1898. p. 596.

3 Schliemann's discovery of weapons of copper and bronze on the site of Troy is well known.

  • On the right reading of 1 K. 746, see Adam, i.
  • The bronze ornaments of the palace gates from Balaw^i

(parts i.-iv.) published by Soc. o/Bibl. Archteol.

Difficult as the passage is, we need not despair of e.xplaining it. The ' mountains of brass ' are parallel to the ' mountains (iS n>v opiiov) in the river-land ' (^^^S3 ; cp nSiS Is. 44 27) />., those visible from Babylonia in Zech. 1 8, and must have been ai well known as these to Zechariah's hearers or readers. They were no tloubt the ' hills out of which thou inayest dig copper ' (Ut. Hg) /.<., Lebanon and Hermon (see above, 3), which formed the northern boundary of the Holy Land. It is the ' land of the north' (the seat of the empire of the Selcucidie?) that chiefly occupied the thoughts of the speaker' (lis). See ZECHARiAH, Book of. On 2J'?>p nrn: Ezra 8 27, cp Colours, S 7- . - - T. K. C.


(13, perh. Ass. idr/t [v. Muss-Arnolt, s.7:], or from ^/ -113 ; see No. ZDMG 40 734 ['86]), a measure of ca]3acity = an homer (10 ephahs or baths); of wheat and barley (i K. 422 [52]; EV 'measure,' mg. 'cor'; 2 Ch. 2 10 [9] 27 5 ; RV"'K- ' cors ' ). As a liquid measure [^zek. 4514. 2 K. 625 (emended te.xt) speaks of ^ cor of carobs (see HusKs).

In I K. 5ii [25] 'measures of oil' is wrong; read JCC' PS ' baths of oil," after and II 2 C"h. i 9. Kopos [BAL] a loan-word, which in (S represents both 13 and TOh, occurs once in NT (Lk. 107 RVing. 'cors'; .VVi"H- says ' about 14 bushels and a pottle '). See Weights and Mkasukes.


is EV's rendering in Job 28 18 Ezek. 27i6 of niDSI, a word of unknown origin, which occurs also in Prov 247, where EV treats it as a derivative of '" -^-'7 meaning 'too high'

Most commentators, however (Hitz., Siegfr. -Sta. , etc. ), suppose that there is a reference to a precious object called ra moth as if the wise man meant, Wisdom is as much out of the fool's reach as coral.' Neither explanation is satisfactory.'^

l.Ramoth unidentified[edit]

The word occurs only twice, and, since the Vss. shed an uncertain light on the meaning, we must be content to make the most of internal evidence.

Ezek. has Aa/iia>8 [MQ), pa;oifid [.\], serkuin ; Job has nereupa [r.N.VC Theod.], v>prj\a. tSym.], excelsa- Prov. has ao<\>ia. xai ivvoio. aya^T iv nvKa.i'i [B^A] for -\]:ci niC3n '?? ITSNT [Vg.,

The context in Job {rdmoth, gdbis, pUniiiim) shows that some precious and ornamental substance is intended, and Dillmann infers from the language that rantdth Wiis regarded as less valuable iUan phii/iim (see below). According to MT of Ezek. 27 16, rdmoth, with ndphek, argdmdn, rikmah, bfis, and kadhkodh, was brought into the Tyrian market by merchants of Syria ; but probably (see CoriiiU, ad loc. ) we should read for Aram (cnx) Edom (nnx);'* as Cornill remarks, Edoni was an im- portant stage in the transport of merchandise westward from S. Arabia and India. This last indication of the provenance of rdmoth makes against the usual rabbinic rendering, ' coral ' ; for the red coral of commerce the hard calcareous skeleton of the colonial Actinozoon, Corallium /lof-ile. Pal. {riihrum. Da Costa), which is widely distributed in the Mediterranean and the Atlantic as far as the Cape \'erd Islands, and is a considerable source of weaUh in the Mediterranean basin occurs in its natural state much less frequently S. and E. of Suez.

1 This interpretation is due to GratzC/^'- Zt. 1885, pp. 549/) ; it has been overlooked by even the most recent commentators. For other views, on the whole very improbable ones, see Wright, Zcchariali, 124 /. ; Now. and G.VSm. decline to offer any opinion.

Bickell : ' If thou hold thy peace (niS'i]) before a fool, thou art wise."

3 Targ. Job 28 16 has, for niONn. n3Si:D = o-i'*iP"7 of Theophr., etc., viz., native realgar, or ruby .sulphur (disulphide of arsenic). It is used to a limited extent as a pigment, but can- not be intended here (indication, however, of colour).

4 With Aq., Pesh., some Heb. MSS, and virtually (ai^p(i- !rous = cnK)' Sym. and Theod. support MT.

2. Peninim perhaps coral.[edit]

2. In RV">'- 'corals' (Lam. 47), 'red coral,' and 'pearls' (Job28i8 Prov. ;?i5 811 2O15 31 10) are suggested as renderings alternative to ' rubies ' (see RUBV, i) for c'r:3 peninim. Certainly ' rubies ' is not a good rendering. The words, ' the catching' (7iir,p ; EV, improbably, ' price ) of wisdom is above that of rubies,' in Job 28 18, would seem to imply that a fishery was in the case,^ and, if two of our best critics may be followed, the nobles of Jerusalem are described in Lam. 4? as ' purer than snow, whiter than milk, more ruddy than branches oi pitiinim ' {i.e., obviously, of coral ).'^ Another reference to plniniin, of considerable interest, occurs in Ps. 45 14 [13], where we should no doubt read cV'JSt for no'JS ; the whole line should perhaps run, ' on her neck is a wreath of peninim ' (see Che. Pi.C-' <2ii loc. ).

3. Coral-like stones.[edit]

In the somewhat obscure question as to identification of the substance or substances intended by ramoth and peninim, it ought not to be overlooked that certain stones valued by the ancients seem to have been named from their resemblance to coral. Pliny, Ijefore passing from the onyx and alabaster group, speaks of a valuable ' corallite stone' found in Asia, of a white hue, somewhat approach- ing that of ivory, and in some degree resembling it {HN 3613); also of corallis, a native of India and Syene, resembling minium in appearance ; and of coralloachates or coral-agate, commonly found in Crete, and there called the ' sacred ' agate, similar to coral, and spotted. all over, like the sapphire, with drops of gold (3754 56).


(;C'r~li3), I S. 30 30. See Borashan.


(korB&n [Ti.], korBan [WH], Mk. 7iit. transliteration of Heb. |3"1f3, an oflering ; ^ explained by h^cpov, 'gift' (cp Mt. los; similarly Jos. ^i/. iv. 44: Kop^av), a kind of votive offering; an object devoted to the deity, and therefore taliooed.* Josephus {I.e.) uses the word in speaking of the Nazirites who were dedicated to God as a corban, and of the temple treasure, which was inviolable (/i/ii. 94 ; . . . rbv lepbv d-quavpov, KaXeiTM 5i KopjSwvds ; cp Mt. 276 Kopfiavas). Theo- phrastus, among foreign oaths, especially quotes the corban as one belonging to the Jews, which was forbidden to the Tyrians (cp Jos. c. Ap. 1 22, 167). It is easy to see that by interdicting himself by a vow a man was able to refrain from using or giving away any particular object, and might thus evade any troublesome obligation. Several abuses crept in (cp Ned. 56), and, in the passage cited (Mk. 7ii cp Mt. ISs), Jesus denounces a system which allowed a son, by pronouncing the word ' corban ' (and thus vowing a thing to God), to relieve himself of the duty of helping a parent. Cp comm. on Mt. los Mk. 7ii, and especially L. Cappellus on Mt. ISs; also

1 The text may, however, be corrupt ; -jk'O is a singular term. We might emend to ,inrm% '(wi.sdom) is esteemed ' (Che.).

2 The common rendering is ' . . . more ruddy in body than ptninim' (cp EV). But 'in body' (csj;) appears superfluous here ; whereas if we transpose the preposition, and read "lij-o instead of 'd csVi we get a good sense (see above). does not represent either '^y or Qsy. See Bu. and Bickell, ad loc.

^ In P of the Hexateuch it is the comprehensive term for all offerings ' presented ' to God, bloody or bloodless ; see also Ezek. '20 28 40 43.

4 See Levy, Chald. WSrterb., s.v. JSTip, NHWB, s.v. D:'ip, C:iip [mutilations of the formula, which are equally binding, NedariDi, 1 2, as will be explained under Vow, 4), and also Ban, I, Sackikice, Vow.

5 For I K. 20 31 see Turban.

6 Job 4 21 RV 'tent-cord,' RVmg- AV 'excellency.' , how- ever, expresses ib'3'1 Cn3 Hr: N*?,!) 'Surely when he blows upon them, they wither." This is preferable (so Beer).


(xopBe [B.\]), iEsd.5i2 AV = Ezra29. Zaccai.


There is no scarcity of Hebrew terms to denote cord of one kind or another.

Among the commonest words are San Itcbcl (\/to bind), and in;, yctker {^10 stretch), both used of cords or ropes for drawing, hauling (cp 2 S. 17 13 EV ' rope '),8 of tent-ropes (Is. 33 20 Job 4 2i),6 and of ship's tackle ; see Ship, Tent, 3. Vether ( in Judg. vfvpa.), which seems to denote rather 'gut,' and its derivative TTI'D, are used also specially of bowstrings (Ps. II2 21 12 [13]). Less frequent terms are : tjin hftt (v^to sew), 'thread' (Gen. 14 2? Jiidg. Itiia Cant. 43; AV 'fillet,' RV 'line' in Jer. 6J21); .TE,73 nikf>nh (v/to encircle, go round), Is. 824 RV 'rope' (AV rent); Diy Wblidth {c'p \ss. ahuttu, fetter'XJudg. 15i3, etc.; ^'TlB /.dthll, Nu. I538, etc., Judg. IC.9 (.\V thread, RV string), (for Gen. 38 18 25 see Ring, i) ;

iiid 1(7, '1,^7^
see Line.

The materials available were strips of skin or hide (cp the kgciid of the Carthaginian Jiyrsa), or the intestines of animals, especially the goat or camel (cp in' above), flax (I'.zek. 4O3), and rushes. It is ropes of rushes that are meant by ffxoiWoi' and airapriov, (5's e<iuivalents for San and t;in resi)ectively. ilx""'""' o^-'^-'U^s twice in NT In. 2 15 (a scourge of cords), Acts '.i? 32 (ropes of a ship).

The weaving together of two or more ropes for greater strength was customary : cp ICccles. 4 12, ' the threefold cord (r'^r^n Cinn) is not (|uickly broken.' C'n> cnn' 'green withes' (1".\'), "which had not been dried,' were employed in binding Samson (Judg. KiS). Greater llcxibiiity, for the purpose of tying, was thus ensured, and the knots were less liable to slip and the cord to split.

From the idea of Mine, cord,' etc., is rcaiiily ulilaintd the meaning of ' measuring-line ' (cp ^2n 2 S. 8 2 Am. 7 17, t:in i K.. 7 15, ip I K. 723, "rons Kzck.403);l hence, further, diat of the part 'measured olT,' the 'lot' or 'inheritance' (cp '>2T\ Josh, lilg, pi. inl's. Ui6l5J).

On the 'cords' (<rxoi>'ia) worn by the unchaste women of r.ahylon (l'.ar. 43), see I'ritzsclic ad loc.


(Kope [l^^^A Ti. \VH). Kcclus. 45iS Jude i. AV, RV KORAH [q.v.).


(1^; korion [BAFL];^ i:x. I631 Nu. llyt) is a plant indigenous to the Mediterranean area, Coriandrum sativum, L. , as all agree. The Hebrew name, which Lagarde (f/'.-i 57) believes to be of lndo-l".uropean origin, seems identical with the 7ot5-' which the sclioliast on Uioscorides (864) aflirms to be the Punic equivalent of Kopiov ; and the identity of the plant is thus assured. The mamia which is likened to its seed is also said to be ' small, Haky,* small as hoar- frost upon the ground,' and is elsewhere said to resemble bdellium. These characters suit the so-called seed (really fruit) of the coriander, which is about the size of a pcpijcrcorn. N. M. w. T. T.-i).


(kopinGOc)- The secret of Corinthian histDry lies in the close relation of the city to the com- merce of the .Mediterranean. Even before the develop- ment of trade by sea the wealth of Corinth w as inevitable owing to its position on the Isthnuis, the 'bridge of the sea' (Pind. hth. iii. 38, 'door of the Peloponnese,' Xen. Aoes. 2): For navigation and far-reaching commercial enterprises no city was more favourably placed. Its territory was unsuited fcjr agriculture (.Strabo 382) ; the more distinct, therefore, was the vocation of its inhabit- ants for a seafaring life. The Plxmicians were early attracted by the advantages of the site. There are many traces of their presence at Corinth. At the foot of the Acrocorinthus, Mclkarth, the god of Tyre (see Plicy.- .NICI.V), was adored by the Corinthians as the protector of navigation under the name Melicertes (Pans. ii. 1 3). The armed Aphrodite (Astarte), had a temple on the siunmit of the hill (.Str. 379, va'Siov : Pans. ii. 46/., sharing it with the sun-god ; id. ii. ."u) ; to her in later times a thousand female votaries ]);\id service with their bodies, adopting a custom well known in Syrian worship- (Strabo, 378).

1 Similarly a-xotviov and (riraprioi'.

'-' The Greek name, according to Fluck. and Hanb. (293), is due to ' the offensive odour it e.xhales when handled, and which reminds one of hugs in Greek, (copiv.'

The I'unic yoi5 appears .igain in \^t. git or gitk, which is black cummin, Xigelia sati7'a, L. See FncH, i.

4 This, rather than ' round,' seems to be the meaning of CSCnp (Di. on Exod. IC 14).

'The juxtaposition of the two Corinthian harbours (Lech;eum on the Corinthian Gulf, and Cenchr&t?, with Schtjenus, on the Saronic) made it easy to tranship cargoes ; and, as the voyage round Cape Malea was difficult, the mariners of Asia and Italy found it desirable to land their goods at Corinth, so that the possessors of the Isthmus received dues from these as well as from whatever was brought from the Peloponnese by land ' (.Str. 378 ; cp Uio Chrys. Or. viii. 5, ^ iroXtj uairtp iv Tpi.u5(fi (KfiTo). In consequence of her rapid commercial expansion, the arts also awakened in Corinth to a new life, especially those of metal-work and pottery, heirlooms of Ph(x-nician influence (cp Paus. ii. 83 ; PI. //A'. ?>4 3). Trade became wholesale. The establishment of the Isthmian games in the sanctuary of Poseidon, near the bay of Scha-nus, in ' the wooded gorge of the isthmus' (Pind.; Str. 380), elevated Corinth into a distinct centre of Hellenic life (.Str. 378). So from the earliest times the epithet ' wealthy ' was especially re- served for Corinth {u(py<L6s, Iloni. //. 2 570 1 oXjila, Pind. Ot. 13 4 ; Thuc. 1 13), and although the rise of Athens finally destroyed her dreams of naval empire she remained the first mercantile city of (jreece.

This prosperity found a rude ending in 146 B.C. when the place was jjillaged by the Kcjinan consul, Lucius Mimnnius, and levelled with the ground ; but the re- establishment of the city was inevitable. In 44 B.C. Julius C:esar founded on the old site the Colonia Laus Jniia Corinthus. The nucleus of its population consisted of freedmen (Paus. ii. ] 2, Str. 381). Most of the names of Corinthian Christians indicate cither a Roman or a servile origin {e.g., (jaius, Crispus, i Cor. 1 14 ; lortunatus, Achaicus, i Cor. 16 17; Tertius, Rom. It) -2; CJuartus, Rom. I623 ; Justus, Acts IS 7). The New Corinth, by the mere force of geographical causes, became as of old the most prosix;rous city of (Jreece, and the chosen abode of luxury and 'abysmal ];rotiigacy ' (.Str. 378 382 ; Athen. 13 573 ; c[) the saving, 01 TravTOJ L-uopos is KbpivOov i(jd' 6 TrXoi's). It was also the capital of the province, and the seat of the go\ernor of Achaia (.\cts 18 12).

For description, see Paus. ii. i/l ; cp Frazer, Paus. 820-38. Pausanias distinguishes the Roman from the (ireek remains; few vestiges are now found of either city, though the American aicha;ologists have recently made important di>coveries (see J I IS 18 333 ['98] : among other inscriptions, one ' of uncertain ('ate, hut as late as the imperial times, reading ond'a-ywyrj i:/3paca,..').

Corinth, like Athens and Argos, naturally attracted a large Jewish population (Philo, Leg. ad Cai. 36; cp Justin, Dial. 1). The edict of Claudius, banishing the lews from Rome, must have augmented the numl)er of Hebrew families in Corinth (.\tts 18 2 ; cp Suet. Claud. 251; see A<,)lil,.\. As in other cities {e.g., Iconium, Acts 14 1, Thessalonica, Acts I74), a considerable numter of gentiles had lieen attracted to the Jewish synagogue, and their conversion would be the first-fruits of Paul's work. His decisive breach with the Jews, and his adoption of the house of the Roman or Latin Titius Justus as his place of instruction (cp Acts I99), enabled Paul to reach the otherwise inaccessible gentile i;o()ulation (mostly of Italian origin: Acts 188, iroXXoi tZv KopLvOiwv dKovovTd iiriaTivov). Aquila, on the ether hand, seems to have enjoyed his greatest success among the Jews (.Acts I828), though the Corinthian church remained predominantly gentile in character.

In conformity w ith his principle of seeking the centres of commercial activity, Paul visited Corinth on his de- parture from .\thens (.\ctsl8i). For the importance of this step as regards the development of Paul's mission- ary designs, see PAUL. Converts were made chiefly among the gentiles, of the poorer class (.\cts 188 i Cor. 126611 122), although some Jews believed (seeCKisPfS) ; and some persons of importance (see ER-Astls, Gaius, perhaps also Chi.ok). The accession of Crispus and of Gaius was so important that Paul forsook his rule and baptized them with his own hand (iCor. 114-16). He lays special stress upon his claim to be regarded as sole founder of the Corinthian church (iCor. 36 4 15). This claim is not contradicted by 2 Cor. 1 19 ( ' who was I reached . . . by me and Silvanus and Timothy '), for

2 Cor. is addressed to the Christians of Achai.i generally as well as to the Corinthians, wliile I Cor. is written more especially to the church of Corinth.

The apostle sjjent eighteen months in Corinth on this occasion (.\ctsl8ii). On his ne.xt recorded visit he stayed three months (.\cts 20 3). On a supposed inter- mediate visit to Ct)rinth and on the correspondence that took place, see CoRiNriii.\NS, ij 9/., 13. On the character of Paul's teaching see below, and cp Paul, Apollos.

As to the effect of Paul's letters and presence the NT gives no information ; but the letter of Clement, written, perhaps, about 97 .\. i). , shows that the moral tone of the Corinthian church improved, though the friction between parties continued, as indeed we should exjiect from the social cDuditioiis obtaining in such a city. Hegesippus visited the church about 139 A.D. , and was favourably impressed by the oberlience aiul lilx.Tality of its members, and the activity of its bishop Diony:iius (Eus. HE iv. 22).

The two epistles written to the Corinthians are re- markable for the variety of their local colouring. The illustrations are drawn chiefly from gentile life : the wild-beast fight (i Cor. 1532) ; the stadium and boxing match (i Cor. 924-27) ; the theatre (i Cor. 49 7 31) ; the garland of Isthmian pine, the prize in the games ( i Cor. 925) ; the idol festivals ( t Cor. 8 10 IO20 /". ) ; the syssitia, so common a feature of Cjreek social life (i Cor. 10 27).

W. J. W.

CORINTHIANS, Epistles to the.[edit]

1. Relations with Corinth[edit]

It will be unnecessary to repeat here the familiar story of the founding of the church at Corinth, which is elsewhere set in its place in the life of the apostle (see PAUL). According to the scheme of chronology adopted in this article it would fall in the years 50-52 A.D. (48-50 Harnack, 52-54 Lightfoot, otherwise von Soden ; see Chronoi.ouv, 71). In the spring of the latter year Paul left Corinth. Acjuila and Priscilla accompanied him as far as ICphesus, where they stayed behind while he went on to Jerusalem. This journey and the visit to the Galatian churches (Acts 18 23) would take up the whole of the later spring or summer of .v. I). 52, and it would not Ixi until the autumn of that year that the apostle returned to Ephesus.

In the meantime events had moved at Corinth. The Alexandrian Jew Apollos, by this time an instructed Christian, had gone thither and his preaching had a great effect. Other teachers were at work there in a spirit less friendly to Paul. Factions were formed, and, when Paul wrote his first extant letter to the Corinthians some two years later, had begun to make serious mischief. The apostle was now settled at Ephesus, which, on an average voyage, would not be more than a sail of a week or ten davs from Corinth.

2. Earlier correspondence.[edit]

News would thus pass easily to and fro : and Paul was evidently kept well informed of what passed at Corinth. At least one earlier letter of his has been lost to us (i Cor. 59), unless, as some have thought, a fragment of it remains embedded in 2 Cor. 6i4-7i (on this view, which should probably on the whole be rejected, see below, 18). The purport of the letter, which the Corinthian Christians somewhat misunderstood, was to warn them against intercourse with immoral heathen. Wlien we remember the laxity of Corinthian morals we cannot be surprised that other and graver aberrations of this kind had taken place among them.

t npb? Kopii^tous [Ti.WH].

2 It took ArisiiJes four clay.s to get from Corinth to Miletus (Friedlunder, Sittcngesch. 2 15); but Cicero and his brother Quintu.s were both about a fortnight on shipboard {ad Attic. 39, 6 8, 9: quoted by Heinrici (after Hug), Das z-.veite Sendschreiben, etc., 48).

3. Extant Epistles[edit]

The state of things disclosed by some of the apostle's visitors at Ephesus, notably by members of the familia of a lady called Chloe (1 Cor. 1:11), gave him so much anxiety that he took pen in hand to write our First Epistle. At the s.ame time he rejjlied to a series of questions put to him in a letter which he had received (perhaps through Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus : I Cor. 10 17) from the church at Corinth. These two things the tidings which he had heard of disorders in the church, and certain definite in(]uiries put to him account satisfactorily for the contents of the First Epistle (see below, 14-16). So far all is clear, except perhaps as to the exact date at which the epistle was sent, though it may Ix; placed provisionally about Easter of A.D. 55. There is also no d<iubt as to the general nature of the circumstances under which our Second Epistle was sent. The interval which separated it from the First Epistle cannot have been very long. It may Ix: assigned to the late autumn (about November) of the same year.^ From some cause or other, it is clear, the anxiety of the ajiostle had increased, and had indeed reached a pitch of great and painful tension. The return of Titus, whom he had sent to Corinth, relieved him of this, and he warmly expresses his satisfaction. Then he turns to the practical ([uestion of the collection which he was organising for the poor Christians at Jerusalem. Before the letter is concluded, however, he comes back (in the text as we have it) to his opjjoncnts and writes again with no little emotion about them. This letter was written on the way to Corinth, probably from Macedonia, and the apostle is about to pay to the church a visit which he repeatedly calls his third (2 Cor. Vli^ 13.).

4. Difficulties in detail.[edit]

This brief outline, however, evades a numVjer of difficulties. Considered quite broadly and generally, the course of events is clear enough ; but, when we attempt to i^ive them precision in detail, difficuUies spring up at every step, /ihe questions which arise are also exceedinrly intricate, so that to state them satisfictorily is no easy matter. They have nearly a^l been brought out by the research of the last five-and-twenty years ; and we shall perhaps sucxeed best in threading our way through them by taking the several steps logical if not exactly chronological by which they may be supposed to have arisen.

The data which we take over from the First Epistle are: (i) the existence of an active opposition to P.aul on the part not only of unbelieving Jews but also of certain sections of Judaising Christians at Corinth ; and (2) the occurrence in the church there of a gross ca.se of what we should describe as incest (i Cor. 5i). The main question which meets us is, how far does the Second Epistle deal with these same data, and how far have the circumstances altered ? Before we can formu- late an answer to this question, however, it is necessary first to decide whether or not we are to interpose a lost epistle between the twd which have come down to us.

5. Intermediate letter[edit]

The Second Epistle is full of allusions to a previous letter, and the older commentators with one consent assumed that this was the First Epistle. Such an assumption was obvious and natural ; but, when the language of the Second Epistle came to be closely examined, doubts began to arise as to whether that language could really be satisfied by the First Epistle as it has come down to us.

In particular it w.as asked whether the strong emotion under which it seemed that this previous letter had been written could apply to the First Epistle : ' out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote unto you with many tears" (zCor. 'J4); arid aicain, the severe heart-searchings described in 2 Cor. V7-11 did not seem to agree with the calm practical discussions of the First Epistle.

Since Klopper ( 1874) an increasing numter of scholars have replied to this decidedly in the negative. Perhaps somewhat too decidedly. Although it is perfectly true that a great part of the First Epistle is taken up with calm practical discussions, the whole epistle is not in this strain.

1 On this reckoning k-no jre>vo-t (2 Cor. 9 2) will mean not 'a year ago' but 'last year." The Macedonian year, like the Jewish, began with October. See Year. 900

Many passages, especially in the earlier chapters, must have cost the writer no slight emotion. Such would l>e (e.g.) the scathing irony of i Cor. 48-13 (die Corinthians already enjoying the rich abundance of the Messianic reign while the poor apostles are maltreated like gladiators in the arenri); the whole of the next section, i Cor. 414-21, which ends with a threat th.nt the apostle will come to them with a roil ; and then the section on the incestuous man, in which he projects himself in spirit into the president's chair in their assembly and solemnly hands over the offender to .Satan.

It is by no means incredible that passages like these would stand out in Paul's memory after he had despatched his letter, and that he should work himself up into a state of great and even feverish .anxiety as to the way in which they would be received. The fact that a considerable fraction of the church should have m.ide themselves, as it .seems, in some sort nccomplices with the offending person, might well make the aposile feel that the moment was extremely critical and that the result might be nothing less than the bre;ik-up of the cluir..h.

6. Situation in 2. Corr[edit]

This leads us to the further question with which that just stated is bound up. Along with the allusions to a previous letter there are in the Second Epistle also allusions to what was evidently a great crisis in the liistory of the church. Was this crisis the same as that which is contemplated in the First Epistle. or was it wholly disiinct ?

The scholars who first maintained the view that there was a lost letter between the two extant epistles were content to aciiuiesce in the older view that the descriptions of 2 Cor25-ii 75-16 h.-id reference to a st.itc of thi;i : ; i:rowing directly out of the situation presented in 1 Cor 6. There too there is a single offender, who appears to have a backing in the church, and the apostle is aware that the position is full of danger: the machina- tions of Satan are not hidden ; I I. i

7. Partial agreement of 2 Cor 2:5-11 and 1 Cor 5[edit]

It must be confessed that the situation of I Cor. 5 j fits on extremely well to that of 2 Cor. 2:5-11, except in one particular. That is, as the more recent writers on the epistles (Weizsacker, Pfleiderer, Krenkel [BeiM^r], Schmiedel, Julicher) for the most part urge, that the treatment described in 2 Cor. 26, which is accepted as adecpiate to the occasion by Paul, seems inadequate to the very gross offence of I Cor.;')!. There is also considerable difficulty in assii^ning the part of the injured person in 2 Cor. 7 12 : ' .So although I wrote unto you, [I wrote] not for his cause that did the wrong, nor for his cause that suffered the wrong, but that your earnest care for us might be made manifest,' etc.

If the offending person of i Cor. 5 was really let off with a comparatively slight punishment there must have been extenuat- ing circumstances of which we are not told. Such circumstances might be that the 'father's wife' w.-is not in the strict sense a wife hut a concubine (tlie father being probably a lieathen) ; and we inii^ht h.ive supposed that the father w.as dead. In such a case Paul with his strong sympathy for human infirmity, and liis readiness to m.ike allowance for a convert brought up in the laxity of heathenism, ml.i^ht conceivably have accepted an expiation short of that which the circumstances would seem at first siiiht to demand. The supjjosition that the father was de.id would fall through, however, if ' liis cause that suflered the wrong ' (toO a&i.icrf8ivT0<:) referred to him ; and it does not seem satis- factory that a sin of this kintl should be regarded only in the light of personal injury to another.

8. Other explanations of 2 Cor 2:5-11[edit]

Accordingly the tendency among those recent German writers who have gone into the question more fully than any others, has been to offer a wholly different explanation of the state of things implied in the Second Epistle. They, as a rule, take the offence on which the situation turns in this epistle to be some personal affront or insult put upon Paul (so Hilgenfeld, Mangold, Wei/siicker, PHeiderer, Schniiedel, Julicher ; Beyschlag gives the alternative that the insult may have been offered to Timothy), not in connection with the case of the incestuous man, but rather growing out of the revolt against his authority as an apostle. In keeping with this, most of them would explain tou dSiK-q- diuTos as an indirect reference to Paul himself.

This, however, again seems strained and unnatural, and indeed inconsistent with theexegesisof the verse where Paul is mentioned ("'-'- 'your earnest care for us'; rrfv Knrovi'rfv Vfimv tt)I' virep )ji.u)r) in such a way as almost certainly to distinguish him from the injured person. Krenkel, it .seems to us rightly, urges this and would take the passage as referring to some private quarrel between two members of the Corinthian church {/ieitr. 304-307). We know from i Cor. C that such quarrels were rife at Corinth, and the interpretation thus suggested suits the choice of w'ords (aJiK^crat ami atK>)6c(0 better than any other. The ol)jection would be that ue have to draw lar;ely U]X)n the imagination to expl.ain how a matter like this, which we should have thou^^ht mi-ht Ijc settled calmly enough, became the cause of such acute tension between the section of the church.

We have then three hypotheses, each with some advantages and some counterbalancing drawbacks : (i) that the reference is to the incestuous man which would greatly simplify the situation so far as the two epistles are concerned, but could Ix; held only on the assumption of peculiar qualifying circumstances in the case which it is not e.asy for us to imagine ; (2) that the reference is to some direct [x;rsonal insult to Paul a hypothesis which, by introducing an intermediate letter, enables us to construct one whicli will suit the allusions somewhat Ix^tter than the extant First I-".pistle, but in our opinion forces 6 ddiK-qdeii and makes the situation in the Second Epistle a tantalising duplicate of that in the First, tesides (it might seem) inconveniently crowding events between the two epistles ; (3) that the reference is neither to Paul nor to the incestuous man, hut to a c|uarrel between two unknown jx-rsmis which satisfies 6 dui.KT]Ofii, but is open to some of the same objections as the last, and is not so helpful.

We shall see Ijclow that, in sjjite of its apparent attractiveness, the first of tliese hypotheses must be given up. There is a break lietween the two e])istles : there must have been at least one intervening communi- cation and if one, probal ly two conimr.nications between Paul and the church at Corinth ; and the aspect of things h.as cluiiiged not simply once, but probably twice. The fact of the new situation, and the fact of the intermediate letter, thus seem to be assured ; but in regard to particulars we have hardly data enough to enable us to judge. We cannot easily bring ourselves to think that the person directly injuretl is Paul : at the same time he appears to be someone closely coimected with him. Timothy would meet the conditions belter than any one we can think of ; but neither the injured person nor the aggressor can be identified more precisely.

Along with the question as to an intermediate letter goes the further question as to an unrecorded visit paid by Paul to Corinth.

9. Unrecorded visit.[edit]

Unlike the letter, this visit is not purely hypothetical. In 2 Cor. 1214 and 13i the apostle speaks expressly of his approachinjj visit as the third. This implies that we must insert another, not mentioned by the historian, somewhere between Acts 18:18 and 20:2 or rather, we may .say, somewhere in the three years spent by Paul at Ephesus. We have seen that his communications with the church at Corinth were freijuent ; we have seen also that the voyage was easy. The silence of Acts (which dismisses two years in a verse: 10 10), therefore, is no real obstacle.

Is the visit to he placed beioie or after the First Epistle ?

It is most tempting to go with the majority of recent critics and place it after. The conspicuous fact about this visit is that it was a painful one {iv Avtttj : 2 Cor. 2 i). If so, what could be more natural than to connect it with the letter which was written ' with many tears ? ' Roth alike, it mi^Tht seem, should be placed on the line of strained relations which led up to the Second Kpistle. The unrecorded visit would, in that case, pre- cede the lost letter. We might ima;.;ine, in \ iew of 2 (or. 10 10, that Paul had been summoned over to Corinth hastily, that there his malady had come on, that he luid broken down physically and been obliged to return, leaving matters to all appearance worse than he found them ; that he then wrote a letter to undo the effect of this disaster; that this letter was strongly worded, and, after it had been sent, caused him great anxiety; and that it was his relief from this anxiety on the coming of Titus that was the immediate occasion of the Second Epistle.

Such combinations are tempting; but they lead us on to the discussion of the next point which has a direct and perhaps a crucial bearing upon them.

10. Paul's plans[edit]

In I Cor. 165 the apostle announces his intention of coming to Corinth by the longer land route through Macedonia - This, as a matter of fact, is the route that he was actually taking at the time when he wrote the Second Kpistle. In the interval, however, he must have changed his mind, not once but twice ; or, rather, he must have changed it and afterwards reverted to his original plan. From 2 Cor. 1 15/ we learn expressly that he had at one moment decided to go straight from Ephesus to Corinth, thence to Macedonia, and then to return again to Corinth.

When he formed this decision he seems to have been well pleased with the Corinthians and they with him ; his motive is that, twice over, both on Koinjjand returning, they may have the benefit of this presence {2 Cor. 1 15). He did not carry out this plan because, after it h.ad been formed, his relations to the Corinthians underwent a change. He tells us that he would not KO to them because, if he h:id gone, it must have been ' in grief (2 Cor. 2i). None the less his change of plan was made one of the accusations against him, and was set down to fickle- ness of purpose (2 Cor. 1 1 7).

This being so, however, are we not precluded from interposing any visit between the conceiving of the in- tention descriljed in 2 Cor. 1 15 (the short voyage and the double visit) and the writing of the .Second I".j)istle?

It is not only, .is Schmieilel argues (//f 5^), that the feelings of the apostle when he ni.-ide his plan and" when he paid the supposed visit were difTereiit in the one case satisfaction with the Corinthians, in the other c.xse pain but that a visit of any kind is inconsistent with the langu.ige used. If Paul had paid .such a visit he would have kept to his intention (not broken it), and the charge of fickleness must at least have assumed another form.

We must therefore, with some reluctance, abandon the idea of bringing the painful visit and the painful letter into juxtaposition. The only other jjlace for the former seems to be in the part of Paul's stay at I-".phesus anterior to the First Kpistle, and towards the middle or later part of it (/.<., not far from, and i>robabIy lx.-fore, the lost letter; i Cor. .'.9; cp .Schniiedel, o/>. cit. 54). The supi)osition that the second visit was only contem- plated, not paid, apyx-ars to tie excluded by 2 Cor. 132.

We observe also, in passing, that the history of these changes of jilan goes far to dispose of the arguments in favour of the supposition that there is no lost letter Vx'tween the two epistles.

The only way to make the First Epistle referred to directly in the -Second is to re,i;ard certain passages in it as haunting the apostle and causing him trouMe as to its reception. .\t the time when he conceived the plan set down in 2 Cor. 1 15, however, his mind w.is free from trouble : the Corinthians and he were on the best of terms. This aIo:ie would sever the links which h.ive seemed to bind the two letters together. They must be connected closely or not at all.

11. Movements of Timothy.[edit]

When Paul wrote i Corinthians Timothy was not with him. We should infer from Acts lii22 that before that date he had been already sent into Macedonia. This agrees perfectly with the turn of phrase in 1 Cor. IC. 10 : ' If Timothy come, see that he be with you without fear.' Before the despatch of the Second Kpistle he had rejoined Paul, as he is associated with him in the opening salutation (2 Cor. 1 i). If the suggestion abos'e holds, it w.is probably he who brought news of the events which led up to the second crisis. In any case the dealing with that crisis at its height w.as committed not to Timothy but to the stronger hands of Titus.

12. Of Titus[edit]

Assuming that there was an intermediate letter between 1 and 2 Cor. it is probable that Titus was the bearer of it (2 Cor. 12:18), as he was also the bearer of our Second Epistle (2 Cor. 8:16-24).

A small group of scholars, including Hausrath and Schmiedel, would assign to Titus yet another earlier visit, on the business of the collection, .soon after the writing of the First Kpistle; but the hypothesis is invented to suit the theory that 2 Cor.l2 is not an integr.al part of our Second Kpistle, and necessitates the invention of a number of other purely hypothetical occur- rences (among them a fifth, or third lost letter), nearly all of them duplicates of others that are better attested. It may be rejected without hesitation.

13. Sequence of events.[edit]

The sequence of events, as far as we can ascertain it, seems to have been this[1];

(i.) While Paul is absent at Jerusalem Apollos arrives at Corinth, where he preaches with success (Acts 18 27).

(ii.) Paul takes up his abode at Ephesus in the summer of a.d. 52, remaining there until the summer of AD 55,

(iii.) Early in this period Apollos quits Corinth and certain Judaising teachers arrive there. The beginnings are laid of differences which soon harden into parties.

(iv.) About, or somewhat after, the middle of the period Paul pays the church a brief disciplinary visit, iv Auinj (2 Cor. 2 i) see above, ( 10). He also, after his return, writes the lost letter of I Cor. 5 9.

(v.) The household of Chloe bring news of an ominous develop- ment of the^ spirit of faction (i Cor. lit), and a little later Stephan.as, Fiirtunatus, and .\chaicus arrive at Ephesus (i Cor li5i;), perhajK as bearers of a letter to the apostle from the church at Corinth seeking his advice on various matters.

(vi.) Partly in consequence of wh.at he had heard, and partly in answer to that letter, Paul writes First Corinthians in the spring of a.d. 55, taking occxsion to correct a wrong impression drawn from the lost letter (i Cor. !K)ff.).

(vii.) The epistle thus written has the desired effect, and for the moment all goes well (2C"or. 1 12-16). The .apostle lets the Corinthians know his programme of 2Cor. lisyC Timothy arrives at Corinth and now, or at the time of chap. 8, returns to Ephesus.

(viii.) Another sharp controversy arises, beginning perhaps in some well-meant but feeble action on the part of Timothy, and soon involving the whole question of the apostle's position and authority.

(ix) On hearing of this from Timothy Paul writes a secomi lost letter, the tone of which is severe and uncompromi.sing. It is sent by Titus, who at the same time has instructions in regard to the collection.

(x) .\fter Titus has gone, Paul becomes more and more anxious as to the effect his la.st letter is likely to have on the Corinthians. He leaves Ephe.sus, having about this time been in imminent peril there. He stops at Troas. Still no news.

(xi.) Titus at last returns to him in Macedonia and di-s]>els his fe.ars. The Second Ef>istle is written and is sent by Titus and two others (2 Cor. 8 1822). Its main tenor is thankfulness ; but the collection is pressed, and the growth of one party (probably the Christ-party) leads to some emphatic strictures.

(xii.) Towards the end of December A.u. 55 Paul reaches Corinth. He stays there three months (.\cts203), during which he writes the Kpistle to the Romans.

14. Occasion of 1 Cor.[edit]

FIRST EPISTLE. We have seen that the occasion of the First Epistle was two-fold : ( i ) certain tidings which had reached Paul as to various disorders existing in the church at Corinth ; (2) certain questions put to him in an official letter from the church. The dis- orders were : (i. ) a numlier of factions which raised the flag of party spirit and used the names of prominent leaders to give colour to their own self-assertiveness. On these more will lx> said lx;low ( 16). The subject covers 1 io--l2i. (ii. ) .\ bad ca.se of immoral living which too much reflected a general laxity in the church (. 'J 612-20). (iii.) Litigiousness, which did not scruple to have recourse to he.athen law-courts (61-11). (iv. ) .\n indecorous freedom in worshijj, exemplified by the disuse of the female headdress (11 2-16). (v.) Still worse disorders at the ngapt or love-feast, which was followed by the eucharist (1117-34). .\nd we may perhaps include under this head (vi. ) the tlenial by some of the resurrection, dealt with in chap. \{>.

The last three points may have been raised by the official letter. This certainly contained questions about marriage (answered in ch. 7); probably also about re- lations to heathen practices, such as the eating of meats offered to idols (ch. 8 continued in 9 i-ll i) ; and possibly some inquir}' as to the relative value of spiritual gifts. Chap. 1 1-9 is introductory, and ch. 16 an epilogue of j)ersonal matter containing instructions as to the collec- tion, and details as to Paul him.self and his companions.

The only points th.at need perhaps to be more particularly drawn out are the connection of chaps. 1:10-4:21 and 8:1-11:1.

15. 1 Cor 1:10-4:21 and 8:1-11:1[edit]

The first tracks out the spirit of faction to its origin in the conceit of .a worldly-minded wisdom, which is contrasted with the simplicity of the Gospel a simplicity, however, which does not exclude the higher wisdom that comes from God (I 17-2 16). Then, in 3:1-4:5, the true position of human teachers is stated. They are but stewards, whose duty is not to put forward anything of their own, but only to administer what is committed to them by God. The Christian has but one foundation and one judge, namely Christ. 4 6-21 applies these general truths to the circumstances of the case with biting irony, which, however, soon ch.anges to affectionate entreaty, and that again to sharp admonition.

The sequence of the argument in 8 i-ll i should not be lost sight of. _ In ch. 8 is laid down the principle which should guide conduct in such matters as the eating of meat that might have come from heathen sacrifices. This principle is the sub- ordination of personal impulse to the good of others. In ch. 9 Paul points out the working of the principle in his own ca.se ; it is in deference to it that he waives his right to claim support from the Church, in deference to it that he exercises severe self- control, like that of runners in a race. The history of Israel xhowcil what an utter mistake it was for even the most hij;hly- privilcuctl to stimjose themselves exempt from the necessity of such self-coiiirol (10 1-13). The very nature of the Christian Eucharist prescribed care in relation to heathen feasts (10 14-aa). This leads to some practical suggeslions and advice (lOaj-ll i).

16. Parties[edit]

Of the subject nuitter of the epistle the points which most invite discussion are the nature of parties, and the spiritual gifts. The latter arc dealt with elsewhere (see GIFTS, SPIRlTUAL).

As to the parties, we may remark ( i ) that the names 'Paul.' 'Appollos.' 'Cephas.' and 'Christ' represent real titles which the parties at Corinth gave themselves.

When Paul says in 46 'These things, brethren, have I trans- ferred by a fiction ' (to adopt Dr. F leld's elegant translation, Otiitni S'orfic. ad loc.) 'to myself and Apollos for your sakes,' the fiction consisted, not in usinji names which the Corinthians did not use. but in speakiii;; as if he and .\|k>IIi>s had lM;h;ivctl like |)arty-leaders. wlu-n tliL-y had not so Iwhavcd. 'I'lic whole movcmeiil came not from them but from thcjse w ho invoked their names against their will and without their consent.

(2) The nature of the Paul and the .\ix)llos parties is dear : they were no doubt lilteral in ttMulency. giving a free welcome to (jentile converts, and apt to deal too tenderly with the vices which these brought over with them. I'rom this side would come such premature emancipation as that d<-scrilied in 1 1 2-16. The follow(.TS of .\pollos probably also prided tlieniselves on a kind of Alexandrian (ino. h, which is by inference condemned in chajjs. 1 i3-l2i6. The Petrine and the 'Christ' parties were, on the other hand. Judaistic, claiming the authority of the apostles at Jeriisalem. Both disparaged and attacked Paul. The Christ party, however, seems to have gone to the greater lengths.

The Christ party were Jews in the strictest sense, probably Jews of Palestine (2 Cor. 1 1 22). They came with commendatory lettersfroni Jerusalem (2 Cor. 'i i). They ibeniselvcs bore the title of 'apostle, ill the wiiler aicentatioii (2Cor. 11 13 \- 11). They claimed to li.ive Clirivt for llicir .Master in a sen-e in which others had not (.>C'or. IO7). .\ncl in particular they insisted th.it Paul h.ad not (be full qu;dila.ni<)iis of an aposlle, a.s these are laid down in .Vets 1 -21/. : he was not an eye-witness of the acts of Jesus, aiul did not l>clon^; to the .select conii>any which he had Kathereti around bim (iC'or. !!). Their teaching laid such stress on Jesus' Jewish Messiabship (conceived a.s the Jews conceived it) as to amount to preacbinj; 'anotbcr Jesus' (2Cor. 11 4). Paul takes firm ijroiind in bis opposition to them. He will not bate one jot of his ( '.ospel (/V/V/.) ; he will not allow that he is behind the most ajxistolic of the ajiostles (aC'or. 11 5) ; be had 'seen the Lord' as truly as they had (i.t., on the road to Damascus, ;ind in ecstatic vision, i C"(ir. i l.')8 2 Cor. I'i i^) ; be had better prcxjf of his ajwsilcsbip in his miracles (2 Cor. 1 "J 12), in his iiisi>;ht into Christian triuh (2 Cor. 11 <), in his labours (2 Cor. 1 1 237/".), and especially in the success of his ministry among the Corinthians themselves (i Cor. ! \ /. 2 Cor. 82/).

There can be little doubt that Paul's masterly Apologia carried the day ; the curtain drops for us with the close of the .Second I'.pistle ; but the subsetjuent history of the controversy shows that the worst part of the crisis was past, and the power of the Judaisers broken.

17. 2 Cor. Contents[edit]

SECOND EPISTLE. The Second Epistle is even more a direct product of the historical situation than the First. We may map out the main body of the epistle thus : ( i ) an outpouring of thanks for recent deliverance (1 3-11) ; (2) explanations in reference to the apostle's change of plan and the treatment of the offending person by the Corinthian church (1 12-217); (3) a deeper Apologia for his apostolic position and the distinctive character of his Gospel (S-.*)); (4) more personal explanations (6-7); (5) the collection (8/) ; (6) a warmer defence against Judaistic attacks (10-13 10).

18. Integrity[edit]

The principal literary question affecting the epistle is as to its integrity.

Putting aside mere wanton and extravagant theories, sub- stantial arguments have been urged for maintaining that the short jxiragraph of six verses, t> 14-7 i, and the longer section lO-lS or 10i-13io, though the work of Paul, were not originally part of this epistle, but belonged to other epistles now lost: tlt4-7i to the missing letter alluded to in i Cor. .')9, and the I'ierkapitel- hrit/(as the (iermans call it) to the intermediate letter which we have seen reason to assume between the two extant epistles.

We may admit at once that there is a real break in the Second Epistle at both the places noted. The subject changes, and changes abruptly, both at 6 14 and at 10 I. The epistle would read continuously if we were to skip from 013 to 7 2, and the few con. luiiing word* I3ii-i4 would come as well at the end of ch.ip. as of chap. 13.

We may admit further that the subjci t matter of the first passage resembles, (hough it is not identical with, that of the missing letter referred lo in the First Kpistle ('not to keep com- pany with fornicators ' was the keynote of the one, ' not to Iw unei|nally yoked with unljelievcrs ' of the other); and the vehenKiit iMjIemic of the last four chapters would lc not unlike what e should expri t to find in the letter which we are led lo postulate by the Second.

In spite of these favouring considerations, however, and in spite of the a.ssent which it has met with from certain critics! Ptliiderer. Hausrath, Krenkel. .S<hmie(lel), this latter hyixnhesis of the letter of four chapters must, we believe. Inr dismissed.

There was but one painful letter (2 Cor. 7 R. eJ Koi 'Av>nj<7a ilia? kv Tjj iricTToAfi, cp'J4); which is referred lo in thi-e chapters (10 10/.), and therefore is not to lie identified wilh them ; if it were, then we should have to ptjstulate a previous painful letter further Imck. When the aixr.tle wrote his painful letter, he wrote in order loaNoid the necessity of making a \ isit in person (1 23); but when he wrote these chapters he was on the point of p.aying a visit (1- 14 13 i). .Again, there are many coincidences of expression which connei;t the four chapters with the preceding:: 7 6 lOi (Tairfiidt, of Paul himself) ; 5/, 8 7i = 10 I f. (dapptii', not elsewhere in Kpp. Paul.); 1 15 84 872= IO2 (jreiroiOjjcri?, only twice besides); Kara (rapKo. three times = thrte times, always in reference lo himself; O7-IO4 (oirAo) ; forj/ia three limes = twice, only once besides ;_ 7 15 - IO5 yC (tin-axoi) ) ; 95- 106 16 (VoiMO, only once besides in Knp. Paul). These are samples from the first six verses alone. \Ve cannot use the comijarison of 12 18 with 8 ij/. 22 quite as it is used by Jiilicher (Kin/. 65), liecause the two passages really refer to different occasions; 824 is proof that the aorists which precede are epistolary and describe the circumstances connected with the sending of the present epistle, where.is in l'_' 18 the aorists are strict aorists and point back to a former visit of Titiis and his companion. The parallelism of expression, however, is so t'reat as to suii.nest strongly that both passages lielong lo the s;ime letter. There is a p.-irallelisin ec]ually marked l)etween the use of irAeofdCTfii' in I217 /and in 72(cp'2ii); the word occurs only once besides in N'f (i 1 bess. 4o).

If the one hyi)othctical intrusion breaks down, the other slKJuld in all probability go with it.

Not one of the analoyous c.iscs to w hicli Schmiedel appeals really holds goxl ; for the balance of argument is also a;;aiii>t detaching Rom. It) from the epistle lo the Romans (see the commentary on that epistle by the present writer and .Mr. .\. C. Headlam). The attestation of the NT text is so varied and so early that a displacement of this magnitude could hardly fail to leave traces of itself. .At least, before it can \k assumed, the major premise that such a displacement is pos>ible needs lo lie more fully established.

In the cases which might V)e quoted from the OT the conditions are really ditVerent. It would, however, be well if the whole question of the editing and trans- ntission of ancient Jewish and Christian books coulil be more systematically investigated. [For a discussion of 6i4-7i see C.'iiss. A'n:. 1890, pp. 12. 150/. 317. 359 ; and the authorities mentioned in the last place.]

If the epistle has come down to iis in its integrity, no doubt we must recognise the abruijtness of Pauls manner of writing or dictation. In that, however, there is nothing very paradoxical. Resides the ra[)id fluctua- tions of feeling, which are so characteristic of this epistle, we must rememl)er that a letter of this length could not all be written at a single sitting. It was prolxibly written in the midst of interruptions ( ' the care of all the churches.' 11 28). Moreover, its author was one whose mind responded with singular c|uickness to every gust of passing emotion.

19. Apocryphal letters[edit]

APOCRYPAL LETTERS. In the Armenian version after 2 Corinthians there stand two short letters, from the Corinthians to Paul and from Paul to the Corinthians (cp APOCRYPHA. 294), the substance of which is briefly as follows : The Corinthians inform Paul that a certain Simon and Cleobius have come to Corinth teaching that the prophets are not to be believed. that the world, including man. is the work not of God but of angels, that there is no resurrection of the body, that Christ has not come in the flesh, and that he was not born of Mary. Paul replies asserting the orthodox doctrine on each of these heads.

Attention was first called to these apocrypha by Archbishop Ussher in 1644. A complete text u as published in the Armenian Bible of Zohrab in 1805 (incomplete translations earlier); also, with a mouosjraph by Ritick, in 1823. Just as interest in the sul)ject was being revived by TlieoJ. Zahn {Gesc/t. (i. h'anons, 1386^ 2592-611) and Dr. P. V'etter, professor in the Roman Catholic P'aculty at Tubingen, a Latin version was discovered by M. Samuel Herger in a tenth-century MS. at ^Iilan, and pub- lished by him in conjunction with Prof. A. Carricre (La Corre- spontiance Afrocryfrhe de Saint Paul et des Corinth'fns, Paris, i8gi). \ second MS. (13th cent.), containing a dilVerent but probably not alto.;ether independent version, w.is found at ,-ion, and publislied by Prof, liratke in TLZ, 1892, col. 586/ There is also extant, in Armenian, a commentary on the epistle by Kphrem Syriis. The texts are most conveniently collected by Dr. P. Vetter in a Tiibingen programme (Dcr apocryplu dritU Korintlierhrief; Vienna, 1894).

The facts at present ascertained in regard to the apocryphal letters are these :

(1) They were from the lirst (i.e. from the 5th cent.) admitted into the Armenian version as part of the canon. (2) They also existed in Syriac and were accepted as canonicil in the fourth century by .\phr.aates, Ephrem Syrus, and the .Syriac Didascalia. [The quotation in Aphr.iates is recognised by both Harnack and Zahn, thoui;h questioned (as we think wrongly) by Carricre and Vetter.) (3) The letters were also known and had some small circulation i.i the West.

The problems whicli still await solution have reference to the (juestion of origin.

(i) Zahn, and now also Vetter, think that the greater part of the letters was in the first instance incorporaleii in llie apocryphal Acts of Paul. [Since this was written Zalins hypothesis h.as been verified through the discovery, by Dr. C. Schmidt, of con- siderable portions of the Acts of Paul in Coptic ; cp Neue I/eidci- berger JaJtrb.'icher, 1897, pp. 117-124, and Harnack in TL/., 1897, col. 627.] In any case it seems probable that they gained their place in the Syri.ac version in connection with the controversy against Bardesanes early in the third century. Their composition can hardly be much later thin 200 a.d. (2) It is coming to be generally agreed that the ni.dn body of the epistles existed first in Greek. Vetter and Zahn now think that the concludini; portion was added in Syriac, and /.dm goes so far as to make the Latin versions translated not fro:n the Greek but from the Syriac. In this he certainly has not proved his case ; but the age of th^se versions needs further investigating.

20. Literature[edit]

Besides the general commentaries (uliich still deserve mention) of Bengel, Wetstein, and Meyer (recent editions by Heinrici), we have, in English, in The Speaker s Colitis. Literature, mt-ntary, that on i Cor. by T. S. Evans (primarily exegetical and marked by fine schoIar^Uii)), and that on 2 C ^r. by Dr. Josei)h Waite (general), aN ;.;, Ill -irleson i Cor. by Dr. T. C. Edwards (exegetical an i : ^ 1. and by Bishop Ellicott (grammatical and exe- g ;; ' 1 Manley on both epistles is picturesque and interesting to the general reader, but has inevitably fallen behind thi present position of inciuiry, and w.as never exact in .scholar- ship. In this element the later English editions are strongest : they are moU deficient in historical criticism. The fullest recent commentary in German on the two epistles is by Heinrici (Berlin, ijSj, 13S7): well meant, and with new illustrations from later Greek, but inclined to press Greek analogies too far. Perhaps the best on the whole is Schmiedel's in the IIC (91), which is searching an J ex.act but inclined, as we think, to multiply entities beyond what is necessary. In this respect J iilicher's //. (94) seems to us to be the most judicious. Godet published a com- mentary on I Cor. in 1B80 ; and mention should be made of a monograph and commentary on 2 Cor. by Klopper ('69, '74), and of the discussions of special points in Krenkel's Beitrcige ('90), and of the missing epistle and its identification with parts of 2 Cor. in the l-:.xf>ositor (iZ()i h 231^ 285^, 1898 a 1 13 jf!).

On the apocryphal letters, besides the literature quoted above, a summary will be found in Harnack's Gesch. d. altchr. Lift. 1 37-39, .-md Zahn's last words on the .subject in Theol. Liieratiir- bhitt, 1894, col. i23i?i The important discussion in Zahn's Einleitung, 1 1S3-249, was too late for notice. \v. S.


i. The cormorant of i:V is the Mldkh, r^'yz' (Lev. 11 17 Dt. 14 i7t),^ a word connected with the common Hebrew verb for 'to throw down' (-Vr.i), and therefore denoting some bird that sw^oops or dives after its prey. "a^- in Lev. 11 17 rightly renders KaLTa[p]odKTi]i, as this denotes a fish-eating Bird which dives and remains under water for some time (Arist. //.4 913). In Dt. 14 17 the order of (5 is different from that of the MT. Vg. has Mcri^ulus, the little Auk, and Targ. and Pesh. \\a\g shdle niini' i.e., ' extrahens pisces.' Many writers, following Bochart, believe ^'^c' to be Sula bassana, the ' gannet ' or ' solan goose ' ; but, although this bird is sometimes alleged to have been seen in the reed-marshes of Lower Egypt (Di. on Lev. 11 19), there is some reason for doubting whether it has so wide an E. range. A more likely bird, in view of its common occurrence on the coast of Palestine (Tristram, NUB 252), is the ' cormorant, ' which likewise plunges after its prey.

1 n'^r is restored by Herz in Job288 (i: -^^ vVv T^WTvh 'no cormorant darteth upon it.' Cp Lion, Ossikrace.]

"Two species of cormorant are described from Palestine : the Phalacrocorax carbo, which fretjuents both the sea- shore and inland waters, and the pygmy cormorant, P. fvi^mivus, which is found in lakes and rivers. Canon Tristram states that the P. carbo is always to be seen near the mouth of the Jordan, watching for the fish, which seem on entering the Dead Sea to be stupefied by the saltness of its waters. Cormorants are fish -eaters and extremely voracious. Like the bittern and the pelican they are looked upon as inhabitants of solitary jjlaces.

2. For nKJJ (soBii. : Gi. nx,-', ka ath; Is. 34 11 Zeph. 214, AV text), see Pelican (so AVint;., .\V elsewhere, RV every- where). N. M. A. E. S.


On the cultivation of corn and its use as food, see Agkicultlkk, Bread, Food, i, and the various cereals (on which see P.\I,ESTINE, 14). On other points, see the articles cited in the references given in the following list of expressions :

  • 1. 3'^N, dbh'ibh, the fresh young ears of corn. Lev. 2 14 (' green

ears of corn,' RV 'corn in the ear'); .see also Month.

  • 2. '?-^3, A'///, Job 24 6 AV (mg. 'mingled corn or dredge'),

properly 'fodder'; see Cattle, g 5.

  • 3. 12, /.ar. Gen. 41 35 49, etc. (E), Am. 5ii S6 perhaps 'purified

[cleansctl] grain ' ; cp .\r. burr>', 'wheat, grain of wheat,' and see Fo(jo, I.

  • 4- n^' Soren ('3"1j"|3, Is. 21 10, EV 'corn of my floor'; cp

Dt. 10 13 AV); properly ' threshing-fioor'; .see .\gricultukk,8.

  • 5. C'T", gen's, Lev. 2 14 ' corn beaten out,' RV ' bruised corn ' ;

cp 7'. 16.

  • 6. ]y^, dagnn, ( len. 27 28 37, etc., grain (of cereals), used widely,

along with c'n'n ' must ' (see Wink), of the jiroducts of Canaan (Dt.sy 2L); see Food, i. Its connection with the god Dago.v [^.w.] is uncertain.

  • 7. Sp73, karfuel, 2 K. 442, I'.V 'ears of corn' (cp Lev. 2;J 14

'ears'), preferably 'fruit' or ' garden -growth ' ; cp Car.mel. See Food, i.

  • 8. "I'-y, 'abliur, Josh, 'ni/., EV 'old corn,' RVmg. 'produce,


  • 9. nD"iy, 'areindli, Ruth 87, EV 'heap of corn'; see Agri-

cultuki:, 9/

  • 10. : /^, iil>, I S. 17 17, etc., ' parched corn ' ; see Food, i.
  • 11. TOj^, ^dmali, Judg. liJ 5, etc., ' standing corn ' ; see Agri-

culture, 7.

  • 12. nia"!, riphoth, 2S. 17ig Prov. 27 22, ' bruised corn ' ; cp

Cooking, 2.

  • 13. '^'yi',\eber, Gen. 42 i, etc., perhaps 'broken (corn),' but

uncertain. As a denom. T^c-.i, 'to sell corn '(Gen. 42 6 Am. 857:, etc.).

  • 14. KOKKOs, Jn. 1224, 'a corn (RV grain).'
  • 15. criTOs, Mk. 428 etc., a general term like |3^ (above, 6).
  • 16. ra cTTTopi/ixa, cornfields, Mt. 12 i Mk. 223.
  • 17. <Tt6.i(v%, Mt. 12 I Mk. 2 23, 'ear of corn'; cp Heb. n^ac", Job

24 24.


(kornhAioc [Ti. WH]), one of the centurions of the so-called Italian cohort (ActslOi).

1. The Italian cohort[edit]

In the regular army composed of Roman citizens distinctive names of this sort were not given to the separate cohorts ; only the legions were so designated (Ramsay St. Paul chap. 14, i. p. 314)- In Acts 10, accordingly, what we have to do with is a cohort of the auxiliary troops which were raised in the provinces and not formed into legions.^ As for the meaning of such names : ' cohors Gallorum Macedonica,' for example, would denote that the cohort mentioned consisted of Gauls but had distinguished itself in Macedonia. If this interpretation were applicable, an Italian cohort would mean one which had fought in Italy. In Arrian, h<jwcver (Acics (antra Alarms, 3, p. 99), the cohort which in 13, p. 102, is callctl 17 ffwflpa i) 'IraXuTj, the Italian cohort, figures simply as ol'lraXoi, the Italians, and with this agree all the other mentions (entirely in inscriptions) of a cohors Italica.

1 Legions were stationed only in the great provinces that were governed by the emperor through a le^atus Augustipro prcetore ; the smaller provinces those administered by an ofnctr of lower rank (J>rocurator), such as Eg\ pt, or Judsea from 6-41 A.D., and again from 44 a.d. onwards had only auxiliary troops. The old provinces, where war no longer threatened and tie administration was in the hands of the senate, had no standing army properly so called.

These are (i) CfA(ors) I Italica civium Romanorum volun- tiinoriim; (2) C(>h{ors) ///viaria) i.e., having 1000 instead of as usual 500 men) Jtalicia) fo//(arioruin) qtue est in ^yrin. ; U)'0/t. II. Italica; (4) the epitaph of a sulxiniinate ofTicer found at Carnuntum in Pannonia and first published in the Arclurol.-efiigr. Mirtheilunren aus Oestcttrich-Utignm (1895, p. 2i&)-p/>tio <ro//(ortis) // Itaic(ii:) t^ivium) A'(omanoruiu centuria) /'^aus)/;/ ex i'*jr/(lariis) sagit{l2iT\is) exer(c\\.w^) Syriaci.

Thus the fftrtlpa 'IraXt^crJ of ActslOi really consisted of Italians, probably of Italian volunteers.

N )W, Schiirer^ has pointed out that according to Josephus (Ant. xx. 87, 176) the garrison of C.esarea about 60 A. D. consisted mostly of Caesareans and SebastCni (Sebaste having, from 27 B.C., been the name of Samaria). As early, however, as 41-44 A. n. (at latest), when Caisarea was not under a Roman procurator but under a grandson of Herod "the Great, King Herod Agrippa I. (whose death is recorded in Acts 1220-23, and during whose reign, or shortly before it, the story of Cornelius will have to be placed), the garrison at Cajsarea nmst, according to Schiirer, have been similarly comiwsed. For in 44 .V.D. , the emperor Claudius desired to transfer the garrison which, at that time, and according to Josejihus (Z//iii. 42, 66) also twenty-three years later, in 67 A.D. , consisted of an a/a (=t\j; i.e., cavalry detachment of 500 men) of the t.i-sareans and Sebasteni and five cohorts to the province of Pontus, because, after the death of his friend King Agrippa I., they had publicly insulted the statues of his daughters ; but there was no change of garrison until the time of Ves[)asian (Jos. Ant. xix. 9 i/. , ^ 35'J-3<^<j)- This led Schiirer to conjecture that a cohort of Italians may have come to Ca-sarea (there was in Syria, as shown above, one such at least) under Vespasian, and that the author of Acts, or of the source from which he drew, may have transferred the circum- stances of his own lime to the time of Peter.

Ramsay, on the other side, adduces the fourth of the inscrip- tions given above. liiis inscriptijn, however, docs not .say more than that in 69 A.D. there was a.<;}/iars Italica in Syria; and, aUliough there may have bein such a coliort there as early as about 40-45 a.I)., it is not said that tlicre was one in Caesarca. It is especially improbable that that ciiy w.is so garrisoned in the reign of Asrippa I. (41-44 A.n.), for he was a relatively independent .sovereign, not likely to have h.ad Italians in his service; but even for the period preceding 41 a.d. Schiirer argues for a probability that the garrison of C^sarea was the same as it was afterw.ards, and that it was simply taken over by Agrippa at his accession. For the rest, Ramsay can only appeal to a possibility that Cornelius may have been temporarily at C.csarea on some 'detached service.'

Oscar Holtzmann (NTlic/ie Zfifs^csch. 11, 2, p. 108) thinks that perhaps the enrolment at some time or other of a considerable number of Italian volunteers may have sudicetl to secure for such a cohort in perpetuity the honorary epithet of 'Italica.' All this, however, is mere conjecture.

1 ZIVT, 187s, pp. 4I3-4J5; C/Kl 382-6 (ET i. 24S-54 : where, on p. 54, accorduig to Kxp. 1896, ii. 470n. for 'in reference to a later period ' should be read ' iii refcrnce to a preceding period"). In Kxp. 1896, 2469-472, Schiirer replies to Ramsay ib. i94>2oi; Ramsay replies, 1897, 1 69-72.

Mommsen (Sitztdtiji^sbcr. d. Akad. zii Berlin, 1895, PP- 501-3) seeks to deprive of its force the statement of Josephus on which Schurer relies. Starting from the view that the trooi)s of Agrippa must certainly have been drawn from the whole of his kingdom, that is, from all Palestine he maintains that Caesarea and Sebaste are singled out for special mention by Josephus merely as being the two chief towns in Agrippa's dominions. He lays emphasis on the fact that in BJ \\\. 4=, 66 (see above) and Ant. xx. 6i, 122, it is said only of the ala not of the cohors that it was composed of Caesareans and Sebastenes. At the same time he does not use this fact to establish the probability of a cohors Italica in Ciesarea. On the contrary, his conclusion is that ' We arc unable to identify with any certainty either the cohors Augusta of Acts 27 1 or the ffiretpa 'IraXiK-ii of Acts 10 1.'

2. Narrative irreconcilable with Council of Jerusalem.[edit]

The special importance of Cornelius in Acts lies in the representation that his conversion by Peter brought the original Christian community of Jerusalem in spite of violent recalcitrance at first (11:2-3), to the conviction that the Gentiles aLso, without circumcision and without coming under any obligation to observe the law of Moses, were to Ix; received into the Christian Church if they had faith in Christ (1117/.). The hi.storical truth of this representa- tion has to be considered in connection with what we are told elsewhere concerning the Council of Jerusalem (rco CoLNCii,, ii. 4 ; Acts, 4 ). That council could never have been necessary, and the Judaising Christians in it could never have stood out for the circumcision of the Gentiles or their obligation to observe the whole Mosaic law (.\ctsl5i5). if they had already come to see and acknowledge in the case of Cornelius that such demands were contrary to the divine will. In his controversy with Peter at Antioch also (Gal. 2 11-21), Paul could have used no more effective weajion than a simple reference to this event ; but he betrays no knowletlge of it. No one, it is to be jiresumed, will attemjjt to save the credibility of the narrative by the exijcdicnt of transferring it to some date subse(|uent to the Council of Jerusalem. As at that council (we are told) Peter himself e.\pres.sly agreed that the Gentiles should have unimpeded entrance into the Christian Church, that circumcision and observance of the law should not Ix; demanded of them, he did not, at a later date, refjuire to be instructed on the matter by a di\ine revelation. Had the Cornelius incident been later than the Council the novelty woulil have lain simjily in Peter's preaching the gospel and administering l)aptism to Cornelius and his household in prol^ria pt-rsinia. This, however, is precisely what would have been contrary to the principle ado[)ted at the Council as laid down in Gal. "Jg, which settled that he should confine his missionary activity to born Jews. (On the importance of this principle, see Couxcir., 9.)

3. Credibility of narrative as an incident.[edit]

As the story of Cornelius must thus be retained, if anywhere, in its present place, before the Council of Jerusalem, its credibility can be allowed only on condition that it is acknowledged not to posess the important bearing on questions of principle which is claimed for it in Acts. 11 1-18.

(<7) To meet this requirement, it is usually thought sufiicient to say that the occurrence was an ' exceptional case' (so, for example, Ramsay also, .S7. Paul*\ chap. 3, p. 44). This may be true in the sense that Peter con- verted and baptized no more Gentiles ; but, unless at the same time it is denied that in the case of Cornelius Peter's action proceeded on a divine revelation and command, the reference to the exceptional character of the case has no force. The conditions of missionary activity which God had revealed to Peter in the case of Cornelius must surely, when Paul also began to n\^p\y them, have been acknowledged by the original Church ; and thus the controversy resulting in the Council of Jerusalem could never have arisen. On this ground alone, then, to begin with, Peter's vision at Joppa is unhistoric^il ; and aversion from miracles has nothing to do with its rejection. The whole account seems to Ix; intluenced by reminiscences of the story of the sunmioning of Balaam by Rilak (Nu. 225-39); see Krenkel, Josephus u. Lucas. 193-9 [94]-

{/') It is further urged (so again Ramsay, St. Pau^*>, ch. 3 I and 16 3, pp. 42/. and 375, and Exp. , 1896. 2200/) that Cornelius according to Actsl02 22 35 was a semi-proselyte i.e. , gave a general adhesion to Judaism, without being circumcised or yielding definite obedience to the details of the Mosaic Law ; ' but neither does this contention avail. The fact is. as stated in Acts 10 28 11 3, that Cornelius and his house, according to Jewish and Jewish-Christian ideas, were unclean ; and if, notwith- stantiing this, (iod had commanded his admission within the pale of the Christian Church, the command had essentially no less significance than it would have had if he had ])reviously been tiuite unattached to Judaism. Ramsay (43) says, it is true, that Peter ' laid it down as a condition of reception into the Church that the non- Jew must approach by way of the synagogue (10 35) and become "one that fears God."' But Peter does not say this until after he has been taught by God in a vision. Without this instruction it would have been incumbent on him to exact, as conditions precedent, acceptance of circumcision and submission to the entire law (10 14). As soon as the divine command is re- cognised as a historical fact the dispute at the Council of Jerusalem becomes, as already stated, an impossibility.

(c) On one assumption alone, then, will it be possible to recognise a kernel of historical truth in the story of Cornelius : the assumption, namely, that he was a full proselyte, circumcised, that is tc say, and pledged to observance of the entire Law. Such a supposition, however, is in direct contradiction of the te.xt (10 28 11 3). It would be strange indeed if, in order to make the narrative credible, one liad first to change it in so important a point. It would be necessary to depart still further from the text if it were desired to put faith in what is said in the pseudo- Clementine Homilies (20 13), according to which Peter did not convert Cor- nelius at Cajsarea to Christianity at all, but merely freed him from a demon's possession. It is not in- trinsically imjjossible that here we have a fragment of good tradition ])reserved from some ancient source (see Simon M.\gl"s) ; but, on account of its combination with manifest fancies (see below, 6), to trust it would be unsafe.

1 That this is the meaning of the phrase crePofievot [or ^o^oufiero?) Tor 9f6v is shown in Schiirer G/i', ET 4 3,ii_^.\ also SBAH\ 1897, Heft 13, 'Die Juden im bosporanischen Reich,' especially i<)/. = -ziZ/. of the volume : see also Proselyte.

2 10367;, however, ought not to he reckoned among these: no redactor would have introduced such violent abnormalities into his text. The words from apfafiei'os (' beginning ') down to roAiAaiosC Galilee'), or, it may be, to 'IwaviTj^ (end of t. 37), are absolutely foreign to the construction, and certainly ought to come between 6s ('who') and &i.rjK6fv (EV 'went a'oout ") in V. 38, whether it be that they originally belonged to this place, or that they originally stood on the margin as a reminiscence by a very early reader from Lk. 23 5 or Acts 1 22. In 10 36 the reading of \VH ('[He] sent the word unto . . . Lord of all. Ye know the word which " : cp RVn's) is un- questionably a copyist's attempt to remove the ditTiculties of the construction ; but their marginal reading (toi/ Aoyoi' ok a.iti<nei.Ktv, etc.; 'The word which' as in EV) it is as difficult to make dependent on the oiSore (ye know) of 7'. 37 as it is to construe in apposition to the whole sentence in v. 35. If we refuse to suppose that before v. 36 some such words as ' you also hath he thought worthy to hear' h.-ive fallen out before Toi' Aoyoi' 'ov aiTf<TTfi\fv, etc. (the word which [he] sent), it will be necessary to take tov Aoyoi- of ('the word which ') down to Sia 'Iijo-oO XpicTToO (' by Jesus Christ '_), as a marginal explanation of TO ytvofitvov p-qtia Ka6' oAtjj tijs 'lovSaCa<: (' the word which was throughout all Judaea'), whereoTJjxa (RV ' saying ') is wrongly understood in the sense of ' word ' inste.-id of the Hebraismg sense of 'event, occurrence' as in Lk. 215; and ofrot imv itavTuv niptot (' he is lord of all ') will be a further addition.

4. Sources[edit]

All the more urgent becomes the ciuestion whether the narrative in Acts is derived from a written source. Of the scholars enumerated under Acts (11) the majority assume that it is, and point out verses in ch. 10, the proper connections of which (they say) have been obliterated by the final redactor of the book.^ They further emphasise the point that in the narrative by Peter (11 5-17) certain details are not given precisely as in ch. 10. Still, even the most serious of these differences namely, that in ch. 11 the Holy Spirit fell upon Cornelius and his household at the very beginning of Peter's discourse (v. 15) admits of explanation: IO34-43 may have been supj)Osed to represent only a comparatively small part of what Peter meant to say. Were it necessary to make a choice between ch. 10 and ch. 11, it would be the worst possible course to try to see in the latter the source from which the fuller narrative of ch. 10 was originally derived by amplification (so Wendt, ZTK, 189 1, pp. 230-254, esp. 250-4). That principle-deter- mining character which, as we have seen, can in no case have attached to the assumed event, is imparted precisely by the justification which in ch. 11 the event receives before the church of Jerusalem ; and against this it is of no avail that Wendt chooses to attribute some of the strongest passages, such as lli and 11 18, to the latest redactor of Acts.

More important than any of the indications hitherto dealt with is the clue supplied in 10 44-47 11 15, 17. The ' speaking with tongues ' of Cornelius and his house- hold is here placed on a level with that of the apostles at the first Pentecost after the resurrection, but is not yet (as it is in the other passage) described as a speaking in the languages of foreign nations : it is undoubtedly meant, as in i Cor. I'i 14, to be taken sinijjly as a speaking in ecstatic tones (see Gifts). Certainly this representation of the matter does not seem as if it had been clue to the latest redactor of the book as a whole.

In favour of the credibility of the narrative, however, nothing is gained by all this search for a written source. It is a great error, widely diffused, to suppose that one may ipso facto take as historical everything that can be shown to have stood in one of the written sources of the NT authors. As far as the source was in substance identical with what we now have in the canonical Acts, it is equally exposed to the criticisms already offered. There is one assumption which would escape the force of that criticism the assumjjtion, namely, that Cornelius was a full proselyte ( 3c) ; but it cannot possibly by any analysis of sources be made out to have been the original tradition.

5. Tendency.[edit]

All the more remarkable is the clearness with which the tendency of the narrative may be seen. The initiative in missions to the Gentiles, which historically belongs to Paul, is here set down to the credit of Peter (see Acts, 3 /. ). According to the representation given in Acts, it was preceded by the conversion of the Samaritans (85-25), who, however, were akin to the Jews, and consequently not Gentiles (Schurer, GJV^s-7, TZs-i). H had Ijeen preceded also by the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch (826-39) ; but he had not thereby been made a member of any Christian church. The really difficult problem was this : In what manner ought Jewish Christians to live together in one and the same church with Gentile Christians, who did not hold by the Mosaic Law ? This question is brought by Peter, in the case of Cornelius, on the basis of a divine revelation, exactly to the solution w hich in reality it was left to Paul to achieve after hard battle at a much later date (see Council, 4, 7). With a certain reserve, which bears witness to right feeling for essential historical truth in spite of all unhistoricity in the narrative, the author attributes no more conversions of Gentiles to Peter ; and even the conversion of Cornelius himself is in some measure toned down by the previous Jewish sympathies with which he is credited. There is thus a further step left. It is not till later, in Antioch, that the gospel is preached to Gentiles who had not previously stood in any close connection with Judaism, and the new step is taken (as in the case of the Samaritans) in the first instance by subordinate persons, and not sanctioned by the authorities at Jerusalem till after the event (11 19-24). None the less are mission to the Gentiles and the abolition of the distinction between Jewish Christiins and Gentile Christians so essentially vindicated in the cise of Cornelius thai Peter hr\s necessarily to \x considered their real initiator as far as Acts is concerned. The narrative, accordingly, is incomplete contrast to Cjal. 2ii-ai. In Galatians the historical Peter, on account of Jewish Christian prejudice not yet fully overcome, withdraws from table -fellowship which he had begun with Cjentilc Christians, and thereby exijoses himself to the sharp censure of Paul (see CouNcil., 3) ; in Acts he has completely overcome those prejudices long before Paul begins his Christian activity. It is not necessary on this account to sujjpose that the author of .Vets freely invented the whole story, including oven the name of Cornelius ; but, considering how mark<.>dly he Ijrings it into the service of his theory, we have little prosjiect of ultimately l)eing able to retain more than a very small kernel as historical.

6. Later traditions.[edit]

According to the pseudo-Clementine Homilies (20 13; sec above, 3 c) and Recognitions (IO55) Cornelius took the side of Peter as against Paul. When -Simon the Sorcerer {i.e. , Paul ; see SIMoN MAGUS) had stirred up all Antioch .against Peter, Cornelius comes upon a mission from the lim- jx-ror and arrives at an understanding with the friends of Peter, at their request, to set abroad the rumour that his imperial commission has reference to the arrest of Simon. Thereupon Simon makes his escape to Jud;ta. Thus Cornelius here plays the \xnl which in Acts 21 33 2823-33 is assigned to Claudius l.ysias.

Ai'cordiiic; to llie ' uird/Lio7fia oil the Holy Apostles I'eter and P.-iul,' .-iitribiited to Symcon .Met.nphr.aste^, Cori'.elius is coiise- tr.iled by I'eter bishop of Iliiiin ; according to the Greek Mimra (13th Sept.), he is sent by Peter to Skepsis on the Hellesfxjnt (Lipsms, A/>okry/>h. A^.-(it'sih.\\.l ^t, and 9/). According to the pseiido-Cleinentine Homilies (3 63-72) and ke- coijnitions (:!6sy^), Zacclia;us was consecrated first bishop of Cxsarea l>y Peter ; in .-//. Const, vii. 40 i Zucchaius is sviciecded by Cornelius. !>. \v. S.


(HNS). Lev. I9927 21 5: (i) of a field : cp Ci.KAN, 6 ; (2) of the beard : see CrTTiNGS oi- TiiK I-'i.i:.sii, 5, Mourning Customs ; (3) of a garment ('p, KRAcne^ON), N'u. ir.38 KV'"*.'- : see Fkingf.s.


(n32n nhl'), Xeh. 3 u R\'. Sec JERUSALEM.


(D'3Si^ TI'L"), Zech. 14.o. See JERUSALEM.


(in Job HSS ^nX ; AiGoc rcoNiAioc; in ^^- njS, K. AKporcoNiAioc. ^nd so in NT; in Ps. Jl'IT KeKAAAconiCAAeN&i ; Arj. eni- rooNIA, Sym. rcoNiAl?). (-') Job386; {b) Is. 28i6 I Pet. 2 6 i:i)h. 220 (without AlBoc) ; (<:) Ps. 144 12.

In (rt) the phrase ' pinnah-stone,' KV's 'corner-stone,' is parallel to ^'J"]-' ' * foundations' (or bases), just as in Jer. 61 26 'a stone for a ///// ' (nssS |aN) is parallel 10 'a stone for foundations ' (nnnic? J3K). In (/) we find the same connection between ri3S, pinnah, and the foundation-stone. Clearly, therefore, the traditional rendering 'corner-stone' for n33 pK is unsuitable. Indeed, the word '133 elsewhere only in some cases means 'corner' (see Ex. 2" 2 4 Kzek. 43 20 4.' 19 Job 1 19 Prov. 7 k). Besides this, the architectural term c'KT njS in Ps. 1 IS 22 (A. aicpoYbii'tatot in i Pet. 2 6 cp Eph. 2 20 ; but not in Mt.'Jl42 and parallel passages,. .\cts 4 1 1 i Pet. 27) evi- dently means, not ' corner-stone," but ' top-stone of the battle- ment,' and 'battlement' is RV's rendering of n|S in 2Ch.26i5 Zeph. 1:6 36.

In spite of tradition, therefore, it would seem that n39 I3K means, not a corner-stone, but a principal stone (cp c*:B, Ass. pdnu, 'front'), one selected for its solidity and beauty to fill an important place in a build- ing, whether in the foundation or in the battlement. Hence the metaphorical sense of nis. ' principal men," Is. 19 13 (so point), I .S. 1438 Judg. 20 2. [c) The third EV passage (Ps. 144 12) with the word 'corner' is ex- tremely obscure in MT. That Jewish maidens could be likened either to 'corner-stones' (FA', Del.) or to 'corner-pillars' (Baethg., We. in SDOT, comparing the Caryatides) puts a severe strain on the imagination. The student may con.sult the three critics named. Zech. 9 15 ('corners of the altar') by no niciins justifies either of the above interpretations of n'M. The parallel jKissage, Ps. 1283, indicates the sort of figure retjuircd ; the text necils emendation. .See further Che. /'j.*'-'

In Is. 28 16 the stone described as a finnah-sUme syml)olises, not the theocracy or the Davidic dynasiy, nor yet the (Jewish) Messi.ah, but the revealed relation or Yahwe to Israel, which Yahwe was establishing e\er more and more by the words of his prophets and the solemn acts of his regal sway. That it should l)e applied to their divine Messiah by Christians is intelli- gible ; and, since they read the Psalter as a Iwxjk with a living power of self-adaptation to their own changing needs, it was natural that Christian disciples should find the words of Ps. II.H22, which originally referred to the Jewish people, verified in their Master. In Kph. 22j there is no absolute need to interpret oLKpoyuviaiov other- wisc than ,-3S jan ; but in I Pet. 2 6 we seem to reijuire the traditional sense 'corner-stone' (see i'. 7).


For Dan. Ssf. i]':Pj and i Ch. I528, etc. (lEir) see Music, 5^. For 2 S. Ost (CyJi':-:), see .Music, 3(3).


Anointing (,/.:. , 3] was by itself an efficient mode of investiture with royal functions ( i .S.

10 I I K. 1341.' It is only in the case of Joash that coronation is mentioned as accompanying intleed, it is mentioned as preceding the anointing (2 K.II12). Perha|)s 2 .S. 1 10 refers to an older custom of trans- ferring to the successor the personal adornments of the de.ad king ; see CuovvN'. Perhaps too the anointing occurred near or on a particular via<sPbah or u|)right stone, as in the case of Abimelech, for we can hardly doubt that IC\"srendering the ' pillar that was in .Shechem ' (Jutlg. 96) is correct, though the final letter of ,-2X2 has been lost or removed (see Moore, ad loc. ). Joash too is said to have stood ' by the pillar as the manner was '(2 K.

11 14) ; but here the word for ' pillar' is difllerent (ni^i't, and we should perhaps follow RV"'c- and Klostermann in rendering 'platform' (cp 2 K. 283 RV'"*.')."'^

After the anointing the people greeted the new king with a nourish of trumi>ets ( i K. 1 34 39 2 K. 9 13 ler^ i'pn, 2 K. 11 14 nni'-inn). In the case of Jehu and .Absalom (2 S. If) 10) the trumpet soimds were the signal of accession, though they may have lxx;n simply an element in the popular expressions of joy (i S. 11 15 i K. I40), which included hand-clapping (pj j,'j:n. nsn 2 K. 11 12 Ps. 47 I [2]) and the exclatnation ' Live the king ' {-'^t\ 'n' ; I S. IO24 2 S. 16 16 I K. 1 3439 2 K. 11 12). Sometimes there was a procession with music ; the new king rode on the royal mule (i K.. 1 33 38) and finally took his seat on the throne.

It is possible that 'to-day' in Ps. 27 refers not to the birth but to the coronation of the kmg. See Baethg., Che. a<//.'c' The latter illustrates from the sculptures representing the coronation of the Egyptian queen Hat-shepsut,* Naville, ToiifU 0/ Dcirt-t- Balinri, III., 1899, pp. i-o). See W'einel's essay on nc^ i" /..ATU- IS 1-92 ['98] and Diehl, Erkl. von /V.xlvii., Giessen, j894. I. A.

1 .According to R.-ibbinic views, not all kings were anointed ; but the term rn.T n'trO seems the generic designation of a king. On the association of crowning with anointing sec Is. 61 3 (cp SHOT ad loc).

2 L. Oliphant {Haifa, 147) conjectures that the (artifici.il) footprints in the rocks in difrei;ent parts of Palestine (e.g., at Hebron and at the Neby Shaib near Hat!'") indicate ver>' ancient cornnation-stones.

S Ha't-Sepsut, formerly wrongly written Hatasu (see Egypt, 153)-


(n'ri'if^rrnri), 2 k. 23 13, R\'"'*-'- 'mount of destruction.' See DESTRUCTION, Mount of.


(kcoc [-^SV]), I Mace. If. 23. See Coos.


(kcocam [Ti. WH]^, fifth from Zerubbabel in the genealogy of Joseph (Lk. 828). See GENEALOGIES, ii., 3.


(n-li^; ipic [BAFL]: casta), Ex. 30 24 RV'"^'- [in Kzek. 'J7 19 Vg. stacte. EV cassia kai TpoxiAC ' 'Tid drugs? ']. See Cassia, Incknse, 6.


I. For Is. 1 8(n3D)and 2420 (nrSa)see Hut.

2. In Zeph. 26 (EV 'cottages' RVni);. 'caves') the an. Aey. n"i3 is probably a (littograph of Tt^i ' dwellings '(Bohme, ^-4 '/'/K 7 212 ['87]: Rothstein in Kau. /A? ; and Schw.-illy, ZATIV 10 186 ['90]), under the influence of C"n"13 inf. 5; or, transposing the two words, we may adopt with We. the reading of /<z.f and ultimately from Sans, karpdsa, 'the cotton plant.' * As a derived word it means, in the various languages, primarily 'muslin,' the fine cotton cloth which came from India, and also such stuffs as are nained 'calico.' The nature and home of the cotton plant were known to the Greeks as early as Herodotus (3 106) ; but it was the expedition of Alexander that first nude them familiar with the use of cotton faV)rics. The earliest known occurrence of Ka.pTr<x.<sos = carbasus in Greek or Latin is in a line of C,';ucilius (219- 166? B.C.) ' carbasina, molochina, ampelina '^which appears to be a transliteration of a line in a Greek l^l.Tv. Strabo (l,')i, 71) and the author of the Peri pi. Maris F.iy/hr. (cliap. 11), Lucan (8239), and Quintus Curtins (89, 21) used the word in special connection with India ; but other references in classical writers show that the word obtained a wider sense, jiarticularly in the poets. Thus it is used of fine Spanish 1 nen or cambric (Pliny 19 i, 2), of the .awnings of theatres* (Lucr. 6 109), often of sails (^. 8357 4417, etc. ) and of robes of fine material {ib. 834 11 776, etc. : see these and other passages discussed in Yates, Tcx/ri/iiiin Antiquoriim, 1 338^). We cannot, therefore, be certain as to the material called karpas in the particular case of Esth. 16, since according to the later usage any light material might be so called ; but in view of the un- doubted meaning of the original word in Sans., the presumption is in favour of cotton -muslin. Karpas certainly denotes a material, not a colour (the latter is a Jewish idea, found in Vg. ).

Asiatic cotton in ancient times (like most modern cotton) was derived from the cotton plant, Gossypiutn heiltacenm, L. perennial in the tropics, but elsewhere annual which had its first home in India, but by the time of Alexander had spread to Bactriana (De CandoUe, Origine, y^Zjlf-)- ^ C cotton shrub (Gossyfiium arhoreuvt, L.), on the other hand, which, though little known to the ancients, is described in one place by Pliny, had its first home, according to modern investisjation, in ' Upper Guinea, .Vbyssinia, Sennfir, and Higher Egypt' (/(5. 325^). This, brought down from the Soudan, was probably the earliest cotton cultivated in Lower Egypt. Prosper Alpinus saw it in Egypt in the sixteenth century {Jb., 327). It was afterw.ards displaced by the Indian G. hcrbaceum.

For Gen. 41 42 Ex.254, RVmg. (pV^Te's; EV Fine Linex, AVmsj. Sii.K [cp Pr. 31 2?, AV]), see Linkn (7); for Is. lOgt RVnig. (.-T,n, horai), see Linen (8). N. M. \V. T. T.-U.

1 According to Klostermann's conjectural emendation of 1 S. 2 19 (njnj or jnD for jap), the word ' cotton ' is itself a Hebrew word, though it has come to us through the Arabic Kutn, cp Tunic), and apparently it meant ' linen ' not ' cotton ' ; XeCo/xe'iT) [njnsl.M**' KaAfiTat, AiVeof ie tovto a-fiftaCffi. ^iSov yap TO AtVoi' 17^*'? icaAoCjxei', Jos. Ant. iii. 7 2. Cp I.INEN.

- The adjectival form karpdsa means 'cotton stuff.'

3 These may possibly have been of calico.

  • xix. 1 2 ; superior pars iEgypti in Arabiam vergens gignit

fruticem quem aliqui gossyjpion vocant, plures xylon et ideo Una inde facta xylina.' Cp Oliver, Fl. Trap. Africa, 1 211.


(H'Jjp), Amos. 3 12. See Bkd, 2.


(riN; cKeyoc [BAL]), iS. 1820/, elsewhere rendered 'plowshare' (^pOTpON [B.\Q]), Is. '24 Joel 3 10 [4 10] Mic. 43. See AGRICULTURE, 3.


I. CTOj-I, ri^ndthdm, Ps. 68 27 [28] (EVmg. ' their company': prop, 'heap of stones'; I5Nc-aR ^yt^l.6ve<i avrCiv) is surely corrupt. Che., .^.-f 7'/K19 i 6 ['99] reads D'D'DnlnL ' the blameless ones.' See also Hupf., Haethg.

2. nyce'p, miimaath, 28.2823 (okoij [B.\], <?.vA(/ (doubtless to be connected with .Syr. sttuddd ' talk,* estaunvad ' to speak ' ; cj) Hommel, ZDMG 4(5 529, who similarly explains the Sab. -iiqo ^s 'speaker, or place of oracle ') is used, not only of a council or meeting (cp Jer. > 11 15 17 Ezek. 13 g, etc. ; see Assembly [4]), but also of its deliberations and their result (' secret,' 'counsel'; Am. 3 7 Pr. 11 13 Ps. 833(4], etc.; cpesp. Ps..';5i4[i5]).

4. ooi/u^ouAtoi' in Acts 25 12 is the jury or board of assessors who aided the procurators and governors of a province ; cp Jos.

5. crui'e'Spio;', the supreme council, Mt. 5 22 Jn. 11 47 Acts 621 etc. avvihpia. in pi. (.Mt. 10i7 = Mk. 13 9) are the smaller local tribunals; cp (cpio-c? (LV 'judgement') Mt.52iy;, and see GOVERNMENT, 31 end ; cp .'^YNEDKIUM.

  1. With the dates given here cp those in Chronology, 71