Encyclopaedia Biblica/Rome (Empire)-Sacrament

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search


The Roman Empire has been supposed to be alluded to in Dan. 2 and 7, but the interpretation is one which the progress of history has shewn to be untenable (Driver, Daniel, 98 ; see the whole discussion, 94-102). Rome is referred to by name in biblical writings for the first time in connection with Antiochus Epiphanes ; this 'sinful root', we are told, had been a hostage at Rome (1 Macc. 1:10, os rjc 6/mjpa tv Tifi PwniT)).

The topography and history of Rome and of the Roman Empire is so vast a subject and is so fully dealt with by various writers and in easily accessible works of reference, that it has been deemed sufficient, in the space at our disposal, simply to touch upon the problem of the relation of Rome to Judaism and to early Christianity.

1. Rome and the Hasmoneans.[edit]

Destined to play such an important part in the political and religious history of the Jews, the Empire came into close touch with them for the first time in the early days of the revolt against the power of Syria.

About the year 161 B.C. Judas the Maccabee having heard of the great fame of the Romans, sent an embassy 'to make a league of amity and confederacy with them, and that they should take the yoke from them ; for they saw that the kingdom of the Greeks did keep Israel in bondage' (1 Macc. 8:1+ ; cp 2 Macc. 11:34, Jos. Ant. 12:10:6, Justin 36:3). The mission was successful ; but before the news arrived Judas was slain (1 Macc. 9:1-18 ; Jos. Ant. 12:11:1). In 143 B.C. the alliance was renewed by the statesmanlike Jonathan (1 Macc. 12:1-4, 12:16 ; Jos. Ant. 13:58). On the death of Jonathan, Simon, his brother and successor, like his predecessors, also sent to Rome to seek a renewal of friendship. The ambassador, this time Numenius, was again successful, and 'the Romans issued a decree to all the peoples of the East, announcing that they had entered into a league of friendship with the Jews' (W. D. Morrison, The Jews under Roman Rule, 13). Hyrcanus, again, Simon s son and successor, after the death of Antiochus (129 B.C.), to escape paying any more the tribute which the Syrian had exacted, sent yet another embassy to Rome, and again 'in accordance with the settled principle of Roman policy in the East, the Jewish mission was received in a friendly manner, their grievances were attentively heard, and a decree was issued, ordering the Syrians to relinquish their claims to tribute, and declaring void whatever Antiochus had done in Judaea in opposition to previous declarations of the senate' [Jos. Ant. 13:9:2-3] (Morrison, op. cit. 16-17). After this several causes combined to weaken the power of the Syrians, so that the Jews no longer had any cause to fear them.

Such were the first relations of the Jews with the Roman Empire, if we are to trust tradition ; but as Morrison again observes (19), 'some of these supposed alliances rest upon very slender historical foundations'. For further details we must refer the reader to the article MACCABEES (cp ISRAEL).

2. Jewish party-spirit.[edit]

While the Roman Empire was becoming more and more imperialistic, within the Jewish nation was arising, through the play of new ideas, that spirit of faction which was to rend it asunder even in the face of a common foe (see SADDUCEES, SCRIBES AND PHARISEES ; cp ISRAEL). See again on the history of the period MACCABEES, and JANNAEUS. The disputes between Pharisees and Sadducees did not end with words ; in the contest between the soldiers of Alexander and the Pharisees much blood was spilt. The struggle went on through out the reign of Alexander, though towards the end he was able to subdue the Pharisees and their allies the Syrians ; it continued during the reign of Salome Alexandra (78-69 B.C.), in which John Hyrcanus, one of Alexander s sons was content to act as high priest ; and into the reign of Aristobulus (69-63 B.C.), Alexander s other son. It sapped the strength of the nation so that it was ready to fall an easy prey to a power that aimed at expansion. When the Romans, who for a time had been otherwise occupied, again turned their attention to the East, having been roused to action by the revolt of Mithridates, king of Pontus, in 88 B.C., and when success had attended their arms in the very neighbourhood of this people that had wantonly reduced itself to a. state of miserable weakness, it was natural and inevitable that the Roman Empire should be further extended. Another civil war in Palestine (66 B.C.) gave Pompey his opportunity. Hyrcanus, influenced by the schemer Antipater, had plotted to overthrow Aristobulus. When, however, the Pharisees, assisted by the Nabateans, were besieging Aristobulus in the temple, Marcus Scaurus, one of Pompey's lieutenants, appeared on the scene, put an end to the fight, and set Aristobulus on the throne for a time at least. The struggle between the two brothers soon broke out again. This time Aristobulus, having offended the Romans, was besieged by them in Jerusalem. With the help of the Sadducees, and in spite of the Pharisees, he was able to hold out against the besiegers ; but in the end Pompey, attacking him on a Sabbath (63 B.C.), broke through and inflicted severe punishment on the Jews.

3. Closer connection with Rome.[edit]

Judaea was then regarded as a conquered province. We may venture to say with Morrison that the new arrangements that resulted 'were on the whole a blessing to the peoples of the East who were rescued from chaos and instability, and enabled, after years of anarchy, to enjoy the fruits of peace' (41). Graetz (Hist. 267) points out that 'the Judaean prisoners that had been dragged to Rome, were to become the nucleus of a community destined to carry on a new kind of warfare against long-established Roman institutions, ultimately to modify or partly to destroy them'. Certainly the war between the new and old ideas was to go on uninterruptedly until some adjustment could be effected. Under the Herods, when the Jews were again in large measure allowed to govern themselves, the adoption of Hellenic culture was encouraged by the rulers to such an extent that the people revolted against it. The Jews determined to rid themselves of their half-Jewish rulers. At the request of the people themselves they were at length put under the direct government of Rome. 'With the return of Judaea to a Roman administration begins the prelude of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish people - perhaps the most shocking tragedy known to the history of the world' (Cornill, Hist, of the People of Israel, 259). The tragedy was due to the refusal of a large section amongst the people, such as the Pharisees, the Zealots, and the Sicarii, to accept the inevitable - Roman rule and the spread of Graeco-Roman ideas.

After Pompey's conquest Jewish and Roman history are closely bound up together, and the details have been sufficiently dealt with in ISRAEL, 85-115, HEROD, PILATE, GOVERNMENT, JERUSALEM, SELEUCIDAE, TRADE, and other special articles.

4. Rome and the Gospel.[edit]

One of the problems of history is to discover the precise attitude adopted by the Romans towards Judaism, on the one hand, and towards Christianity on the other. We know that important concessions were made to the Jews and that on the whole they enjoyed a large measure of religious liberty. Unfortunately, however, we are unable to treat the history of Josephus or the narratives of the NT as in all respects historically accurate. As to Josephus, 'his persistent endeavour to make it apparent that his people were actually friends of the Romans, and in reality took up arms against them unwillingly, is a notable example of hii colouring of the situation, and compels the acceptance of his assertions with some caution' ( Riggs, Hist, of Jewish People, 145 ; cp De Quincey, Works, 7:131+). As to the Gospels, it is admitted that their present form is due to editorial redaction. Christianity was no sudden growth. It arose gradually, and only made its way by slow degrees. It represents the result of that inter play of Eastern and Western ideas which began under the DISPERSION (q.v.). Judaism, under the influence of Greek thought, had undergone during the dispersion a striking change. Later, the transition from Graeco-Judaism to Christian Judaism, and from the ideas of Philo to those accredited to Jesus, was easy and natural. Even the stricter Judaism, itself, in the person of Hillel, helped to promote the new development. The process was accelerated by contact with Rome. But the new movement at first met with no very great success. Christian Judaism appealed neither to the Jew nor to the Gentile. The Jew refused to give up his characteristic rites ; the Gentile would not submit to purely oriental institutions. Christian Judaism was obliged to throw off more of its oriental trappings. Hence arose the purely Christian movement. This form of Christianity was probably represented by the primitive gospel. But the evolutionary process was still at work. The struggle of ideas was now going on with renewed vigour. The Roman empire had become a world-empire ; everything was tending towards a world-religion. 'Christianity' had long been in the air, or in other words, 'the fulness of time had come'.

This is admitted on all hands. 'If the Empire was the greatest of hindrances to the gospel, it was also the greatest of helps. . . The single fact that the Empire was universal went far to complete the fulness of time for Christ s coming. Rome put a stop to the wars of nations and the great sales of slaves resulting from them, to the civil strife of cities and their murderous revolutions. Henceforth they were glad to live quietly beneath the shelter of the Roman peace. Intercourse and trade (witness the migratory Jews) were easier and freer than ever since in Europe till quite recently. . . This was her [Rome's] work in history - to be the link between the ancient and the modern - between the heathen city states of the ancient world and the Christian nations of the modern' (H. M. Gwatkin, 'Roman Empire' in Hastings' BD. Cp Ramsay, Church in the Roman Empire, chap. 9, 6 ; also Seeley, Ecce Homo, i ; T. H. Muirhead in The Hibb. Journ. 1:153 [Oct. 1902], a criticism of Kidd's Principles of W. Civilisation; J. M. Robertson, A Short Hist, of Christianity (1902).

Writing of the state of the world towards the end of the first century, Renan shows (see the references in his notes) that 'expanded ideas of universal brotherhood and a sympathy with humanity at large, derived for the most part from the Stoic philosophy, were the result of the broader system of authority and the less confined education which had now assumed control. Men dreamed of a new era and of new worlds. . . Maxims of common humanity became current, and the Stoics earnestly taught the abstract notions of equality and the rights of men. . . Love for the poor, sympathy for all, and charity, became virtues'. But at the same time, as often happens during a period of transition, 'on the whole, the middle of the first century is one of the worst epochs of ancient history'. Philosophers, however, were doing much to bring about a reformation, and 'there was as much grandeur in the struggle of philosophy in the first century as in that of Christianity' (The Apostles, ch. 17). But it was not merely a struggle of two independent forces against a common foe. A struggle of ideas was going on within and between the two reforming agencies, and between both and the popular Roman religion. The conflict resulted in the victory of neither one nor the other, but in a compromise, in the evolution of a religion adapted and adaptable to its surroundings - in other words in a paganised Christianity.

5. Romans in the Gospels.[edit]

The primitive gospels seem to have been edited and amplified in view of this development. We have in our present gospels, apart from the fact that there are doubtless 'gospels' (Gnostic, Ebionitic, and even Essenic) within the gospels, on the whole not a picture of what really took place at the rise of the Christian movement, but a representation coloured and suggested by the ideas of a later age. Although therefore they may contain much correct information as to Roman ad ministration in Palestine, we can hardly trust them as to the general conduct of the Romans. To take an instance, the Gospels suggest that the Romans were interested in the new movement from the start, but that the ruling Jews were almost persistently hostile to it (espec. Lk. [cp also Acts]; cp Ramsay, Was Christ born at Bethl.? 67+). But the movement was not such as to appeal to the Roman mind in the first instance, and the name of its founder 'appears only in profane authors of a hundred years later, and then in an indirect manner ...' (Renan, Life of Jesus, ch. 28). Writings, such as the Gospels and the Acts, written in the interest, or to explain the rise, of a religious move ment, are especially liable to be influenced by bias or tendency, so that there is every reason to treat them with caution and critically to examine their statements before regarding them as strictly historical. In particular, the accounts of the betrayal, trial, and execution of the hero, whether we consider the part played by the Jews or by the Romans, are very difficult to understand. We might naturally suppose that Jesus would have been treated by the Romans as a political offender. Deliverers kept coming forward, we may be sure, in answer to the Jewish expectations. The Romans would hardly have been likely to discriminate between the new Messiah and other agitators. Each and all would be regarded equally as politically dangerous ; the career of each and all would be abruptly terminated as soon as the outskirts of the cities were abandoned and an attempt was made to openly preach 'a new kingdom' in the market-place. We have examples later of the treatment which these prophets received.

For instance, to quote Cornill's graphic description (Hist. 260), 'a certain Theudas . . . had summoned the people to the Jordan where at his command the miracle of Joshua was to be repeated. Fadus sent thither a company of cavalry, who simply cut the people down and brought the head of Theudas to Jerusalem'. See THEUDAS.

It is difficult to believe that the Romans behaved as they are reported to have done at an earlier date, even when it is admitted that the circumstances at the time were rather different. It has been handed down again that the Jews themselves, or a section of them, actually anticipated Roman action, that they betrayed the author of the new movement to the Romans and were themselves allowed to play a chief part in carrying out his death-sentence. But this representation of the Jewish attitude, as well as that of the Roman pro cedure, looks very much like a late attempt to take the blame as far as possible off the shoulders of the Romans and lay it on the Jews. The pagan-Christian movement, and the widening gap between Jews and Christians, would give rise to a tendency to say as little as possible in disparagement of the Romans, and as much as possible to bring odium on the Jews ; to adapt the teaching more and more to the mind of the Roman, to make it diverge more and more from the doctrines and practices of the Jews.

Cp GOSPELS. On the representation of Roman administration given in Acts, see ACTS. For other details see the special articles on the Roman places, governors, etc., mentioned in NT. See also CHRISTIAN (NAME OF), GOVERNMENT, ROME (CHURCH OF), ROMANS, PAUL, PILATE, PROCURATOR, PROVINCE, QUIRINIUS. M. A. C.


For hebel, 'aboth, and nikpah, see CORD, and for 'agmon, Job 41:2 [40:26] RV, AV 'hook', see RUSH, 2, and cp FISH, 5.


i. (rnri; AN eoc, Cant. 2:1; KRINON, Is. 35:1 +) is now usually taken, as in RVmg, to be the autumn crocus, Colchicum autumnale, L. , or some kindred species. The Heb. word, habatstseleth, is closely akin to Syr. hamtsallaytha, the meaning of which is well assured (Low, 174).

The rendering 'rose', found in Kimhi and other Jewish writers, seems to rest on mere conjecture ; 'lily' stands in LXX, Vg., Tg. (but only once in each), whilst 'narcissus' is in Tg. on Cant., and is upheld by Celsius (1:489+) and others. Delitzsch (Prol. 82+) compares Ass. habatsillatu, 'reed', and argues for the word being a general name (cp LXX and Vg. of Cant. 2:i) for a flower-stalk or a flowering plant. As Noldeke (ZDMG 40:730) and Halevy (REJ 14:149) urge, however, the name must be specific (at all events in Cant. 2 1): and the Aramaic word provides a satisfactory parallel, though, of course, this argument is not decisive against an Assyrian connection. 1 Various species of colchicum found in Palestine are enumerated by Tristram (FFP 425).

2. The podov [rodon] is referred to in Wisd. 2:8 (oTei/^etfa pbSwv KaXv^iv), Ecclus. 24:14 [24:18] 39:13 (39:17), and 50:8 (p 3 SJV2 ; see Schechter and Taylor). What is commonly called the 'Rose of Jericho', the Anastatica hieruntica, is certainly not meant by Ben Sira, when he speaks of the 'rose-plants in Jericho'. In all these passages he apparently means the rhododendron (Tristram, NHB 477; cp Schick, PEFQ, 1900, pp. 63-65). In 3 Macc. 7:17. PTOLEMAIS [q.v.] is called podofiopov [rodophoron] [V], or poSo<pbvov [rodophonon] [A]. The roses of Egypt are celebrated by the Roman poet Martial.

Gratz even finds the Hebrew, or more strictly, New Hebrew word for roses in a passage of Canticles (4:13, o Tll for DTlj). This may be right (see col. 693) ; but cp Budde, ad loc. On 77l, 'rose', in Mishna, and its Syr. and Ar. cognates, see Low, Aram. Pflanzennamen, 131-132

N. M.

1 [The Ass. comparison is accepted by Che. (Proph. Is.(3) on 'Is'. l.c.) after discussion ; it is pointed out that the same plant-name often has a different reference in different countries. See also Ges.(13) s.v. , who recognises the connection.]


(B>an ; ptoc [BAQ]), according to most, is the name of a people in Asia Minor, which, like Meshech and Tubal (confidently identified with the Moschi and the Tibareni), belonged to the empire of GOG [q.v. ] (Ezek. 38:2-3, 39:1). It is very strange, however, that all the names of peoples in Ezek. 38:1-6, except Rosh and Paras (v. 5), should occur in the Table of Nations in Gen. 10, and, from the conjunction of Tiras with Meshech and Tubal in Gen. 10:2, von Hammer long ago plausibly conjectured the identity of Tiras and Rosh. It is noteworthy that in Judith 2:23 the 'sons of RASSES' (q.v., and cp TIRAS) are mentioned directly after Put and Lud, and it is natural to identify, first, Rasses with Rosh, and then, on the ground of the phenomena of the Lat. MSS. , 1 Rasses with Tiras. This would produce the reading 'prince of Tiras'. 2

This is decidedly better than explaining c ; Nn j, 'chief prince (of Meshech, etc.)', as RVmg and Smend (after Tg. , Aq. , Jer. ). But the whole of the prophecy of Gog appears to need reconsideration (see PROPHET, 27). If it is true that the prophet foretells a great N. Arabian invasion, we must suppose that ran, like CTD and s5"EHn, is a corruption of Ashshur (-IIB N), the name of one of the peoples in N. Arabia bordering on the old Judahite territory. Cp TARSHISH, TIRAS.

Winckler would omit x b J as a gloss on p NI ( 'chief' ); but this is too superficial a correction. K ij j is specially one of Ezek.'s words (cp PRINCE, 2).

T. K. C.


(t^XI ; pooc [ADL]), a Benjamite family name (Gen. 46:21). In the corresponding list in Nu. 26:38-39 for Ehi Rosh Muppim we find Ahiram Shephupham, and the three names probably grew out of the two either by a simple transposition of the letters M and Sh (cp C. J. Ball, SBOT), or in some such way as that explained by Gray (HPN 35).

The MT in Gen., indeed, requires Rosh to make up its ten 'sons' of Benjamin (i.e., fourteen 'sons' of Rachel ; v. 22) ; but LXX{AL} , although naming ten, preserves the original summation nine (i.e., eighteen 'sons' of Rachel). LXX{B} is lacking at this point ; but LXX{D} sees the discrepancy and, since it retains Rosh, changes the eighteen to nineteen.

1 Vet. Lat. reads Thiras et Rasis, with which Pesh. must originally have agreed : Thiras and Rasis represent different readings of the same word.

2 DVn N bJ, instead of t^NT j ; n, as Herz has remarked, might easily fall out after N t?- Toy (Ezek. SJSOT) has also combined the names Rosh and Tiras. The above was written, however, before the appearance of his work.


i. nX, tsori, Ezek. 27:17 AVmg See BALM, i.

2. vd<j>0a [naphtha]; Song of Three Children, 23 (Dan. LXX 346) AV, RV NAPHTHA.


1. Biblical references.[edit]

In EV 'rubies' represent peninim, D^JE, six times (Job 28:18, Lam. 4:7, Prov. 3:15, 8:11, 20:15, 31:10); in Lamentations RVmg has 'corals'; in Job it has 'red coral' and 'pearls'.

The renderings of LXX vary and (sometimes at least) manifestly represent another text (in Job, icai t^Kvoov <ro<fiiau> itncp TO. eVioTara [BNC, e<ru>Ta [esota], A]; Lam., iintp \iOovs [hyper lithous]; Prov. 3:15, 8:11, 31:10, \iOtov TToAvreAiij [lithon polytelon] ; Prov. 20:15, wanting?); Vg. has a different rendering in each case (Job, trahitur autem sapientia de occultis ; Lam., ebore antique; Prov. 3:15, cunctis opibus ; 8:11, cunctis pretiosissimis; 20:15, multitudo gemmarum; 31:10, de ultimis finibus).

2. In Is. 5412 (irpiWaXXoj [krystallos]), Ezek. 27:16 (x<VXP [chorchor] [BQ], (copxopi [chorchorus] [A]) EV has 'rubies', but AV 'agate' and AVmg [Ezek.] 'chrysoprase', for 13-13, kadkid. See AGATE, CHRYSOPRASE.

3. In Ex. 28:17, Ezek. 28:13 RVmg has 'ruby' for O7x, 'odem.

2. Identification.[edit]

The question whether rubies are referred to in the OT may at first sight appear rather complicated. It is not so, however, in reality. The claims of 'rubies' as a rendering of peninim have long since passed into abeyance ; the revisers of AV, it is clear, only acquiesce in certain cases in AV's rendering 'rubies' from a feeling of uncertainty as to the absolute correctness of the marginal renderings which they propose. On the correctness of their renderings we may refer to CORAL, PEARL, and with regard to Lam. 4:7 (where the strange statement, 'they were more ruddy in body than rubies', is ventured upon in EV) to LAMENTATIONS [BOOK], 5, SAPPHIRE. If the precious stone called 'odem is really from V CIN. [root ADM] 'to be red', and not rather from the name of Edom, 1 it is most plausible to identify it with the carnelian (see SARDIUS). We have, therefore, only the passages Is. 54:12, Ezek. 27:16 to deal with. Here the greatest weight is due to Prof. Kidgeway's remark (CARBUNCLE), that there is no proof that the ruby, which is found only in Ceylon and in Burmah, 2 was known to the Hebrews any more than it was to the Greeks till after the time of Theophrastus. If the nophek is the mafkat-srone of the Egyptians (see CARBUNCLE, end), the kadkid might conceivably be the garnet ; on the possible root-meaning (to emit fire, as a fire-stick), see Ges.-Bu. and BDB. We must not, however, ignore the possibility (see CHALCEDONY, 1, end) that the true reading of the word is, not 7]1], but 1]72 (r for d). Both for the stone called 'odem and for that called (as we now assume) 1313, the name of a country may be surmised as the origin - viz., in the case of 'odem, Edom, and in that of 1313, Jerahmeel (such corruptions of this name turn out to be common); 3 the stones so designated may in fact have reached the Hebrews from N. Arabia, and so have been called respectively the Edomite and the Jerahmeelite stone. Cp SARDIUS, TOPAZ.

The true or Oriental ruby is a red variety of corundum or native alumina of great rarity and value, and to be distinguished from the spinel (an aluminate of magnesium), which is of much less estimation as a gem stone. The phraseology of ancient writers was even more confused than that now current, for they appear to have classed together under a common name, such as the carbunculus of Pliny or the arflpaf [anthrax] of Greek writers, not only (perhaps) our two kinds of ruby, but also garnets and other inferior stones of a fiery colour. See further STONES [PRECIOUS].

T. K. C.


2 Cp 'The Ruby Mines in Upper Burmah', Cornhill Magazine, Dec. 1001.

3 Cp, for instance, 'Calcol', 1 K. 4:31 [5:11].


(cTOixei&). Col. 2:8, 2:20 EV, RVmg ELEMENTS (q.v.).


(rTHfANON [Ti. WH]) is once mentioned (Lk. 11:42 t) as a small garden herb ; in the parallel passage Mt. 23:23 anise and cummin are mentioned instead.

According to Tristram (AV//> 478) Ruia graveolens is at this day cultivated in Palestine, whilst Ruia bracteosa is a common wild plant. Cp Low, no. 317.


( poy<J>oc [Ti. WH]) occurs several times in Old-Christian literature.

1. Mk. 15:21, as the son of SIMON OF CYRENE and the brother of ALEXANDER (qq.v). In the Apocryphal Acts of Peter and Andrew, and of others, Alexander and Rufus are mentioned as disciples of Andrew, who were his companions in the country of the barbarians ; cp R. A. Lipsius, Apokr. Ap.-gesch. 1:533-534, 1:617, 1:621 ; 1:377, 79 83, E. 94 96.

2. Rom. 16:13, as a Roman Christian, well known to Paul and to the Christians in Rome as being 'the elect (or the chosen) in the Lord'. We do not know the force of this expression. Weizsacker thinks that it hints at some special circumstances connected with his conversion. B. Weiss, Sanday-Headlam interpret: 'eminent as a Christian'. In any case it will be an epitheton omans to celebrate the friend of Paul, the supposed author, who goes on to salute 'his mother and mine', as if the Roman wife had once kindly treated him, who had not yet been in Rome. The list of greetings in Rom. 16 is not historical ; the names and the additions are fanciful ; cp ROMANS (EPISTLE). According to Epiphanius this Rufus was reckoned among the seventy 'others' (apostles), Lk. 10:1. A Spanish local tradition makes him the first bishop of Tortosa, consecrated by Paul. Another tells us that he was consecrated bishop of the Egyptian Thebes by Peter. His birthday is said to have been the 8th or the 19th April ; cp Lipsius, 2:222, 2:227, E 2:42.

3. Polycarp, Phil. 9:1; cp Eus. HE 3:3613, as a companion of the martyrs Ignatius and Zosimus, commemorated every year on 18th Dec. at Philippi, according to Martyrol. Rom.

It is difficult to say whether these three, or any two of them, originally indicate the same person.

W. C. v. M.


b ), Judg. 4:18 RV + ; see col. 509, n. 4.




(1[5), Is. 44:13 AV, RV LINE (q.v. 2). Cp HANDICRAFTS, 2.


On the wide use of general terms of this nature, cp what has been said under the headings CAPTAIN, GOVERNOR, OFFICER.

The different Hebrew and Greek terms thus rendered are as follows :

1. sagtin, see DEPUTY, i.

2. tsar, see PRINCE, 3, and cp ARMY, 4, GOVERNMENT, 21, KING.

3. nagid, see PRINCE, i.

4. magen, Hos. 4:18, lit. SHIELD [q.v.] - the text is not certain.

5. moshel (a ruler in the general sense, Gen. 45:8, Prov. 6:7, Mi. 6:2 [6:1]), see GOVERNOR, 11.

6. shallit, see GOVERNOR, 9.

7. ap\(.<ruva.y(ayo<; [archisynagogos], Mk. 5:22, see SYNAGOGUE, 9.

8. apx iT P *^" s> [architriklinos], Jn. 2:8-9, see MEAL, 11.

9. TroAirapxis [politarches], Acts 17:6, 17:8 (ruler of the city), see THESSALONICA.

10. 7rapxos [eparchos], 2 Macc. 4:27 AV (RV 'governor' ), see SOSTRATUS, and

11 . dpx" [archon], the most widely-used of all terms both in LXX and NT, applied, e.g., to rulers of nations (Mt. 20:25), magistrates and judges (Lk. 12:58, Rom. 13:3), officers and members of the Sanhedrin (Mt. 9:18, 9:23, Lk. 8:41, 23:13, 23:35, Jn. 3:1) ; to Jesus the 'ruler' of the kings of the earth (Rev. 1:5), and to Satan the 'prince' (so EV) of devils (Mt. 9:34).


(np-Vl), the birthplace of Zebidah or Zebudah, Jehoiakim's mother (2 K. 23:36 [GK] KpoyMA [B]. [6K] "p- [A], [eK]AOBeNNA [L] | Jos. Ant. 10:5:2, 65 ABOYMA.C i-e., APOYM&C), has been thought (see HWB (2)) to be the poyMA of Eusebius (OS (2) 288:10, poyMA H K&l APIA, 1 in his time called peM<{)ic [remphis]). with which he identifies Arimathaea, unless || 2 Ch. 365 (LXX{BA} not MT) be correct in giving Raman for Rumah (so Pesh. in 2 K.). It is the modern Rantieh in the plain N. of Diospolis (Lydda). There were, however, several places called Rumah. Another is referred to in the Talmud as Ruma and once as Aruma (Neub. Geog. du Talm. 203); this seems to be the Galilean Ruma of Josephus (BJ 3:72:1), which may be the mod. Rumeh, on the S. edge of the plain of Battauf, about 6 mi. N. of Nazareth.

ARUMAH [q.v.} in Judg. 9:41 is at first sight excluded by its northern situation. Probably, however, the original story spoke of Abimelech as king of Cusham in the Negeb (see SHECHEM). If so, it is plausible to identify Arumah with the Rumah of 2 K., because of the matrimonial connections between the kings of Judah and the Negeb. Like 'Ramah' (which, indeed, Pesh. reads in 2 K. and LXX{BA} in the supplement to 2 Ch. 36:5), 'Rumah' and 'Arumah' probably come from 'Jerahmeel' ; the place so designated was of Jerahmeelite origin.

T. K. C.

1 See above, col. 297, n. 2.


(D^V?)- See CHARIOT, 10 ; ARMY, 4.


i. K>i gome (Ex. 2:3 [Syro- hex., Ald., 15 TTiVTTYPOC ; so Aq. 1 Sym., LXX om.], Job 8:11 [rTATTYpoc]. Is. 18:2 [erriCTO\AC ByBAiNAc], 35:7 {2} [eAoc]t) is almost certainly the papyrus (cp LXX Ex. [?], Job), the Hebrew name being derived from Coptic kam. This plant (Cyperus Papyrus, L. ), which was a characteristic growth along the Nile banks in ancient Egypt, 3 and still occurs in several localities in Palestine, rises to a height of about six feet, with a triangular tapering stem ; see PAPYRI, i. Its stem supplied material for the making of boats, sails, mats, cloth, cords, and, above all, writing material. In particular, its use for the construction of light Nile boats is mentioned by Theophrastus, Pliny, and other ancient writers (cp EGYPT, 8, end), and explains the references in Ex. 2:3, Is. 18:2, and probably also Job 9:26 (see RVmg, but cp REEDS, OSPRAY).

2. JiS3N, 'agmon (Is. 9:14 [9:13], 19:15 {4} 58:5 (K/H/COS [krikos]), Job 41:2 [40:26, Kp. [kr]], 41:20 {5} [41:12]t) is a word for 'marsh reed', derived from 'agam, C3N, a 'marsh' or 'pool' (Barth, NB 341), and very probably to be identified with Arundo Donax, L. (cp Tristram, NHB 436-437). In Is. 9:14 [9:13], 19:15 the 'agmon or reed is contrasted with the kappaj (nss) or 'palm-branch', the latter indicating those in high position and the former the humbler classes in the state - so LXX (below, n. 4). In Is. 58:5 among the spurious tokens of pretended piety is mentioned that of bowing the head as the head of the reed is bent by the flow of the stream in which it grows ; cp 1 K. 14:15, Mt. ll:7.

In Job 41:2 [40:26] the name is transferred to the rope or cord (see RV) of reed used to noose the crocodile; and in Job 41:20 [41:12] the hot vaporous breath of this animal is compared to the steam of 'a seething pot' and (see RV) the smoke of '(burning) rushes'. [In both passages the text is doubtful. On Job 41:2 see FISH, 5, and n. i, where DU, 'ring' is proposed as an emendation, and on Job 41:20 see Budde, who (with Bi., Du., Beer) reads DJNl, 'and boiling'. ] N. M. W. T. T.-D.

1 Aq. gives Tram/pewy [papyreoon] for rpo, Ex. 2:5 ; Vg. papyrion.

2 AV has 'bulrushes' in Ex. 2:3 (RVmg. 'papyrus' ), Is. 18:2 (RV 'papyrus' ), 'rush' in Job 8:11 (RVmg. 'papyrus' ), and 'rushes' in Is. 35:7.

3 It is said to be now extinct in Egypt - thus Boissier (Fl. Or. 5:375) 'olim in Egypto, ubi destructus nunc esse videtur'. Tristram : 'no longer found in Africa, excepting in marshes of the White Nile in Nubia, 7 N. latitude' (NHB 433).

4 In both cases LXX paraphrases, fieyav Kal /jaxpov [megan kai mikron] and apxyv Kai TeAos [archen kai telos]

5 LXX av0paKwv [anthrakoon] (O'7n])


i. n!pri, hel'ah; ioc, in Ezek. 24:6, 24:11-12 'of the bloody city, that caldron full of rust [AV 'scum' ] wherefrom the rust is not yet gone'.

2. jSpoxris [broosis], in Mt. 6:19-20 of 'moth and rust' (CTTJ? KCU jSpdxris) which consume treasure.

3. ids [ios], in Jas. 5:3, spoken of rusting gold and silver.


(JVTl, poy0. *.ax). a Moabitish woman, the heroine of the Book of Ruth. Through her marriage with Mahlon, and subsequent marriage-at-law with Boaz (in the name of Mahlon), she became an ancestor of David, who, according to our present text, was a native of Bethlehem in Judah. Ruth's noble unselfishness was thus rewarded (cp Ruth 2:12). Her sister, whose impulse to follow Naomi to her home in Judah was less effectual than Ruth's, was named Orpah, a name which suggests the meaning 'obstinacy'. Hence, following Pesh., it is usual (cp Geiger, Urschr. 50) to explain Ruth as a contraction of Re'uth, i.e. , 'the companion', 'one who lovingly attaches herself'. See, however, for other explanations, RUTH [BOOK], 5. The account of her levirate-marriage with Boaz is given with archaeological fulness as an obsolete custom. Cp SHOES (e).

[By old Hebrew law, as by the old law of Arabia, a wife who had been brought into her husband s house by contract and payment of a price to her father was not set free by the death of her husband to marry again at will. The right to her hand lay with the nearest heir of the dead. Originally we must suppose, among the Hebrews as among the Arabs, this law was all to the disadvantage of the widow, whose hand was simply part of the dead man's estate ; but, while this remained so in Arabia to the time of Mohammed, among the Hebrews the law early took quite an opposite turn ; the widow of a man who died childless was held to have a right to have a son begotten on her by the next kinsman, and this son was regarded as the son of the dead and succeeded to his inheritance so that his name might not be cut off from Israel. The duty of raising up a son to the dead lay upon his brother, and in Dt. 25:5 is restricted to the case when brothers live together. In old times, as appears from Gen. 38, this was not so, and the law as put in the book of Ruth appears to be that the nearest kinsman of the dead in general had a right to 'redeem for himself' the dead man's estate, but at the same time was bound to marry the widow. The son of this marriage was reckoned as the dead man s son and succeeded to his property, so that the 'redeemer' had only a temporary usufruct in it. Naomi was too old to be married in this way, but she had certain rights over her husband s estate which the next kinsman had to buy up before he could enter on the property. And this he was willing to do, but he was not willing also to marry Ruth, and beget on her a son who would take the name and estate of the dead and leave him out of pocket. He therefore withdraws and Boaz comes in his place. That this is the sense of the transaction is clear ; there is, however, a little obscurity in 4:5, where (see Vg., Pesh.) one letter has fallen out and we must (with Cappellus, Geiger, Bertheau, etc.) read niTPN CJ1> and translate 'What day thou buyest the field from Naomi thou must also buy Ruth', etc. Cp vv. 9-10 W. K. S.]

The notice in Ruth 4:7 has caused some difficulty. Kalisch (Bible Studies, 1 [1877] 61) actually suggests that c JB 1 ? ( EV 'in former time' ) may perhaps mean 'from olden times'. Driver (Intr. (6) 455), who apparently finds 4:7 and 4:18-22 the only passages which may indicate a late date, thinks that, while 4:18-22 'forms no integral part of the book', 4:7 'has every appearance of being an explanatory gloss', and compares the admitted gloss in 1 S. 9:9, which begins with Ssotya D^E 1 ?- This is a perfectly legitimate view, though it entails an alteration of the text in v. 8. But we may ask this question : Supposing that the custom referred to in 4 7 had become antiquated, was not such an explanatory notice called for ?

T. K. C.


1. Original position.[edit]

The story of RUTH (q.v. ) forms one of the OT Hagiographa, usually reckoned as the second of the five Megilloth or Festal Rolls. This position corresponds to the Jewish practice of reading the book at the Feast of Pentecost ; Spanish MSS, however, place Ruth at the head of the Megilloth (see CANTICLES) ; and the Talmud, in a well-known passage of Baba Bathra (14b), gives it the first place among all the Hagiographa. On the other hand, LXX and the Vulgate make Ruth follow Judges. It has sometimes been held (e.g. , by Ewald, Hist. 1 156 ; Bertheau, Richter u. Ruth, (2) 292) that this was its original place in the Hebrew Bible also, or rather that Ruth was originally reckoned as an appendix to Judges, since it is only by doing this, and also by reckoning Lamentations to Jeremiah, that all the books of the Hebrew canon can be reduced to twenty-two, the number assigned by Josephus and other ancient authorities. It has been shown elsewhere (CANON, 11-14), however, that the argument for the superior antiquity of this way of reckoning breaks down on closer examination, and, whilst it was very natural that a later rearrangement should transfer Ruth from the Hagiographa to the historical books, and place it between Judges and Samuel, no motive can be suggested for the opposite change. That the book of Ruth did not originally form part of the series of Former Prophets (Judges-Kings) is further probable from the fact that it is quite untouched by the process of 'prophetic' or Deuteronomistic editing, which gave that series its present shape at a time soon after the fall of the kingdom of Judah ; the narrative has no affinity with the point of view which looks on the whole history of Israel as a series of examples of divine justice and mercy in the successive rebellions and repentances of the people of God. But if the book had been known at the time when the history from Judges to Kings was edited, it could hardly have been excluded from the collection ; the ancestry of David was of greater interest than that of Saul, which is given in 1 S. 9:1, whereas the old history names no ancestor of David beyond his father Jesse.

2. Date.[edit]

As to the date. A very early period is clearly impossible. The book does not offer itself as a document written soon after the period to which it refers ; it presents itself as dealing with times far back, and takes obvious delight in depicting details of antique life and obsolete usages (on Ruth 4:1-12, see RUTH); it views the rude and stormy period before the institution of the kingship through the softening atmosphere, of time, which imparts to the scene a gentle sweetness very different from the harsher colours of the old narratives of the book of Judges. [We cannot therefore very well say with Dr. C. H. H. Wright (Introd. 126) that the book 'must have been written after the time of David, and long prior to the Exile'. ] Indeed, the interest taken in the pedigree of David points to a time when 'David' had become a symbol for the long-past ideal age. In the language, too, as we shall see presently (see 3), there is a good deal that makes for and nothing that makes against a date subsequent to the captivity, and the very designation of a period of Hebrew history as 'the days when the judges judged' (Ruth 1:1) is based on the Deuteronomistic additions to the book of Judges (2:16-17), and does not occur till the period of the Exile.

An inferior limit for the date of the book cannot be assigned with precision. Kuenen formerly argued (Ond.(1) [1861] 1:212, 1:214) that, as the author seems to take no offence at the marriage of Israelites with Moabite women, he must have lived before the time of Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezra 9, Neh. 13); but the same argument would prove that the Book of Esther was written before Ezra, and indeed, as Wellhausen (Bleek's Einl.(4) , 205) points out, the singular Talmudic statements respecting the descent of eminent Jewish teachers from supposed heathen proselytes of antiquity (Sisera, Sennacherib, Nebuchadrezzar, Haman - see RAHAB) appear to imply a theory very similar to that of the Book of Ruth, which nevertheless had no polemical bearing on the practical exclusiveness of the prevalent custom. We cannot therefore assert that the Book of Ruth was not written later than about 444 B. C.

At the same time it must be admitted that the story of Ruth was written before the living impulses of Jewish literature had been choked by the growing influence of legalism. As Ewald remarks, 'we have here a narrator of a perfectly individual character', who, 'without anxiously concealing by his language all traces of the later age in which he wrote, had obviously read himself into the spirit of the ancient works both of history and of poetry, and thus produces a very striking imitation of the older work on the kings' (Hist. 1:154-155). The manner, however, in which he tells the story is equally remote from the legal pragmatism of Chronicles and from the prophetic pragmatism of the editor of the older histories. His work has therefore some advantage over the histories just mentioned, an advantage, it is true, of which the Targum (see 1:5-6) endeavours to deprive it. By the tone of simple piety and graciousness which pervades it, and by its freedom from the pedantry of legal orthodoxy, the book reminds us of the prologue to the colloquies of Job and the older poetical wisdom. Legalism, then, was still far from having triumphed in the field of literature when the story of Ruth was written ; even a superficial student cannot close his eyes to this important fact.

3. Linguistic data.[edit]

The necessity of a somewhat late date will appear also from the following stylistic and linguistic considerations. That the style of the narrative lacks the freshness and popularity which distinguish the best sections of the Books of Samuel must be apparent, and upon examining closely the linguistic details, we shall probably become convinced that a pre-exilic origin is impossible. The learned Benedictine Calmet (Dictionnaire historique et critique, 1722, art. 'Ruth' ), indeed, following Baba bathra, 14b, ascribes the composition to the author of the Books of Samuel, a. view which he supports by referring to the phrases, 'Yahwe do so to me and more also', Ruth 1:17 (cp 1 S. 9:17, and ten other passages in Sam. and Kings), 'to uncover the ear', Ruth 4:4 (cp 1 S. 9:15, and six other passages in Sam. ). For other points of contact between Ruth and Sam. and Kings, see 4:15 and 1 S. 1:8 (joaie) ; 1:19 and 1 S. 4:5, 1 K. 145 (cnni) ; 4:1 and 1 S. 21:3, 2 K. 6:8 (-^K :Se) ; 2:3 and 1 S. 6:9, 20:26 (mpD, 'accident' ), and the second fem. sing, impcrf. in j", 2:8, 2:21, 3:4, 3:18, 1 S. 1:14 (also Is. 45:10, Jer. 31:22). These coincidences, however, are outweighed, not only by the difference of style (in the more general sense) between Ruth and Sam. , but also by certain forms and expressions found in Ruth but not found in Sam. , some of which at least point distinctly to a post-exilic age.

The following forms and idioms (to which add the second fem. sing, imperf. in p- ; see above) are post-classical and mostly post-exilic or exilic in use the second fem. sing. perf. in -jr, 3 -$f. (also in Jer. [often], Ezek. 16, Mic. 4:13 [hardly Micah's]);

  • Nno for rnc, Mara, 1:20 (cp parallels in Ezek. 27:31, 36:5 etc.) ;
  • J3J. , 'to shut up', 1:13 (Mishnic, Jewish Aram., Syriac, but cp Driver) ;
  • O'p, 'to confirm', 4:7 (also Ezek. 13:6, Esth. 9:21, 9:27, 9:29, 9:31-32, Ps. 119:28, 119:106, and in [Aram.] Dan. 63) ;
  • 7ab , 'to hope', 1:13 (Esth. 9:1, Ps. 119:166) ;
  • HkVX NSM, 'to take a wife', 1:4 (Ezra 9:2, 9:12, Neh. 13:25, 1 Ch. 23:22 etc., but not Judg. 21:23 [Budde]) ;
  • [n s , 'therefore', 1:13 (as in Aram. Dan. 2:6 etc.) ; cp Driver.

It is also well worth noticing that the divine name or title ns 1 [shaddai] (exilic and post-exilic in use) occurs in Ruth 1:20-21 {1} (without "?.x [el]), as often in Job - Ewald rightly compares Job 27:2, and (against the view that Ruth is written in a pre-exilic N. Israelitish dialect) that the relative is always -IC [AShD or AShR]; N, never w [Sh] (cp Konig, F.inl. 286).

According to Konig (Einl. 287), the book in its present form belongs, on linguistic grounds, to the period of Jer., Ezek., and the Second Isaiah, whilst marks of the later Hebrew are wanting. Whatever may seem to point to an earlier period (e.g. , the use of the older form oJN [AGBY or ANBY] seven times, and of [AGY or ANY]; only twice) this eminent linguistic critic regards as conscious archaizing. It should be remarked, however, that portions of Jeremiah can be shown to be of very late date, and that the unity of the date of authorship for Is. 40-46 is doubted by an increasing number of scholars. Konig's dating, then, is necessarily subject to revision, and so, still more, is that of Driver (Introd. (6) 455), who embarrasses himself with the theory that Canticles and Ruth (although included in the Hagiographa) may have been written in the N. kingdom, and preserve words current there dialectically. The book, in its present form, must surely on linguistic grounds be regarded as a post-exilic work, and we shall see later that, even if it is to some extent based on an earlier folk-story, the skill of the artist has enabled him so to expand, to enrich, and to fuse his material that it is virtually all his own work, and that a later editor has only touched the proper names and appended the genealogy.

1 The passage, as Ewald (Hist. 1:154) points out, is highly poetical.

4. Genealogy.[edit]

Wellhausen is of opinion that the most important sign of date is the genealogy of David (Ruth 4:18-22, cp 1 Ch. 2:10-17). The names of the ancestors of David were known as far as Boaz. Then memory failed, and a leap was made in 1 Ch. 2:11, Ruth 4:21 to Salma (in Ruth, Salmon), who, in 1 Ch. 2:51, is called the 'father of Bethlehem'. But Salma belongs to the same group as Caleb, Abi, and Hur, and, 'if anything is certain, it is this - that in the olden times the Calibbites dwelt in the S. and not in the N. of Judah, and that David in particular by his birth belonged, not to them, but to the older part of Israel, which gravitated in the opposite direction to Israel proper, and stood in the closest connection with Benjamin'. Wellhausen adds that of the other members of the genealogy Nahshon and Amminadab are princes of Judah in P, whilst Ram is the firstborn of Hezron (1 Ch. 2:25), and by the meaning of his name ( 'the high one' ) is, like Abram, qualified to be the starting-point of the princely line. On the other hand, Sam. only knows of David s father Jesse. l

[The argument that Salma is a tribe foreign to old Judah, which was not 'father' of Bethlehem till after the Exile, has been very generally admitted, and seemed to Robertson Smith in 1886 to decide the post-exilic origin of the genealogy. The present writer, however, cannot see his way to follow his predecessor in this particular ; the genealogy is no doubt post-exilic, but is not proved to be so by Wellhausen's criticism of the proper names, all of which appear really to refer to Jerahmeelite - i.e., N. Arabian - clans and localities. But he heartily agrees with W. R. Smith that the genealogy in 1 Ch. 2:10+ is quite in the manner of other genealogies in the same book. ]

That the genealogy was borrowed from Chronicles and added to Ruth by a later hand seems certain, for the author of Ruth clearly recognises that 'Obed was legally the son of Mahlon, not of Boaz' (4:5, 4:10). [Driver, too, remarks (Introd. (6) 455) that the genealogy 'may well have been added long after the book itself was written', and, like Konig (287), leaves out of the linguistic data for the solution of the problem of age, toledoth and holid, which are characteristic of P in the Pentateuch (cp GENEALOGIES 1, i). Bertheau, Kuenen, and Budde adhere to the view that the closing section is an integral portion of the book. But surely], if the author had given a genealogy, he would have traced it through Mahlon. The existence, however, ol the genealogy suggests the possibility that two views of the descent of David were current, one of which traced him to Perez by Mahlon, and the other to the same Perez by Boaz.

1 Bleek's Winl.(4) 204-205, Prol.(1) 227 [ET 217-218]; cp De Gent. 16-17. The passage in Einl.(4) is mostly reprinted in CH 357-359, (3) 233-235.

2 We reckon the Negeb as the N. Arabian borderland.

5. Proper names.[edit]

[We have arrived at this point without having been obliged to interfere with the traditional text. It is, however, necessary to take that step if we would obtain a more complete comprehension of the narrative and of its historical origin. That Ruth, as it now stands, is a post-exilic work is certain ; we must therefore examine the text in connection with that of other not less certainly post-exilic works, in the study of which we have already reached results which, though in points of detail subject to revision, yet on the whole seem to throw considerable light on ancient editorial processes. We shall thus find reason to suspect that the personal and geographical names in the Book of Ruth (1:1-4:17) were not altogether originally as they now stand.

Bethlehem-judah, as in the strange stories appended to Judges, is a corruption or distortion of Beth-jerahmeel, the name of some place in the region called Ephrath in the south, possibly, but by no means probably, the same as the place known as Carmel. 'Ephrath' itself (like the 'Perath' of Jer. 14:4-7) is possibly a mutilated form of ZAREPHATH [q.v.], and 'Moab' may be a substitute for 'Missur' (cp MOAB, 14), a region to the S. of the country called Sarephathite or Ephrathite. Elimelech, Mahlon, and Chilion - the two latter of which have been so fatally misunderstood, as if they were symbolical names - are no doubt clan-names (or different forms of the same clan-name) derived from the great ethnic name, Jerahmeel. 'Orpah' has probably arisen by metathesis from 'Ophrah' - i.e., 'Ephrath'. Ruth (Re'uth, cp Pesh.) is probably the fem, of Re'u (Gen. 11:18+), which is surely equivalent to Re'uel ; now Re'uel appears in Gen. 36:4 as a son of Esau, and his name is most probably a distortion of Jerahmeel, a name which in its various broken forms attached itself to different N. Arabian clans. Naomi (No'omi) is doubtless connected with the clan-names Na'ami, Na'amani. 1 'Boaz' (ij, 3) is less transparent ; hence Stucken and Winckler do not hesitate to identify the original Boaz with a mythological figure. But the place of the bearer of this name in the genealogy, as well as in the story of Ruth, shows that he too must have a clan-name, 2 and remembering the 'Ezbi' ( 3ix) of 1 Ch. 11:37, which corresponds to 31N (MT) or rather ;HN (cp LXX{BA} ) in 2 S. 23:35 - i.e., to S^DHT, Jerahme'eli, we may restore as the original name y^y, 'Arab. "OJ7, 'Obed', too, is probably by metathesis from 3^1?, Arabia. 3

The statement of the narrator then, if the present writer s conjectures are sound, amounts to this - that a member of a Jerahmeelite clan who belonged to Beth-jerahmeel (in the Negeb) removed with his family, under the pressure of famine, into the land of Missur, and sojourned there for about ten years. This agrees with the original form of the story in Gen. 12:10+, according to which Abram ( = 'father of Jerahmeel ) removed from the same cause from the Jerahmeelite country to Missur or Misrim (see MIZRAIM, 26).

Another parallel story is that of the Shunammite woman who was warned by Elisha of the approach of a famine and went to the land of the 'Philistines' (2 K. 8:1-3) ; the original story, the present writer thinks (cp SHUNEM), represented her as a dweller in the Jerahmeelite Negeb (still in Israelitish occupation), and as going farther S. to the land of Sarephath (in a wide sense of the phrase).

Nor was it only famine that drove dwellers in the Negeb to the neighbouring land of Missur. The original text of 1 S. 22:3-4 seems to have represented David as placing his father and mother under the protection of the king of Missur at Sarephath (see MIZPEH, 3), while he was himself a wanderer in the land of Jerahmeel, and there is, in the present writer s opinion, hardly room for doubt that David lived in, or close to, the Jerahmeelite Negeb (see NEGEB, 3, and note 3), and had strong Jerahmeelite (and Misrite) affinities. The latter passage is specially important, because the ostensible object of the writer of Ruth is to prove the descent of David from a noble-minded Misrite woman. 4 It was natural to represent that David s ancestor had already set the example of taking refuge in Missur.

We are not expressly told that 'Sarephath' - i.e. , that portion of Missur which lay nearest to and included the city of Sarephath - was the locality to which Elimelech and his family repaired. But the connection of Sarephath with Moses, with the Levites, and apparently with the prophets, conjectured by the present writer (see MOSES, 4 ; PROPHECY, 6), makes it seem to him not improbable that the narrator had this place or district in his mind, and in 4:12 the kindly wish is expressed that the house of Boaz might be like the house of 'Peres' (from 'Sarephath' ?) whom Tamar ( = Jerahmeelith?) bore to Judah.

1 Many Benjamite clan-names appear to the present writer to be demonstrably of N. Arabian origin.

1 Stucken's connection of the name with astral mythology (Astralmythen, 205, note) will hardly stand examination.

3 yi (Jesse), too, very possibly comes ultimately from SNJ, CC ! (Ishmaelite), a term which did not originally belong exclusively to nomads. The names of the ancestors of David in the genealogy are, as suggested above ( 4), exclusively N. Arabian clan-names.

4 Budde (ZATW [1892] 12:44) thinks that the notice in 1 S. 22:3 does not imply a race-connection between David and the Moabite (i.e., Misrite) king or chieftain. David, he thinks, had to negotiate with the king, whereas if his grandmother had been a Moabite, this would have been unnecessary. But this is to press the words too strongly ; and indeed (assuming the tradition to be historical) tact may have required that David should represent the desired protection as a favour.

6. Origin.[edit]

The view here taken renders it probable that the story of Ruth as it now stands is not of very early post-exilic origin. For the feeling of bitterness towards the Misrites and their neighbours, on account of their long-continued oppression of Israel, apparently persisted till close on the Greek period. The date of the traditional elements, out of which, with imaginative freedom, the present story of Ruth may have been partly composed, is quite another point. As in the case of Job (see JOB [BOOK], 4) and Jonah (see JONAH [BOOK], 4-5) some of these elements may have been derived from mythology or folk-lore (cp Wi. AOF 366-367). As Stucken points out, 1 'Ruth corresponds exactly to Tamar ; she obtains Boaz by taking him unawares (Ruth 3), as Tamar obtains Judah (Gen. 38). A dim consciousness of this connection shows itself in the fact that the pedigree of Boaz is traced to Perez'. The original story of Ruth probably gave her two sons (corresponding to the two sons of Tamar), only one of whom is recorded (simply out of interest in David) by the narrator.

The 'altogether peculiar' character of Ruth among the historical and quasi-historical narratives has been pointed out by Ewald, who is 'led to conclude that this story is only one taken from a larger series of similar pieces by the same author, and that through mere chance this is the only one preserved' (Hist. 1:155}. More definitely, Budde suggests (ZATW 12:43+ [1892]) that the story of Ruth may originally have formed part of the 'Midrash of the Book of the Kings' referred to in 2 Ch. 24:27. In so far as this theory is based on the language of the genealogy in 4:18-22 (in connection with Wellhausen's view that 1 Ch. 2:10-17 is a later insertion), we must agree with Konig (Einl. 289, note) that it is unproven. At the same time, Ewald's impression that the narrative of Ruth did not always stand alone seems natural.

1 Astralmythen, 110, note. We may add that we take Tamar and Ruth to be ultimately corruptions of Jerahme'elith (cp JUDAH, 2). Neither Stucken nor Winckler criticises the Hebrew names.

7. Objects of Ruth.[edit]

That one of the objects of Ruth was to explain the traditional descent of David from a Misrite woman, has been mentioned already. It was true, said the writer, that his grandmother was a Misrite ; but what a noble woman she was ! how obedient to those fundamental laws of morality which the true God values more than sacrifice ! And so a second object naturally unveils itself - viz. , to prepare the readers of the book to arrive at a more favourable opinion of the moral capacity of the Misrites than, owing to the cruel oppression of Israel by the Misrites, previous generations had been able to form.

Many critics (e.g. , besides Winckler and most commentators, Umbreit, St. Kr., 1834, pp. 308+ ; Geiger, Urschr. 49+ ; and especially Kue. Rel. of Isr. 2:242-243, and Ond. (2) 1:523, 1:527) hold that the narrator was one of those who protested against the rigour of Ezra in the matter of mixed marriages. It is not clear, however, that any such protest would have been detected by a Jewish reader of the book. The great point with the narrator is not the marriage of Mahlon but the next-of- kin marriage of Boaz. It cannot be shown that, when married to Mahlon, Ruth became in the full sense a worshipper of Yahwe. It is much more probable that the statement of Mahlon's marriage to a Misrite woman is simply a proof that the writer was a good historical scene painter. Like the Chronicler, he knows that in early times there was a great mixture of clans, and that Israelites often intermarried with Jerahmeelites and Misrites. Besides, in order to produce an impression on the Jews it would be necessary for the dwelling of Boaz to have been in Judah, not in a district which in post-exilic times was not in Jewish occupation. The latest editor did no doubt arrange the geographical statements accordingly ; but the author himself, as we have seen, placed Boaz in the Jerahmeelite Negeb.

Surely no one who thoroughly appreciates the charm of this book will be satisfied with the prevalent theory of its object. There is no 'tendency' about the book ; it represents in no degree any party programme. And even if the writer started with the object of illustrating the life of David, he forgot this when he began to write, and only thought of it again as he was about to lay down the pen. Justly does Robertson Smith remark, 'the marriage acquires an additional interest when we know that Ruth was David's great-grand mother, but the main interest is independent of that, and lies in the happy issue of Ruth and Xaomi from their troubles through the loyal performance of the kinsman's part by Boaz. Doubtless the writer meant his story to be an example to his own age, as well as an interesting sketch of the past ; but this is effected simply by describing the exemplary conduct of Naomi, Ruth, Boaz, and even Boaz's harvesters. All these act as simple, kindly, God-fearing people ought to act in Israel'. [At the same time, the writer must have shared the religious aspirations of his time, which, as we have seen, was probably the post-exilic age - i.e., perhaps that quieter period which followed after the first century of the Greek rule. Now, there is good evidence for the view that one of these aspirations was for a cessation of the bitter feeling between Israel and Jerahmeel. As yet the sad exclusion of Jerahmeelites and Misrites from the religious assembly had not been enacted, 1 or, if enacted, it was ignored by the noblest Jews, who held that the N. Arabian peoples were not incapable of repentance, and that it was no disgrace to David that his pedigree contained the name of a Misrite woman. A thorough study of certain psalms and prophecies will, it is believed, strongly confirm this view, and show that the best of the Jews looked forward to a true conversion of the Misrites to the religion of the God of Israel - the 'Lord of the whole earth'. Jerusalem would yet be thronged by the children of Israel's bitter foes, seeking first for instruction and then for admission into the religious community, and it is possible to see a glance at this hope in the touching words of Boaz, 'and how thou hast left thy father and thy mother, and the land of thy nativity, and art come unto a people which thou knewest not heretofore' (Ruth 2:11). And so, ultimately, the book becomes (like Jonah) a noble record of the catholic tendency of the early Judaism.]


Among other commentaries reference may be made to J. B. Carpzov, Collegium rabbinico-biblicum in libelluin Ruth, Leipsic, 1703. [Among recent commentators, the works of Bertheau (ed. 2, 1833), Bertholet (1898), Nowack (1901) may be specially mentioned. See also Wi. A OF 3 65-78, and references in the course of this article.]

( 1, 2, partly 4 and 7) W. K. S. ( 3. 5. 6, mostly 4 and 7) T. K. c.

1 In Dt. 23:3-6 [23:4-7] - altogether a later insertion - the ethnics should probably be 'Jerahmeelite' and 'Misrite'. The passage conflicts with v. 7 [8], where the ethnics should be 'Arammite' (=Jerahmeelite) and 'Misrite'. Dillman's criticism here is very incomplete. The passage must be later than the fall of Jerusalem.

RYE (HODS)[edit]



(CAB&NNOY) [BA]), 1 Esd. 8:63 RV = Ezra 8:33 BINNUI, 2.


(n lN3X mrp). See NAMES, 123


i. RV SAPHAT, a group of children of Solomon s servants (see NETHINIM) in the great post-exilic list (see EZRA ii. , 9, 8c), one of eight inserted in 1 Esd. 5:34 (c&ct>&r t B ] C&4>AT [ A ]> om - L ) after Pochereth-hazzebaim of || Ezra 2:57 = Neh. 7:59.

It apparently represents the form SHAPHAT = Shephatiah (in Ezra 2:57 = Neh. 7:59 = 1 Esd. 5:33 LXX{L}, AV SAPHETH, RV SAPHUTHI).

2. RV SEBAT (era/Sax [AV] <ra^ar [N]), the month of that name, 1 Macc. 16:14. See MONTH, 5.


(c&BB<vr<M&c [A]) 1 Esd. 9:48 AV, RV Sabateus = Neh. 8:7, SHABBETHAI, i.


(cABAOoc [BA]) 1 Esd. 9:28 RV, AV Ezra 10:27, ZABAD, 4.


(c&B&NNOY L BA ]) 1 Esd. 8:62 = Ezra 8:33. BINNUI, 2.


(cABB<vr<MOC [BA]) 1 Esd. 9:14 RV = Ezra 10:15, SHABBETHAI, i.


(D3C , c&BB&TOisi), the day of sacred rest which among the Hebrews followed six days of labour and closed the week ; see WEEK.

1. Etymology.[edit]

The grammatical inflexions of the word 'Sabbath' show that it is a feminine form, properly shabbat-t for shabbat-t, from nat? [ShBT] (Pi'el conjug. ). The root has nothing to do with resting in the sense of enjoying repose ; in transitive forms and applications it means 'to sever', to 'put an end to', and intransitively it means to 'desist', to 'come to an end'. The grammatical form of shabbath suggests a transitive sense, 'the divider', and apparently indicates the Sabbath as dividing the month. It may mean the day which puts a stop to the week s work ; but that is less likely. It certainly cannot be translated 'the day of rest'. (Cp Lag. Uebers. 113 ; KO. Lehrg. 2:1:280-281; Hoffm. ZATW 3:121; Wellh. Prol. [1883] 117, n. i; Jastrow's article cited in 8.)

[According to Jensen, ZKF, 1887, p. 278, the Assyrian sa(p)bat(ta)-tum = 'penitential prayer', and hence 'day of penitence and prayer'. Hirschfeld (see 8), however, derives nat? from nyyg [ShBAT]. Cp Benz. HA 202, perhaps in its oldest form it was connected with y']w (week). For Jastrow's view, see 8.]

2. Jesus and the Sabbath.[edit]

By way of preface to the present historical inquiry, and to clear away, if possible, any remnants of theological prejudice against criticism, let us consider the attitude of Jesus towards Sabbath observance. It is not too bold to say that in his opposition to the current Rabbinical views he is in harmony with the main result of modern historical criticism. This thesis will be justified at a subsequent point. The well-known and probably (see col. 1888, near foot) authentic saying, 'Think not that I am come to destroy the law' (Mt. 5:17), expresses one side of that teaching. Jesus revered the Sabbath as he revered the other religious traditions of his people ; but he had also a freedom of inspiration which put a new life into his interpretation of the Sabbath law. That he was in the habit of attending the synagogue on the Sabbath, we know from Lk. 4:16 (cp v. 31). But he would not adhere to the letter of the law where works of necessity or of mercy claimed to be performed : 'the Sabbath is made for man, and not man for the Sabbath ; wherefore the Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath' (Mk. 2:27-28). There is a traditional saying of Jesus which may express his Janus-like habit of mind as regards the Sabbath. It ceased, indeed, to be understood when the Christian Sunday had become an institution, and so was thrust out of the canonical Church tradition ; but it certainly gives us the impression of being an ancient and a genuine tradition. 1 It is the well-known addition of D (Codex Bezae, ed. Scrivener, 173) after Lk. 6:4: 'On the same day when he saw one working on the Sabbath he said to him : Man, if thou knowest what thou art doing thou art blessed ; but if thou knowest not, thou art cursed and a transgressor of the law' (rrj avTy rip.fpq. 6facrdfj.fi 6s Tiva, fpyafo/Jifvov rcjS ffafi/Sdrtp elirev O.VT& tivdpuTTf, ei /a.ev oldas TL woifis, /ua/cdptos er el Se /ur; oldas, 67r i Kara par os Kal irapaf3dTT)s el TOV vbp.oi>). The sense is clear - it is what we find in Rom. 14:4, 14:14, 14:23 {2} 'If thou knowest what thou art doing', - in other words, if thou art doing this work on the Sabbath day with the consciousness that it is a work of necessity - if thy conscience justifies thee in it - 'then blessed art thou'. 'But if thou knowest not' - in other words, if thou art acting against thy conscience, with a lurking fear that thou art doing aught amiss - 'then art thou accursed, and a transgressor of the law'. The saying in the Oxyrhynchus papyrus-fragment discovered in 1:897, 'if you do not keep the Sabbath you will not see the Father' (edv /J.TJ <ra/3/3cm <r?7Te rb ffdj3j3a.Tov OVK 6\j/ea0f TOV irarepa.), may also very well have been actually spoken by Jesus in its literal sense, as the expression of the same conservative temper as we find in Mt. 5:17-19, and against noisy fanatics who thought to do honour to their master by showing contempt for the day. It is more probable, however, in view of the parallel clause, 'If you do not fast [to] the world you have not found the kingdom of God' (eav p/rj vrjcrrevar/Te TOV Kbap.ov ov JJ.TI evprfre rj]v fiao iXeiav TOV deov), that the saying is not intended to be understood literally.

1 Ropes, Die Spriiche Jesu, in Texte u. Untersuchungen, 14:2:126 (1896) also regards this as possible.

2 It is more probable that the ideas in these passages rest upon an utterance of Jesus known to the apostle than that the saying attributed to Jesus in D should be an invention resting on the utterance of Paul.

3 Aoyia bjo-ou [Logia Iesou] (ed. Grenfell and Hunt, 1897), lof.

3. Early Christian attitudes.[edit]

[This is not the place to discuss the relation of the Pauline teaching to that of Jesus. Without entering into the question as to the historical origin of each of the Pauline epistles referred to, we may recall that, according to the Pauline teaching, Jesus was sent in human flesh to liberate men from servitude to the law as a whole and in every particular. The conservative side of the teaching of Jesus regarding the Sabbath could not, therefore, be reproduced in the corresponding teaching of Paul.] It is clear from Rom. 14:5+ that Paul regarded the observance of the Sabbath as essentially an d5td<popov [adiaphoron] for Christians ; it is possible to serve the Lord by observance of a fixed day, and equally possible to serve him without such observance ; the important thing is to have a clean conscience (cp also vv. 14 and 23). The Pauline attitude towards the Christians of Colossae is not inconsistent with the magnanimous tolerance here expressed. The sharpness of Col. 2:16-17 (cp Gal. 4:9-10) is due to the situation : Paul perceived that the Judaising false teachers had raised the dSid<t>opov [adiaphoron] into an dvajKcuov [anagkaion], and that an energetic protest against the imposition of any such yoke was urgently required. [There is no definite conflict between the attitude of Paul and that of Jesus. The position taken up by Jesus was perfectly natural to him, as a son of a pious Jewish family, and a preacher to the chosen people of God. It would not have been natural to Paul, a preacher to the Gentiles and not of purely Jewish culture, who seems to have felt as free towards the earthly life of Jesus as Jesus himself did towards the letter of the Mosaic Law. There were other Christians, however, who felt and acted differently from Paul.]

That the earliest Christians in Palestine observed the Sabbath is nowhere indeed expressly said, 1 but is certainly to be assumed. The silence of Acts is not to be taken as a proof of the non-observance, but con trariwise as a proof that it was observed as matter of course.

[Eusebius (HE 32:7 ) remarks that the Ebionites observed both the Sabbath and the Lord's Day ; and this practice obtained to some extent in much wider circles, for the Apostolical Constitutions recommend that the Sabbath shall be kept as a memorial feast of the creation, and the Lord's Day as a memorial of the resurrection. - W. R. S. ]

Was the Sabbath observed in the Christian mission-churches of the Dispersion? This is not an inquiry that affects our main subject, and only a glance at it can be given. We may be certain indeed that where a mission-church consisted essentially of those who had formerly been Jews or <re/3<viecoi [debomenoi] (see PROSELYTE) the observance of the day did not forthwith cease. It is instructive, however, to note that in the decree of Jerusalem (Acts 15:23+) Sabbath observance is as little imposed as binding on Gentile Christians as is that of any other holy day. 2 In estimating the historical bearing of this testitnoniuin e stlentio it matters little whether we take the decree as actually pronounced by a council of apostles at Jerusalem a or regard it as a later finding of the church of that city (cp COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM).

1 Zahn, Gesch. des Sonntags, etc., 168, 353.

2 Id., ut supr. 173.

3 So Weizsacker, Apostolic Age, 1 199 f.

4 [In like manner the length of journey that could be undertaken without breach of the Sabbath came to be also strictly defined (cp Mt. 24:20). For by the thirty-ninth rule it was forbidden to carry anything from one place to another - a prohibition plainly based on Ex. 16:29, 'let no man go out of his place on the Sabbath day' - in other words, 'let every one stay at home'. A definition of 'place' in this connection was found in the measurement of the 'suburbs' of a Levitical city as laid down in Nu. 35:1-8 - 2000 cubits square. This gave the 'Sabbath limit' (n2u"n Cinn), and thus the 'Sabbath day's journey' (Acts 1:12 ; cra/3/3aTOi> 6Ws) was fixed at 2000 cubits or about 1000 yards.]

4. Attitude of Jesus resumed.[edit]

We now return to the thesis with which this article opened, viz., that the attitude of Jesus towards the Rabbinical Sabbath (see Mt. 12:1-14, Mk. 2:27) is in harmony with the main result of modern criticism. In his trenchant criticism of the scribes the general position which Jesus takes up is that 'the Sabbath is made for man, and not man for the Sabbath', which is only a special application of the wider principle that the law is not an end in itself but a help towards the realisation in life of the great ideal of love to God and man, which is the sum of all true religion. On the other hand, the rules of the scribes enumerated thirty-nine main kinds of work forbidden on the Sabbath, and each of these prohibitions gave rise to new subtilties. Jesus' disciples, for example, who plucked ears of corn in passing through a field on the holy day, had, according to Rabbinical casuistry, violated the third of the thirty-nine rules, which forbade harvesting ; and in healing the sick, Jesus himself broke the rule that a sick man should not receive medical aid on the Sabbath unless his life was in danger. 4 In fact, as Jesus put it, the Rabbinical theory seemed to be that the Sabbath was not made for man but man for the Sabbath, the observance of which was so much an end in itself that the rules prescribed for it did not require to be justified by appeal to any larger principle of religion or humanity. The precepts of the law were valuable in the eyes of the scribes because they were the seal of Jewish particularism, the barrier erected between the world at large and the exclusive community of the grace of Yahwe. For this purpose the most arbitrary precepts were the most effective, and none were more so than the complicated rules of Sabbath observance. The ideal of the Sabbath which all these rules aimed at realising was absolute rest from everything that could be called work ; and even the exercise of those ofiices of humanity which the strictest Sabbatarians regard as a service to God, and therefore as specially appropriate to his day, was looked on as work. To save life was allowed, but only because danger to life 'superseded the Sabbath'. In like manner the special ritual at the temple prescribed for the Sabbath by the Pentateuchal law was not regarded as any part of the hallowing of the sacred day ; on the contrary, the rule was that, in this regard, 'Sabbath was not kept in the sanctuary'. Strictly speaking, therefore, the Sabbath was neither a day of relief to toiling humanity nor a day appointed for public worship ; the positive duties of its observance were to wear one's best clothes, eat, drink, and be glad (justified from Is. 58:13).

A more directly religious element, it is true, was introduced by the practice of attending the synagogue service ; but it is to be remembered that this service was primarily regarded not as an act of worship, but as a meeting for instruction in the law. So far, therefore, as the Sabbath existed for any end outside itself, it was an institution to help every Jew to learn the law, and from this point of view it is regarded by Philo and Josephus, who are accustomed to seek a philosophical justification for the peculiar institutions of their religion. But this certainly was not the leading point of view with the mass of the Rabbins.l

Such was the position of the scribes ; the Sabbath was an end in itself - a mere barrier between God s people and the world at large. Jesus maintains, as we have seen, the opposite doctrine. He declares too that his view of the law as a whole, and the interpretation of the Sabbath law which it involves, can be historically justified from the Old Testament. And in this connection he introduces two of the main methods to which historical criticism of the Old Testament has recurred in modern times : he appeals to the oldest history rather than to the Pentateuchal code as proving that the later conception of the law was unknown in ancient times (Mt. 12:34), and to the exceptions to the Sabbath law which the scribes themselves allowed in the interests of worship (v. 5) or humanity (v. 11), as showing that the Sabbath must originally have been devoted to purposes of worship and humanity, and was not always the purposeless arbitrary thing which the schoolmen made it to be. Modern criticism of the history of Sabbath observance among the Hebrews has done nothing more than follow out these arguments in detail, and show that the result is in agreement with what is known as to the dates of the several component parts of the Pentateuch.

1 See the Mishnah, tract 'Shabbath', and Jubilees, chap. 1 ; and compare Schurer, GJV (3), 2:428, 2:451, 2:470-478, where the rabbinical Sabbath is well explained and illustrated in detail.

5. Pre-exilic and post-exilic Sabbath.[edit]

The historical results of criticism may be thus summarised. Of the legal passages that speak of the Sabbath all those which show affinity the doctrine of the scribes - regarding the Sabbath as an arbitrary sign between Yahwe and Israel, entering into details as to particular acts that are forbidden, and enforcing the observance by several penalties, so that it no longer has any religious value, but appears as a mere legal constraint - are post-exilic (Ex. 16:23-30, 31:12-17, 35:1-3; Nu. 15:32-36); the older laws only demand such cessation from daily toil, and especially from agricultural labour, as among all ancient peoples naturally accompanied a day set apart as a religious festival, and in particular lay weight on the fact that the Sabbath is a humane institution, a holiday for the labouring classes (Ex. 23:12, Dt. 5:12-15). As it stands in these ancient laws, the Sabbath is not at all the unique thing which it was made to be by the scribes. 'The Greeks and the barbarians', says Strabo (10:3:9), 'have this in common, that they accompany their sacred rites by a festal remission of labour'. So it was in old Israel : the Sabbath [which the Israelites may have taken from the Canaanites - an agricultural people (see WEEK)] was one of the stated religious leasts, like the new moon and the three great agricultural sacrificial celebrations (Hos. 2:11); the new moons and the Sabbaths alike called men to the sanctuary to do sacrifice (Is. 1:13) ; the remission of ordinary business belonged to both alike (Am. 8:5), and for precisely the same reason. 1 Hosea even takes it for granted that in captivity the Sabbath will be suspended, like all the other feasts, because in his day a feast implied a sanctuary.

This conception of the Sabbath, however, necessarily underwent an important modification in the seventh century B.C., when the local sanctuaries were abolished, and those sacrificial rites and feasts which in Hosea's time formed the essence of every act of religion were limited to the central altar, which most men could visit only at rare intervals. From that time forward the new moons, which till then had been at least as important as the Sabbath, and were celebrated by sacrificial feasts as occasions of religious gladness, fell into insignificance, except in the conservative temple ritual. The Sabbath did not share the same fate ; but with the abolition of local sacrifices it became for most Israelites an institution of humanity divorced from ritual. So it appears in the deuteronomic decalogue, and presumably also in Jer. 17:19-27. In this form the institution was able to survive the fall of the state and the temple, and the seventh day s rest was clung to in exile as one of the few outward ordinances by which the Israelite could still show his fidelity to Yahwe and mark his separation from the heathen. Hence we understand the importance attached to it from the period of the exile onward (Ezek. 20:12, 22:8, 23:38, Jer. 17:19-27, Is. 56:1-7, 58:13 ), and the character of a sign between Yahwe and Israel ascribed to it in the post-exilic law. This attachment to the Sabbath, beautiful and touching so long as it was a spontaneous expression of continual devotion to Yahwe, acquired a less pleasing character when, after the exile, it came to be enforced by the civil arm (Neh. 13; cp Neh. 10:31), and when the later law even declared Sabbath-breaking a capital offence. It is just, however, to remember that without the stern discipline of the law the community of the second temple could hardly have escaped dissolution, and that Judaism alone preserved for Christianity the hard-won achievements of the prophets.

1 [Hence also the Sabbath was quite readily made use of for the purpose of paying a visit to a man of God (2 K. 4:23), or the like; quite the opposite of the later practice, which forbade all travelling on Sabbaths and feast-days (cp Mt. 24:20 and Jos. Ant. 13:8:4 : OVK ecmv &k rifj.iv oure ev TOI? vdpfiaaiv oure ii> T 60 PT>? odeveii/). K.M.]

6. Origin of the Sabbath.[edit]

As the Sabbath was originally a religious feast, the question of the origin of the Sabbath resolves itself into an inquiry; why and in what circle a festal cycle of seven days was first established. In Gen. 2:1-3 and in Ex. 20:11 the Sabbath is declared to be a memorial of the completion of the work of creation in six days. It appears certain, however, that the decalogue as it lay before the deuteronomist did not contain any allusion to the creation (see DECALOGUE) , and it is generally believed that this reference was added by the same post-exilic hand that wrote Gen. 1:1-2:4a. The older account of the creation in Gen. 2:4b-25 does not recognise the hexaemeron, and it is even doubtful whether the original sketch of Gen. 1 distributed creation over six days. The connection, therefore, between the seven-days week and the work of creation is now generally recognised as secondary. The week and the Sabbath were already known to the writer of Gen. 1, and he used them to give the framework for his picture of the creation, which in the nature of things could not be literal and required some framework. At the same time, there was a peculiar appropriateness in associating the Sabbath with the doctrine that Yahwe is the Creator of all things; for we see from Is. 40-55 that this doctrine was a mainstay of Jewish faith in those very days of exile which gave the Sabbath a new importance for the faithful.

But, if the week as a religious cycle is older than the idea of the week of creation, we cannot hope to find more than probable evidence of the origin of the Sabbath. At the time of the exile the Sabbath was already an institution peculiarly Jewish, otherwise it could not have served as a mark of distinction from heathenism. This, however, does not necessarily imply that in its origin it was specifically Hebrew, but only that it had acquired distinguishing features of a marked kind. What is certain is that the origin of the Sabbath must be sought within a circle that used the week as a division of time. Here again we must distinguish between the week as such and the astrological week, i.e., the week in which the seven days are named each after the planet which is held to preside over its first hour.

If the day is divided into twenty-four hours and the planets preside in turn over each hour of the week in the order of their periodic times (Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Sun, Venus, Mercury, Moon), we get the order of days of the week with which we are familiar. For, if the Sun presides over the first hour of Sunday, and therefore also over the eighth, the fifteenth, and the twenty- second, Venus will have the twenty-third hour, Mercury the twenty-fourth, and the Moon, as the third in order from the Sun, will preside over the first hour of Monday. Mars, again, as third from the Moon, will preside over Tuesday (Dies Martis , Mardi), and so forth.

This astrological week became widely current in the Roman empire, but was still a novelty in the time of Dio Cassius (37:18). That writer believed that it came from Egypt ; but the old Egyptians had a week of ten (not seven) days, and the original home of astrology and of the division of the day into twenty-four hours is Chaldaea. It is plain, however, that there is a long step between the astrological assignation of each hour of the week to a planet and the recognition of the week as an ordinary division of time by people at large. Astrology is in its nature an occult science, and there is not the slightest trace of a day of twenty-four hours among the ancient Hebrews, who had the week and the Sabbath long before they had any acquaintance with the planetary science of the Babylonian priests. Moreover, it is quite clear from extant remains of Assyrian calendars that our astrological week did not prevail in civil life even among the Babylonians and Assyrians : they did not dedicate each day in turn to its astrological planet. These facts make it safe to reject one often-repeated explanation of the Sabbath, viz., that it was in its origin what it is in the astrological week, the day sacred to Saturn, and that its observance is to be derived from an ancient Hebrew worship of that planet. In truth, there is no evidence of the worship of Saturn among the oldest Hebrews (see CHIUN AND SICCUTH).

The week, however, is found in various parts of the world in a form that has nothing to do with astrology or the seven planets, and with such a distribution as to make it pretty certain that it had no artificial origin, but suggested itself independently, and for natural reasons, to different races. In fact, the four quarters of the moon supply an obvious division of the month ; and, wherever new moon and full moon are religious occasions, we get in the most natural way a sacred cycle of fourteen or fifteen days, of which the week of seven or eight days (determined by half-moon) is the half. Thus the old Hindus chose the new and the full moon as days of sacrifice ; the eve of the sacrifice was called upavasatha, and in Buddhism the same word (uposatha) has come to denote a Sabbath observed on the full moon, on the day when there is no moon, and on the two days which are eighth from the full and the new moon respectively, with fasting and other religious exercises. 1

From this point of view it is most significant that in the older parts of the Hebrew scriptures the new moon and the Sabbath are almost invariably mentioned together. The month is beyond question an old sacred division of time common to all the Semites ; even the Arabs, who received the week at quite a late period from the Syrians (Biruni, Chronology, ET 58), greeted the new moon with religious acclamations. And this must have been an old Semitic usage, for the word which properly means 'to greet the new moon' (ahalla) is, as Lagarde (Orientalia, 219) has shown, etymologically connected with the Hebrew words used of any festal joy. Among the Hebrews, or rather perhaps among the Canaanites, whose speech they borrowed, the joy at the new moon became the type of religious festivity in general. Nor are other traces wanting of the connection of sacrificial occasions - i.e., religious feasts - with the phases of the moon among the Semites. The Harranians had four sacrificial days in every month, and, of these, two at least were determined by the conjunction and opposition of the moon. 1

That full moon as well as new moon had a religious significance among the ancient Hebrews seems to follow from the fact that, when the great agricultural feasts were fixed to set days, the full moon was chosen. In older times these feast-days appear to have been Sabbaths (Lev. 23:11; cp PASSOVER, NEW MOON).

A week determined by the phases of the moon has an average length of 29.5 / 4 = 7.375 days - i.e., three weeks out of eight would have eight days. But there seems to be in 1 Sam. 20:27, compared with vv. 18, 24, an indication that in old times the feast of the new moon lasted two days - a very natural institution, since it appears that the feast was fixed in advance, whilst the Hebrews of Saul's time cannot have been good enough astronomers to know beforehand on which of two successive days the new moon would actually be observed. 2 In that case a week of seven working days would occur only once in two months. We cannot tell when the Sabbath became dissociated from the month ; but the change seems to have been made before the Book of the Covenant, which already regards the Sabbath simply as an institution of humanity and ignores the new moon. In both points it is followed by Deuteronomy.

1 Childers, Pali Dict. 555; Kern, Buddhismus (Germ. Transl.) 8; Mahavagga, 2:1:1 ( ET 1:239, 1:291). 14.75

7. The Babylonian and Assyrian Sabbath.[edit]

The word Sabbath (shabbatuv), with the explanation 'day of rest of the heart', is claimed as Assyrian on the basis of a textual emendation made by Fried. Delitzsch in 2 Rawl. 32:16. The value of this isolated and uncertain Sabbath testimony cannot be placed very high, and it seems to prove too much, for it is practically certain that the Babylonians at the time of the Hebrew exile cannot have had a Sabbath exactly corresponding in conception to what the Hebrew Sabbath had become under very special historical circumstances. What we do know from a calendar of the intercalary month Elul II. is that in that month the 7th, 14th, 19th, 21st, and 28th days had a peculiar character, and that on them certain acts were forbidden to the king and others. There is the greatest uncertainty as to the details (cp the very divergent renderings in RP, 7:160-161; Schrader, KAT (2) 19 ; Lotz, Qu. de historia Sabbati, 39-40); but these days, which are taken to be Assyrian Sabbaths, are certainly not 'days of rest of the heart', and to all appearance are unlucky days, and expressly designated as such. 3 If, therefore, they are 'Assyrian Sabbaths' at all, they are exactly opposite in character to the Hebrew Sabbath, which was described by Hosea as a day of gladness, and never ceased to be a day of feasting and good cheer. [Cp Jastrow, in the article mentioned below. ]

1 The others - according to the Fihrist, 319:14 - are the 17th and the 28th.

2 It appears from Judith 8:6 that even in later times there were two days at the new moon on which it was improper to fast.

3 Lotz says they are lucky days ; but the expression which he renders, dies faustus, is applied to every day in the calendar. The rest of his book does not rise above this example of acumen.

8. Recent literature.[edit]

Besides the works already mentioned, reference should be made to W. Lotz, Quaestionum de historia Sabbati libri duo (1883), which takes account of the Assyriological evidence. Hirschfeld's 'Remarks on the etymology of Sabbath' (JRAS. April 1896, pp. 353-359), according to Jastrow, misunderstands and misquotes the Babylonian material. Nowack (Hebr. Arch. [1894] 2:140+) gives a lucid sketch of current theories and their grounds. See also Jensen, Sunday School Times (Philadelphia), Jan. 16, 1892, and Jastrow, Amer. J. of Theol. 1898, pp. 315-352. Jensen is cautious and reserved on the question of a Babylonian origin of the Sabbath, which, however, Gunkel (Schopf. 14) and Jastrow (op. cit.) expressly affirm. The bridge which Gunkel fails to construct between the Babylonian atonement-Sabbath and the Hebrew rest-Sabbath, Jastrow endeavours to point out. He remarks that the Heb. Shabbathon does in fact, like the Bab. shabattum, convey the idea of propitiation or appeasement of the divine anger, and he is of opinion that the Hebrew Sabbath was originally a Shabbathon - i.e. , a day of propitiation and appeasement, marked by atoning rites. At this stage of development it was celebrated at intervals of seven days, corresponding with changes in the moon s phases, and was identical in character with the four days in each month (7th, 14th, 21st, and 28th) that the Babylonians regarded as days which had to be converted into days of propitiation. There were also, however, other shabbathon days, such as the New Year's Day, the Day of Atonement, the first and eighth days of the annual pilgrimage to the chief sanctuary.

The introduction, in consequence of profound changes in religious conceptions among the Hebrews, of the custom of celebrating the Sabbath every seventh day, irrespective of the relationship of the day to the moon's phases, led to a complete separation from the ancient view of the Sabbath, whilst the introduction, at a still later period, of the doctrine that the divine work of creation was completed in six days removed the Hebrew Sabbath still further from the point at which the development of the corresponding Babylonian institution ceased. Hence the position of the Sabbath in the Priestly Code. The field, however, is still open for further investigation.

Cp also Toy, 'The earliest form of the Sabbath', JBL 18:190+ (1899); and C. H. W. Johns, Assyrian Deeds and Documents (who finds that the I9th day of the month was observed by abstinence from secular business ; but the deeds do not indicate that the 7th, I4th, 2ist, and 28th days were Sabbaths).

W. R. S. - K. M. - T. K. C.


See SABBATH. 4n.


(c*BB<\TMOC [BA]). 1 Esd. 9:14 = Ezra 10:15, SHABBETHAI, i.


The Jews under the second temple observed every seventh year as a Sabbath accord ing to the (post-exilic) law of Lev. 25:1-7. It was a year in which all agriculture was remitted, in which the fields lay unsown, the vines grew unpruned, and even the natural produce was not gathered in. That this law was not observed before the captivity we learn from Lev. 26:34+ ; indeed, so long as the Hebrews were an agricultural people with little trade, in a land often ravaged by severe famines, such a law could not have been observed. Even in later times it was occasionally productive of great distress (1 Macc. 6:49, 6:53 ; Jos. Ant. 14:16:2). In the older legislation, however, we already meet with a seven years period in more than one connection. The release of a Hebrew servant after six years labour (Ex. 21:2+, Dt. 15:12+) has only a remote analogy to the Sabbatical year. But in Ex. 23:10+ it is prescribed that the crop of every seventh year (apparently the self-sown crop) shall be left for the poor, and after them for the beasts. The difference between this and the later law is that the seventh year is not called a Sabbath, and that there is no indication that all land was to lie fallow on the same year. In this form a law prescribing one year s fallow in seven may have been anciently observed. It is extended in v. 11 to the vinevard and the olive-vard ; but here the culture necessary to keep the vines and olive-trees in order is not forbidden ; the precept is only that the produce is to be left to the poor. In Deuteronomy this law is not repeated ; but a fixed seven years period is ordained for the benefit of poor debtors, apparently in the sense that in the seventh year no interest is to be exacted by the creditor from a Hebrew, or that no proceedings are to be taken against the debtor in that year (Deut. 15:1+).

W. R. S.


(CABBAIAC [BA]) 1 Esd. 9:32 = Ezra l0:31, SHEMAIAH, 19.


occurs four times in AV, representing three distinct Hebrew words in MT ;

  • (i) in Job 1:15 (Nrii?, RV" - SHEBA) and Joel 3:8 (D\S1^, RV MEN OF SHEBA);
  • (2) in Is. 45:14 (D X3D), see SEBA ; and
  • (3) in Ezek. 23:42 (AVmg and RV 'drunkards'), where, however, it is no part of the original text.

The Kt. c xniD - i.e. D KaiDi, the reading for which the Kre substitutes Q toD with the same meaning (drunkards), is an obvious interpolation due simply to dittography of the preceding Q X31D- On the further textual corruption of the verse see Cornill, ad loc. , and Toy (SBOT). Of course none of these words has anything to do with any of the religious sects that have at one time or another been called Sabians - i.e., Baptists (see art. SABIANS in Ency. Brit. 21 128) a name which is etymologically quite distinct.


i. (c&Bei [A]), 1 Esd. 5:28 RV = Ezra 2:42, SHODAI.

2. ((7-a/3[e]oj [HA]) 1 Esd. 5:34 AV, RV Sable = Ezra 2:57; see POCHERETH-HAZZEBAIM.


(c^BiAC [BA]) 2 Esd. 1:9 RV = 2 Ch. 35:9 , HASHABIAH, 6.


(KPOD, CABATA [B], CABA6A [A], ce. [L], 1 Ch. 1:9 ), or Sabtab. (fifOD, CAB&9A [ADEL], Gen. 10:7), one of the sons of Cush. See CUSH. If 'Cush' here means the N. Arabian region of that name, we are entitled and indeed compelled to suppose that 'Sabtah' and 'Raamah' have arisen by corruption and editorial manipulation from the names of places near the S. border of Canaan. ND3D will probably come from royo 'Maacath' (the southern Maacah), which is also the original of SUCCOTH in the earliest story of Jacob and in Ps. 60:8, and of SOCOH in 1 S. 17:1. Cp SHABBETHAI. From the ordinary point of view Dillmann finds some plausibility in Tuch s suggestion that Sabta = 2a/3/3a#a [sabbatha] (Peripl. 27 ; also Ptolemy, Strabo), the Sabota of Pliny (6:32, 12:32). This was the capital of the Chatramotitae (see HAZARMAVETH), and was famous as the centre of the trade in incense. The name is the Sab. nut?- According to Glaser, Sabta is the 2a<0a [saphtha] of Ptol. 6:7:30, and is to be placed at Sudeir or in the NE of Yemamah ; Sabta, Raamah, and Sabteca representing the districts on the coast of the Persian Gulf (Skizze, 2:252-253).

T. K. C.


(KSJrpD, CABALA [ADE], ceBe. [L] in Gen. ; ceBeKA0A[BL], -6AXA [A] in Ch. ; LXX therefore indicates rather SBKTHA), one of the sons of Cush (Gen. 10:7, 1 Ch. 1:9-10). AV has Sabtechah in Gen. and Sabtecha in Ch. Glaser. following Bochart, con nects this with the name Samydake in Carmania, on the E. side of the Persian Gulf (Skizze, 2252) ; but Dillmann calls attention to the phonetic difference. It is perhaps really a dittographed SABTA, the 3 being a record of a reading Nroo (cp LXX in Gen. ). T. K. c.


("OB*). Probably an ethnic of the same group as ISSACHAR, ZICHRI. The name has, of course, no connection with that of the little known Egyptian god Sakar (cp ISSACHAR, n. 5).

1. On the name in 1 Ch. 11:35, see SHARAR and ISSACHAR, 6 (end).

2. A son of OBED-EDOM (q.v.), 1 Ch. 26:4 [B], CAXAP [L]. C&X"Ap[A]).


The wide diffusion of this word throughout the European languages is probably due in the first instance to Phoenician trade and commerce. 1 The word, it is true, does not happen to be found in either Phoenician or Punic; but it is vouched for in Hebrew, Syriac, Ethiopic, and possibly Assyrian. See SACKCLOTH.

1. tsak, psy (<roKKo? [sakkos] [but judp(n7r;ro? [marsippos], Gen. 44:1-2], saccus), Gen. 42:25, 42:35 (E); in v.27a it is due to R (Holz.); Lev. 11:32, Josh. 9:4. See SACKCLOTH.

2. keli, '7], Gen. 42:25a. (ayyelov [aggeion]), RV 'vessel' ; cp BAG.

3. 'amtahath, nnnDK (v/ [root] spread out, cp Is. 40:22), only in Gen. 41-42 J (42:25 42:27-28, 42:35, 43:12 etc.). On E's term see (1) above. LXX in 42:27-28, 43:12 /xapo-iTrn-os [marsippos].

4. tsikkalon, ji^jWi 2 K. 4:42-43 RV (AV, RVmg. 'husk', AVmg. 'scrip', 'garment' ), cp FOOD, n.2. AVmg gives a superficially plausible sense (cp SCRIP) - derived from an anonymous Greek translator's Kojpvxof [koorykos] (Field's Hex.) , but v^ps [root TsQL] is unknown.

[It has been conjectured elsewhere (see PROPHET, 7) that Elisha, like Elijah, was specially a prophet of the Negeb, and that *7Dn3 is a popular corruption of S^cnT- If s o, u rpsa probably comes from D 73"JV2, 'Beth-gallim', where D ^J is another corruption of ^XDiTT- Elisha was at a place called Beth-gallim, or (see v. 38) Beth-gilgal, or (since Gallim and Gilgal = Jerahmeel) Beth-jerahmeel, in the Negeb formerly belonging to the Jerahmeelites. But Lagarde's reading nj?Sp. 'wallet' (?), suggested by the /3aiceAAe0 [bakelleth] of LXX{A} and Theod. (see BDB), is ingenious. T. K. c.]


(N3|b>), Dan. 3:5, 7:10, 7:15+. See Music, 6 (10).


(pb ; c&KKOC ; saccus, cilicium -). It is probable that the Heb. tsak was originally a coarse textile fabric made from the hair of the camel or the goat (cp the meanings of crd/CKos [sakkos], a borrowed word).

1. Use.[edit]

Like the simlah it could be used also as a wrap or bag (cp MANTLE, 2 [i]) ; see SACK. Referring the reader, generally, to the articles DRESS and MOURNING CUSTOMS, we propose here to indicate the nature of the garment expressed by the word tsak, and to endeavour to ascertain the origin of the custom of wearing it.

The usage of the word suggests that the tsak was nothing more than a loin-cloth, similar, no doubt, to the ihram 3 of Moslem pilgrims at Mecca. It was worn as a token of grief after a death (Gen. 37:34, 2 S. 3:31, Joel 1:8), more commonly, however, in times of trial, to remove a calamity, or as a means of propitiation.

Thus, the tsak is worn after hearing bad news (2 K. 6:30, 19:1, Est. 4:1-4, etc.), to avert a pestilence (1 Ch. 21:16), when one's neighbour lies in sickness (Ps. 35:13), or as a sign of general undefined grief (Ps. 30:11 [30:12], 69:11 [69:12], Is. 22:12). It is often preceded by the rending of the clothes (Gen. 37:34, 1 K. 21:27 the rending alone in Job 1:20), or by the covering of one's head with ashes or (Neh. 9:1, 2 Macc. 10:25) earth. 4 Like the ihram, the sak is also worn by women (Joel 1:8, cp Judith 8:5, 10:3, 2 Macc. 3:10). In Jon. 3:8 it is ordered to be worn by both man and beast (bShlm&K [behemah])

1 Some (e.g., Whitney, in the Cent. Diet) have supposed this diffusion to be due to the incident in the story of Joseph, where the cup was hidden in the sack. This does not explain the various meanings of <7<iKKO? [sakkos], saccus, and, as a matter of fact, the Heb. tsak appears only thrice in the story, whilst the synonym amtahath occurs no fewer than fourteen times (see SACK, 3).

2 Saccus and cilicium are about evenly distributed. For cilicium (a goat's-hair cloth used for tents), see CILICIA, 3 end, and cp TENT, 3.

3 Tsak is frequently used with hagar, 'gird on', the reverse process being described by pittah, 'loosen' (Ps. 30:11 [30:12], Is. 20:2 ). The ihram (on which cp Wellh. Heid.(1) 116-117 (2) 123) is a loin-cloth covering the knee, one lap of which may be cast over the shoulder (Doughty, Ar. Des. 1:479, 1:481). In Eg. sa-g, with the determinative 'hair', is a woollen Palestinian garment of the poor (WMM OLZ, 1901).

4 Jastrow JAOSt&iy) suggests that in Judith 9:1 (a-iroSov [spodon]), the translator mistook apher (see TURBAN, 2) for epher, like his predecessor in 2 S. 13:19.

2. A sacred garment.[edit]

The passages in which the tsak is mentioned as worn next the skin are probably not exceptional (1 K. 21:27, 2 K. 6:30, Is. 32:11); Doughty has remarked the half-naked appearance of the wearers of the ihram - 'like bathing-men' (Ar. Des. 2:479+, 2:537), and the dress doubtless resembled the prophet's girdle which, in Job 12:18, is worn as a mark of humiliation by a king. See GIRDLE.

The sackcloth of the OT, therefore, must not be regarded as in any way akin to a sack or sackcloth in the modern sense of the word, and, in endeavouring to ascertain the origin of the custom of wearing such a garb, we must not be led away by the early Christian or the later ideas with which it is associated. *

That conservatism prevails longest in matters of cult is a familiar experience, and Schwally, Nowack, and Kittel (HK on 1 K.. 21:27) favour the view that the tsak is the clothing of an earlier half-forgotten time, which, though it may long have continued to be worn - e.g. , by slaves and the poorer people - was nevertheless adopted exceptionally by the ruling classes on specific occasions (cp DRESS, 2, n. 4). Another view is possible.

It is to be observed

  • (a) that the corresponding ihram is essentially a dress for a sacred occasion ;
  • (b) that the prophets wore a garment similar to the tsak; and
  • (c) that the sacred ephod itself was probably once a mere loin-cloth (see EPHOD, 1, and cp T. C. Foote, JBL 21:41-44 [1902]).

On these grounds, therefore, it seems extremely probable that the tsak was pre-eminently a sacred garment, and it agrees with this interpretation that we find it worn by people of all classes on any especially solemn occasion (1 Ch. 21:16, Joel 1:13, Dan. 9:3, 1 Macc. 8:47, 2 Macc. 10:25 etc. ).

1 Cp Schwally, Leben nach d. Tode, 11-12. For the early Christian usages see Smith, Dict. Christ. Ant., s.v.

2 See Rel. Sem. (2) 451-452, DRESS, 8, and cp generally CLEAN AND UNCLEAN-.

3 See WRS EB (9), 21:132, Rel. Sem. (2), 213-214.

3. Why worn.[edit]

In view of what has been said elsewhere on the bearing of ideas of holiness upon such a matter as dress, 2 a plausible explanation of the custom may be attempted. Garments that have come in contact with holy things are unfit for common use, and in early Arabia certain rites were performed either in a naked state or in clothes reserved for the purpose. There are some indications that this held good among the ancient Hebrews ; and if we bear in mind that the tsak is worn at times of great trouble, when Yahwe's help or forgiveness is besought, we may perhaps surmise that such occasions were formerly accompanied by a sacrificial rite when a special garb (if we may judge from the Arabian evidence) would not be unnatural. It would be just at such a time as this that the individual would feel himself brought into closest contact with his deity. At all events, ideas connected with worship of the dead do not cover the whole ground.

The king of Nineveh removes his royal mantle before donning the tsak (Jon. 3:6), 1 the 'holy' occasion requires 'holy' clothes, and the primary object of the rending of the garments is probably to put oneself in a state of nakedness as quickly as possible (Schwally, Frey).

That the use of this special garment should have been retained long after the (ex hyp. ) ritual died out is not without analogy. The gradual decay is further illustrated by the fact that sometimes even it was the custom not to wear the tsak but to lie upon it (2 S. 21:10, Is. 58:5), and that in later Jewish times the rending of the garments was confined to a small slit (Nowack, HA 1:193).

See the literature at the end of MOURNING CUSTOMS ; also Schwally, Das Leben nach d. Tode (1892), n ff., Frey, Tod, Seelenglaube, etc. (1898), 34 #

On sackcloth and nakedness, cp Jastrow, ZATW 22:117+ (1902), which appeared since the above article was written.

S. A. C.

1 Cp Wi. AOF 2:29, where the Assyrian king tears off his royal garments, and clothes his body in the 'bashamu, the dress of the penitent. Wi. (op cit. 44) points out that bashamu is elsewhere glossed by tsakku ( = p y).


(sacramentum, the Vg. rendering of fMcrr-fjpLov [mysterion] in Eph. 1:9, 1:33, 5:32, Col. 1:27, 1 Tim. 3:16, Rev. 1:20, 17:7). See MYSTERY, 5.