Encyclopaedia Biblica/Sopater-Stachys

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search



(CCGTTATPOC). a man of BEROEA, who accompanied Paul (for part of the way at least) on his last recorded journey to Jerusalem, Acts 20:4. The addition llvppov [pyrrou] (son of Pyrrhus RV, NABD) is omitted by TR. The mention of the father's name is unusual, although it may possibly have been inserted to distinguish him from Sosipater (Rom. 16:21), with whom, however, he should probably be identified. See SOSIPATER.


ucechHRAG [B], Acechop. [A], ACOO-d>epe9 [I-])- Ezra 2:55 AV, RV HASSOPHERETH [q.v.].


See MAGIC, 3.


(p-llL M 7m [with C ], i.e., 'wady of the sorek vine' [see VINE]), the place where Samson fell in love with the Philistine woman Delilah (Judg. 16:4 : N AAcoopHX [B], erri Toy XeiM&ppoy CcopHX [A], . . . -HK [L]). It is called by Jer. (OS 153:6, cp 297:76) cafarsorec ; he places it in the region of Eleutheropolis near Saraa - i.e. , ZORAH [q.v.]. This points to the mod. Surik, 0.75 hr. W. from Zorah, on the N. side of the large and fertile Wady Surdr. Cp, however, ZORAH.


(ctopHC [A], -peic [L], ecoBHC [B], Josh. 15:59, LXX). See SEIR, z.


(P~lb ), Zech. 1:8 RV, AV 'speckled'. 1 See COLOURS, 12.



i. A general under Judas the Maccabee, who fought against Timotheus at Carnion, 2 Macc. 12:19-24.

2. One of the 'kinsmen' of Paul who unites with him in saluting the Christians of Rome, Rom. 16:21. He seems, therefore, to have been well known to them. In the Pseudo-Dorotheus he is a bishop of Iconium. He is probably to be identified with SOPATER [q.v. ] of Bercea.



i. Ruler of the synagogue (dpx<-<rwdywyos, see SYNAGOGUE, 9) at Corinth when Paul was in that city on his second journey, the first into Greece (Acts 18:17). After the failure of the Jews concerted action against Paul before Gallio (see GALLIO, 2) - in which, perhaps, Sosthenes had taken a leading part - we are told that 'all' (irdvres [pantes], so BXA and others), or 'all the Greeks' (irdvre^ ol "EXA^es [pantes oi hellenes]: so DdEHLPM, etc.), certainly not 'all the Jews' (irdvTes lovdaiot. or iravres ol lovdaioi, as some authorities have; see Ti. , Blass, Hilgenfeld) laid hold on Sosthenes and beat him before the judgment-seat.

It is not necessary to suppose, as many do, that Sosthenes was the successor of Crispus, the 'ruler of the synagogue', baptized by Paul at Corinth (Acts 18:8; see CRISPUS), nor yet to assume, with others, that Lk. is confusing the two persons. Both may concurrently have borne the title of 'ruler of the synagogue' (dpxirvvdyuyos [archisynagoogos), and have held the office denoted by it, just as cases in which there were more than one chief priest (Apxi(pefa [archiereus) can be cited (cp ANNAS and CAIAPHAS). This Sosthenes has been identified by many since Theodoret, but without reason, with 'the brother' mentioned in 1 Cor. 1:1 (see no. 2).

2. Sosthenes the brother appears in 1 Cor. 1:1 as having a share in the preparation of 1 Cor. To prove that the part he took was that of amanuensis merely, appeal is usually made to 1 Cor. 16:21 ; but those who argue thus overlook the fact that Tertius, who is supposed to have written the Epistle to the Romans, is not mentioned until the end of that epistle, and then expressly as the apostle's secretary (T^orioj 6 ypd\f/as rrjv 6iriffro\7)v [tertios o grapsas ten epistolen], Rom. 1622). Moreover, no one has ever thought of taking Timothy the brother in 2 Cor. 1:1, Col. 1:1 (cp Phil, 1:1), 'all the brethren which are with me [Paul]' in Gal. 1:2, 'Silvanus and Timotheus' in 1 Thess. 1:1, 2 Thess. 1:1 as having been the apostle's secretaries in attendance. The simple fact is that the names belong to the form usually adopted for the Pauline epistle ; one or more persons are mentioned besides the apostle as writing it, their function being that of attesting the truth set forth and defended by the apostle (2 Cor. 1:3, cp Dt. 19:15). From time to time we are reminded of their presence by the use of the plural (first person), but quite as often the apostle uses the singular. The brother 'Sosthenes' is otherwise unknown. He is enumerated among the seventy in Eusebius (HE 1:12:1) and elsewhere (see Lips. Apok. Ap.-gesch. 1:201, 1:203, 3:413, E. 3.

W. C. v. M.


(CGOCTPATOC [A], coc. [V]; the name is also borne by a priest of Aphrodite in Paphos ; cp Schurer, G/ /l 514 w. ), governor of the citadel in Jerusalem (err&PXOC THC AKpOTToAecoc [heparchos tes akropoleoos]) temp. Antiochus Epiphanes (2 Macc. 4:27 [4:28], 4:29). The post would, doubtless, be important (cp Benz. HA 47, JERUSALEM, 27).

en-apxos [heparches], used in LXX for nrtS (see GOVERNOR, i), corresponds to the Roman praefectus. From it is borrowed the Nab. n^isrii the precise nuance of which is not quite certain (CIS 2, nos. 173, 207, 214).


( DID, meaning? coOTAl [L]). The B'ne Sotai, a group or family (see SOLOMON'S SERVANTS) in the great post-exilic list (see EZRA ii., 9) ; Ezra 2:55 (o-arei [li], o-corai [A]) = Neh. 7:57 (o-ouret [BA], -TIT) [N*vk!.], . rtet [Kc.a vkl.])= : Esd. 5:33 (o-ajTtu [L], EVom. after HA).


(^ 23, fYXH [NPSh] common to all the Sem. languages ; but Ass. napishtu generally means 'life', more rarely 'soul'). Properly breath ; but this sense seems to have gone out in Hebrew. The usual sense is the soul or individual life (so very often, see, e.g. , Ps. 66:9, Is. 53:12) as distinguished from the 'flesh' or 'body' (Dt. 12:23, Ps. 31:10). By a natural transition nephesh also means 'a living being', especially in the phrase nephesh hayyah (rrn PS:), lit. 'a living soul', used of man in J (Gen. 2:7) and of animals in P (Gen. 1:20, 1:24, 1:30, 9:12, 9:15-16 all P; 2:19, redactional insertion in J) ; cp 1 Cor. 15:45. For further developments, see ESCHATOLOGY, 12-19, and for the connection of 'soul' and 'heart' cp HEART.

None of the three passages cited in Ges.-Buhl for the sense 'breath' will stand examination, as has been shown by Briggs, 'The use of 5-133 [NPSh] in the OT' [a critical and exhaustive classification of passages], JBL [1897] 16:17-30. These passages are:

  • (a) Prov. 27:9. Here Briggs gives nephesh the sense of lebab, 'heart'; but it is better to read rEi) 1 ? NS1D nsy pnCl, 'so the sweetness of counsel is healing to the soul' (Toy also nsj? pn2l)
  • (b) Job 41:13 where 33 'breath' (?), is ascribed to Leviathan. But Job is a late book ; a reversion to an archaic sense is not probable here. So Briggs, who renders 'his passion, or fury, kindleth coals'. The parallel expressions, however, point to the reading inSC>:, 'his breath'.
  • (c) Is. 3:20, e ; B3ri P3, RV 'perfume-boxes' (see PERFUME). Briggs proposes 'boxes of desire', or 'smelling boxes'. Paul Haupt (SBOT, Isa. [Heb.] 8:2) has suspected a connection with Ass. pashashu, 'to anoint oneself'. This suggests nil y S:) FI3, 'boxes of ointment' (Ass. napshashtu, 'ointment'). But still better would perhaps be fCB PG (D and S confounded).

T. K. C.



For Chambers of the South, see STARS, 3e ; and for The South as a geographical expression (1 S. 30:14, 1 Macc. 5:65), see JUDAEA, NEGEB, PALESTINE.


(yc), 2 Pet. 2:22 ; see SWINE.


See AGRICULTURE, 6. Cp the Parable of the Sower, see GOSPELS, 19.


(CTTANIA [ANVTi.WH], 1 Macc. 8:3, Rom. 15:24, 15:28). Carthaginian Spain became Roman at the close of the Second Punic War (201 B.C.); but the Roman power was not fully consolidated over the entire Iberian peninsula until nearly two centuries later (by Marcus Agrippa the friend and minister of Augustus). There is no reason to suppose that the apostle Paul ever carried out the intention of visiting Spain expressed in Rom. 15:24, 15:28, and the evidence that the country was evangelised by the apostle James the Less (see JAMES, i) is too late and legendary to be of any value. Cp GEOGRAPHY, 25-26; TARSHISH, 2.


(rnj; cnie&MH). See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. In Lam. 2:20, AV gives the pathetic phrase 'children of a span long' for D nsa ^>Sy ; RV, however, has 'the children that are dandled in the hands' (cp v. 22). Budde, 'Hatschel-kinder'.


The word tsippor, ~) lS> , of frequent occurrence in OT, is, with only two exceptions (Ps. 84:4 [84:3] 102:8 [102:7], cTpoySiON [struthion]) rendered 'bird', 'fowl' in RV. Nor does the exceptional translation sparrow imply that any particular species was intended. The word probably meant any small Passerine bird, a group which is unusually abundant in Palestine. It is interesting to note that the common house-sparrow, Passer domesticus, is common in Palestine, but in a smaller and brighter variety ; three other species of Passer are also enumerated. Canon Tristram identifies the sparrow of Ps. 102:7 as the Monticola cyanus or Blue Thrush, from its habit of sitting solitarily, or sometimes in pairs, on projecting ledges or some other conspicuous perch, uttering from time to time a plaintive and monotonous song. The 'sparrow' is not included in the list of unclean birds ; and it seems probable that at any rate in NT times (Mt. 10:29, 10:31, Lk. 12:6, ffrpovdiov [strouthion]) they were eaten, as is commonly the case in Mediterranean countries to this day. See BIRD, FOWL, 1.

A. E.S.


(CTTARTH [NV], -TI& [A], 1 Macc. 14:6; SPARTANS, cn&pTi&T&i, 1 Macc. 12:2-3, 14:20-21, 15:23; AAKeAMMONiOl, AV 'Lacedemonians', RV 'Lacedaemonians', 2 Macc. 5:9).

The greatness of Sparta was long past when she came into connection with the Jewish people. The final suppression of the liberties of Greece by the Romans was in part due to her obstinate refusal to enter the Achaean League (149 B.C.). On the destruction of Corinth and dissolution of that league, Sparta gained a favourable position so far as retaining her autonomy went, but a number of the Laconian towns dependent upon her were granted autonomy by the Romans (Strabo, 366 ; Livy, 3429). Sparta at this period held the rank of a civitas foederata et libera (Str. 365), being self-governing and not liable to tribute or to the jurisdiction of a Roman governor. Sparta and the Spartans are mentioned together in connection with a correspondence which passed between them and the Jews in the Maccabean period (1 Macc. 12:6). About 144 B. C. Jonathan, then leader of the Jews, wishing to make alliances to strengthen his position, sent Numenius and Antipater with letters to Rome, Sparta, and else where (1 Macc. 12:1-2, cp DISPERSION, 13). In his letter to the Spartans he lays great stress on a former letter from their king Areus to the Jewish high priest Onias, and on the desirability of renewing the brotherhood which had then existed. The letter of Areus is quoted to the effect that it had been found in writing that the Spartans and Jews were of the same stock, that is to say, of Abraham, and that therefore their interests were identical (12:20-23). Shortly afterwards Jonathan died, and the tidings of his death caused great grief in Sparta (14:16), but on Simon's assuming the priesthood, the rulers (i.e. , the Ephors) of the Spartans wrote to him wishing to renew the friendship which they had confirmed with Judas and Jonathan his brethren (14:17-18).

The name of the Spartan king is given as ARIUS. 1

1 Possibly a more correct form of the name would be apevs [areus] as in Gk. writers, cp also CIA 2:1, no. 332.

So RV, but AV AREUS (1 Macc. 12:20, aptjs) ; which should also be read in v. 7 (with Vg. and Jos. [ap*ios]) for AV DARIUS ; and again in v. 19, for AV ONIARES (oi/ia[a]pi)s [NV], -veiap. [Avid.]), which has arisen from the combination of oveiq [onien] ('to Onias'), the last word in v. 19, with apijs [ares] (Arius), the first in v. 20.

Although there were two Spartan kings named Arius, there is little doubt that Arius 1. (309-265 B.C.), the successor of Cleomenes, is the one here referred to, and that the high priest is Onias I. 1 It has been suggested with great probability that this letter was written in 302 B.C. when the Spartans may have wished to hinder Demetrius Poliorcetes, who was then warring with Cassander. That treaties may have existed between Semitic and other peoples at that time is shown by the league between the Athenians and the Sidonians before the time of Alexander the Great, to which reference is made in CIG, no. 87 (Schurer in Riehm's HWB 2:1536a).

The authenticity of the letters in 1 Macc. has been much disputed. The letter from Jonathan to the Spartans (1 Macc. 12:6+) scarcely reads like a diplomatic document, and betrays the religious spirit of a later age ; though it must be admitted that it is impossible to build too much upon the wording since the letters are translations of translations.

There is no reason, however, to doubt the fact of diplomatic relations with Sparta having been set on foot by Jonathan. For Sparta was too obscure at the time to have suggested itself to a forger eager to magnify his hero by inventions of the kind. Again the incident leads to no result in the sequel ; the reverse would have tended to throw doubt upon the entire episode.

As given both by Josephus and the author of 1 Macc., the two letters of the Spartans seem fragmentary and wanting in definite suggestion. They have the air of diplomatic forgeries. Especially is it noticeable that whereas Jonathan describes the Spartan overtures as a declaration of 'confederacy and friendship' (1 Macc. 12:8) there is no such declaration in proper diplomatic terms in the appended document. Yet the ability to point to actual alliance in the past would have been the natural and most powerful recommendation of his proposals.

A point upon which too much stress has been laid is the relationship between the Spartans and Jews. Areus mentions that it was written down that they were 'brethren and of the stock of Abraham'. The unlucky JASON (q.v., 2) fled to the Lacedemonians (\a.Kfda.i/j.di>iot [lakedaimonioi]) for shelter because they were his 'near of kin' (5td ryv ffvyyfviav [dia ten syggenian], 2 Macc. 5:9), and Herod made a favourite of a certain Spartan 'on account of his country' (Jos. BJ 1:26:1). There seems to be no good ground for regarding the 'Sparta' of these letters as a corruption of the Asiatic name Saparda (see SEPHARAD) ; and it is equally hazardous with Hitzig (Gesch. 347) to identify it with the Lycian town Patara. It is conceivable that the old historians connected the Pelasgians with the Spartans, and derived the former from Peleg the son of Eber ; but the relationship insisted on finds a parallel in the case of the people of Pergamos, who, in making an alliance with the Jews, pointed back to similar relations between their ancestors and Abraham 2 (Jos. Ant. 14:10:22). The old historians and genealogists were ever ready to account for existing confederacies and alliances as resting on some ancient bond of kinship, and numerous analogies may be found amongst classical writers ; cp GENEALOGIES i. , 3 [3], col. 1660.

See H. J. E. Palmer, de epistolarum quas Spartani atque Judaei invicem sibi misisse dicuntur veritate, Darmst. 1828; Schurer, 1:186 ; Ew. Gesch. 4:317.

S. A. C. - W. J. W.

1 Cp ONIAS, 3. Not Onias II. and Areus II. (Ew. Gtsch. 4:317), for they can hardly have been contemporaneous, and moreover Areus II. died young, about 257 B.C. (Paus. 3:6:6); still less can it be Onias III. (Jos. Ant. 12:4:10). A certain Areus is mentioned about 184 B.C. as a prominent Spartan (Pol. 22:1, 23:4).

2 Cp a note in Steph. Byz., s.v., lovSaia [ioudaia], 'derived airo toi&uou SirapTUf ei/os en tj/Sls [apo ioi daiou spartoon enos ek thebes]' see Schurer, l.c.


The words are :

1. rnn, hanith. See below (2) and cp JAVELIN, 2.

2. rtSI, romah. See below (3).

3. JITS, kldon. See JAVELIN, i.

4. | p, kayin (2 S. 21:16-17). The text, however, is doubtful. See ISHBI-BENOB.

5. ^S^, tsiltsal (Job 40:31-32; 'fish spear'). See FISH, 3, i.

On the 'spearmen' of Ps. 68:30 see CROCODILE. For the 5eio\d/3ot [dexiolaboi] of Acts 23:23 we ought probably to read with A d(io(36\oi [dexiobaloi]; cp the eKrjpoXoi [ekeboloi] of Jos. BJ 2:17:5, fftfxvdoviJTai [sphendonetai] and \iOofib\oi [lithoboloi] of 3:7:18, and fftpevdovrJTat [sphendonetai] of 4:1:3 . Cp WAR.

1. Construction.[edit]

The spear was a favourite weapon of offence amongst ancient nations, as it has always been amongst other peoples at an early stage of development; it was easy to make and could be used with great effect. It varied chiefly in its size, weight, and length ; this will be seen from the illustrations in Erman (Life in Anc. Eg.), Wilkinson (Anc. Eg.), and Maspero (Struggle of the Nations), though too much reliance must not be placed on the representations of spears in 'works of art' (cp the remarks of Cecil Torr, Ancient Ships, 8). It consisted, as a rule, of a wooden staff with a sharp head of flint or metal. It may be that the early Israelites, as a writer in Kitto (Bibl. Cyclop.) suggests, like other primitive peoples, made use of the horn of some animal, 'straightened in water, and sheathed upon a thorn-wood staff'. We know with what effect animals themselves use these horns (Darwin, The Descent of Man, 501+ [1890]). 'When sharpened this instrument would penetrate the hide of a bull, and, according to Strabo, even of an elephant; it was light, very difficult to break', and 'resisted the blow of a battle-axe' (Kitto). Later, brass (see COPPER) or IRON (q.v.) was used. Layard (Nineveh and Babylon, 301 [1853]) found at Nimrud the heads of spears, 'which being chiefly of iron fell to pieces almost as soon as exposed to the air'. In Gen. Louis Palma Di Cesnola's Cyprus (1877), plates 36 and 40 (after p. 392), are given gems from Curium in the Phoenician (36) and the Greek (40) style, on which warriors are represented armed with round shields (see SHIELD), and spears which look like sharp-pointed stakes ; cp the long spears on the Sarcophagus from Golgoi (pl. 10, opposite p. 110). On the other hand, on the silver patera found at Amathus (pl. 19, opposite p. 276) a regular spear-head seems to be represented.

2. The hanith.[edit]

Layard (Nineveh and its Remains, 2:343) says, 'the spear of the Assyrian footman was short, scarcely exceeding the height of a man; that of the horseman appears to have been considerably longer. . . . The shaft was probably of some strong wood, and did not consist of a reed, like that of the modern Arab lance'. It would seem to have been a stout weapon, since warriors used it to force stones out of the wall of a besieged city (see p. 372). The Egyptian soldiers of the eighteenth Theban dynasty carried 'pikes about 5 ft. long, with broad bronze or copper points' (Maspero, Struggle, 213) ; the spear was not so common. The Assyrian pikemen of a later date were armed with equally heavy weapons (ibid., 627-628.). The Hebrew hanith (rnn) seems to have been a large weapon. It was used by great warriors (2 S. 2:23, etc. ); and it is the weapon put into the hands of 'giants' (2 S. 23:21, etc.). Goliath is said to have carried a spear 'like a weaver's beam (1 S. 17:7), its head weighing 600 shekels' (for the idea of giants see ANAKIM). Saul is said to have hurled his hanith at David (1 S. 19:9-10). From such indications in the OT we may suppose that the hanith had some resemblance to the Egyptian and the Assyrian pike.

3. The romah.[edit]

A lighter, and no doubt much older, weapon of the kind was also in use among the Egyptians and the Assyrians, and is still found among the Bedouins and other primitive peoples. This is called in Arabic rumh, and we can hardly be wrong in identifying it with the Hebrew romah (nch, see Nu. 25:7, etc. ; cp Doughty, Ar. Des. 1:221, 1:228 ; Merrill, East of the Jordan, 482), which, however, was no doubt often shorter. 'The beam, made of a light reed of the rivers of Mesopotamia, is nearly two of their short horse-lengths; they charge them above their heads' (Doughty, 1:334). The Arab keeps this spear continually at his side. When he prepares to encamp the sheikh strikes his spear in the ground. When the camp is broken up 'the spear is the last thing taken from the ground' (Warburton, The Crescent and the Cross, chap. 25). For other spear-like weapons (dart, etc.) see WEAPONS, 2.


M. A. C.


For (i) nakod OpJ), Gen. 30:32+, and (2) tsabua (yi3X), Jer. 12:9, see COLOURS, 12; and for (3) sarok ( P~^ ), Zech. 1:8, see COLOURS, 10.


is the RV rendering of kussemeth, npD3 (Ex. 9:32, Is. 28:25, Ezek. 4:9-10), for which AV has twice 'rie', and once 'fitches'. See FITCHES.

[It is possible that flCDS, 'spelt', occurs also in 1 S. 2:36, where it is said that destitute priests will sue to be put into a priest's office DO? 12:11 f]D3 rnijN 1 : , i.e., according to tradition, 'for a piece of silver and a loaf of bread'. But the rendering 'piece' presupposes a connection of JN and m2, gerah (see WEIGHTS), which is purely arbitrary. Following Del. Prol. 149, BDB and Ges.-Bu. take JN to be an abstract noun, meaning 'payment', cp Ass. agaru, to hire. But this root does not appear to be known in Hebrew, nor is an abstract noun probable in this passage. Probably the text is corrupt, and we should read rCD3 "ICJ7 1 ?, 'for an omer of spelt'. LXX{B} is without the following words Cn*? "13D1 {1} , possibly these were added after the corruption of flDDD TDy^i on account of the concluding mention of 'a morsel of bread'. For a bolder expedient see Crit. Bib. - T. K. c.]


(i.e. , Lat. species, O French espice, hence epice; cp ft, 2 Ch. 16:14, all species [of spices] : Vg. unguentis meretriciis [H3T]), though now specifically employed to denote 'a class of aromatic vegetable condiments used for the seasoning of food, commonly in a pulverised state', was, in the seventeenth century, applicable to a much wider variety of 'species'; in AV it happens to be applied (unless, perhaps in Cant. 8:2, where 'spiced' wine is alluded to) a never to condiments but only to aromatic odours. It represents:-

1. betsem, cb2 (Ex. 30:23-24), or bostem, cb3 (often), plur. c-sb 3, 2 Ch. 16:14, etc. That this word must sometimes at least have a general sense is shown by the expressions Dir3 - |S3p (Ex. 30:23 ; see CINNAMON), cirn njp (ib., see CALAMUS) and cir 3^3 rio (Ezek. 27:22). On the specific sense, see BALSAM.

2. sammim, D<ED (Ex. 30:34: EV SWEET SPICES; Ex. 25:6, 30:7, 31:11, 35:8, 35:15, 35:28, 39:38, 40:27 [only AV], Lev. 4:7, 16:12, Nu. 4:16, 2 Ch. 2:4 [2:3] [only AV], 13:11 ; EV SWEET INCENSE) or ketoreth sammim, G SD rnbp (Ex. 37:29-30; EV INCENSE OF SWEET SPICES and RV in 40:27, 2 Ch. 2:4 [2:3]).

The word sammim is a general expression for fragrant material in the form of powder, akin to Ar. shumma, 'to smell', as well as samm, simm, or summ, 'poison', and to Aram, samma, 'a medicament'. The exact history of this group of words is obscure, but probably the oldest form of root is represented by Ar. shamma = Aram, sam; and Ar. samm and Heb. c CD [SMYM] may both be loan words from Aramaic (cp Frankel, 262). On the other hand, the oldest meaning is perhaps that of the Hebrew word and of Ar. shamm, viz., 'fragrance'; the notions of poison (in Syr. samma dhe-mawta) and of medical efficacy may well be derived from this. In post-biblical Hebrew, and sometimes in Syr. , the word was used with a further extension of meaning - viz., for colouring matter.

The use of the word in OT is, as a general term, for the sacred incense compounded of stacte, onycha, galbanum (galbanum of sammim}, and frankincense (see INCENSE).

3. neko'th, ntJ (Gen. 37:25; EV Spicery ; RVmg gum tragacanth or storax ; OvfjLid/j.ara [thymamata]; aromata ; Gen. 43:11 ; AV spices, RV spicery ; 6vfji.ia.fjia. [thymiama], storax). See STORAX.

4. rekah, njri, Cant. 8:2 (apparently not specific). See PERFUME, PERFUMERS.

5. dpufMra. [aroomata], Mk. 16:1, etc. See PERFUME.

6. dfjLUfjiov [amoomon], Rev. 18:13 RV. See AMOMUM.

N. M.

1 Compare, however, LXX{AL} ; the latter text has the curious expression aproi Kvpiov [arton kyrion] (see Crit. Bit .).

2 In Ezek. 24;10 the verb results from a mistranslation, 'spice it well' ; RV 'make thick the broth'.


(D^rnn, with art. ; TCON GMTTOptON).

but RV merchants, are mentioned in connection with Solomon's commercial profits (1 K. 10:15), if we should not rather read Jerahmeelites. See SOLOMON, 7, and cp PERFUMERS. T. K. c.


i. semamith, JVpDl" ; Prov. 30:28-29 ; RV LIZARD [q.v. , 7].

2. 'akkabish, i7asy (dpdxvq [arachne], aranea). Under this name the spider is mentioned in MT only twice - viz. , in Is. 59:5, where the devices of the wicked are likened to a spider's web, and in Job 8:14, where the confidence of the godless is compared to a 'spider's house'. There are several other passages, however, in which, through an easy textual error, the spider has been supplanted by the moth. Thus in Job 4:19, 'which are crushed before the moth' (e>y :p i ?) should rather be 'which are crushed even as the spider' 1 (s isy <ah) ; Mohammed, too, compares idolaters to spiders (Koran, Sur. 29:40). In Hos. 8:6 the 'calf of Samaria' is also probably compared to a spider s web, 2 and in Ps. 39:12 [39:11], 90:9 (LXX tis dpd\vri[i>] [oos arachn[e] in both passages) the same figure seems to be employed to symbolise the frailty of human life, according to probable emendations of these two corrupt passages. 3 Textual criticism also reinstates the spider in a fine description of the fate of the wicked (see MOTH), where 'moth' should probably be 'spider' (Job 27:18 || 8:14 ; but in LX of 27:18 dpdxvn [arachne] seems to stand for naa). Not improbably, too, 'the poison of asps' in Ps. 1403 should rather be 'the poison of spiders' (so Gratz, Merx, after Tg. ). In Is. 59:5 'spiders' and 'vipers' are parallel, with an allusion to a belief in their poisonousness. See ASP. LXX, according to Grabe, followed by H and P read 'spider' (dpdxvrf [arachne], but the text [BAQ] has rapaxn [tarache]) in Hos. 5:12, where MT has 'moth'.

T. K. C.

1 g and <js are elsewhere, too, confounded.

2 C HtP 3 should be e"32j; "lip (Ruben, Critical Remarks, on Hos, l.c.) ; cp Vg. in aranearum telas.

3 See Che. Psalms, (2) and cp LOCUST, OWL.


(DVf]P. \P^> [root RGL], ragal, 'to busy oneself with walking about'; cp Wl, 'merchant', but MH fflS 3 li 'calumny', and ^ji, Ps. 153 'backbite'; Karacr/con-cu [kataskopoi], Gen. 42:9, etc., Josh. 2:1, 6:23, 1 S. 26:4, 2 S. 15:10 ; and virtually C"W Nu. 146 caTacricei/<a;ueVcoc [kataskepsamenoon], but Aq. Sym. /caTaaxoTrioc [kataskopoon]; C lDX Nu. 21:1 AV RVmg, Aq. Sym. riav KO.TO.O-K. [toon katask], but see ad fin.).

For the Way of the Spies (cnnxn TJTI), Nu. 21:1 AV, see below, 2, end, and cp ATHARIM, KADESH, 3. Cp -nn, 'spy out', Nu. 13:2, 13:16-17 etc., and 11JV, 'range [of spying ?]' Job 39:8. The equation Sj1 = l ?3T (i above) finds an analogy in the use of C"W as merchants, 1 K. 10:15 (but see MERCHANT, SOLOMON, 7).

1. Traditions.[edit]

The practice of obtaining information by means of spies as a preliminary to warlike movements was well-known to the Israelites. Two notable cases are the mission of twelve (?) spies by Moses to explore the region which the Israel ites were about to invade, and the mission of two spies by Joshua to view the land, namely, Jericho (see JERICHO, 3). It is the former episode which concerns us here. Our chief traditional authority for it is in Nu. 13-14 (JEP), but it is also related in an allusive way in Dt. 1:2, where the writer is presumably dependent throughout on the narrative of JE ; there is at any rate no evidence that he made use of P. It may be convenient to lay before the reader the variations between the accounts which the redactor has welded together, as well as he could, in Nu. 13-14; it will not only show the reader the state of the traditional evidence for the mission of the spies but will illustrate the section on Nu. 13-14 in NUMBERS [BOOK], 3 ; cp also Driver, Intr. (6) 63.

13:26, start from Kadesh (redactional, but from JE). 13:3, start from wilderness of Paran (P).
13:22-23 they go as far as Hebron (J) 13:22-23 they go as far as the valley of Eshcol (E). 13:21, they explore the land from the wilderness of Zin to Rebob, to the district of Hamath (P).
13:27-28 'the land is very fruitful, but the inhabitants can well defend themselves' (J) 13:32, they describe the land as one that 'devours its inhabitants' (P).
13:30, Caleb stills the murmurers (J). 14:6, Joshua and Caleb oppose the mutinous Israelites (P).
14:24, Caleb may enter the land (J). 14:38, Joshua and Caleb (v. 30, Caleb and Joshua) are excepted from the general doom (P).

It is usual to give the preference to the statements of J and E (an analysis of JE cannot remain unattempted, even though [cp NUMBERS, 3] the result may be incomplete). It was from Kadesh, then, that Moses sent spies into Canaan (cp 32:8 RD ; cp NUMBERS, 8), one from each tribe, and the region to be explored was the Negeb and the mountain-district (i.e., as most understand, that of Judah). The spies did in fact reach Hebron (in the 'hill-country' of Judah, Josh. 20:7, 21:11), where they found Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talniai. On their return, they gave a very favourable report of the land, and supported this by a huge cluster of grapes from Eshcol ; but a further statement respecting the Nephilim, the sons of Anak, who dwelt at Hebron, made the people despond, and even venture to express a wish to choose another leader and go back to C"i:>5 [MTsRYM]. Caleb alone is excepted from the doom which Yah we fails not to pronounce on the rebellious people. The punishment of the guilty is thus expressed in Nu. 14:33 (assigned to J by Dillm.). 1 'Your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, will I bring in ... But as for you, your carcases shall fall in this wilder ness. And your children shall be shepherds -msa rut? c jmn, and shall bear (the consequences of) your infidelity, until your carcases be consumed in the wilderness'.

1 Both Dillm. and We. deny that v. 33 belongs to P, and hold that the 'forty years' (,13C C 1 31N) are a fixed point in tradition. We., however, assigns 14:30-34 to a special source, distinct from JE.

2. Criticism.[edit]

Looking at the differences tabulated above we shall see that the first is quite unimportant, since the wilderness of Paran in the wider sense may have contained Kadesh-barnea (see PARAN). The third is of some interest, because (Wellh. Prol. (3) 370), Nu. 13:32 (P) may reflect the melancholy feelings of post-exilic Jews, who could only by faith describe their country as a delectable land (man px, Ps. 106:24). The fourth and fifth are important because they show that one at least of the early narratives did not include Joshua among the spies. According to E. Meyer (who allows very little of the material in chap. 13-14 to J), the earliest narrative stated that Caleb (possibly with other spies) was sent into the Negeb - to Hebron, and said on his return that the people was strong and the cities fortified, Amalek dwelling in the Negeb, etc. , and that giants too were to be seen there. The despondency of the Israelites disappears, and with it the divine sentence of forty years wanderings. According to Meyer the object of the story of the spies was simply to account for the settling of Caleb in Hebron. 'Caleb of course receives Hebron because he acted as spy, not because he remained steadfast'. E, however, looks at things with a 'theological' interest, and alters the story for edification, while P calculates from Josh. 24:29 that Joshua too must have been born in Egypt, and therefore includes him among the spies, and makes him, like Caleb, faithful among the faithless ('Kritik der Berichte', etc., ZATW 1:139-140 [1881]).

One of the most doubtful points in Meyer's theory is the definition of the object of the story. Was Caleb really the only spy, and the only clan-leader who had land assigned to him in the Negeb? It is also by no means certain that the threat of the forty years wander ing formed part of the original tradition. It is suggested elsewhere (MOSES, 11, end) that in Nu.14:33 (as well as in other passages) n:& D SniN "maa is most probably due partly to corruption, partly to editorial manipulation, and that the original text had simply c any "msa 'in the desert of the Arabians'.

Possibly, too, in Nu. 13:25 (P) the statement that the spies returned QT D J?31K f pD arose through a misreading of e,"\SO D Siy ('from the Arabian Cush'); 1 and it is in the highest degree probable that cnj>a n Nu. 13:22, 14:2-4 should be read Misrim, i.e. the N. Arabian Musri (see MIZRAIM, 2b).

Nor are these the only names which have to be scrutinised. Important as it is to put a rational sense on the traditional stories in their later form, it can hardly be less urgent to find out how the stories originally ran, and what they originally meant. It has been pointed out elsewhere (NEGEB, 7) that it is the Negeb and the Negeb alone that is referred to as the region explored by the spies. pnan (Hebron) has arisen out of ni^m 2 (Rehoboth), and the mountain-district in 13:17 is 'mount Jerahmeel'. 3 In v. 28 p^y should probably be p^ysy, and we thus see that v. 29 {4} is partly a gloss on p^ycy J3 (so read) in v. 28 (see NEPHILIM, 3, i.).

The second apparent difference in the above table still remains. Did the spies, according to P, or at least P's authority, really survey 'the whole land throughout its entire length from the wilderness of Zin (cp Nu. 21:1, 33:36) to Rehob' (either the place of that name in the territory of Asher, Josh. 19:28, or Beth-rehob, near the town of Dan, Judg. 18:28 {5} )? This no doubt is the general view. Another theory, however, is much more probable. If not P himself, yet almost certainly P's authority, meant, not any northern Rehob, but Rehob or Rehoboth in the Negeb, while nan (Hamath) is in many OT passages most probably a southern Hamath, or more strictly a southern Maacath (see MAACAH, end). This accords with the view (see above) that in Nu. 13:25 the original text had, 'And they returned from spying out the land, from Cush of Arabia'.

Thus the difference between JE and P in the story of the spies is much less serious than has been supposed. The only important variation is the combination of Caleb with Joshua - himself perhaps originally a Jerahmeelite hero (cp JOSHUA).

We have no space here to consider the names of the spies according to P (Nu. 13:4-15). It is quite possible that all, or nearly all, the names are characteristically Negeb names. But this is unimportant compared with the right comprehension of the rest of the composite narrative. Let it be added, however, that Q inNn"]~n (Nu. 21:1) is not (as even Knobel supposed) for ~-\-\ D"wn (AV 'by the way of the spies') but is probably a corruption of G ncirt "pi (cp Ramathaim-zophim), unless we prefer to trace it to C"Cnn TJ? (KADESH, 1, 3). In either case, the name appears to be an early popular corruption of SNDnV

Winckler's theory (GI 2:40-41) is ingenious, but cannot here be discussed.

T. K. C.

1 Notice the name Sheshai (on which see note 2) in Num. 13:22. If we emend as above, the cv of MT will have grown out of a dittographed rj. F r vp from {-o cp Crit. Bib. on Ezek. 7:6.

2 Note that Ahiman represents Jerahmeel ; Sheshai comes from Cushi (cp note 1) ; for Talmai compare Telem and Talmon (which can be shown to be Negeb names). 'Zoan in Egypt' should be 'Zoan (or Zoar?) in Misrim'.

3 As Dillm. points out, 'go up into the Negeb' probably comes from J, and 'go up into the mountains from' E. But if so, is it not natural to take 333 and irtn as practically synonymous?

4 The other ethnics are probably 7am (Rehoboihite), SxVDB" Ishmaelite), -|~N (Amorite), <j]p (Kennizzite).

5 Wade, Old Testament History (1901), 120.


(TV?; N&pAoc, Cant. 1:12, 4:14; and E "n3. NApAoi, Cant. 4:13; also NApAoc TTICTIKH [nardos pistike], Mk. 14:3 Jn. 12:3-4) {1}

i- The Hebrew word, nerd, which is derived from Sanskrit, has passed into Greek and other European languages : see the references to nard in classical writers collected by Naber (Mnemosyne, 1902, pp. 1-15); according to Lagarde (Mitt. 2:25) Pers. nal is an equivalent form. 2 A connection with Ar. rand, is very doubtful (see Mordtmann and Muller, Sab. Denk. 8:2). The Aramaic and Arabic names shebeltha and sunbul (more fully sunbul hindi, 'Indian spike'), like our own 'spikenard', have reference to the 'spike'-like appearance of the plant from which the perfume is derived. Accounts of the true or Indian nard, as well as of inferior sorts, are given by Theophrastus (De Odor. 42+), Dioscorides (1:75), and Pliny (HN 12:26-27, 13:2). Its botanical source in India was investigated by Sir W. Jones (As. Res. 405-417), 3 and was ascertained independently by Wallich and Royle to be the plant called Nardostachys Jatamansi DC, of the order Valerianaceae. The drug consists of the rhizome surmounted by the fibrous remains of the leaves. It occurs throughout the alpine Himalaya from Kumaon to Sikkim.

The meaning of the adjective iriffriK-/! [pistike] (Mk. 14:3 Jn. 12:3-4 is very uncertain. Five [sic] explanations have been offered:

  • (1) that it means 'liquid', from irlvu> [pinoo];
  • (2) that it means 'genuine', from Trums [pistis];
  • (3) that it means 'powdered', from TrriWap [ptissein];
  • (4) that it is a local name;
  • (5) that it = TrtcrrciKT; [pistakes];
  • (6) that it = Lat. spicita.

There is difficulty in accepting any of these explanations ; and it is possible that the word may have quite another origin, as Dymock (Pharmacogr. Ind. 2:233) gives Pisita as a Sanskrit name for the spikenard plant (cp W. Houghton, PSBA, 1888, 3:144-146.

N. M. - w. T. T. -D.

ii. i. In Aeschyl. Prom. 481 (Lob. prj/u [rem]. 131) 7ri<7T6s [pistos] means 'drinkable' (so K. F. A. Fritzsche on Mark, following Casaubon), but the word is only so used for the sake of a pun ; otherwise TTOTO? [potos] and Trocrt/xos [posimos], but never TTICTTIKOS [pistikos]. It is true that iri orpa [pistra] (-Of [-on]), Tria-TTjp [pisqer] are found from the same stem IR- [pi-], and that according to Atnenaeus (689c) and others, oil of nard, mixed with wine, was, as a matter of fact, taken as a beverage ; but in Mk. and Jn. the nard is used as ointment, so that, if irtortKO? [pistikos] is only added with the meaning 'liquid', the explanation would be superfluous.

Naber (as above) points out, on the other hand, that Clem. Alex. (Paed. 28, 64, p. 207 ed. Potter) distin guishes between /j.tipa vypd [myra hygra] and /j,vpa tT/pd [myra xera], and Basil (Hom, in Ps. 44:9, ed. Gamier, 1:166 l, also in Stephanus, sub crra/CTos [staktos], 7:650-651) between two preparations of ointment, the one fluid (pvrov [pyton]) called O-TCKCTT? [stakte] ( = 'dropped', stillata, stillatitia), and the other thicker or more viscous (traxvrepoi [pachyteron]), called <r/j.vpva [smyrna]. The expression in Athenagus also (225, p. 46 A : KK\ii>fii> Set TO. traxn ruv fj.vpuj> [ekkleinein dei ta pache toon myroon]), he thinks, has reference to this. Naber therefore conjectures that there stood originally in Mk. and Jn. a word (of which no traces can be met else where) <T7ret<m/c6s [speistikos] ( = 'capable of being poured', 'liquid', from <T7reV5w [spendoo]). By itacism it could also have been written airicrTiKos [spistikos], in which form its strangeness made it unintelligible, and thus it finally became corrupted into TTlffTlKOS [pistikos].

1 Vg. has nardi spicati in Mk. and nardi pistici (so usually Ital.) in Jn.

2 Meissner has pointed out a Babylonian plant-name larder. This, according to Hommel (PSBA 21:136 [1899]), the Babylonians borrowed from an Iranian form nard (neo-Pers. lal) ; the Indians have for nard the later form nata and nala(da).

3 'A Brahman of eminent learning gave me a parcel of the same sort, and told me that it was used in their sacrifices ; that, when fresh, it was exquisitely sweet, and added much to the scent of rich essences, in which it was a principal ingredient ; that the merchants brought it from the mountainous country to the NE. of Bengal ; that it was the entire plant, not a part of it, and received its Sanscrit names from its resemblance to locks of hair ; as it is called Spikenard, I suppose, from its resemblance to a spike, when it is dried, and not from the configuration of its flowers, which the Greeks, probably, never examined. The Persian author describes the whole plant as resembling the tail of an ermine ; and the Jatamansi, which is manifestly the Spikenard of our druggists, has precisely that form, consisting of withered stalks and ribs of leaves, cohering in a bundle of yellowish brown capillary fibres, and constituting a spike about the size of a small finger' (op. cit., 409-410).

2. The adjective irioriicos [pistikos] occurs with the meaning 'convincing' and also 'having the power of persuading' (Plato, Gorg, 455 A; Diog. Laert. 437; Dion. Hal., ed. Reiske, 5:631; Theophrast. in Aristot. opera metaph., ed. Sylburg 253, ed. Brandis, 309), though in almost every instance of its occurrence the variant Treto-rnco? [peistikos] is preferred (Bekker and Stallbaum on Plato; Lob on Soph. Aj. 151); in later times it means, when used of persons, 'faithful', 'reliable' (Lucke on Jn. 12:3, Index to Cedrenus). If, therefore, we adopt the translation 'genuine' (Meyer on Mk.) - and such a meaning is conceivable - we must suppose that the word is used rather freely, just as in commercial language, for instance, attributes which more often apply only to persons are not infrequently used of goods. Pliny (HN 12:26, section 43) mentions that in commerce nard was apt to be adulterated by admixture of pseudonardus, a plant resembling it.

3. Lob., par. 31, supports Scaliger's derivation from Trrunmi [ptissein], 'to pound' (K. F. A. Fritzsche on Mk. 595), T [tau] after TT [pi] being some times dropped out for the sake of euphony (cp e.g., n<T)e pi<if [p[t]ernix], and Lat. pi(n)so = -mlano [ptissoo], perna = TrTe pnj [pterne]). But how, it may be asked, could powdered nard be suitable for anointing?

4. If it is a local name it has been suggested that it stands either for OmcrriKos [opistikos] (from Opis not far from Babylon) or for

  • iTTa<ciKo? [psittakikos] (from Psittake on the Tigris). Still more _ likely

would be Ilio-ra [pista], an abbreviation according to the Scholion on Aeschyl. Pers. 2 - of a Persian town IliWipa [pisteira]; but we cannot be sure that this notice (which according to Stephanus refers to a Thracian town) is trustworthy.

5. E. N. Bennett (Class. Rev., 1890, p. 319) sees in the word an allusion to the Pistacia Terebinthus, the resin of which, together with other sweet scents (e.g., /SoAo-jjaoi/ [balsamon], cp BALM, INCENSE), was mixed with the oil of nard. Dioscorides says (Mat. Med. 191) of the Tucrra/cr) [pistake]; yevva.Ta.1. 6e Kai. fv loi/Sat a (cat ivpiajcai ey Kuirpco [gennatoi de kai en iudaia kai syria kai en kyproo], its resin is eino6j)s, Trpoe x" Se iratriav Ttav prjni wi [euoodes, proechei de pasoon toon retinon] (he describes nard in 1:6-7). Bennett, therefore, thinks that vdp&os irio-Tdiojs [nardos pistakes] is intended. According to Hdn. 2:428:24, and Stephanus, TO. i/urraKia [ta psittakia] would be another form of ra TrioraKia [ta pistakia], the fruit of the TnoraicJ) [pistake], which Hdn. (1:315:16) derives from the town *iTT<iia) [psittake].

6. Nestle (ZNTIV, 1902, pp. 169-171) explains TTICTTIICOS [pistikos] from the Latin name nardus spicata : the participle spicatus could become in vulgar Latin spicitus, just as probatus became prolnttts [probitus] and vocatus vocitus (Runsch, Itala u. Vulgata, p. 296, cp 283 [1869, (2) 1875], and, more fully, Collectanea philologica, 221-223 [1891]=ZWT, 1877, pp. 409-412); next spicitus was transformed into 7ri.o-ri.Kos [pistikos]. The supposition however is not easy ; for as late as the second half of the second Christian century we find Galen taking the word over into Greek in the form crvrtKaTa [spikata].

The 'nardus spicata' of (Ital. and) Vg. is intelligible when we remember that the nard-plant - which indeed is called j/apSdcrTa^us [nardostachus], spica nardi - resembled in shape an ear of corn.

N. M. - W. T. T. -D. , 1;

P. W. S. , 2.




(rVn, ruah, fem, about seventy-three, masc. about thirty-two times: in LXX TTN6YM& [pneuma], ANGMOC [anemos], TTNOH [pnoe], CTOMA [stoma], AOfOC [logos], Cp6erM<N [phthegma], vfYXH [psyche], K^pAlA [kardia], 0YMOC [phymos], NOYC [nous], OPTH [orge], oAYNH [odyne], cppONHCic [phronesis], BoH6ei<\ [boetheia], 4>(x>c [phoos], Mepoc [meros]). originally 'wind', and so the point of the compass from which the wind blows.

1. Meaning.[edit]

In poetry, which no doubt represents ancient usage, the storm wind is the breath of Yahwe's mouth or nostrils (e.g. , Ex. 15:8, 15:10, Ps. 18:16 [18:15]). and since the commotion of nature is a sign of his dis pleasure, the ruah of Yahwe becomes synonymous with his wrath (Is. 4:4, 59:19, Zech. 6:8, Job 4:9, 15:30). The ruah. or spirit of a man is his disposition, his mental state ; he may be 'depressed in spirit', 'of a proud spirit', 'of a patient spirit' (Prov. 16:18-19. Eccles. 7:8). It is natural to compare the wind, invisible itself but visible in its effects, with the mental disposition displaying itself in mien and action. Just in the same way Aeschylus, describing the changed mind of Agamemnon says that he 'blew an impious veering gale of mind' (<ppti>bs irvtuiv dvcrcre^rj rpoiraiav, Ag. 217).

In a very early passage, Gen. 6:3, ruah denotes the divine substance or nature, not necessarily immaterial, but far removed from the weakness of mortal flesh. By intermarriage of the 'sons of God' or angels with women, a portion of this divine spirit has passed to their descendants, and therefore Yahwe declares, 'My spirit shall not continue (?) for ever in man, since he is only flesh', and shortens the span of human life to 120 years. 1 But though the spirit or invisible power of God was not proper to man, it descended upon the heroes of Israel and endowed them with superhuman energy. It fell on Othniel (Judg. 3:10); on Jephthah (11:29); on Samson (14:6, 14:19, l5:14). The phenomenon has no ethical import. Samson shows that the spirit of Yahwe has descended on him by rending a lion as if it were a kid. Similarly the divine spirit produces prophetic frenzy (1 S. 10:6, 10:10, 19:20, 19:23), such, e.g. , that Saul strips off his clothes and lies a day and a night naked. The spirit might transport a prophet miraculously (2 K. 2:16). Sometimes Yahwe sent a lying spirit on his prophets (1 K. 22:22) or the spirit of strife into a city (Judg. 9:23), or a spirit of melancholy madness (1 S. 16:14, etc. ).

Far higher is the use of ruah in the literary prophets. To Isaiah, Yahwe (Is. 31:3) is 'spirit' because he is the spiritual principle in the history of the world and as such invisible. Moreover, the spirit of prophecy is an abiding gift. To ignore the prophet's counsel is to set at nought God's spirit which speaks through him (Is. 30:1). In the same sense Hosea had spoken (9:7) of the prophet as 'a man of the spirit'. But before Ezekiel references to 'the spirit' as in the prophets only occur in Is. 30:1, Hos. 9:7 and perhaps Mic. 3:8. A prophet so deeply spiritual as Jeremiah avoids the term 'spirit' altogether ; it had been associated too long with frenzy and marvel.

1 On this passage cp NEPHILIM, 1.

2. Later nuances.[edit]

The following are the chief points in the exilic and post-exilic conception of spirit. It is an official charisma, speaking, e.g. , habitually in David (2 S. 23:2) and fitting the Messiah for the discharge of his duties (Is. 11:2), conferring wisdom on judges and martial vigour on warriors ( Is. 28:6). It is characteristic of P that he attributes it only to Joshua, who receives it in increased measure by the imposition of Moses' hands (Nu. 27:18-19, Dt. 31:9). It is to dwell in the midst of the people as a 'new spirit' (Ezek. 36:2:, 36:6, 36:8-9), and to be poured out from on high on land and people (Is. 32:15). The fulfilment of this promise is assumed in Ps. 51:11 [51:13], 143:10; cp Neh. 9:20. Twice 1 it is called the holy spirit, Ps. 51:11 [51:13] and Is. 63:10, in which latter passage it is personified (cp Eph. 4:30), and twice the 'good spirit' (Neh. 9:20, Ps. 143:10). It is a cosmic power, producing order (Gen. 12) and fertility (Is. 32:15). It is the principle of all-pervading energy (Is. 34:16) and omnipresence (Ps. 139:7). It is the vous [nous] or intelligence of Yahwe (Is. 40:13), not as in earlier writers his essence. Finally, in a very late passage, it is the breath of life which God imparts, and which at death returns to him (Eccles. 12:7 ; cp Job 27:3 33:4, 34:14-15, Ps. 104:29-30). Cp FLESH.

W. E. A.

1 [Not counting Wisd. 9:17, cp 7:22, where wisdom (ir the enlarged sense natural to an orthodox but Hellenised Jew) is traced to 'thy holy spirit'. ]

3. Contrasted with <rap [sarx].[edit]

In discussing the NT use of irvev^a [pneuma], the question is complicated by the employment of other words, especially of psyche, ^i Xn&lt [psyche], soul, to denote the interior part of man, whereas ffdf) ^ [sarx], flesh, is the single word to denote the material part. As a general thing both words are used with reference to the contrast between the spiritual and the material part, and both words are ennobled by this contrast. When Jesus speaks of the value of the soul (i/i>x^ [psyche]: Mt. 16:26), and contrasts it with the comparative unimportance of the body (Mt. 10:28), and Paul advises the delivering over of the flesh to destruction, in order that the spirit (wvev/Ma [pneuma]) may be saved (1 Cor. 5:5), they are both evidently using different words for the same thing. And apart from the Pauline epistles and two passages in the epistles of James and Jude respectively (Ja. 3:15, Jude 19), these words are used in the same way to express the contrast between the spiritual part of man and material things, but are not contrasted with each other. But Paul found it necessary to express this contrast not only in terms of the spiritual and the material, but also of the spiritual and the natural (1 Cor. 2;14), and for this purpose he uses the elsewhere synonymous words, pneuma and psyche.

4. Pauline usage.[edit]

The psyche is the vital or spiritual part of the natural man, and the pneuma is the new part brought into activity when the supernatural man begins his career with the entrance of the divine pneuma. Paul does not state this expressly; but it appears from his introduction of the human co-incidently with the divine pneuma (cp Rom. 8:10, 8:16 with the rest of the passage 8:1-27. And see 1 Cor. 6:17, 6:19, cp 6:14-17 with rest of passage). It is evident from the passage in 1 Cor. that pneuma is not to be identified with >n>us [nous], the intelligence, in Rom. 7:23, where it is used interchangeably with the 'inner man', which rebels against the sin of the 'outer man'. That faculty, the spirit, is the organ evidently of the Holy Spirit, and does not appear in the apostle s account of the situation until the entrance of the Holy Spirit which removes the disability discussed in our passage, Rom. 8:1-9, cp 10:16. The faculty which ineffectually rebels against sin in the natural man is the mind. It is very much as if the apostle had said that when he sinned even in the natural man, he knew better, and his intelligence rebelled against it, but ineffectually, because the very organs of action were the seat of sin. But the inner man after the coming of the Spirit is spirit, which is freed from the bondage of the flesh.

We must not think, however, of the human spirit as the essential factor in the new man according to Paul. The essential factor is the divine spirit which effects deliverance for the man not by creating or awakening a new faculty in him, but by coining himself to dwell in him. That is the reason why it is the Holy Spirit, not the human spirit, that is constantly brought into contrast with the flesh in Paul. This has led to the statement that the apostle does not speak of a human spirit. But the use, while infrequent, is sufficiently distinct. The human spirit is evidently the part in which, and upon which, the Holy Spirit works, and through which it controls the man, but which has no office except in connection with the Divine Spirit. Without the Divine Spirit it is like ears in a soundless world. The real agent in substituting holiness instead of sin in man is God, not man. What is this Divine Spirit? The answer is not always the same. In the earlier Jewish literature, it is an emanation from the One God through which he performs various offices - e.g. , creation - but especially that of inspiring in man the knowledge and skill needed for his work. In general we may say, that whenever God is represented as a diffused presence, he is represented as working through the spirit. And in no pre-Pauline writings is there any indication that the impersonal use is departed from. But in Paul, and Jn. especially, there is the beginning of the later doctrine of the Spirit as a distinct entity, quasi-personal, in God. He is to God what the spirit is in man (1 Cor. 2:10-11) ; but in God this is objectified, represented as a distinct personality (Rom. 8:27, Gal. 3:5, Jn. 14:26, 16:13).

5. Johannine and Pauline usage contrasted.[edit]

There is a distinct difference, however, between the Pauline and the Johannine theology in the doctrine of the Spirit. In both, he is the principle of imnianence in God, the one through whom God dwells in men, conveying to them the truth not in the external way by which men communicate with each other, and which has no power of enforcement or persuasion sufficient to beget in men the spirit of holiness, but internally and with regenerative power. And in both especially he conveys to men the grace of which Christ is the author. But in Paul, he is the principle not only of immanence, but of incarnation. In Jn. it is the Logos, the Word of God, who is incarnate in Christ. The thought is borrowed from the Alexandrian philosophy, which represents God as creating various natural products out of the ideas of the same in his mind. These ideas are endowed with life and creative power, so that God creates not only out of them, but through them. Besides these individual ideas, there is the collective idea of the universe as a whole, the Logos, or Word, which is also vested with a life and quasi-personality of its own. The incarnation of this in the Son of God is thus only the final form of the incarnation which is the generative idea of the Logos. The Spirit, on the other hand, is in Jn. the principle of immanence. If we go back to the philosophy from which the Logos idea is derived, the Logos is the thought of God, distinctly a principle of incarnation. But the Pneuma is the Spirit in which the thought is generated, and this is as obviously a principle of immanence. All this is distinctly different from Paul's thought. He has no Logos doctrine, which is a thought derived from Alexandrianism, and Paul is not an Alexandrian. He declares himself a zealous Pharisee, and opposed to any attempt to translate religion into the terms of philosophy (Gal. 1:14, 1:16 or 1:17-31). But Pharisaism and Alexandrianism are at opposite poles of thought, and Alexandrianism is an attempt to philosophise religion. And yet Paul teaches the pre-existence of Jesus and his sharing in the work of creation (Phil. 2:3-11, 1 Cor. 8:6). What then is the principle of incarnation in Christ? It cannot be God himself, as Paul distinguishes between God and the Lord Jesus Christ. On the other hand, whilst there is only one passage which has the appearance of distinguishing Christ from the Spirit (2 Cor. 18:14), there are many passages which seem to identify them. In the first place, the indwelling of Christ, his mystical union with the believer, is exchanged frequently for an indwelling of the Spirit. Then the Spirit is called the Spirit of Christ, and Jesus divine Sonship is attributed to the Holy Spirit. He is the Son of God on that side of his being, as he is Son of David on the side of the flesh (Rom. 1:3-6). And finally it is distinctly said that the Lord is the Spirit (2 Cor. 3:17-18).

Now, it is not as if this was unexpected. If Jesus was in any way pre-existent, and that pre-existence antedated creation, and he had a share in creation, then he is in some way an incarnation of the Divine. And in the Jewish theology the only Divine principle remaining, after eliminating God himself as expressly excluded, and the Alexandrian Logos as ruled out by Paul's opposition to Alexandrianism, is the Spirit of God. In Paul, therefore, the incarnation is of the Holy Spirit.

E. P. G.

7. Literature.[edit]

The OT Theologies of Schultz and Smend, and the NT Theologies of B. Weiss and Holtzmann ; Konig, Offenbarungsbegriff des AT 1:87-210; Giesebrecht, Berufsbegabung der ATlichen Propheten, 123+ ; H. Wendt, Die Begriffe Fleisch u. Geist im biblischenSprachgebrauch (1878) ; A. Westphal, Chair et esprit (Toulouse, 1885) ; Liidemann, Die Antlnopologie des Aft. Paulus (1872); Pfleiderer, Pattlinism (FT, 2 vols.); Cremer, PKE,W art. Geist ; Gunkel, Die Wirkungtn des heil. Geistes (1888), 5-62 ; J. Koeberle, Natur u. Geist, nach der Auffassung des AT(it)oo) ; F. C. Porter, The Yecer Hara, a Study in the Jewish Doctrine of Sin, Biblical and Semitic Studies (New York, 1901), where note criticism of Pfleiderer's interpretation of Paul's conception of spirit and flesh. See also SPIRITUAL GIFTS.

W. E. A., 1-2; E. P. G., 3-6.


  • Definition (1).
    • yapicr/xa [charisma] : what? (2).
    • Delimitation of field (3).
    • Classification (4).
  • Charisms other than that of speech (5).
  • 'Wisdom' and 'knowledge' ; 'exhorting' (6).
  • 'Prophecy' (7).
  • Speaking with tongues.
    • What? (8).
    • Tongues not foreign languages (9).
    • Acts 2:1-13 and Mk. 16:17 (10).
    • Tongues not archaic expressions (11).
    • Not figurative (12).
    • Tongue, the bodily organ (13).
    • Tongue = tongue-speech (14).
    • Interpretation of tongue-speech (15).
  • Diffusion and cessation of tongue-speech and prophecy charisms (16).
  • Popular view of spiritual charisms (17).
  • Discerning of spirits (18).
  • Paul's view of spiritual charisms (19).
  • Conclusion (20).
  • Literature (21).

1. Definition.[edit]

'Spiritual Gifts' is a comprehensive name for all those extraordinary and often directly miraculous powers of which we learn, chiefly from 1 Cor. 12:4-11, 12:28-30, Rom. 12:3-8, that they were possessed by many Christians of the apostolic age, and, according to Paul, had their origin in a specitic operation of the Holy Spirit, which has for its object the profit of the church.

When in 1 Cor. 12:6 the 'workings' (frepyij^iara [energemata]) are assigned to God, or in v. 5 the ministrations (6ioicoruu [diakoniai]) brought into connection with Christ, we are not to see in this any real departure from the regular attribution of the spiritual gifts to the Holy Ghost. The phrase in v. 5 - 'diversities of ministrations but the same Lord', is simply another expression of the purpose for which the gifts are given - the common good of the church ; for he who serves the church serves Christ who is the Lord of the church, or, according to another way of putting it, who is the soul of the church which is his body (12:12-13). The phrase in v. 6 on the other hand - 'diversities of workings but the same God' - is appropriate in so far as by the 'workings' in question we are to understand according to v. 10 'workings of powers', or of miracles (evepyTJ/uara fufa^ieior [energemata dynameoon]), of which one most readily thinks of God as the author. They are nevertheless attributed precisely in the next verse (v. 11) to the Holy Spirit, a conclusive proof that no real distinction ought to be drawn here between him and God as the author of these workings.

2. Literal meaning of i*^>i: [charisma][edit]

The word charisma in this connection is plainly used in a narrow technical sense,

(a) That the thought of the grace of God as being the source from which the bestowal of a charisma comes is still very vividly realised is shown by Rom. 126: 'having gifts (charisms), differing according to the grace that was given to us' (tXOVTft x a P < r M ara Kara. r~t]v xdpiv TTJV SoOelcrav TTHMV 5td<popa).

In the only NT passage where charisma (\dp<.a-/j.a.) is coupled with the adjective 'spiritual' (nffVfj.a.TiKov [pneumatikon]), the technical sense is, as it happens, absent ; in Rom. 1:11 it does not mean any special aptitude possessed by Paul, but a gift (in the way of instiuction, encouragement, consolation, or the like) which he hopes to be able to confer upon the Romans in the course of his visit, even if 'spiritual' (n-i/eufiart/coi [pneumatikon]) expresses the thought that he himself in turn has received it from the Holy Ghost. Still further removed from the specified meaning of the word charisma as given above, though again with a passive application (gift that is conferred), are the applications of it which we find in Rom. 6:23 (eternal life the charisma, not of the Holy Ghost but of God), in 11:29 (the charismata of God = the favours bestowed by God upon his people Israel as enumerated in 9:4-5), in 2 Cor. 1:11 (without TOU @foi> [tou theou] : the charisma of Paul's deliverance from deadly danger) ; so also in Rom. 5:15-16 where the justification of sinful man is the charisma of God and Christ. The word denotes the whole aggregate of God's benevolent operation in the universe in the single passage outside of the NT, and the Church Fathers in which it is known to occur (Thilo, Legis allegor. 824 end, 1:103 ed. Mangey : 'All things in the universe, and the universe itself, are the donation and benefaction and gift of God' (cSiopea Kai evepyeaia <cal xdptoyxa eou TO. iravTOi 6aa ev KOCTJULOJ ai aurbs 6 ic6<r^io5 eaTiV).

(b) Very sharply distinguished from these uses is the technical sense in which the word is employed, whether in the pi. (Rom. 126, 1 Cor. 12:4, 12:31; and, with the addition of 'healings' [ia/j.druv [iamatoon]], 12:9, 12:28, 12:30), or in the sing, with a negative (1:7 : 'so that ye come behind in no charisma'), or in a distributive sense (1 Pet. 4:10: 'according as each has received a charisma'; cp 1 Cor. 7:7: 'each man hath his own charisma from God'). In just the same way, in the technical sense, the distributive singular of 'grace' (x^ p s [charis]) stands in connection with the plural 'gifts' ( d6fw.ra [domata]), in Eph. 4:7-8: 'unto each one of us was the grace given according to the measure of the gift (5w/>ej [dooreas]) of Christ. Wherefore he saith . . . He gave gifts (56/xora [domata]) unto men'. Not till we reach the Pastoral Epistles do we find the sing, charism (xdpifffia [charisma]), used comprehensively to denote all the aptitudes which Timothy, as a bearer of ecclesiastical office, possesses, or ought to possess: 'neglect not the charism that is in thee' (1 Tim. 4:14); 'I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the charism of God which is in thee' (2 Tim. 1:6).

(c) For us the technical meaning of the word is first met with in Paul. At the same time, we may at least be certain that Paul did not invent it when he was com posing his epistles : for he employs it in his writings without any explanation, as referring to a matter quite well known. There remains a possibility that he may have coined the expression, in the course of his observations of the extraordinary endowments intended by it, while engaged in his missionary labours. We may well venture upon such a conjecture, seeing that the idea of grace (charis) is so specially prominent with Paul. Yet the expression can also have sprung into existence in the Christian churches without the agency of Paul.

3. Delimitation of field.[edit]

No one of the three leading passages relating to spiritual gifts in the writings of Paul, as given above (section 1), can claim to be a complete account, and it therefore remains uncertain whether even all three together make mention of everything which Paul reckoned to this category.

(a) Nevertheless the attempt must be made, with the help of these three principal passages and other subsidiary ones, to form to ourselves some conception of the range of the phenomenon in question.

'Prophecy' (vpofarfia. [propheteia]) is the only charism that is actually named in all three passages ; but in effect so also is 'teaching' (6t6a<rcaAia [didaskalia]), if we permit ourselves to regard 'the word of wisdom' (Ao-yos <ro<ias [logos sophias]), and the 'word of knowledge' (A. yi oJcreu)? [logos gnooseoos]), of 1 Cor. 12:8 taken together as identical with 'teaching', - a view which is favoured by 14:26 ('teaching' [5i6o\7J [didache]], co-ordinated with 'revelation, tongue, interpretation' [diroicaAu^ts [apokalypsis], yAa><7<ra [gloossa], epfujpcia [ermeneia]]), whilst in 14:6 'knowledge' [yruxris [gnoosis]] also is found co-ordinated with 'teaching' (5t6a\7J [didache]) as well as 'tongues, revelation, prophecy' (-yAuxrcrai [gloosai], airoicaAt/iiis [apocalypsis], 7rpo<)Teia [propheteia]), so that only the 'word of wisdom' (Aoyos aortas [logos sophias]) seems to be left as synonym for 'teaching' (6i6ax>j [didache]). In both the leading passages in 1 Cor. 'gifts of healings' (xapicr^ara iafj.d.Tu>v [charismata iamatoon]), 'powers' or 'miracles' (fvrajxctf [dynameis]), and 'diversities of tongues' (ye iTj y*.u><r<riav [gene gloossoon]), occur in addition to the other concepts already mentioned. Rom. has with the first passage in 1 Cor. (12:5) nothing but 'ministry' (iiaicoi ta [diakonia]) in common, but in that first passage, as well as in 1 Cor. 16:15, this word seems to have a more extended application than in Rom. 12:7 ; with the second passage in 1 Cor. (12:28-30) Rom. has in substance but one concept in common - on the assumption, that is to say, that we may identify the 7rpoi<7Tone> os [proistamenos] ('he that ruleth') with him who has the gift of 'government' (icujSe pnjcris [kybernesis]). Peculiar to the first passage in 1 Cor. (12:4-11) are 'faith, discerning of spirits' (JTUTTIS [pistis], i<i)cpi(Tis nt evnaTuiv [diakrisis pneumatoon]), and 'interpretation of tongues' (ipfuivtia y\<a<rcr<ai [ermeneia gloossoon]) , to the second (12:28-30) the concepts 'apostle' (aTrd<7ToAo [apostolos]), and helps (dvTiAijjui^ees [antilempseis); and to Rom. 'admonishing' (TrapaKoAwi [parakaloon]), 'giving' (jaeraSiiovs [petadidous), and 'showing mercy' (cActiy [eleoon]).

(b) Eph. 4:11 and Justin, Dial. 39, can be adduced only as secondary authorities, so long as it is with the apostolic age that we are dealing.

Eph. (on its date see EPHESIANS, n. 3) noticeably enumerates offices only, not charisms. Of these Paul had already named the 'apostles, 'prophets', and 'teachers', and also the 'pastors' (jroi^ieVes [poimenes]), if these are to be taken as equivalent to the 'rulers' (n-poi <rT<vii oi [proistamenoi]) of Rom. 12:8. Peculiar to Eph. are the evangelists (evayyeAiorai [euanggelistai]), on whom see MINISTRY, 39a-b. Of the gifts enumerated by Paul Justin has only 'healing' (ia<ris [iasis]), and 'teaching' (fii&uncoAi a [didaskalia]). What he designates 'understanding' (ovpeo-is [synesis]), may safely be identified with 'wisdom' (<7<xti a [sophia]), and his 'strength' (ICT^VS [ischus]) perhaps with 'power' (<5vro/iis [dynamis]), as he attributes 'strength' (I<r\vs [ischus]) to Moses (Dial. 87). The new elements in his list are 'counsel' (/3ouA>j [boule]), 'foreknowledge' (vpoyi taa-i-; [prognoosis]), which answers only in a very limited degree to the 'prophecy' (n-pcx^r/Tfia [propheteia]) of Paul, and 'fear of God' ((o/3os >ou [phobos theou]). Four of his seven concepts - 'understanding' (avvt<ris [synesis]), 'counsel' (]SouAij [boule]), 'strength' (icr^vs [ischus]), and 'fear of Go'd (<^6j3oc tov [phobos theou]) - Justin has taken direct from Is. 11:2-3 LXX, where, according to his interpretation (Dial. 87), are enumerated the seven powers of the Holy Spirit which were all of them to rest upon Jesus from his baptism onwards, whilst the saints of the OT and Christians never receive more than one or a few of them. In Is. we find, besides the four words already given, 'wisdom' (oro^t a [sophia]), 'knowledge' (yi cucris [gnoosis]), and 'piety' (eu<re /3ei.a [eusebeia]). It is plainly with reference to knowledge (ycuxns [gnoosis]), that Justin speaks of foreknowledge (irpoyviacri; [prognoosis]), for he lays stress upon the argument that in his time 'prophetic charisms' (Trpo^rjTiKa \apia fj.ara [prophetika charismata]) are still found among Christians, and that thus the OT gift of prophecy - by which he understands merely prediction of future events - has passed over to the followers of Christ (Dial. 82, begin.).

(c) It will be noticed that in all the enumerations almost no reference whatever is made to the virtues that are looked for in every Christian. Even 'ministry' (diaKovia [diakonia]), 'giving' (/zeraStSoi cu [metadidonia]), 'showing mercy' (e\eai> [elean]), are enumerated only on the assumption that they have risen to a pitch that is not attainable by every Christian. The extraordinary character, rising in many cases to the level of the miraculous, which has been noted in i as the first criterion of charisms in the technical sense, is thus preserved. All the less have we any occasion to lay stress on the 'fear of God', which Justin has merely taken from Isaiah, or to extend in an analogous way the limits of our category in the direction in which this would be permissible, if one elected to pay heed only to the second criterion (see 1) - that they are attributed to the agency of the Holy Spirit - and, further, to take it as one s guiding principle that according to Paul the whole new life of the Christian, with all its virtues, is a work of the Holy Spirit (Gal. 5:22-23 : love, joy, peace, etc.). It would therefore be a mistake to accept the limits for our present concept, as these are laid down by Weinel (below, 21), who in fact writes not about the 'gifts', but about the operations, of the Spirit. To these of course belongs the ethically good state of the will, treated of by Weinel (149-161), with all its effects ; it does not belong to the order of charisms.

(d) There is still another element included by Weinel which we for our part must exclude. The receiving of revelations - apart from the subsequent reporting of them - or the power to endure martyrdom (or even ascetic privations) may be traced back to the Holy Spirit, and may also possess the note of the extra-ordinary in a very high degree, yet they ought not to be reckoned to the number of the charisms because they lack the third criterion - that of utility for the life of the church.

This criterion must have had very great importance in Paul's view; for not only does he in 1 Cor. 12:7, 14:2-33 make it the chief goal of his entire discussion of the charisms (although he has been led to the mention of them, not by this thought but by that of the unity of the Holy Spirit), but also in Rom. 12:6-8 the same goal is set before him, although the occasion is in like manner different, namely, the thought of the unity of the church notwithstanding the diversity of its members. One is not entitled to suppose that the profit of the church is only an application of the charisms which Paul would like to see made, not a constitutive element in the concept itself. So far from that being the case, this criterion is for the apostle so important, that he would refuse to reckon to the number of charisms in the technical sense of which we are now speaking, any phenomenon which yielded no advantage for the community at large.

(e) For this reason we must hesitate before including in the category in question one manifestation which Paul himself expressly designates by the name of charisma. In 1 Cor. 7:6-7 he wishes that all were unmarried as he himself is, but does not set this up as a positive command, 'because each man hath his own gift from God, one after this manner and another after that'.

It would be a mistake to believe that Paul here intends to contrast a charisma of marriage with a x<ipi<r/xa e-y/cpareta? [charisma egkrateias] (as, following 7 :9, we may designate the other side of the comparison) ; for in this whole section he regards marriage, and the intercourse of the sexes in marriage, not as a good in itself, but only as a preservative against evil (7:2, 5:9). Rather must we take as the antithesis to the ^apicr/oia eyKpareias [charisma egkrateia] some one or other of the charisms enumerated in chap. 12. Paul, however, would hardly have arrived at such a co-ordination if for his own personal calling the unmarried condition had not carried with it a direct and obvious utility for the churches under his care - that, namely, of leaving him freer for the preaching of the gospel and pecuniarily less dependent on the churches, in which freedom and independence he discerned a great advantage for the exercise of his office, and specially for the assertion and establishment of his authority (1 Cor. 7:32-33, 9:12b, 9:15-18, 2 Cor. 11:7-12). When, therefore, he speaks of the unmarried condition as a charism, he will, broadly speaking, be thinking of himself and of those in a like position with himself. Otherwise we should have expected him to class as charisms also other forms of asceticism, such as abstinence from certain kinds of food, or voluntary poverty ; but this he never does.

4. Classification.[edit]

After defining the field our next task must be a classification of the charisms of so very various kinds. (a) It might seem as if Paul himself had undertaken it when, in the first of the three leading passages (1 Cor. 12:4-6), before going into details, he sets up these three great categories - 'charisms' (xaptV/xara [charismata]), 'ministries' (5<aKoviai [diakoniai]), and 'works' (i>epyri/j.a.Ta. [energemata]).

If, however, we decide to take these verses as setting forth a strict arrangement, we shall have to believe that in the detailed enumeration in vv. 7-11, where each charism is traced back to the Holy Spirit, only the first of the three great categories has been specifically dealt with, since the second and third of these - 'ministries' (Stcucoriai [diakoniai]), and 'works' (epy>j^aTa [energemata]) - are brought into connection not with the Holy Spirit but with Christ, or God. This again, however, would not be in accordance with v. 10, where 'works' ['of powers'] (ei/ep-yTJ/maTa [energemata] [5uca- /ietav [dynameoon]]), are included in this detailed list ; and in Rom. 12:7 the 'ministries' (6ta/coi>i at [diakoniai]) belong to the charisms (xapier^ara [charismata). Thus 'charism', 'ministry', and 'work' (papier/ma [charisma], Siaxoyia [diachonia], and epyrj/na [energema]), are only three different names for all, or at least many of these gifts, and they are chosen with conscious reference to the three modes of divine revelation. The most comprehensive would seem to be, according to v. 6, 'work' (ei/e p-yrj^a [energema]), (God worketh all things in all); according to Rom. 12:6 'charism' (xaptoyxa [charisma]); in 1 Cor. 16:15 'ministry' (SiaKOvia. [diakonia]) is used also in a very comprehensive sense.

(b) Within the detailed enumeration made in 1 Cor. 12:8-10 a classification might seem to be hinted at by Paul himself, when he uses 'other' (&\\if> [alloo]) six times and 'different' (eTepif [eteroo]) twice; for 'different' (?repos [etros]) may mean 'of another kind', whilst 'other' (tfXXoj [allos]) signifies merely 'not identical'.

In that case, however, we should have to subsume under the fixed confidence or 'faith' (iri oris [pistis], v/ 9), which is introduced by the first 'different' (erepco [eteroo]), not merely the gift of healing and the power of working miracles (which would be suitable enough), but also 'prophecy' and 'discerning of spirits' (which would not suit at all). Other and different are thus used only for the sake of variety, not with the intention of expressing a difference.

(c) Any attempt to find a suggested classification in the omission of the particle 'and' (5^ [de]) in many instances also breaks down.

In v. 10 the second and third Se [de] are put in brackets by WH. If in these two cases the particle is taken as genuine, then each 'other' (aAAoj [alloo]) is accompanied by St [de], and 'different' (erepu [eteroo]) in both cases is without it ; the classification would then be the same as under (b). If both are deleted, 'discerning of spirits' as one principal division would be separated from 'prophecy' as another principal division, although unquestionably the two are not more widely separated than 'interpretation of tongues' from 'kinds of tongues' (14:29). Thus we should have to reject the first of the two Sf [de] and retain the second (so Bern. Weiss.). For this, however, the authorities give not the slightest warrant, for in both cases the evidence is almost exactly the same for the retention and also, on the other hand, the same for the deletion.

(d) Thus all that remains for us is to attempt some sort of classification from the nature of the case. The points that seem clearest are these :

  • (1) to the 'works of powers' (evfpyr] fjLO.ro, dwd/u-ewv [energemata]) of 1 Cor. 12:10, 12:28 belong the 'charisms of healing' (xapur/uara i a / adrwi [charismata iamatoon]) of vv. 9, 28 which were invariably regarded as miraculous, and the 'faith' (TTIOTIS [pistis]) of v. 9 since, in 13:2, it is spoken of as able to remove mountains.
  • (2) To the 'ministry' (diaKovia [diakonia]) of Rom. 12:7 belong certainly the 'givings' (fj.eTadi56i>at [metadidonai]) and 'showing mercy' (tXeav [elean]) of 12:8, and the 'helps' (d.i/rtX ^ut/ eis [antilempsis]) of 1 Cor. 12:28. This, if we take diaicovla [diakonia] in a narrow sense. In a wider sense of the word there is a 'ministry of the word' (SiaKovla TOV \6yov [diakonia tou logou], Acts 6:4), and in the sense in which the word appears to be used in 1 Cor. 16:13 other gifts also might easily be included under it, as Stephanas had rendered useful service in the guidance of the church at Corinth as well. Yet
  • Yet (3) it is better to regard the 'governments' (Kvj3fpvr]fffis [kyberneseis]) of 1 Cor. 12:28 as forming an independent main division, to which of course the 'governor' (Trpourrcijuei os [proistamenos) of Rom. 12:8 will belong.
  • Most amply subdivided (4) is the gift of the 'word' ; 'word of wisdom' (Xbyos <ro<t>ias [logos sophias]), 'of knowledge' (\6yos yvw<rews [logos gnooseoos]), the first of them (or both of them) = 'teaching' (5t5affKa\ia. [didaskalia]), or, if it is the product of the charism that is thought of, = 'doctrine' (8idax~n [didache]), see section 3a.

Then there is also the 'admonish' (irapa.KO\eiv [parakalein]) of Rom. 12:8 ; but also very specially prophecy (irpo<pT)Tfla. [propheteia]) together with 'discerning of spirits' (Std/cpicns Trvei /ndrwc [diakrisis pneumata]) and the 'kinds of tongues' (ytvri y\uir<Tu>v [gene gloossoon]) with 'interpretation of tongues' (epfjujveia y\u<rffi> [ermeneia gloossoon]). An apostle (1 Cor. 12:28) combines the gift of the word with that of direction and of miracle-working (2 Cor. 12:12).

5. Charisma apart from that of the word.[edit]

The first three classes call for but little remark by way of explanation. It has elsewhere been shown from the sources (see GOSPELS 144 : cp also below, 16) how widespread, dlown apart from that to the end of the second cetury was the belief that many Christians possessed the power of working miracles, and very specially that of driving out evil spirits. It is specially important to observe that the same power is not denied of those who are not Christians, but only attributed in their case to the agency of demons. This goes to show that some kernel of actual fact in the alleged occurrences is undeniable.

We may seek to explain these from natural causes, a method of explanation that presents no particular difficulty, least of all in cases of casting-out of devils - i.e., healings of mental disease, which, however, often enough will have lieen only temporary in their effect. We may further take it that the faith which saw miracles in those really unmiraculous events will, without discrimination, have attributed to those who produced them performances also of such a nature as would really have been irreconcilable with the laws of nature. The collection to be found in Weinel (109-127) shows, however, that the Christian writers, apart from quite summary accounts, refer, with regard to the first and second centuries, almost exclusively only to exorcisms, and attribute miracles of the more pronounced sort to heathen sorcerers and to the gnostics (who, in holy horror, are put on the same level with the sorcerers). Exceptions are the legendary works in which such magical arts, as practised by Simon Magus, are imitated by Peter or by Peter and Paul with a view to out doing them (see SIMON PETER, 33-34), or apocryphal Acts of Apostles, partly of gnostic origin, the spirit of which is illustrated by some examples in JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE, 8-9, and in SIMON PETER, 46.

On 'ministry' (Siaicovia. [diakonia]), see DEACON, 3 ; on 'government' (icu<: pi<)7<7i? [kybernesis]) and its development, see MINISTRY, 9, and subsequent sections.

6. 'Wisdom' and 'knowledge'; 'exhorting'[edit]

The various forms of the fourth class, on the other hand, demand careful and detailed investigation. Let us begin with the 'word of wisdom' (\67oscro0tas [logos sophias]) and 'word of knowledge' (\o7os yvJxreus [logos gnooseoos]) in 1 Cor. 12:8. It is obvious from the first that the two are very closely related; for in 2:7-16 'know' (yiv&ffKCiv [ginooskein]) figures as the verb to which the substantive 'wisdom' (<ro<j>ia [sophia]) corresponds. If, notwithstanding, the two must be regarded as characteristically distinct in our leading passage, the difference accordingly is hardly to be sought in their differing contents, but rather in the way in which the human spirit appropriates the same material which is brought before it by each. Now, according to 2 Cor. 4:6 (cp 2:14), gnosis appears to be applied to the knowledge of what is perceived in an ecstatic condition ; for Paul who had never known Jesus upon earth can only have seen, in the face of Christ, the splendour of God (56a [doxa] is nothing abstract ; cp 2 Cor. 8:7, Lk. 2:9, Acts 7:55, 1 Tim. 6:16, Rev. 21:23-24), in a vision. If, now, gnosis appropriates to itself the impression thus received and casts it into the form of thought, it follows from this manner of origination that the mental product will possess the character of what, in the philosophical theory of knowledge, is called intuition. It will thus have the note of immediacy as distinguished from that which has been reached by the discursive method. For the explanation of what is meant by 'wisdom' (<ro0/a [sophia]) no such direct hint is given us by Paul. Apart from passages where the word is used in an unfavourable sense, it always indicates with him the content, not the manner, of the knowledge. This circumstance, however, cannot alter anything in the fact that in our leading passage it is parallel with gnosis, and here, accordingly, like the other, must mean a manner of knowing. There is nothing to indicate that the practical, as distinguished from the theoretical, is meant. On the other hand, the wisdom of the world, which is the opposite of that here intended, exhibits pretty clearly the feature which would offer a clear contrast with gnosis as explained above ; it results from intelligent consideration of things. A wisdom which figures as gift of the Holy Spirit must naturally be the consequence of the inspiration of that spirit ; but nevertheless it can in its style and manner display the note of discursive thought and reflection quite as clearly as gnosis can display that of vision and intuition.

Holsten seeks to bring out the contrast in the following way ; in Paul we have to look more for gnosis in so far as he visualised the fundamental conceptions of his entire doctrine on the basis of that image of the ascended Jesus which he saw in his vision near Damascus ; 'wisdom' (<ro<f>ia [sophia]) we find more in Apollos. If this is correct, the so-called pneumatic interpretation of the OT which believes itself able to arrive at the hidden sense, would rather fall to the side of 'wisdom' (<ro<|u a [sophia]), including the form in which it is employed by Paul in, for example, such passages as 1 Cor. 9:9-10, 10:4, 14:21-22, 2 Cor. 8:13-16, Gal. 4:21-31. According to the Epistle of Harnabas, it is true (10:2, 10:9-10), it appears to be called gnosis. Yet here a vacillation of expression is easily possible. It must be added, further, that gnosis in Paul, where it relates to the region of practice (1 Cor. 8:1, 8:7, 8:10-11 and doubtless also 2 Cor. 6:6), is a much simpler notion. It is easily conceivable that the application of the word to this region may have had a different course of development from that which it had when regarded as a spiritual gift.

The 'admonish' (TrapaKa.\f1v [parakalein]) of Rom. 12:8 belongs entirely to the practical side. Primarily it means not to comfort but to exhort. Consolation, however, is not excluded; for the literal meaning is to speak to a person. It is presupposed that people are in need, not so much of instruction as of the effort made, whether gently or more strenuously, always in a friendly and tactful manner, to bring them, by spoken word, to a better disposition of will or a better frame of spirit.

7. Prophecy.[edit]

We should completely misunderstand 'prophecy' should we suppose its essence to lie in prediction of the future. This is not wholly excluded; but it can have had only a very modest part as compared with more important elements in the idea. These elements are found in 1 Cor. 14.

(a) According to 14:3 prophecy produces 'edification', 'comfort', and 'consolation'; according to v. 24-25 it can penetrate so deeply as to lay bare the secrets of the hearts of strangers and constrain them to confess that the spirit of God speaking in the prophet has rightly disclosed what was passing within them. Accordingly, prophecy would seem to be distinguished from the 'word of wisdom' (\6yos ffotjtlas [logos sophias]) and the 'word of knowledge' (\jyos yv&vtu s [logos gnooseoos]) in this, that it is preaching of a purely practical kind, often not unlike the addresses at a revival meeting. Yet, according to vv. 31 and 19, the hearers also learn (fj.o.v9dveiv [manthanein]) and are instructed (K-arTj^eurtfat [katecheisthai]) by it. Theoretical elements, therefore, cannot be wholly absent ; the real distinction as compared with 'wisdom' (ffotpia [sophia]) and 'knowledge' (yvufftf [gnoosis]) has not yet emerged.

(b) What is more important to observe is that, according to v. 30, it is by a revelation that the prophet is led to speak. This feature is in fact so characteristic that in the enumeration in v. 26 we actually find 'revelation' (d.TroKaXvi/ ij [apokalypsis]) where, alongside of 'teaching, tongue, and interpretation of tongues' (Sidaxrj [didache], yXuknra [gloossa], and ep/iT/vet ci yXuacrCjv [ermeneia]) we should have expected to find 'prophecy' (irpofirjTfia [propheteia]). In v. 6 also, the two pairs are clearly so distributed that the first member of the one ('revelation') is, if not similar to, at least analogous to, the first member of the other ('prophecy') just as are the second members of the two pairs (yvCxri.* [gnoosis] and dtSax fi [didache]). Here accordingly is seen what is the really essential distinction between prophecy on the one hand, and wisdom and knowledge on the other ; it lies in the suddenness and immediacy of the revelation from which prophecy proceeds. For we must assume that a prophet spoke from the basis of such a revelation even in those cases where he had received it, not as we find in v. 30, while the meeting was actually going on, but some time previously - at home, let us suppose.

(c) On the other hand, prophecy has to be distinguished equally clearly from the 'speaking with tongues' with which it stands in such close parallelism. Whilst that which is spoken in tongue-speech remains unintelligible until it has been interpreted, the 'prophet' can be understood by any one (vv. 3-4) because, during the time of his speaking, he is guided by his 'understanding' (coGs [nous]; v. 14). Therefore, also, it is said of prophecy (v. 32) that 'the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets', whilst those who speak with tongues are at the moment in the ecstatic condition.

(d) Taking all these considerations together, we find that the prophecy spoken of by Paul is entirely similar to the discourse of the OT prophets. In the OT also the contents of prophetic discourse are for the most part of a practical character, yet also informing ; the origin is sought in a sudden revelation; the manner of speech of the OT prophets is quite intelligible. This holds good of the prophetic discourse so long as it has not, as in the Book of Daniel, or even in Zechariah or Joel, passed over into the apocalyptic style, but simply as we find it in the genuine writings of the older prophets, not as it is described by such authors as Philo and Justin for whom the OT prophets are men who speak in a completely ecstatical condition and are mere foretellers of the future.

Perhaps we might even go a step farther and conjecture that the manner in which the prophets of the apostolic age were conscious of receiving their revelations resembled that of the OT 'prophets' who say, 'The Lord spake to me', and that the contents of such a revelation, as in the OT, had reference for the most part to some concrete detail. From what has been said it will be seen that on the whole the most suitable rendering of 'prophecy' will be 'inspired address' or 'inspired preaching'.

On the later stages of Christian prophecy see MINISTRY, 38 [also PROPHETIC LITERATURE, 30-33]; on discerning of spirits (diaKpiffis wvev/^dTuv [diakrisis pneumatoon]), see below, 18.

Speaking with tongues[edit]

8. The phenomenon itself.[edit]

The discussion of the question of speaking with tongues has been brought into the state of confusion in which we find it by the circumstance that investigators were determined to take Acts 2:1-13 as their starting-point, and to find the truth of that narrative confirmed in all circumstances, in other words, supported by Paul. The student, however, who is not prepared to give up the genuineness of the principal Pauline Epistles (as to which cp GALATIANS, 1-9) is in duty stringently bound to consider the account of Paul as the primary one, and discuss it without even a. side glance at Acts, and to reject as unhistorical everything in Acts which does not agree with this account. Nor will it be permissible to urge that Paul's information may have been defective ; for he himself spoke with tongues more than they all (1 Cor. 14:18).

(a) The speaking with tongues was unintelligible (1 Cor. 14:2, 14:9, 14:11, 14:16) and therefore of no use to the church, unless an interpretation followed (vv. 6, 9, 17). Paul goes so far as to say (v. 22) that in a mixed assemblage of Christians and non-Christians it has any purpose at all only for the non-Christians - namely, to be to them a sign which, in the context, can only be taken as meaning a mark of displeasure. True, along with this he concedes that the speaking with tongues has a value for the speaker himself, for his edification, namely, because it is a speaking on behalf of God (v. 2, 4, 17, 28). From the latter circumstance, and particularly from v. 2 ('no man understandeth'), has been drawn the con clusion that the speaking with tongues was in quite low tones. Against this, however, has to be set the comparison of tongue-speech with musical instruments which give out loud tones, if not individually distinguishable, and with a foreign language which is heard but has not been learned (vv. 7-11), as also the statement that a stranger must regard the tongue-speaker as one out of his mind (v. 23).

(b) The explanation of the unintclligibility of such speeches must accordingly be sought in this, that intelligent thought (poOs [nous]) had no part in their production (v. 14). For 'unfruitful' (dKapiros [akarpos]) in this connection must mean not 'receiving no fruit' but 'yielding no fruit'. Now, the antithesis to ('speaking' XaXeti [lalein], or 'praying' Trpofffi xeffdat [proseuchesthai], or 'singing' \f,d\\fiv [psallein], etc.) 'with the understanding' (T vo i [too noi]) in vv. 15-16, is 'with the spirit' (rcjj Trvet i/ucrn [too pneumati]), but in v. 19 it is 'in a tongue' (et> yXwcrcr?? XaXeiV [en gloosse lalein]). 'To be in the spirit' (ei> wi>fi>jj.a.Ti elvai [en pneumat einai]), however, is in Rev. 1:10, 4:2, 17:3, 21:10 the terminus technicus for the ecstatic state.

Hence the meaning must be that not all tongue-speakers were in a position to be able afterwards to explain their utterances (vv. 13:28), and that it is only of the prophets that Paul says that the spirits speaking through them are well known to be subject to the will of the prophets and could therefore, when a new speaker came forward, be silent (v. 32) - although for his own part Paul enjoins silence (v. 28) also on the speakers with tongues (on occasions when no interpreter is present). How ecstasy was regarded is well described by Philo (1:510-511 ed. Mangey) ; only, he supposes he is describing the condition of the OT prophets (in the widest sense of the word so as to include all the OT saints) when he says: '[he is] a sounding instrument of God, invisibly struck and played upon by him . . . The understanding that is in us goes abroad when the divine spirit arrives, and returns home again when the spirit departs ; for it is not right that mortal and immortal should dwell together' (npyavov Ofov itj-nv T)\OVV. upovofievov KCU TrArjTTOju.ti Oi aopdruis ^.aros a<t>iii , KO.TO. 6e rrji fj^fravdcnaa-ii avroG TrdAii/ eicroiici^eTat <?e/jus yap OVK e<rrt Ovyrbv adavdria crvvoiKricra.i).

(c) What the listeners actually heard Paul does not tell, because it was perfectly well known to his readers. For us this is unfortunate, since on this point, perhaps the most important of all, we are thus thrown back upon conjecture, and many are only too readily inclined to support their conjectures by reference to Acts 2:1-13. If, as we ought, we hold strictly by 1 Cor., we learn from 14:14-17 to distinguish between a 'praying' (wpoai>x(ff0a-i [proseucesthai) and a 'singing of psalms' (i/ aXXetp [psallein]), whilst the 'blessing' (ev\oyeiv [eulogein]), since it occurs in a confirmatory clause, is doubtless to be identified with the latter or with both, as also 'giving thanks' (fixapiffTeiv [eucharistein]) with 'blessing' (ev\oyflv [eulogein]). But what are we to say as to the nature of these prayers, songs of praise (and thanksgivings)? They were unintelligible, and were spoken in the state of ecstasy ; from this we must conclude that they consisted either of quite disjointed sounds, cries, sighs, and the like, or, if of actual words or short sentences, at all events not of connected ones. A Christian listener, who naturally did not, like the stranger in v. 23, regard the speaker as insane, must yet have had the impression that he was speaking in a dreamlike state.

(d) We may, further, adduce analogies from earlier and later times. Whilst the prophets of the best OT period are clearly distinguished from the speakers with tongues by the complete intelligibility of their utterances, the oldest stages of prophecy manifest a strongly ecstatic character. Cp for example 1 S. 10:5-12, 19:20-24. These prophets, capable of being brought by music and sensory stimuli, to dancing and frenzy, stand for their part in turn quite on the same plane with the pagan oracle-givers (fj.dt>Tfis [manteis]). In this connection we can appropriately adduce the description of such persons (/uai/retj [manteis]) in Plato (Tim. , 71e-72b, Ion, 534b-d), according to which they need an interpreter ; only, this interpreter here bears the name of prophet. Within Christianity, Montanistic prophecy shares fully the ecstatic character of the primitive Christian tongue-speech. Of Montanus, for example, Epiphanius (Haer. 484, begin.) has preserved an utterance in which he says in the name of God: 'behold the man is as a lyre and I play over him like a plectron ; the man sleeps and I wake; behold, it is the Lord who takes away the hearts of men, and gives to men a [another] heart': (Idov 6 &v6pd3iros uirel Xvpa Kayii) e</u7rra/ucu wcret w\fiKTpov 6 dvOpuTros Koifj.a.T<u Kayu ypyyopui. iSov Kvpibs <TTI.V 6 ^iff- TO.VUV Kapdias avOpunruv na.i didovs Kapdiav dvdpuirois). From recent times we may cite the inspired persons of the Wetterau and elsewhere (1714-1749) ; also the second stage of Jansenism from 1713 onwards, the Irvingites, the 'preaching sickness' and 'reading sickness' in Sweden, 1841-1854 (see RESURRECTION, 36e), many cases of somnambulism, also the Quakers, and especially and above all the Camisards in the Cevennes 1 (1686-1707); not, however, the Jumpers and Shakers.

(e) The 'kinds of tongues' (y^vr) y\u<rcruv [gene gloossoo]) of Paul points emphatically to a manifoldness of tongue-speech with regard to which we are hardly able to form any concrete idea. In the 'praying' (wpofffi>x.ea6a.i. [proseuchesthai]), 'singing' (t/ a XXetc [psallein]), 'blessing' (evXoyfiv [eulogein]), of 1 Cor. 14:14-17 we have up to the present point become acquainted with two (or three) different kinds of contents of tongue-speech ; but that by no means exhausts the subject. We may perhaps think in addition of such contents as: communication of a vision received, threatening of judgment, personal confession, and the like. On the other hand the expression 'kinds' (y^vTj [gene]) can also be taken perhaps as intended to denote differences in the form of the speeches according as they were composed of complete but reciprocally disconnected sentences, of disconnected words, or of single sounds or syllables ; whether they betokened joy or sorrow, delight or terror, and so forth.

9. Tongues not foreign languages.[edit]

Proceeding now, on the basis of the preceding paragraphs, to a consideration of what is meant by the expression 'speaking with tongues', the first thing to be remarked is that in the present connection Acts 2:1-13 must be set aside not provisionally, but definitively. Nothing is more certain than that 'tongues' (y\uaffai [gloossai]) in the case before us must not be translated 'languages'.

(a) Were the case otherwise the expression '(to speak) in a tongue' (y\uxrcrri [XaXac] [gloosse lalein]) would be quite impossible, although in point of fact it occurs not only in the mention of a single speaker (1 Cor. 14:2, 14:4, 14:13-14, 14:19, 14:26-27) where it might be argued that each individual speaks only in one language that is foreign to him but also in v. 9 where more than one speaker is in question.

(b) Where unquestionably the languages of foreign peoples are being spoken of (v. 10-11) Paul as it happens precisely refrains from using 'tongues' (y\u>cr<Tai [gloossai]) ; the word he employs is 'voices' (tpuvai [phoonai]), an unmistakable proof that in this connection 'tongues' (y\u<rcra.i [gloossai]) is reserved for a different concept, and with these voices (pwvai [phoonai]) the speaking with tongues is only compared, whilst on the other assumption the two would be identical.

(c) Paul concedes that the speaking with tongues is fitted for the private edification of the speaker, and therefore recommends that this gift should be exercised in solitude (vv. 4, 18, 28). But that speaking in foreign languages should have this result would be indeed wonderful.

(d) The interpretation of tongue-speech would not have any miraculous character at all, and therefore have no claim to be considered a charism, if it rested upon acquaintance on the part of the interpreter with the foreign language in question. If, however, we are to suppose that the interpreter understands the language in question just as little as the speaker, the interpretation would be a miracle of precisely the same order as the tongue-speech itself, and it would be incomprehensible how in v. 28 Paul could have supposed the case that before the beginning of a tongue-speech the speaker could know that no interpreter for it was present at the meeting. For the gift of interpretation on such a presupposition as that under discussion could nevertheless be quite suddenly bestowed on someone immediately after the tongue-speech had been made.

(e) That no one in the meeting, apart from subsequent interpretation, understands tongue-speech (v. 2) would not hold good of those listeners who understood in a natural way the foreign language, the temporary use of which had been bestowed upon the tongue-speaker in a supernatural way.

(f) The antithesis between '(speaking) with a tongue' (yXujaarj [gloosse] [XaXeiV [lalein]]) could not be 'with the understanding' (vdi [voi]: so v. 15) or 'by way of revelation', 'of knowledge', 'of prophecy', 'of teaching' ((v d.TroKa\v\f/ei [en apokalypsei], ev yvuxrfi [en gnoosei], tv irpo^reiq. [en propheteia], fv 8i8axH [en didache] so v. 6), but must run: 'to speak in one's mother's tongue'. Of this we find no where the faintest trace.

(g) Finally, the main characteristic feature of tongue-speech - ecstasy - would be completely inexplicable. Wherefore this, if the whole matter is simply to speak in a foreign language which one has never learned? After all, ecstasy is a psychological condition which must have its psychological explanation. Hut if this kind of speaking can really bring ecstasy with it, why can it alone do so ? One might say : the substance of these speeches was so exceedingly joyful that it transported the speaker to an ecstasy. But why not also the substance of many speeches held in one's mother-tongue ? We should therefore have to say : on each occasion when a communication was received that cheered to ecstasy, the speaker was endowed in a supernatural way with the ability to speak in a foreign language. In that case, however, the counter question, Why not in his mother-tongue? would be difficult to put to silence.

(h) The latest defender of the view that foreign languages are intended, Arthur Wright (see below, section 21), does so in fact quite differently.

He points to the 'little prophets of the Cevennes' (1686-1701), children of three years and upwards, who, according to Heath (Contemp. Rev., Jan. 1886), preached sermons not only in their mother-tongue, but also in good French, often for three-quarters of an hour. 'There was nothing hysterical or wildly excited about their manner, only they were insensible to pain and could not be induced to stop'. The explanation given is that they were merely repeating sermons which they had previously heard delivered by grown-up preachers; their memory was abnormally stimulated by the excitement of the persecutions. In like manner, according to Wright, the primitive Christian tongue-speakers in each case were simply repeating discourses which previously - of course without understanding them - they had heard with excited attention, especially in Jerusalem, where at one of the great feasts, for example, a multitude of unknown languages could be heard. He lays stress upon the argument that 'they who spake with tongues are never said to have given utterance to distinctly Christian teaching' and goes on to say : 'Accustomed to the higher tone of St. Paul and his evangelists the Corinthians found little profit in these Rabbinic exhortations'. He thus draws his entire view as to the contents of all the tongue-speeches from Acts 2:11 ('speaking the mighty works of God'), instead of the notorious overvaluation of tongue-speech in Corinth asserts the opposite, and moreover seems seriously to believe that all the Corinthian Christians, bond and free alike, who spoke with tongues had previously at one period or another been in Jerusalem, and there had excitement and anguish of so enduring a character that their memory could be stimulated with regard to them in this abnormal way : and this too for discourses of which they could not by any means have had the same impression as the Camisard children just spoken of, that all salvation lay in them, for they did not turn to Judaism ; at least this is not affirmed by Wright. He is equally silent as to what it was that brought on the ecstatic state at the repetition of discourses formerly heard. He speaks of the whole as 'a miracle, not of power, but of providence'; the latter he sees in 'the choice of time, the preparation of the speakers beforehand, the selection of suitable words, the restriction of the gifts to particular persons'. Finally, he nevertheless finds himself compelled to add to his words quoted above, the following, as an explanation of the ecstasy: 'the exciting cause may finally have been not merely mental tension, but the direct impulse of the Holy Ghost'. The interpretation of the tongue-speeches on the other hand he accounts for by 'a knowledge of the language'; where, however, it is the tongue-speaker who is himself the interpreter, this explanation will not serve : for the speaker 'had no recollection of what he had said'. In such a case, then, 'interpretation' must mean any utterance made in the vernacular during the state of ecstasy. 1 Wright has been led to put forward his hypothesis from a sense of the very serious danger of calling in question the historical truth of the Acts of the Apostles. With the purpose of obviating this danger he does as great violence to the language of Paul as any of his predecessors.

1 Cp Hilgenfeld, Glossolalie, 115-136 (1850); Goebel, Ztschr. fur hist. Theol. 1854, pp. 267-322, 377-438 ; 1855, pp. 94-160, 327- 425; Evang. Kirchen-Ztg. 1837, No. 54-56, 61-62; Hohl, Bruchstucke aus . . . Irving, 1839; Oliphant, Lift of living, 1862; Job. Nic. Kohler, het Irvingisme , 1876 (contains examples of tongue-speeches actually delivered); Reich, St. Kr. 1849, pp. 193-242; Fabri, Die neusten Erweckungen in America, Irland, etc. (1860); Id., Die Erweckungen auf deutschein Boden, 1861 ; Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychologie, (1) 316-320 = (2) 364-368 (1861); Kerner, Die Seherin von Prevorst, 1829 and often.

10. Acts 2:1-13 and Mk. 16:17.[edit]

What is excluded by the words of Paul is exactly what is meant in Acts 2:1-13 : the 120 of 1:15 spoke in the languages of the Parthians, Medes, etc.

The expedients that have been resorted to are innumerable: the friendly address produced in the foreigners only a homelike feeling ; or they interpreted the disconnected sounds of the actual tongue-speaking described in 1 Cor. in each case as utterances of their own language ; or the 120 spoke a single language, a new one miraculously intelligible to all, whether that of Paradise or the future language of heaven ; or they spoke not Aramaic but Hebrew, and in this the foreigners, who all of them were Jews or Proselytes, recognised the language of worship to which they were accustomed at home ; or the 120 spoke only a few languages, not wholly unknown to them but only unfamiliar, such as Arabic, colloquial Greek, colloquial Latin ; or those who spoke were not by any means only the 120 but all the foreigners who were present with them. This and all the like is strictly excluded by the thrice repeated statement (vv. 6, 8, 11) that every man of the foreigners heard the 120 speaking in his own mother-tongue.

(b) The only theory still left open would seem to be that of a miracle of hearing instead of a miracle of speaking. Yet neither does such a supposition hit the meaning of the author ; for according to what he says the foreign languages were not only heard but also spoken. The words of v. 4: 'they began to speak with other tongues' (erf pcus y\wacra.t.s [eterais gloossais]), receive their interpretation precisely in the statement 'we hear them speak in our mother-tongue' (rats ^/uerepcus 7\cj<7<rcus [tais emeterais gloossais], v. 11 ; each in his mother-speech, ^KCKTTOS rrf idiq. SiaXfKTCf [ekastos te idia dialektoo]), vv. 6., 8).

It is possible to suppose a miracle of hearing, therefore, only in the sense of ascribing to the author a confusion of such a miracle with one of speech. But why should it have been pre cisely a miracle of hearing? If it occurred in the ears or rather in the minds of the hearers, there is no answer to the question wherefore it was that the Holy Spirit exercised his miraculous influence precisely in this quarter, whilst it is not only said (v. 4), but is also appropriate to the situation, that it was on the speakers that he wrought. According to others the miracle, in becoming a miracle of hearing, happened during the transmission from the mouth of the speaker to the ear of the hearer. The Holy Spirit 'interpreted the words during their passage through the air, so as to present them to the ears of the numerous listeners, to each in his native tongue'. Here one can only ask in increased surprise why it is precisely the Holy Ghost that is named as the author of a miracle which is accomplished in no human being but in a dead object.

(c) Another question : Wherefore the 'tongues as of fire' (yXuavai uxrel TTU/JOS [gloossai oosei pyros]) in v. 3? In this view that a miracle of hearing is intended, they are left wholly out of account. Other interpreters have, in view of what is said of the tongues, supposed that according to Acts the miracle was one wrought on the organs of speech.

Since 'tongue' in v. 3 denotes the organ of speech this seemed to be the case also in v. 4; the meaning would therefore be: they received in their mouths new tongues and therewith spoke a new speech. Here, however, not only does one miss all possibility of conceiving the nature of what happened, so that one is compelled to describe the suggestion of it as simply fantastical ; the idea further is not in the least indicated by the words. The 'tongues as of fire' of v. 3 have nothing to do with the other tongues of v. 4; for the tongues of fire do not enter the mouth but rest upon the head. Such remains the meaning even if the reading 'rested' (inaditrfv [ekathisen] : sing.) is adopted; for here the subject can only be 'fire', the only other subject which is grammatically possible, the 'sound' ( /\os [echos]) of v. 2 being excluded by the nature of the case. Perhaps the pl. (eaei<r<u< [ekathisan]) is nevertheless to be read, as in N*D sah. cop. pesh.

(d) These tongues of fire, however, remain out of account also in the interpretation that a miracle of speech is intended in so far as that interpretation has been set forth under (a). Since, however, they cannot by any means be regarded as of subordinate importance they urgently call for some explanation. This has in part been given already (see MINISTRY, 21 c). The event of Pentecost is there represented as a parallel to the giving of the Law on Sinai. To this parallel belongs also the loud noise from heaven with which the scene is opened in v. 2. In virtue of this very circumstance, however, the narrative lies gravely open to the suspicion that it rests not upon observation of fact but upon the activity of the imagination.

(e) In what is said about the audience the text has suffered greatly. 'Both Jews and proselytes' (lovSaioi re icai rrpcxnyAVTOI) in v. 11 is impossible as a clause in the enumeration ; it has sense only if taken as in apposition to all the other clauses together, so that what is meant is: 'and in fact of every nation, born Jews and also proselytes'. Thus it had its place originally either after 'Arabs' ("ApajSes [arabes]), or on the margin as a gloss, but a correct one. In order that foreigners should be hearing their mother-tongue it is not in point of fact enough that born Jews should be represented as present from foreign countries; proselytes also must be there, to whom the foreign language was really a mother-tongue in the full and proper sense of the word.

(f) Against this, however, there is what we find in v. 5, where all the hearers are called 'Jews dwelling in Jerusalem' (ei? lepoixraAij/A KaroiKovvrf; lovSaloi). 'Jews' in fact is wanting in X; but even so it is improbable that all these strangers in Jerusalem had their residence (xaroiKoOi Tes [katoikountes]) there ; it would be much easier to suppose that they were there only as visitors at the feast. The circumstance also that 'dwelling' (KaroiKoiWes [katoikountes]) in C pesh. cop. comes before instead of after 'in Jerusalem', and 'Jews' in E before instead of after 'dwelling' can be held as indicating that both words were originally a gloss, and in this case a wrong one. If so it would have to be attributed to the desire to produce harmony with v. 14 : 'Jews and dwellers at Jerusalem' (ai/<5pes loucSouoi /cal ot KaroiKoOfTe! Ifpoi/<raArjfi). Yet see below, i, end.

(g) For the same reason 'sojourners' (oi eiri8i)uovcre$ [oi epidemountes]) before 'Romans' (Pojjuaioi [romaioi]) in v. 10 is open to the suspicion of being a gloss if it means Roman citizens who were settled in Jerusalem. Should it be intended, however, merely to indicate that they were there on a passing visit, the expression will fitly apply not only to Romans but also equally well to all other nationalities, and therefore would have had its right place before 'Parthians' (MdpOoi [parthoi] : v. 9). That Roman citizens who were settled in Rome (not in the province) should be intended is excluded by the article, for this would affirm that they had come for the feast to Jerusalem in a body.

(h) Finally, 'Judaea' (lovSaiav [Ioudaian]) in v. 9 between 'Mesopotamia' and 'Cappadocia' is very surprising [cp GEOGRAPHY, 26, end]. That Jews understood the speakers really did not need to be said. Already in Tertullian and (once) in Augustine we read Armenia ; in Jerome Syria. Others have conjectured Idumaea, India, Ionia, Bithynia, Cilicia, Lydia, and even the N. Syrian kingdom of Yaudi with which we are acquainted from the inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser [cp UZZIAH, 7].

(i) In other passages (10:46, 19:6) Acts mentions tongue-speech without the idea of a speaking in foreign languages and without the addition of 'other' (erepcus [eterais]) to 'tongues' (-yXwcrcrcus [gloossais]), so that there is no reason for doubting that the same thing is intended as that which we find in Paul. Now, this cannot by any means lead to our finding ourselves compelled, at the cost of what ever violence to the words, to find the same view of the matter also in Acts 2 ; but it does doubtless tend to raise the question whether perhaps Acts 2 also may not depend on an underlying source which spoke of tongue-speech as fittingly as did those which have been used in 10:46, 19:6. The same idea is suggested also by the remark of Peter in 10:47 that Cornelius and his house 'have received the Holy Ghost as well as we' (cp 11:15, 11:17). Further it has long ago been remarked that the reproach of drunkenness in 2:13, if the languages of foreign nations were what was being heard, would by no means have been appropriate, and that the speech of Peter in 2:14-36 has no relation to hearers from foreign parts or to any miracle of this description, but explains the event by the prophecy in Joel (3:1-5) as to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit with prophetic speeches, visions, and dreams (2:16-18). Of the various attempts at separation of sources (see ACTS, 11) the simplest and therefore the most probable is that which holds the source to have contained v. 4 (without 'other', crlpats [eterais]) followed immediately by vv. 12-13; in fact the conjecture has been hazarded that 4:31 presents only another account of the same event.

It would also be conceivable that a fragment of the source is preserved likewise in the words 'Jews dwelling in Jerusalem' (f\<i lepouo-aArj/i (caTOiicoCi Tf? loviatoi) in 2:5. The source in that case will have mentioned not foreigners but only men of Jerusalem as witnesses of the occurrence, and it would justly become a question whether the event occurred at Pentecost (see MINISTRY, 21c-d). Yet by its whole structure the sentence is fitted to describe a speech-wonder. Should 'Jews dwelling' then not be a gloss (see above, f) we should have to suppose that the redactor had very unskilfully retained these words from his source.

(k) The occasion for bringing in the idea of the giving of the law at Sinai, and thereby completely altering the character of the narrative, can perhaps be looked for in the increasing importance which gradually had come to be attached to the event of Pentecost as marking the presumed moment of foundation of the church (against this see MINISTRY, 21, b, d). Yet subsidiary circumstances can also have contributed to the same result. One such can be sought for in the passage of Joel cited in Acts 2:19 in so far as it speaks of 'wonders in the heavens above and signs on the earth beneath', and of 'fire', even if this be associated there with 'blood' and 'vapour of smoke'. A still more obvious suggestion is that the occasion may have been furnished by a misunderstanding of 1 Cor. 14:21 for which Paul himself is responsible.

In 1 Cor. 14:21 Paul cites Is. 28:11-12 as evidence of the unintelligibility and uselessness of tongue-speeches without observing that in Isaiah in the case of the Assyrians by whom God is about to speak to the people of Israel it is not the language spoken by them that matters but only the sword by which they are to destroy Israel. Paul, moreover, contrary alike to MT and the LXX, makes of the whole a divine utterance, and introduces the words 'saith the Lord' (Ae -yei (cv pios [legei kyrios]) at the end, changes the preterite of the last verb ('they would not hear') into a future, and adds, 'not even thus' (ovS OVTUX; [oud outoos]). By this means and by the freely chosen composite verb 'will they give heed' (eicraKovO-OVTO.I [eisakousontai]) he has correctly reproduced one solitary feature of MT and the LXX. In the interests of his parallel with tongue-speech what he ought to have taken from the OT passage was: 'one will not be able to understand the men of foreign speech'. Paul, however, actually says - quite unsuitably for the purpose he has in hand - in real if not in verbal agreement with Isaiah ('they would not hear'): one will not give heed to them. Yet it is very intelligible that a superficial reader could draw from the entire citation in Paul nothing further than that the speakers with tongues had spoken in the languages of foreign peoples.

(l) As Mk. 16:9-20 is entirely derived from the NT literature, including Acts (see RESURRECTION-NARRATIVES, 8b-c), there need be no hesitating in interpreting the 'they shall speak with new tongues' (yXwcrcrcus \a\T/)ffovffiv KUivais [gloossais lalesousin kainais]) of v. 17 simply as meaning 'they shall speak in languages' previously unknown to the speakers, 'new' (Katpats [kainais]) thus being substituted for greater clearness for the 'other' (erepcus [eterais]) of Acts 2:4. It is quite improbable that an independent tradition lies before us here.

Interesting but not indispensable is the conjecture of Michelsen (Het Evangelie naar Marcus, 29) by which 'new' is made to disappear. WH has before 'will lift up serpents' (o<t>eis apoOcrii [opheis arousin]) in brackets the additional words 'and in their hands' (xai ev TCUS xeptriV [kai en tais chersin]). Out of this 'and in their' (icai ei> rats [kai en tais]) or rather out of the contracted form (xdv reus [kan tais) arose 'new' (icaifatt [kainais]) and then 'hands' (xp<nV [chersin]) fell away. Instead of in (ci [en]) Michelsen further conjectures that the original text read 'if' (ear [ean]), and writes 'lift' (apoxrif [aroosin]) : 'and if they lift up serpents with their hands' (KO.V rais \ep<r\v o^eis apajcru /car 8a.vdirifj.6v Tl Tu uxru oil JUT; avirous /3A.ai|/T)).

11. 'Tongues' not = 'archaic expressions'[edit]

Returning once more to 1 Cor. 14, the next interpretation of 'tongues' (y\u>ffffai. [gloossai]) that invites our consideration is the old Greek one, according to which are meant archaic expressions no longer understood among the people, or, strange and unusual locutions generally, including new coinages. On this head see especially Bleek (below, 21), and Heinrici in his own commentary and in Meyer's.

  • (a) On this interpretation, however, 'kinds of tongues'(ytvi) y\uff<rwi> [genegloossoon]) can hardly be distinguished.
  • (b) The sing. 'speak in a tongue' (yXuxrcrri \a\dv [gloosse lalein]) or 'pray in a tongue' (yX^jffffrj Trpocreuxtffticu [gloose proseuchesthai]) can in this view, as Heinrici himself says, mean no more than the utterance of a shout of praise or the heaving of a sigh. In that case the question arises as to how a complete prayer of such a kind as to require an interpreter can be produced (14:14) and why Paul should be indisposed to allow more than two or three such 'speeches' (v. 27), each of which would occupy a minute.
  • (c) Even a stringing together of such expressions, for which, according to Heinrici, the plural 'speak with tongues' (-yXuWatj XaXetc [gloossais lalein]) is employed, can have resulted in no speeches of such length as to render regulations necessary for their restriction in this respect ; on the other hand Paul gives not the slightest hint at discourses in which such 'tongues' were a characteristic feature, but which on the whole consisted of intelligible words and therefore could extend to considerable length. Heinrici infers discourses of this kind only from v. 19. The statement here made, however, would be quite ineffective if its meaning was : I had rather deliver five discourses with my understanding than ten thousand discourses in which archaic expressions occur. It becomes effective only if the meaning is (as in EV) : 'I had rather speak five words . . . than ten thousand words'
  • (d) Why the Spirit should have inspired precisely expressions of this sort, and how the employment of them could have served for private edification (vv. 4, 18-19, 28) remains wholly obscure.
  • (e) For interpretation of this kind of speech what is needed is not the gift of the Holy Spirit, but philological knowledge.
  • (f) But above all we must ask, How is to be explained the ecstasy that accompanies the use of such out-of-ihe-way expressions? In short, whilst the interpretation of tongues as meaning speeches in foreign languages still allowed the supernatural character of the occurrence to remain, that which takes them to mean mere rare expressions is simply a means of eliminating that character along with the ecstasy. Heinrici says (in Meyer: 1 Cor. (7) 362 = (8)378) expressly that the outsiders alluded to in 14:23 could have taken the speakers with tongues to be men possessed, because they confounded their condition with that of the Pythia and others who really spoke in ecstasy.

12. Tongues not metaphorical.[edit]

Beyschlag (below, 21) accepts the speaking in ecstasy, and in fact actually proposes to explain the expression 'speaking with tongues' by means of it, referring for the expression (though not for the thing) to Acts 2:3. He holds that the tongues of fire are an echo of the fact that the tongues of speakers were actually moved with fiery eloquence. This figurative way of speaking about a tongue of fire is the origin of the name (yXQtacra [gloossa]). The pl. 'tongues' is to be explained, he thinks, even in cases where a single speaker is in question, by the circumstance that such a tongue of fire was regarded as having been bestowed anew on each occasion of its exercise. The oldest expression accordingly was (he thinks) 'to speak with other (or new) tongues' (ertpais [eterais] [or /tad ats [kainais]] y\ucrffa.is XaXeu [gloossais lalein]) ; the simpler 'speak with tongues' (y\&aaa.is \a\fiv [gloossais lalein]) is merely an abbreviation of this. In abbreviation, however, it has to be replied, it is not usual to drop precisely the most important part of the expression ; the correct abbreviation must have been 'to speak with other (or new)' (er^pcus [eterais] [or naivcus [kainais]] XaXfiV [lalein]). The impossibility of this whole view of Beyschlag's is clearly exhibited, however, in 1 Cor. 14:26. Along with a psalm, a teaching, a revelation, and interpretation, a tongue of fire cannot fittingly be enumerated as a thing which one who takes part in a religious meeting 'has'; for in the connection 'has' (#x ei [echei]) means 'has to contribute'. In more points than one Beyschlag nevertheless comes very near the truth.

13. The tongue as a bodily member.[edit]

Above all, Beyschlag has rightly recognised that the literal sense - the bodily member within the mouth - is to be taken as the fundamental meaning of tongue.

(a) The decisive passage for this is 1 Cor. 14:9. In connection with v. 7-8the sense must be: as the sound of pipe, harp, and trumpet cannot be rightly understood if they give out no clear sound, so also what is spoken by you cannot be understood if you give forth no clear speech with your tongue.

This is the exact logical course of the comparison : to the musical instruments which give forth either a clear or an unclear sound, corresponds as instrument of speech the member in the mouth. If here by 'tongue' were meant the particular manner of speech that is known as 'speaking with tongues', the case that an unintelligible speech is given could not for a moment be suggested as merely a possible case ; for according to Paul this happens in all circumstances. Nor, again, have we here a new example, parallel to that of the musical instruments, but one drawn from what is observed in ordinary human speech. We do not reach this till we come to v. 10-11, and as the application of that example to the Corinthian speakers with tongues is made in v. 12 by the expression 'so also you' (OUTWS ai ijueis [outoos kai hymeis]), in like manner we must regard the same expression in v. 9 as introducing an application of the preceding illustrations drawn from the musical instruments to the same persons. 'Tongue' here thus signifies in actual fact the tongue of the Corinthian speakers, yet neither as producing the so-called tongue-speeches nor yet as producing ordinary human speech, but simply in so far as it is capable of giving forth alike the (always unintelligible) tongue-speech, and also a kind of speech parallel to this, still intelligible, in the church meetings - such speech as prophecy, for example.

(b) Here then we have the origin of the expression 'speak with a tongue'. If all discourse is effected by means of the human tongue and yet only this particular kind of speech is named from it, the idea can only be this, that in the case in question the part it plays is particularly strong, or even, so far as may be, exclusive. In excellent agreement with this is the use of the opposite expression 'speak with the understanding' (T^ vot \a\elv [too noi lalein]). In intelligible speech the understanding' (vous [nous]) has a part, indeed so prominent a part that it alone calls for mention ; in the contrasted case it is not engaged, and thus it might seem as if it were the tongue alone that produced the speech.

Needless to say, the belief was that in 'speaking with tongues' the tongue was set in motion by the Holy Ghost (vv. 2, 15), just as in intelligible speech it was set in motion by the 'understanding (I oDs [nous]) ; but '(to speak) with the spirit' (irvevfiaTi: [pneumati] [\a.\eli> [lalein]]) was not an appropriate verbal expression for this, because it would have applied equally well to prophecy, wisdom-speech, knowledge -speech, and so forth. It is also quite fitting that the designation of so characteristic a matter should be chosen with express reference to the impression which it produced upon the senses, and in this case it really appeared as if the tongue alone were speaking. True, that the lips, teeth, palate, etc., are also engaged. But a designation that is to be in daily use needs to be short, and here it was enough to name the most important organ ; and that the tongue is in popular belief the most important organ of speech is evident.

(c) This explanation nevertheless leaves something still to be desired. The plural 'speak with tongues' (yXoxrffcus \a\flv [gloossais lalein]) is accounted for by it only in cases where it is used with reference to more speakers than one (12:30 14:5a, 14:22-23, 14:39) ; and thus not in 14:6 (and v. 18 according to WH), nor yet in v. 5b, 12:1o, although here the singular, used of the person speaking, has a collective sense. Where only one speaker is in question, the attempt has been made to explain the plural (7\oicrcrcus [gloossais]) as arising from the idea that in passing from one manner of speech to another the 'tongue' is in some degree changed ; but such an idea is much too fantastic to have arisen in popular speech, which never theless we must certainly assume to have been the case with all such expressions as this. And what of cases in which 'tongues' stands alone, without a verb (12:10, 12:28, 13:8 14:22)?

14. Tongue = tongue-speech.[edit]

All the conditions are satisfied only by one assumption: 'tongue' (y\ua-<Ta [gloossa], apart from 14:9) must be rendered 'tongue-speech' - i.e. speech which, in the manner described in section 13b, seems to be produced by the tongue alone. This is by no means a departure from the literal sense ; rather is it simply an instance of the same transition from the instrument to its product which is exemplified in ordinary Greek when 'tongue' (yXwffcra [gloossa]) is used in the sense of 'language'. It is necessary to assume that this transition was effected anew in the primitive Christian usage in a narrower sphere, for the reason that all other explanations have been shown to be unworkable. If 'tongue' could mean the language of a foreign nation, or an archaic individual expression, 14:26 would at least be intelligible ; as these meanings are unpracticable we should have to render: 'when ye come together, each one hath a psalm, hath a teaching, hath a revelation, hath a (human) tongue (in his mouth), hath an interpretation' - which clearly is meaningless. 'Tongue' must necessarily be something of the same order as the other things enumerated; and thus a definite kind of discourse which is capable of being delivered in a religious meeting.

So also v. 6: 'if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, unless I speak to you [we must supply: at the same tune] either by way of revelation, or of knowledge', and so forth. Similarly too 13:8 : 'whether there be prophecies . . . whether there be tongues . . . whether there be knowledge, it shall be done away'. Indeed, in the plural tongues we now recognise everywhere the different 'kinds of tongues' (yEvny Xwffcr [gene gloossoon])

15. Interpretation of tongue-speeches.[edit]

In accordance with the attribution of tongue-speech to the operation of the Holy Ghost, the interpretation of it also is regarded as a spiritual gift.

(a) It is in the first place to be remarked that the tongue-speaker himself, as well as another, can possess this gift. The first is established by 14:13, the second by the co-ordination in 12:10, 14:26; for as not every one is capable of giving all the kinds of discourse there enumerated, the meaning must be: 'when ye come together each one hath either a psalm or a teaching . . . or a tongue-speech or an interpretation'.

In this sense then, we must interpret v. 27-28 also. 'If any man speaketh in a tongue, let it be by two, or at the most three . . . and let one interpret'. If this interpreter is one of the tongue-speakers, who expounds his own tongue-speech, then what immediately follows will mean: 'but if he is not an interpreter' (eav Se JIT; $ 5tepfxr)rVTrj? [ean de me e diermeneutes]); and this seems to be absolutely necessary, since the sentence closes with 'let him keep silence' (criya-no [sigatoo]), whilst if all the tongue-speakers whose speech had no interpreter at hand had to keep silence, the expression ought to have run: 'let them keep silence' (<nydTioo-af [sigatoosan]). In that case, however, Paul would on the one hand be enjoining that of the two, or three, tongue-speeches delivered, one, or two, should remain uninterpreted, which is directly contrary to the principle laid down by him in vv. 2-11, 16-19, 22-23, 26 - and on the other hand he would be excluding inter pretation by some other person than the speaker, whilst yet such interpretation is, according to 12:10, 14:26, a spiritual gift. Thus we must, after all. suppose that Paul, in a somewhat careless way, thought of the 'person concerned' as the subject of the singular 'keep silence' (o-tyaroj [sigatoo]) 1 and that we ought to render (with EV): 'if there be no interpreter'. This too is inexactly said: 'let [only] one interpret' (et; 6iep^i)i eveV&&gt; [eis diermeneuetoo]). What Paul had in his mind perhaps was: 'let one at least interpret'. The continuation 'but if there be no interpreter' fits this well.

If this view be correct, we learn from the passage before us that those persons in the church who were in a position to interpret tongue-speeches were generally known and thus exercised this function with some regularity. The possibility was not excluded, indeed, that some one on some occasion might give an interpretation who had not previously done so. Clearly, however, Paul is not disposed to rely upon the uncertain, and therefore he prescribes that if an interpretation is not assured (such doubtless will be the intention of his words) the tongue-speech is to be from the outset suppressed.

1 Similarly, 'the persons concerned' is to be supplied as the subject of the plurals ya/aetVioo-ai [gameitoosan] (1 Cor. 7:36) and napf\dfto<rav [parelabosan] (2 Thess. 3:6) as WHmg. and Tischendorf read.

(b) What, next, were the means by which an individual other than the tongue-speaker became able to understand the tongue-speech ? If this faculty was a purely supernatural one, our question has no point ; but the case was assuredly otherwise. With what degree of precision the interpreter was able to elucidate the sense of a tongue-speech we cannot tell. The more one was disposed to rest satisfied with general renderings, the easier was it to supply them. The tone of the voice, the gestures, the recurrence of particular words or sounds certainly offered clues. 1 Further help was gained from observation of the habits of the tongue-speakers. We can hardly imagine otherwise than that their speeches readily assumed a stereotyped character. If, however, at any time a tongue -speaker brought forth something unaccustomed, a knowledge of what experiences he had recently been having would certainly not be useless towards an understanding of his speech.

(c) It must be expressly noted that the things enumerated in 14:6 alone, with tongue-speech - revelation, knowledge, prophesying, teaching - do not constitute the interpretation of tongue-speech in some such sense that the meaning will be 'when I come unto you speaking with tongues what shall I profit you if I do not forthwith interpret these tongue-speeches in the form of revelation', etc.. This misunderstanding is from the outset precluded by this - that in v. 26 'interpretation' stands in co-ordination alike with 'revelation' etc., and with 'tongue'. On the other hand, it is possible that interpretation of tongue-speech is intended in v. 15 : 'I will pray with the Spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also', that is to say while I repeat in intelligible language the substance of the prayer I have originally uttered in ecstasy. This view is recommended by the fact that, immediately before (v. 13), the tongue-speaker is admonished to aim at being able to interpret his own tongue-speeches.

1 The most familiar example, by which it has been attempted to explain the process, is the following : a tongue-speaker babbled disconnectedly the syllables ab and ba; the interpreter believed himself to have discovered the Aramaic word abba. Possibly the matter often fell out so. It must not, however, be thought that precisely this word was known only to certain interpreters. As Paul employs it in Rom. 8:15, Gal. 4:6 it must have been known to Gentile Christians generally.

16. Spread and end of 'tongue-speech' and 'prophecy' charisms.[edit]

On the subject of the diffusion of the tongue-charism our information is very defective.

(a) We are not aware that tongue-speech (and the allied charisms) had any considerable diffusion within the Jewish-Christian area, but neither is there adequate ground for denying to the Jewish Christians all aptitude for such charisms, or for accusing the author of Acts of having as a Paulinist arbitrarily introduced it into his account of the primitive Christian world. If he had not found them in the sources on which he drew for 2:1-13, 10:46-47, 19:6, but merely drew upon his imagination, we may be pretty confident that he would have brought in the same elements at other points as well. Of course, the mere fact that they were present in his sources does not of itself give any security that their picture of the diffusion of the charisms is historically correct.

(b) In exact proportion to the intensity with which the charism of tongue-speech was exercised in Corinth in Paul's time does the complete silence of the Epistle to the Romans on the same subject invite remark. In 1 Thess. 5:19 ('quench not the spirit') it may perhaps be intended, or at least included. In any case it cannot have long survived its most flourishing period. The author of Acts certainly can never have heard it exercised, otherwise he could not possibly have fallen into the mistake of supposing that it was speech in the language of foreign nations, or into the confusion of identifying with this foreign speech the speaking with tongues which occurred at the conversion of Cornelius (Acts 10:46-47, 11:15, 11:17). It is a significant fact that Justin for his own period (about 155 A.D.) mentions only prophetic gifts (trpcxprjTiKa. x a P - <T f JLaTa [prohetika charismata]) but no speaking with tongues (Dial. 82, begin. ). Irenaeus (about 185 A.D.), in his detailed treatment of the charisms of which numberless instances happened every day (Haer. 2:49:3 [ = 2:32:4 ]; also ap. Eus. HE 5:7:3-5). speaks only of exorcisms of demons, prophetic visions and utterances, healings, and some cases of raising of the dead. In another place (5:6:1 ; also ap. Eus. HE 5:7:6) he mentions tongue-speech also, but only as something with regard to which he hears that it happens in the case of many brethren in the Church and without letting us know whether by it he under stands the phenomena met with in 1 Cor. 14, or what is described in Acts 2. Irenaeus says :

'We hear of many brethren in the church possessing prophetic gifts and speaking through the Spirit in all kinds of tongues and bringing to light for the general advantage the hidden things of men and setting forth the mysteries of God'
(jroAAa)i- aicoi/o/ue v a/it Ai/xiji" tv T{) (KK\ri<Titf Trpo<t>r)TiKa ^apiV/otara e\6vT<uv <cai ?rai>To6aTreu AaAoui TuJi 6ta rov nvevfjia.TOS yAw<r<rais jcai rot <cpi)</na TOUI> avdpairtav fi? (fxxcepoi ayovruiv erri TU> <rvfJL<t>tpovTi xai TO. ftiKTTijpia TOU fleou eK&triyovfj.ei iai ).

It is to be noted that the making manifest of the secrets of men of which Irenaeus speaks immediately after mentioning tongue-speech is in 1 Cor. 14:24-25 attributed to the prophets, not to those who speak with tongues. Tertullian also does not say that there was speaking with tongues in his day ; all that he does is contemptuously to call upon Marcion to exhibit in the case of any of his followers the exercise of spiritual gifts, which he says 'are forthcoming from my side more easily' ('a me facilius proferuntur'): 'exhibeat Marcion . . . aliquos prophetas . . . qui et futura praenuntiarint et cordis occulta traduxerint (or : produxerint?) ; edat aliquem psalmum, aliquam visionem, aliquam orationem, dumtaxat spiritalem, in ecstasi, id est, amentia, si qua linguae interpretatio accessit' (adv. Marc, 5:8, end). Thus tongue-speech appears, not as an independent thing, but merely in an added sentence which with the whole of its surroundings is clearly reminiscent of 1 Cor. 14:25-26. The ecstatical spiritual utterance, of which Tertullian speaks, in his time refers not to tongue-speech but to prophecy.

(c) For the ecstatical form of utterance did not disappear so quickly as did tongue-speech. On the contrary it became merged in the exercise of 'prophecy'. This was favoured in the highest degree by the circumstance that already the OT prophecy was conceived of as wholly ecstatical (above, 8b). This form of utterance was most strongly prevalent in Montanism. This may be the reason why stress is laid upon it by Tertullian ; but as Montanism altogether was nothing new, but only a strong revival of a tendency which had once before had prevalence within the church although subsequently repressed, so also its view of prophecy was, even if not exactly what might be called the primitive Christian one, then at least the post-apostolic-churchly one (Weinel, 78-96). It was only by way of reaction against the exaggerations of this and against the dangers for ecclesiastical office which grew out of it that brought churchmen at last to the view which finds expression in the title of the treatise of Miltiades (Eus. HE 5:17:1), 'On the necessity of a prophet's not speaking in ecstasy' (irepl TOU /n.rj dftv TrpofiriT-rjv tv ^/ccrrdcret XaXerv). As to how it came about that 'prophecy' also in its turn had to recede into the background and give place to the ecclesiastical office, see MINISTRY, 38.

17. Popular view of the charisms.[edit]

If, finally, we proceed to inquire into the value which the charisms possessed for primitive Christianity, we shall find that judges differ.

(a) In the church of Corinth (which is almost the only authority to which we can refer) they were valued very highly. They were re garded, and quite naturally, as evidences of special grace and favour, and were therefore zealously striven after (14:12). This zeal, if a right zeal, was manifested in prayer (14:13 does not mean that he who speaks in tongue-speech is to pronounce this ecstatic prayer of his with the purpose of interpreting it afterwards : the meaning is that when not exercising his charism of tongue-speech he is to pray for the gift of being able himself to interpret any tongue-speeches he may subsequently receive). But we shall hardly be doing the Corinthians an injustice if we suppose that many of them sought to secure for themselves those 'gifts' by other means also - by imitation, or by artificially working themselves up into a condition of excitement, by efforts constantly repeated. Vanity, it would seem, was not altogether without its part in the matter ; otherwise the gift most prized and coveted would hardly have been that of tongue-speech, the most conspicuous indeed of them all, but at the same time the least fruitful. In the mouth of the Corinthian Christians the tongue-speaker alone was the 'spiritual' person (ircei /uariKfa [pneumatikos] : 14:37, and, in accordance with this, in all probability 12:1 also).

(b) From this we can see, at the same time, what it was that properly speaking was regarded as the valuable element in the charisms. It was the extra-ordinary, the wonderful or miraculous, that quality in them which conferred a special importance on those who possessed them. Fundamentally the view taken does not differ from that of the Greek religion. Man desires to enjoy the possession of the godhead, bestowing itself on him individually. The same view dominates in the OT ; and in Gentile-Christian circles also the OT conceptions of the operations of the Spirit of God can have been familiar and influential. This conception has a marked leaning towards the quaintly, or even, one might say, grotesquely miraculous. Thus it is the Spirit that enables Samson to rend a lion or burst his own fetters, that is able to convey Elijah from place to place at pleasure (Judg. 14:6, 15:14, 1 K. 18:12, 2 K. 2:16; cp in NT Acts 8:39). Whether the thing done has a religious purpose comes but little into the question.

18. Discerning of spirits.[edit]

This way of looking at the charisms is precisely that which makes it possible to attribute the same workings to other spirits than the Holy Spirit.

(a) The belief in the existence of such spirits was at that time exceedingly prevalent. Broadly speaking, they do not fall simply under the two categories of good and evil, but many of them are regarded simply as of a subordinate character and as restricted in their insight. Whether they were called demons in accordance with pagan ideas, or angels in accordance with those of the OT, was indifferent; in either case they were thought of as quite personal and as very active. Of such a spirit it is, for example, presupposed in 2 Thess. 2:2 that it can produce the erroneous belief that the day of the Lord is immediately at hand.

(b) That these conceptions are present in 1 Cor. 14 also is shown by the plural, 'spirits' (jri ru/j.a.Ta [pneumata]) which, for linguistic reasons, cannot be taken to mean 'operations of the spirit' - a meaning, moreover, which in v. 32 is excluded by the connection in which the word occurs ('the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets'). Thus to each prophet is assigned a proper spirit, conceived of personally, by which he is inspired (cp Rev. 226 : 'the God of the spirits of the prophets'). Quite similarly 1 Cor. 14:14 also: 'if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prayeth'. Here it is not the proper spirit, so to say, with which a man is born, that is intended ; for this the apostle designates rather by the word 'understanding' (j oOs [nous]), and distinguishes in this very verse from my spirit. From this it follows that v. 12 also is to be understood quite literally: 'ye are zealous of spirits', that is to say, one of you seeks to obtain an inspiration from one spirit, another from another.

(c) If this were not the meaning, no such thing as the discerning of spirits would be possible. By the spirits here interpreters indeed have proposed to understand distributions of the one Holy Spirit such as in point of fact were actually believed in (Nu. 11:25, Rev. 1:4, 3:1, 4:5, 5:6, Hermas, Sim. 9:13:2, 15:1-6 and often). Only, in this case also, any 'discerning' would be meaningless. For, beyond question, any act of 'discerning' would consist in judging as to whether an utterance founded upon spiritual suggestion was true or false, one to be followed or rejected. 1 Cor. 7:40 shows us how easily it could happen that conflicting judgments were put forward on the ground that they were inspired. Since Paul here supports his judgment on the subject of re-marriage of widows with the words: 'I think that I also have the Spirit of God', we must conclude that in Corinth other persons on the ground of suggestion by the Spirit had decided in the opposite sense. Cp 14:37-38 where the best reading (d ycoeireu [agnoeitai]) is to be pronounced as an imperative (ayvoflre [agnoeite]): if any man is ignorant, ignore ye him.

(d) In all places where it occurs the 'discerning of spirits' is mentioned directly after 'prophecy' (1 Cor. 12:10 14:29, cp 1 Thess. 5:21). In itself considered, it is not easy to see why mention should not be made of it in connection with 'word of wisdom' or 'word of knowledge'. Yet it is easy to understand how it needed specially to be called into requisition in connection with 'prophecy', if this last gave definite directions as to what ought to be done in definite particular cases (section 7d). From 1 Cor. 14:29 we cannot infer that only those who also possessed that of 'prophecy' possessed the gift of 'discerning'; the 'others' (ol &\\oi [oi alloi]) can include others also.

(e) The recognition of a 'discerning of spirits' involves in principle a complete abandonment of the belief in suggestion of the Holy Spirit. With the utmost emphasis Paul insists (1 Cor. 12:4-11, 14:33) that all charisms proceed from the Holy Spirit or from God ; but at the same time they can also come from evil spirits and the listeners must decide for themselves as to this, and in fact decide again upon the basis of inspiration. Here the most important point is that it is not Paul who introduces the 'discerning of spirits' as something new ; rather does it exist in Corinth as a thing of course. Here reveals itself the impossibility of continuing to hold fast the belief in divine inspiration if a free use of it is made in the actualities of life.

Already in the OT it had been found necessary to set up criteria for discriminating between false and true prophets. But that the one class relate dreams, the others 'speak my word faithfully' (Jer. 23:28) was, naturally, a quite inadequate distinction. That the true prophet must be a prophet of evil (Jer. 28:8) may have been true in Jerusalem in Jeremiah s day; but at other times, as, for example, in those of Deutero- Isaiah, this maxim might have been turned against the prophets now become canonical, and Jeremiah in fact finds himself constrained to add, 'if a prophet prophesies peace and his word comes to pass, then shall he be known to be a true prophet' (28:9). The result is set up as a criterion quite expressly in Dt. 18:20-22, cp Ezek. 33:33. Not only, however, does this criterion fail to be available early enough; in Dt. 13:2-4 is contemplated the case in which it may prove to have been deceptive, and for discerning the true prophet the only way left is to ask whether he labours in the service of Yahwe and (so Jer. 23:22) seeks to bring back the people from the error of their ways. [Cp PROPHET, 23, 25.]

Equally inadequate is the criterion set up in 1 Cor. 12:3 : 'no man speaking in the Spirit of God saith, Jesus is anathema'. As to the difficulties and inconveniences experienced by the apostolic age from the impossibility of finding proper norms by which prophets could be tested, see MINISTRY, 38 a-b.

19. Paul's view of the charisms.[edit]

But what did Paul think of the charisms? (a) On the one side he entirely shares the popular opinion. He holds them all for operations of the Holy Spirit, and is not sensible of the contradiction which we have discovered (above, 18b-c, 18f) in his own words, to the effect that such operations can proceed from other spirits also, in fact from evil ones. At the close of the discussion, in order that any remarks of his in disparagement of tongue-speech may not be misunderstood, he says: 'forbid not to speak with tongues' (1 Cor. 14:39). He makes no effort to bring into action a criterion for tongue-speakers analogous to the 'discerning' applicable in the case of prophets. That no such criterion should have presented itself of its own accord is to be accounted for, on the one hand, by the consideration that tongue-speeches were too unclear to admit of their showing themselves to such disadvantage as in certain cases definite sayings of prophets did, and, further, that even in cases where they threatened to do so they could be explained away ; on the other hand, by the consideration that in the case of a tongue-speaker, one was, more than in the case of a prophet, face to face with a seem ingly supernatural communication which could be received only with reverence and awe. The first-mentioned consideration would hardly have restrained Paul from setting up a criterion to be applied to tongue-speeches; for his disposition towards them is much the reverse of favourable, and he has every reason for seeking to limit their undesirable influence. The second consideration, however, did, in point of fact, hold him back, especially as, according to 14:18, he himself was a speaker with tongues more than any of the Corinthians.

(b) Alongside of this agreement with the popular view there presents itself, however, in the case of Paul, the great thought that every Christian has the Holy Spirit (Gal. 3:2, 3:5 etc. ), and that the whole life of the Christian is an expression of the Spirit's activities (1 Cor. 12:3, Gal. 5:5, 5:23-24, Rom. 5:5, 8:4-16). This thought could not fail, in the case of every manifestation that laid claim to the character of a spiritual gift, to lead to the question being asked as to its spiritual value, but also, at the same time, to lead to a lowering of the estimate put upon gifts in which their wonderful character was the most important thing, and to an increased appreciation of those which consisted in an intensified exercise of the new Christian life on its moral side. In the first characteristic of our definition (section 1) we have already seen that the idea of the charisms is by no means uniform. Some of them are expressly regarded as miraculous, in others it is very difficult to perceive anything wonderful. To this latter category belongs 'ministry' in all its forms ; 'government' also, and the simpler forms of devotional utterance. It is hardly probable that all these things owed their designation as charisms to the pagan or OT presuppositions which had a share in the building up of the conception 'charism' (^dpicr/ua [charisma]). Since, then, this idea must have come to its maturity in the course of the missionary activity of Paul, under his eyes and with his co-operation, it is hardly too bold to conjecture that it was through his influence that these comparatively non-miraculous, but, from an ethical point of view, all the more important, manifestations should have come to be included in the number of the charisms.

(c) To the same order belongs also the most important modification which Paul applied to the idea of a charism when he refused to recognise as being such anything which had no utility for the life of the Christian community (12:7, TO <jv[Ji<f>epov [to sympheron], 'profit'; 14:26, oiKodo/ji.r) [oikodome], 'edification'; see above, 3d). By this miraculous manifestations were by no means excluded ; but it was no longer their miraculous character that supplied the measure according to which they were to be valued. It was with this principle as his basis that Paul entered especially on his campaign against the over-valuing of tongue-speech. Broadly speaking, his great merit in this field consists in his having moralised, in accordance with truly Christian principles, an idea that was only half religious, and essentially miraculous, and, so far forth, unfruitful.

20. Conclusion.[edit]

We must proceed still farther in the same direction if we are to arrive at an ultimate judgment on the historical significance of the primitive Christian charisms. It is easily intelligible that the joy of enthusiasm over the possession of a new redeeming religion should have expressed itself in an exuberant way which, according to the ideas of that time, could only be regarded as the miraculous operation of the Holy Spirit. Apart from the exceptions specified above (17a) we have no reason for doubting that these manifestations were genuine expressions of the feeling of a strong religious life, not mere artificial imitations derived from the pagan cults. On the other hand, we know with regard to Paul that his ecstasies in which he had visions coincided in point of time with the attacks of his malady (see GALATIA, 27) ; we shall, therefore, hardly err if we bring into causal connection with this malady the strong tendency to tongue-speech also, which, in any case, was intimately associated with the ecstatic condition. The ecstatical has always something of the unhealthy about it. Thus it is not difficult to explain why extensive circles in the early church kept entirely free from such manifestations. The church could get on very well in their absence. It is, on the other hand, equally intelligible that, once they had made their appearance they were infectious, that they brought the church life into serious danger, and that they led to reaction. Paul led this reaction on sound principles ; the later church led it increasingly in the interests of its conception of church office which was itself very unsound ; Paul by the endeavour to persuade, the later church too often by the exercise of force. The phenomena in question owe their disappearance, however, by no means to this reaction merely, but quite as much to their own degeneration. This degeneration was in Inrge measure due to the faith in their miraculous character. In this case also it was demonstrated that miracles produce a favourable impression only when seen from a distance; where they have to be fitted into the daily realities of actual life they always bring evil consequences in their train. This holds true of the gift of healing the sick also, and of miracle-working generally. The reaction just spoken of did not venture to deny the miraculous character of the charisms. We for our part, however, are constrained to do so, and to account for everything in the phenomena to which a miraculous character has been attributed by the known psychological laws which can be observed in cases of great mental exaltation, whether in persons who deem themselves inspired or in persons who simply require medical treatment.

The non-miraculous charisms on the other hand, which, from the outset, possessed a moral character were of abiding value. Without them the church could not have lived ; but they have never failed her and are destined never to become extinct ; even should they have ceased to be called charisms, it will remain everlastingly true that they come from the Spirit of God.

21. Literature.[edit]

On the whole subject see Dav. Schulz, Geistesgaben, 1836; Supernatural Religion [1877], 8:321-397 = popular edition, 1902, pp. 753-800 ; and the commentaries on 1 Cor. 12-14. Works of a more comprehensive kind are: Gunkel, Wirkvngtn des hcil. Cidstes nach der popularen Anschauung der apost. Zeit u. nach tier Lekre des Paulus, 1088; (2) unaltered, 1900; and, following Gunkel, Weinel, Wirkungen des Geistes u. der Geister im nachapost. Zeitalter bis auf Irenaeus, 1899; Beversluis, De heilige geest en zijne werkingen volgens het . . . N. Verbond, Utrecht, 1896. On speaking with tongues, see Bleek, St. Kr., 1829, pp. 3-79; 1830, pp. 45-64; Haur, Tub. Ztsch. f. Theol., 1830^, pp. 75-133 ; St.Kr., 1838, pp. 618-702 : Wieseler, St.Kr., 1838, pp. 703-772; Hilgenfeld, Glossolalie, 1850; Rossteuscher, Gabe der Sprachen, 1850; van Hengel, Gave der talen, 1864; Arthur Wright, Some NT Problems, 277-302 [1898].

P. W. S.


The words are;

  • (1) ^P. shalal. Gen. 49:27 (LXX Tpofiri [trophe]), etc., ffKvXov [skylon], irpovofjuf) [pronome], 8La.pira.yq [diarpage];
  • (2) 13, baz, Jer. 15:13, etc., ffKu\ov [skylon], wpovofj-r) [pronome], diapirayri [diarpage];
  • also (3) nDS : 2, meshissah, 2 K. 21:14 etc., nsivs, meshussah, Is. 42:24-5 Kt. , wpovofj.7) [pronome], 5ia.pira.~ft) [diarpage];
  • (4) r-ja, tereph, Job 29:17 etc., &pwayfj.a [arpagma], 8ia.pira.yri [diarpage].

On the division of spoils cp TAXATION, 1. See also SACRIFICE, 8.


i. hishshukim, D pp PI, i K. 7:33 AV 'felloe'. See WHEEL, 1b.

2. hishshurim, D %- ) i n, 1 K. 7:33 RV 'nave'. See WHEEL, 1c.


(cTTOrroc). Mt. 27:48 = Mk. 15:36 = Jn. 19:29-30. Neither fftrjyyos [spoggos] nor <r<j>6yyos [sphoggos] occurs in the LXX. The use of the sponge, however, was early known (cp, e.g. , Il. 18:414; Od. 1:111); see the Classical Dictionaries.

Sponge is the fibrous skeleton of a marine animal - the living part of which has been removed by drying, washing, and bleaching - belonging to the group Cornacuspongiae of the non-calcareous sponges. The most important Mediterranean species are Euspongia officinalis, the Levant toilet sponge ; and E. zimocca, the Zimocca sponge, and Hippospongia equina, the horse-sponge. All these are found at a depth of 3-100 fathoms along the coasts. The sponge fisheries of the Mediterranean are still the most important in commerce, and the Syrian trade is considerable.

A. E. s.


(C|3, GYICKH). See ALTAR ; 10 ; COOKING, 5, iii. , INCENSE, 7, and MEALS, 10.


(ttta), Gen. 30:32+, Ezek. 16:16; see COLOURS, 12.


1. Distribution and preservation of water.[edit]

In a country where perennial streams are rare, and where months of summer may pass without rain, the possession and preservation of ahvays been a matter of serious concern. Water means life, and its value to the people of Canaan is illustrated by manifold references and numerous beautiful metaphors in the OT. For details concerning the amount of rainfall in Palestine, see RAIN, 2, and on the distribution of springs and other sources of supply, see PALESTINE, 13. Generally speaking, it may be affirmed that the most poorly watered districts are the table-land of Judaea on the W. of Jordan and the heights of the Belka on the E. {1} Some of these tracts, however, were once better supplied, cp NEGEB, 1.

Constructions for the preservation of water rank among the oldest specimens of masonry in Palestine. The simplest plan was to dig a hole, with perhaps a shaft of masonry, where springs were known to exist. Such a pit (be'er, 1x2, <pptap [phrear]) was often covered over with a large flat stone, partly, no doubt, as a precaution against accident (Ex. 21:33), and partly to prevent its being easily discovered. For this latter purpose sand or earth might be strewn over the cover (cp also 2 S. 17:19).

The water was drawn up by a pitcher (kad, Gen. 24:16) or bucket (deli, Is. 40:15, cp verb in Ex. 2:16, 2:19), and for the watering of cattle was poured into a trough (rahat, Gen. 30:38, 30:41, Ex. 2:16, shoketh. Gen. 24:20, 30:38). 2 When dry a pit of this kind might be used as a prison, and as no attempt was made to keep it clean the accumulation of miry mud (tit, Ps. 40:2 [40:3], cp Jer. 38:6) at the bottom added to the discomfort of the prisoner.

1 Full information is given by G. A. Smith, HG 77-79. For the evidence of place-names indicating the presence of water see NAMES, 101.

2 Other means of drawing up water are the shaduf in Egypt (Wilkinson, Anc. Eg. 1:281), and the water-wheel in Babylonia (Peters, Nippur, 1:135, 1:141 ; cp Curtiss, Prim. Sent. Ret. 198 [Hamath]). There seems to be an allusion to the latter in Eccles. 12:6. Cp AGRICULTURE, 5.


2. Words rendered 'spring'.[edit]

The Heb. and Gk. terms for Spring which require mention are : ;!

1. 'ayin (j-y), Gen. 16:7, 24:16, 1 S. 29:1, etc. ; AV's 'well' in Gen. 24:13, 49:22, etc., obscures the force and meaning. The 'spring of Jacob' (Dt 33:28) refers to Jacob's descendants; cp the metaphors in Is. 48:1, Ps. 68:26 [68:27]. For particular springs, see reff. above in 1. The connection with 'ayin 'eye' is doubtful, nor, if the two are identical, is it easy to say which is older. The 'spring' can scarcely take its name from the circular shape of the orifice since this (as in English) is called the mouth (Gen. 29:2-3). On the other hand, the eye could easily be called the fountain of the tears (as in Jer. 9:1 [8:23] nyoi 11 pa TJ/). Perhaps some primitive belief underlies the usage.

2. ma'yan (rys), derived from the above, properly a place of springs, cp Ps. 84:6 [84:7], Josh. 18:15 (AV 'well'), etc.

3. be'er (1x2, cp above i, and see CONDUITS, 1 [i]) occurs chiefly in the Hexat. ; for place-names compounded with it, see NAMES, 101 (b).

4. mabbud (jflao). Eccles. 12:6 (AV 'fountain'), Is. 35:7, 49:10. Properly a place where water bubbles or gushes up, cp the verb in Prov. 184 of a bubbling spring, and metaphorically, of a gushing man in Prov. 15:2, 15:28, etc.

5. makor ("lipo), a spring that has been dug (verb in 2 K. 19:24, Is. 37:25). Mostly used in a figurative sense (Prov. 13:14, 16:22, 18:4 etc.).

6. motsa (NSlD), properly, 'place of exit' (cp also above col. 883, n. 2), with o;a, 2 K. 2:21, Ps. 107:33, 107:35 (ateoSos [diexodos]), Is. 37:25 (crurayorytj [synagoge), etc.

7. nebek (-pj, orig. obscure) in Job 38:16, and perhaps also ib. 28:11 for MD, see BDB ad lac.

8. gulloth (n^jX Judg. 1:15 see GOLATH-MAIM. True meaning unknown, perhaps a Canaanite word. On the supposition that the word is corrupt see KEILAH.

9- rmC N> Dt. 3:17 RVmg., see ASHDOTH-PISGAH.

10. 7TT)yr) [pege] (the usual word in LXX for nos. 1-2, 4+) Jn. 4:6, Jas. 3:11, 2 Pet. 2:27, etc.

11. 0peap [phrear] (LXX's word for no. 3), Lk. 14:5 etc., an artificial well as opposed to Kpr/vrj [krene] (cp POOL, 2).

3. Sentiment and religion.[edit]

A full supply of water, rivers on bare heights, wells in valleys, pools of water in place of a wilderness, and springs instead of dry land characterise the highest possible happiness to the Hebrew mind ( Is. 41:18, cp 35:7, 44:1, Ps. 107:35). The possession of water is the one indispensable acquisition without which the right of pasture is useless. Hence, as Robertson Smith suggested, property in water is more important and probably older than property in land (RS (2) 104-105, cp CATTLE, 5). The digging of a well, accordingly, was an important function, and a typical specimen of one of the rites accompanying it has been fortunately preserved in Nu. 21:17-18. (see BEER). Here the spring is addressed as a living being, and indeed not only is spring-water called 'living water' (Gen. 26:19, Nu. 19:17, etc. ), but springs are regarded as endowed with life. They are regarded with reverence, credited with oracular powers, and frequently associated with sacred beings. 1 On the widespread beliefs connected with springs and wells among the Semites see IDOLATRY, 2, NATURE-WORSHIP, 4, Robertson Smith, RS (2) (reff. in Index). Cp also Barton, Semitic Origins, 92+; Curtiss, Prim. Sen. Rel. , passim ; and the Abbe Bourcais, 'La source divine et generale conception Chaldeenne dans les Monuments figures des Collections a Paris', in Maspero's Rec. de Trav. 21:177-193 (1899).

S. A. C.

1 This is not confined merely to medicinal waters (cp HAM-MATH ; MEDICINE, 2) where supernatural ideas might readily arise.


(H13), Ezek. 25:5; elsewhere 'pasture'. 1 See CATTLE, 5, INN (ad fin.).


(CT&XYC [Ti. WH]). greeted by Paul as 'my beloved' (Rom. 16:9).

He is mentioned in the apocryphal lists of the seventy, and according to pseudo-Dorotheus was consecrated first bishop of Byzantium, by the Apostle Andrew. In the apocryphal Ada Philippi, a believer of the name of Stachys is the host of Philip in Hierapolis. The name has been found among the remains of the imperial household (CIL. 68607).