Encyclopaedia Biblica/Tabernacles (Feast of)-Teacher

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search



The Israelitic cycle of festivals came to a close, in autumn, with the feast of Tabernacles.

1. Agricultural character.[edit]

In the old legislation (Ex. 34:22, 23:16) it is called hag ha'asiph ( I 2 ?? ^ 'the feast of ingathering', and is to be celebrated 'at the turn of the year' ( nt pa njy-T^ The very name shows quite clearly that the festival in its essential meaning is agricultural, a harvest feast; it is the autumn thanksgiving which no doubt has reference primarily to the fruit harvest and the vintage, but from the outset was regarded as the great thanksgiving for the whole produce of the year.

Hence the general expressions 'when thou gatherest in the produce of thy field' (Ex. 23:16, ^fTi? 5 t % ^>?" n ? l???^ 'when thou gatherest in from thy threshing-floor and from thy press' (Deut. 16:13, 5??:? 1^~? r???)-

Like the other harvest feasts, it is intimately connected with the possession of the land of Canaan, and was celebrated for the first time there by the Israelites, who in all prolvibility took it over from the Canaanites. It is with regard to the autumn festival specially that our information as to its having been a Canaanite festival, is explicit ; of the people of Shechem we are told that they went out into the field, gathered their vineyards, trode the grapes, and held festival and went into the house of their god and did eat and drink (Judg. 9:27). Cp also FEASTS, 4.

1 The narratives in Judg. 19-21 are certainly in their present form late Midrash. Yet there need not be on that account any doubt as to the accuracy of this statement or of manv other touches preserved in them. See DANCE, 6, and cp further, Budde, ad. loc.

2. The most important of the yearly festivals.[edit]

As the closing harvest thanksgiving, and probably the oldest of the three feasts of harvest (see PASSOVER, 4; PENTECOST, 6), the autumn festival, excels both the other great annual festivals (haggim, P^ 1 ^"^-) of the Israelite in imporatance. In the law of JE. it is true, all three are already found on the same plane as equally necessary and equally important; for all of them attendance at the sanctuary is enjoined (Ex. 34:23, 23:16. Yet how great was the special importance assigned in practice to the autumn festival as compared with the others appears at once in its very designation as 'fire feast' (jrn, hehag) or 'the feast of Yahwe' (.Tn 1 jrt, hag Yahwe) KO.T ($ox$v [kat exochen] (1 K. 8:2, 12:32, Judg. 21:19 ; and even as late as Lev. 23:39, 23:41, Ezek. 45:25, Neh. 8:14). Even in Zechariah (14:16+) it is to the feast of tabernacles that the remnant of the heathen go up year by year to Jerusalem to worship the King, Yahwe Sebaoth. In these circumstances it cannot be regarded as merely accidental that the feast of tabernacles and the feast of tabernacles alone is more than once mentioned in the historical books when dealing with the more ancient period, and its celebration thus attested from the earliest period after the settlement in Canaan. At Shiloh. for example, the maidens celebrate it by going forth to dance in the orchards and vineyards (Judg. 21:16). 1 So also we learn from the story of Samuel that in wide circles it was customary year by year at the 'revolution of the days' ( c C ri niEpn s . 1 S. 1:20; cp the same expression in Ex. 34:22) to go in pilgrimage with the whole family to the sanctuary at Shiloh, and there to sacrifice to Yahwe and hold a joyous sacrificial meal (1 S. 1:3+). The high importance attached to the festival is shown also in the fact that Solomon dedicates his temple at the same date (1 K. 8:2, 8:65, cp 2 Ch. 7:8+; on the passage cp also below, 3). Answering to the yearly observance of this feast at Jerusalem, Jeroboam, according to a thoroughly trustworthy statement in 1 K. 12:32 {1} (cp Benzinger, ad loc.) instituted a similar solemnity in the northern kingdom ; here the only error of the author is in supposing (from his Deuteronomistic point of view) that before Jeroboam's time such a feast was observed only at the temple of Jerusalem, and not also at the sanctuaries of the northern kingdom. Pilgrimages of the same sort as those to Shiloh were in use also in other parts of the country to the various famous sanctuaries. The passages just cited show also at the same time that this autumn festival from the very beginning was celebrated in common by wide circles of participants. This does not seem to have been the case in the olden time with the two other harvest feasts ; if observed at all, it was enough that they should be observed in quite small local circles; at least the complete silence of the historical books on the subject would be most easily explained in this way. The special importance of the feast of tabernacles continues to show itself in the Deuteronomic legislation. In contrast to what is required at the two other haggim, it is enjoined that all the days of this festival are to lie observed at the central sanctuary in Jerusalem (Dt. 16:15; cp v. 7).

3. Original manner of celebration.[edit]

In the older legislation no more precise details than those already indicated are given as to how and where the feast ought to be observed. Elsewhere (FEASTS, 10) it is shown that the olden time had no thought at all of fixing the three harvest festivals to any definite day. This lies in the nature of the case. The great autumn thanksgiving was held as soon as the corn-harvest, vintage, and ingathering were finished. This happened, of course, in the various districts, and in different years, at different dates. In the hill-country around Jerusalem the feast was held of old in the eighth month. The completion of the temple was in the month of Bul, the eighth month, and its dedication was at the time of the autumn festival (1 K. 6:38; cp 8:2). {2} It is evidently in order to bring it into accordance with the Jerusalem date of the feast on the fifteenth of the month that the autumn festival at Bethel was fixed for the same day by Jeroboam (1 K. 12:32).

For the observance of the festival the offering of gifts from the fruits that had lieen gathered and of animal sacrifices accompanied by a sacrificial meal were matters of course (cp 1 S. 1:3+). In the olden time the gifts and offerings were left to the freewill of the worshipper according as his heart impelled him to show his thanks to Yahwe ^cp TAXATION. 8}. So also it is matter of course that the feast was observed as a joyous occasion.

1 [See also SHECHEM, and cp Crit. Bib.]

2 In the present text of 1 K. 8:2 it is indeed said that the dedication was at the feast in the month Ethanim, which is the seventh month. To reconcile this date with 1 K. 6:38, according to which the temple was finished in the eighth month, it would be necessary to suppose that after its completion the dedication of the temple was put off till the seventh month of the following year - that is to say, for eleven months. This is in the highest degree unlikely. Since, moreover, we learn from 1 K. 12:32 that at that period the festival was observed at Jerusalem in the eighth month, we must suppose the original text of 1 K. 8:2 to have read merely 'at the feast'. The name of the month Ethanim is a later insertion easily explained by the consideration that, on the one hand, the fixed tradition was that the temple had been dedicated at the feast of tabernacles, and on the other hand, that this feast, at a later date, but before that of Deuteronomy (section 4) had been assigned to this month. The explanation of the name of the month - 'which is the seventh month' - is the addition of a still later hand, as is shown by its position : it is also wanting in LXX{BL} [LXX{A} has a curious reading avrin o nqv c/S&opiHcmrrot (/36opof [autos o men hebdomekostos hebdomos]]. Cp further, Benringer, ad loc.

Compare what we read of the feast of the Shechemites (Judg. 9:27) or of the dances of the maidens (cp DANCE, 6) at the feast of Shiloh (Judg. 21:19+).

When, then, in Dt. the feast is for the first time designated (in our present texts) as the 'feast of tabernacles' (Dt. 16:13 ; see below, 4) and the priestly law (Lev. 23:42) expressly enjoins living in booths as part of the ritual of its celebration, or when the Law of Holiness (Lev. 23:40) orders the participants to take 'the fruit of goodly trees, branches of palm trees, and the like', we may be perfectly certain that these are not newly invented innovations, but that very ancient custom lay at the foundation of the practices thus prescribed. The living in booths and the name 'feast of tabernacles' or 'booths' are connected with the simple fact that at the time of the olive and grape harvest it was usual to spend days and nights in booths of this kind - a practice which still holds its ground in those parts (see Robinson, BR 2:717 ; cp Is. 1:8). 1 If these booths at a later date found a recognised place in the official ritual of the feast, this shows that, properly speaking, all these days of harvesting during which people lived in the open under booths were regarded as constituting a festal time, which was brought to a close in, let us say, the pilgrimage to the sanctuary. With this also we may connect the precept in Dt. (see below) to observe the feast for seven whole days at the sanctuary. The other injunction, referred toabove, to furnish oneself with fruits of goodly trees, branches of palm trees, and so forth (if the reference be not simply to the branches needed for making the booths ; see below) we may perhaps connect with what we read of the festal dances in Judg. 21:19+. It would be natural for those who took part in these to adorn themselves with sprigs and garlands.

4. In Dt.[edit]

In its festal legislation Dt. (16:13-15), as already remarked, designates the autumn festival by the name of hag has-sukkuth (niSDn art), 'feast of tabernacles' or 'booths' - a designation which, although not employed either in H or in P (see below, 5, 6), it continued to retain. 2 As has already been said, it was not to any change in the significance of the festival or to any new ritual that this new designation was due; if Dt. had intended to introduce something that was new when it spoke of the celebration under booths, this piece of ritual would have been expressly prescribed. On the contrary, Dt. simply assumes both name and thing to be already familiar ; thus the name also was already in use before the time of Dt. The duration of the feast is fixed at seven days, and in fact all the seven have to be observed at the sanctuary in Jerusalem (see above, 3). The joyous character of the feast is also thoroughly preserved in Dt., as well as the idea of its being a harvest feast ; and, in full agreement with the general spirit of solicitude shown in the Deuteronomic law for the welfare of the poor and the like, it is expressly enjoined that the bondman and the widow are all to take joyful part in the celebration (16:14).

It is shown elsewhere (FEASTS, 10) how the centralisation of the cultus in Dt., even without any express intention on the part of the lawgiver, inevitably altered the character of the feasts. It became necessary that they should be observed at one common definitely fixed date, they lost their intimate connection with the life of the husbandman, and the tendency to change them into historical celebrations was greatly strengthened by this circumstance. No express reference to any historical event in connection with the feast of tabernacles is met with as yet in Dt. The bringing of the first-fruits at all is connected only in a quite general way with the historical fact that it is Yahwe who has delivered his people from the land of Egypt and given them the land of Canaan to possess. As thanks for the gift of the land the Israelite brings the first-fruits of its produce as a gift to Yahwe (Dt. 26:1-11). The bringing of the first-fruits enjoined in Dt. in conjunction with a liturgical formula of thanksgiving is not indeed in the law itself (Dt. 26:1-11) expressly connected with any definite time. It is, however, exceedingly natural to assume that the author of the injunction thought of it as to be carried out on the feast of tabernacles, for it deals with the offering of the first-fruits of the wine and oil-harvest as well as with the first-fruits of corn, and contemplates this as being done at Jerusalem. For this the feast of tabernacles was the convenient opportunity, unless one is to read the precept as implying a special pilgrimage to Jerusalem for the purpose. In this connection a quite general reference to the Exodus is implied for the feast of tabernacles. Lastly, in Dt. it is further laid down that every seventh year, the year of release, 'this law' - i.e., the Deuteronomic law - shall be read before all Israel at the feast of tabernacles (Dt. 31:10+)

1 For evidence of the ancient practice of spending the festival under booths we cannot with confidence appeal to Hos. 12:10 [12:9]. The expression there made use of - jjrs, mo'ed, instead of ]n, hag - is quite unusual. Still less suitable, it is true, is the interpretation which (so Wellhausen) refers it to the passover feast. In no other place do we read anything of a dwelling in tents during that feast. In the prophetic threatening 'I will yet again make thee to dwell in tents, as in the days of the (iJTC) solemn feast' no reference to any joyous festival, merely a reference to the wandering in the wilderness is required by the connection. Hence Kautzsch's rendering 'as in the day of the assembly [at Horeb]' seems the best. If the prophet is really intending the feast of tabernacles in this allusion, we shall then have our first distinct trace of an assumed parallel and connection between this dwelling in booths at the feast of tabernacles and the dwelling in tents in the wilderness at the exodus from Egypt. Cp further, Wellhausen and Nowack, ad loc.

2 In the NT and in Josephus it is accordingly spoken of as oxrji OTnryMi [skenopegia], in LXX as eoprij axrjviav [eorte skenoo], in Vg. as scenopagia, and in Philo (2:297) as aici\va.i [skenai].

5. In Ezek. and H.[edit]

Ezekiel is the first to give to this feast - designated 'the feast' or 'the feast of Yahwe a definite date; it is to begin on the 15th day of the seventh month and to last for seven days (Ezek. 45:25). He orders for it the same offerings as for the passover ; every day seven bullocks and seven rams as a burnt-offering, a he-goat as a sin-offering, an ephah for every bullock and every ram, with a hin of oil to each ephah as a meal-offering.

The Law of Holiness (Lev. 23:39-41) in its present form has no precept as to the offering. The date in v. 39 is hardly original. 1 On the other hand it is here prescribed that the Israelites on the first day of the feast are to take to them the fruit of goodly trees (-nn \y -s ; cp under APPLE, 2 [3]), branches of palm trees and boughs of thick trees 2 and willows of the brook, and rejoice before Yahwe seven days. That the palm branches and the boughs are to be used for making booths is nowhere said. It is equally possible to suppose that they were carried by the participants in their hands (cp above, 3). Such a custom is attested at any rate for the later post-exilic period (2 Macc. 10:6+; Jos. Ant. 3:10:4, 245, 13:13:5, 372). What could be the application of 'fruit of goodly trees' in the construction of booths is not easy to see, and it is more natural to suppose that the fruit formed part of the thyrsus which each participant carried in his hand (cp below, 7).

1 How much of Lev. 23:39 belongs to the original law of holiness is very questionable. As in what follows this verse mention is always made of only seven feast days, v. 39b, which speaks of an eighth day, may be presumed to be a later addition (see below, section 6). The same holds good of the time determination in v. 39a. The other festivals also are not yet assigned to a fixed day in H. On this question see further the various introductions, especially the tables in Holzinger.

2 ni3y fy s explained by tradition as meaning 'myrtle'. Occurring as it does between 'palms' and 'willows', the expression would certainly seem intended to denote some definite kind of tree.

6. In P.[edit]

The laws of P concerning the autumn festival are found in Lev. 23:33-36, 23:42-43. Nu. 29:12-38. The name of the festival is there the same as in Dt. : feast of tabernacles or booths, hag has-sukkoth (n2"7n : Lev. 23:34). The preference of P for this designation is not a mere accident ; it is intended to denote, not a part of the ritual merely, but the meaning of the entire festival ; it conveys, not only that during the festival it is necessary to live in booths, but also that the festival commemorates the booths in which Israel lived at the exodus from Egypt. It is exactly to this that the peculiar usage of the feast is intended to point (Lev. 23:42-43). The change of meaning, designed to give the feast a place in the history of redemption, has thus been fully accomplished; there is now no longer present any trace of a reference to husbandry - a reference which, indeed, is absent also from the Law of Holiness. As with all festivals in P, so also in the case of the feast of tabernacles, the chief emphasis is laid upon the public sacrifices which are offered with lavish abundance, no longer as in Dt. upon the voluntary gifts of individuals and the sacrificial meal arising from these. The public sacrifices consist, over and above the regular daily burnt-offering with the customary meal and drink-offerings, of a sin-offering of a he-goat to be offered on each of the seven days of the feast, with in addition a daily burnt-offering of two rams and fourteen lambs, and on the first day thirteen bullocks besides, on the second day twelve bullocks, and each succeeding day a bullock the less - thus, on the seventh day seven bullocks, two rams, fourteen lambs. In each case there are, of course, the appropriate meal-offerings of fine flour mingled with oil three-tenths for every bullock and two-tenths for each of the two rams. As compared with the offerings prescribed for the other principal feasts, those here enjoined are enhanced to an extraordinary degree - in some instances being more than doubled. Thus down even to so late a date as that of P we can clearly trace the continued operation of that pre-eminent importance which attached to this feast above all the rest in the oldest times.

There is yet one other point in which P goes beyond Ezekiel and H ; to the traditional seven days of the feast it adds yet an eighth as a closing festival, 'atsreth (rray). As compared with the other seven days, this has an independent character of its own ; it does not simply continue the sacrifices of the preceding days, but there are offered a he-goat as sin-offering, a bullock, a ram and seven lambs as a burnt-offering - in each case with the appropriate meal and drink-offerings, of course in addition to the regular daily burnt-offering. This day, however, as can readily be understood, is always reckoned as part of the main festival itself, and in later times it was customary to speak of an eight-days feast (2 Macc. 10:6 ; Jos. Ant. 3:10:4, 245). This eighth day, like the first, is celebrated by a great assembly and by abstinence from every kind of work ; for the inter vening six days this is not demanded.

7. Later.[edit]

In post-exilic times, just as in pre-exilic, it is precisely of the feast of tabernacles that we most often hear ; it always continued to be one of the most important festivals. Of the exiles after their return we forthwith read that when the seventh month came round they did not neglect the feast of tabernacles. And, as matter of fact, after the introduction of the law in 444 B. C. , the feast was regularly observed in strict conformity with the legal prescriptions. This is expressly emphasised in Neh. 8:14+. It is, however, very noticeable that here the legal innovation is the revival of a custom which had passed out of use : not, as might be expected, the sacrifices, but the dwelling in booths. From this no other conclusion is possible than that this dwelling in booths was practised in the older time, not as a festal rite, but as a harvest custom. After Dt. had transferred the observance of the feast to Jerusalem, the practice had gone out of date ; what had formerly been quite natural had now in the capital no meaning. When, however, the custom was brought into connection with history and judged to be a reminiscence of the tents of Israel in the wilderness, it received a new meaning which gave it fresh significance as a part of the ceremonial of the feast and recalled it to new life. From the account in Nehemiah (8:16) we learn further that in Jerusalem the booths were set upon the house roofs, in the house courts, in the courts of the temple (this last, of course, only for priests and Levites) and in the broad places of the city gates. Olive branches, branches of wild olives, myrtle branches, palm branches, and branches of thick trees (rray ] y, see above, 5, n. 2) were employed for the purpose. The public reading of the book of the law, as required by Dt. (see above, 4), was also a feature of the festival.

The Chronicler's account of the feast of tabernacles at the dedication of the temple (2 Ch. 7:8+) is evidence of the observance of the festival in accordance with P in the Chronicler's own time in so far as the seven days feast of 1 K. 8:65 is altered into a feast of eight days.

Finally, we read in the Maccabean period of the celebration of a feast resembling the feast of tabernacles, immediately after the purification of the temple (2 Macc. 10:6+). This feast also lasts eight days; the participants carry in their hands wands wreathed with leaves, and fair boughs, and palms also.

The custom here referred to (perhaps already an old one ; see above, 5) continued in use during the later period. The order of the feast is prescribed down to the minutest details in the Talmudic tractate entitled Sukka (cp MYRTLE). There the branches, etc., are not only used for making booths, but are also carried in the hands as the celebrants go to join in the worship. The 'fruit of goodly trees' ("nn \"J "IS) was interpreted to mean the ethrog (- i l ~ r JN) ), apple of paradise, or Adam's apple, the 'ets 'aboth (ITU^ J y), the myrtle. Accordingly, a palm branch still in its 'sceptre-like' condition, that is, not yet expanded (the so-called lulab, 3 1 ?! 1 ?) was fastened up along with a myrtle and willow in such a manner that the myrtle was on the right and the willow on the left of the palm. This festal thyrsus (also called lulb) was held in the right hand whilst the left carried an ethrog, and thus equipped the celebrants went in procession with hosannas and waving of thyrsi round the altar of burnt-offering, each day once, but on the seventh day seven times, to commemorate the seven days encompassing of the walls of Jericho. Josephus calls the thyrsus (Ant. 3:10:4, 245) eipetriuJir [eiresoone]) - which means properly the harvest wreath of olive or laurel wound round with wool and decorated with fruit which the Athenian singing boys carried about at the autumn feast of Pyanepsia. Another Greek designation employed is Ovp<roi [thyrsoi] (thyrsi; 2 Macc. 10:7; Jos. Ant. 13:13:5, 372), properly the Bacchic wand wreathed in ivy and vine-leaves with a fir-cone at the top which was carried by the worshippers at the feast of Dionysus. It is doubtless this whole custom that Plutarch has in his mind when he represents the Jewish feast of tabernacles as being a Dionysiac festival (Symp. 46 : rrjs /neyiVrT)? cai TeAeioTanjs eoprrjs Trapa lovSai ois 6 Katpds e<m cai 6 TpOTTO? AtOfi;<riaj Trpo<7>J/ccoi> . . . CCTTI e KO\ /cpaTTjpo*/>opia TIS foprji Kat 6vp<To<l>opia. Trap aiiTOis, fv j5 Bvpcrow; l^oi-res eis TO tepbf tio ia.o iv).

Another peculiar custom, with regard to the meaning and origin of which there is still great uncertainty (cp NATURE-WORSHIP, 4), was in connection with the daily drink-offering which was offered during the seven days of the feast. For this the water was taken from Siloam. A priest drew it in a golden pitcher of a capacity of three logs, and brought it amid trumpet-blasts through the Water Gate into the outer court of the temple. There other priests received it from him with the words (Is. 12:3) : 'Ye will draw water with joy from the founts of salvation', in which words priests and people alike joined. The water was then mixed with wine, and, while the priests blew on the trumpets and the Levites chanted psalms, was poured into a silver basin standing at the south-western corner of the altar, from which it flowed by a pipe into a subterranean channel and thence to the Kidron. We may, perhaps, bring this practice into connection with the ancient custom of drawing water and pouring it out (cp 1 S. 76) which may possibly have been used and retained precisely at the feast. Tradition has it that abundant rain for the new seed-time and a fruitful year are symbolised in the act. In all probability the words of Jn. 7:37-38. are to be read in this connection. 1

Yet one other characteristic of the feast remains to be mentioned : the festal joy on the night between the first and the second day. In the court of the women four-branched golden candlesticks were erected and lighted up. With music, psalms, and trumpets, a torch dance was then performed by the most prominent priests and laymen. The offering of the festal sacrifices was accompanied, as in the case of the other great feasts, by trumpet-blowing by the priests, as also by the singing of the great hallel - i.e., Pss. 113-118 (see HALLEL) ; when the Hosanna was reached in Ps. 118:25 the lulabs were shaken.

Outside of Palestine the Jews observed the festival in like manner in booths. As the determination of the month's commencement and of the whole calendar connected with it depended on actual observation of the new moon, and thus was uncertain (see NEW MOON), it was customary for the Jews outside of Palestine to observe the first and eighth days of the feast twice over on consecutive days, so as to make sure of observing the common national feast quite simultaneously with their brethren in Palestine.

After the destruction of the second temple arose the custom of adding yet a ninth day - the 23rd of Tishri - to the festival, celebrated as the feast of 'the joy of the law' (minn DHlpi: ). On the Sabbath preceding this day the reading of the law as divided into 52 parashiyyoth or lessons in the synagogue service came to an end ; on the following sabbath the reading was recommenced. Cp Vitringa, De Syn. Vet., 1696, p. 1003.

See the literature cited under FEASTS ; also the articles in Riehm, Herzog-Plitt, Smith, etc.

I. B.

1 The words are spoken on the 'great' day of the feast - ^ ea-\dn) r)fitpa r; /ieydAr) Tijs copTrjs. By this probably is meant the seventh day, on which procession was made seven times round the altar, which on this day was decorated with branches of willow. This day is in fact called by the rabbins the 'great' Hosanna day - Nin nrny SJ l n CV, or also the 'willow' day - H3X CV. The eighth day, the 'atsereth, is not strictly speaking to be reckoned to the feast of tabernacles ; the special sacrifices and festal observances terminate on the seventh day (see above). This day, therefore, cannot be regarded as that intended in Jn. 7:37-

2 Cp To3ta0) [tobiathe] (Wadd. 21 55) and ra/Siaffy [tabiathe], cited by Dussaud and Macler, Voy. Arch. 158 (Paris, 1901).


( T AB[e]ie<\ [Ti. WH]), 2 Acts 9:36, 9:40-41. See DORCAS ; cp GAZELLE.


The words are :

1. jn^c , sulhan, Tpdirega [trapeza], mensa. See MEALS, 3; ALTAR, 10 ; and cp SACRIFICE, 34^.

2. 33^, mesab, ai d/cAnns [anaklisis] (-ijcns [C]), accubitus, is taken by EV in Cant. 1:12 in the sense of table ; cp MEALS, 3, and n. 2 ; also 36, n. 2 ; but see also BDB, and Bu. ad loc. t Haupt, JBL 21 (1902) pt. i, p. 54.

3- mS> luah, n-Aaf [plax] (31 times) TruftW [pyxion] (thrice), tabula, buxus. Chiefly of the tables of the law Ex. 24:12, etc., but also of the tables or tablets on which the prophets wrote their prophecies (Is. 30:8, Hab. 2:2), and of tables for writing generally. Cp WRITING.

4. Tpa7re<X [trapeza] Mt. 15:27, 1 Cor. 10:21, Heb. 9:2, etc. ; see above, i.

5. TrAcif [plax], 2 Cor. 3:3, Heb. 9:4 ; see above, 3.

6. KAiVr) [kline] in Mk. 7:4 [Ti. WH om.] is rendered 'table' in AV ; RVom. RVmg 'many ancient authorities add "and couches"'. See above, 2, and cp MEALS, 36 and n. 2.

7. 7rii>a.Kt&i.ov [pinakidon], Lk. 16:3, AV 'table', RV 'tablet'; dimin. from TriVaf [pinax], and so a small tablet (for writing).


pi^p) 2 Ch. 26:10 RVmg, EV 'plain(s)'. See JUDAEA, PLAIN.


i. nO-13, kumats, Ex. 35:22, Nu. 31:50-51. RV ARMLET. See NECKLACE, 4.

2. Ji :, gillayon, Is. 8:1, RV see DRESS, 1 [2], ROLL, 2.

3. E*B:n 33, bate (?) han-nephesh, Is. 3:20. See PERFUME BOXES.


O UFI ; 0d,Bcop [BXARTL], pMOBcop [gaithboor] [B] 6^4)0)9 [A] Josh. 19:22, TO ITA.BYPION [to itaburion] [BA] Hos. 5:1, Jer 46:18 [LXX 26:18]; AT * B YRiON Polyb. v. 706; cp iepON ^ IOC ATAB YP OY [heiron dios ataburion] at Agrigentum and in the isle of Rhodes ib. 9:27:7; TO iT&BypiON opoc [to itaburion oros] Jos. ; ITABYPION Euseb. OS 268:90 and e&Bcop, ib. 261:27; Itabynum, Thabor, Jerome), the hill now called Jebel et-Tur.

1. Physical character.[edit]

Its dome-like shape as seen from the S. or SW. ('mira rotunditate', Jer. OS 156:23), and its apparent isolation, make it a striking feature in the landscape of SE. Galilee. Hence it ranks with Carmul among conspicuous heights : e.g. , in Jer. 46:18, and the Midrash, Ber. R., 99, 'Tabor came from Beth-elim and Carmel from Aspamya to attend the law-giving at Sinai'. A psalmist even implies that what Hermon is on the E. of Jordan Tabor is on the W. , Ps. 89 13 (but cp the commentators). It rises from the level of the Great Plain to a height of 1843 ft. (1312 ft. from the base) ; the summit is an extensive platform, 3000 ft. from E. to W. , 1300 ft. at its greatest breadth, a peculiarity which did much to determine the associations which have gathered round the mountain. 1 Though from some aspects Tabor appears to stand alone, in reality it is a spur of the Naxareth group of heights, and is linked to them on its N. side. Its slopes, like the W. slopes of Carmel, are covered with vegetation and stunted trees, oak, ilex, terebinth, beech, carob, olive, etc. , which afford cover to an unusual number of animals. From the top opens out a superb panorama, often, however, veiled with mists in the spring-time. 1 he situation of the mountain, its imposing and prominent outline, explain at once the part which it has played in history. In all ages Tabor has been famous either for its sanctuary or for its stronghold. Commanding the NE. quarter of the Great Plain and one of the main outlets down to the Jordan, the W. esh-Sherar, it has considerable strategic value, whilst to the instinct of early religion it would seem to have been designed by nature for a holy place.

2. Sanctuary and stronghold.[edit]

The boundaries of Issachar, Zebulun, and Naphtali meet upon Tabor; Josh. 19:22 (Issachar), 19:12 CHISLOTH-TABOR - i.e. 'flanks of Tabor' (Zebulun), 19:34 'AZNOTH-TABOR - i.e. 'peaks (?) of Tabor' (Naphtali), 1 Ch. 6:62 [6:77] (Zebulun; LXX 0axx<? [thachcheia]). In the first and the last of these passages Tabor is the name of a town on or near the mountain. Long before the Israelite occupation Tabor was a holy place ; it naturally became the common sanctuary of the three tribes whose portions met there. So we may infer from Dt. 38:19, 'they (i.e., Zebulun and Issachar) call peoples to the mountain'. Though Tabor is not expressly named, as it is the mountain in which both these tribes had an interest the allusion would be clear to early readers. The passage seems to refer to some kind of religious fair or gathering at the sanctuary of Tabor to which the neighbourhood was invited for worship and barter (Stade, GVI 1:171; Driver, Deut. 40:9 ; see also Herder, Geist d. Hebr. Poesie, 151+ ed. Suphan). In the days of Deborah and Barak these tribes had suffered most from the hostility of the Canaanites ; accordingly upon Tabor, as the common rallying-point, Barak gathered his men for a descent upon the enemy in the plain below (Judg. 4:6, 4:12, 4:14). Perhaps there was another reason for the muster on Tabor besides the obvious advantages of the position ; the holy war, as von Gall suggests, would probably begin with a sacrifice at the tribal sanctuary (Altisr. Kultstatten, 124-125; cp 1 S. 13:9, 13:12, Mi. 3:5, etc.). From one account it appears that the battle was fought at the foot of the mountain (Judg. 4:14-15): the Song, however, does not mention Tabor, and places the battle farther off, by Taanach, along the left bank of the Kishon (5:18-20). By this victory Tabor was secured to Israel ; and, as a stronghold commanding one of the main caravan routes across the Plain, it must have proved an invaluable possession during the times of conflict and slow consolidation which followed (Judg. 7:1, 7:22, 1 S. 29:1, 31:1). Of its fortunes in the days when Assyrian and Egyptian armies passed within sight of it we know nothing (Is. 8:23 [9:1], 2 K. 23:29, Zech. 12:11). The sanctuary continued to serve the district. By Hosea s time it had become associated with the idolatrous form of Yahwe-worship which was characteristic of the N. kingdom ; hence it incurred the prophet's denunciation ; its priesthood, like that of Mizpah, the other typical 'high place', is 'a net spread out' to catch deluded worshippers (Hos. 5:1). Nevertheless the sacred character of the mountain was not forfeited ; in the course of time no doubt it influenced the Christian tradition (section 5) ; it never quite lost its hold upon Jewish memory. In a late Midrash we find the opinion that 'the Temple itself might well have been built in the portion of Issachar', had it not been otherwise ordered (Yalkut on Dt. 33:19, Dc-i? 1 ^ pSra nua 1 ? ua nrran rrp)-

1 In Talm. B. the extent of Tabor is given as 4 parsa, Bab. Bathr 73b (Zebahim 113b reads 40 parsa); the figures of Jos., BJ 4:1 (height 30 stadia, the TreSsW [pedoin] on the summit 26 stadia), are of course absurd,

3. Judg. 8:18 and 1 S. 10:3[edit]

The Tabor of Judg. 8:18 can hardly be the mountain; it is too far from the seats of Gideon's clan ; the scene of the murder was the neighbourhood of Shechem rather than the Plain of Jezreel (but cp GIDEON, 2). It is simplest to suppose that there was another Tabor near Ophrah (Budde, Ri. Sa. 114 ; but see also Moore, Judges, 228). The 'terebinth [RV 'oak'] of Tabor' (1 S. 10:3; LXX{L} TTJS Spuds rtjs tK\(KTT}s [tes dryos tes eklektes]) is probably to be placed, as the context seems to require, in Benjamin, between Rachel's Grave, on the N. border of Benjamin, and Gibeah (von Gall, l.c. 88-89). Ewald's emendation n-rmjiSx ( = ni33 pkv Gen. 35:8) is scarcely necessary ; there must have been more than one such sacred tree in later Jewish history. See, further, RACHEL'S SEPULCHRE.

4. Jewish history.[edit]

In later Jewish history Tabor was the scene of three memorable engagements.

The first occurred in the struggle between Antiochus III. the Great (223-187 B.C.) and Ptolemy IV. Philopator (222-205 B.C.) for the possession of Palestine (Polyb. v. 70). After the surrender of Philoteria (S. of Lake of Galilee) and Scythopolis, about 218 B.C., Antiochus marched into the hill-country and appeared before Atabyrium, 'which is situated upon a rounded hill (e?ri Ao</>ou /nao-ToeiSoGs), more than 15 stadia in ascent', and captured the place by a stratagem. Polybius calls Atabyrium a n-oAts [polis] standing on the top of the hill, and the account of its capture agrees with such a position.

In B.C. 53 the proconsul A. Gabinius, general of Pompey, fought Alexander, son of Aristobulus, at the foot of the mountain (Trepi TO Irafivptov opos [peri to Itabyrion oros]), and 10,000 Jews fell in battle (Jos. Ant. 14:6:3).

The third episode is recorded in fuller detail. As governor of Galilee Josephus fortified Tabor against Vespasian in 67 A.D. Under pressure he built a wall round the summit in forty days, and supplied the fort with water from below, for the inhabitants (CTTOIKOI [epoikoi]) had been dependent upon rain. Vespasian sent Placidus with 600 horsemen to attack the Jews by enticing them down to the plain ; they were unwise enough to leave their strong position in the hope of overwhelming the cavalry ; it became impossible to retreat, and they were completely defeated. Want of water compelled those who were left in the fort (oi ( 7n\wpiot) to surrender the mountain to Placidus (Jos. BJ 4:1:8, 2:20:6, Vita. 37). Remains of Josephus' wall were discovered in 1898.

5. The transfiguration.[edit]

Since the third century Tabor has been revered by Christian tradition as the scene of the Transfiguration. The Gospels themselves do not give a name to the 'high mountain' (fipoj ^ X6j/ [oros hyperlon]); but it was more likely Hermon than Tabor (see HERMON, i, MOUNTAIN). The Transfiguration is dated six (Lk. , eight) days after the confession of Peter at Caesarea Philippi = Banias at the foot of Hermon. Nothing is said of a journey in the interval; the return to Galilee is placed after the Transfiguration (Mk. 9:30). Moreover, in Jesus time, Tabor was hardly a place to which he could lead the three apostles 'apart by themselves' (/car ISiav /JLOVOVS [kat idian monous]: Mk. 9:2) - KO.T Idlav [kat idian] obviously refers to the apostles, not to the isolation of Tabor. The passages from Polybius and Josephus quoted above imply that the summit was inhabited and partially fortified.

Pere Barnabe, who has written lately in support of the tradition, argues that there never was, and never could have been, a town upon the summit because of the absence of water and cultivable land sufficient to support a population (Le Mont Thabor, Paris, 1900). But the difficulty was overcome in other situations of a similar character ; many remains of cisterns have been discovered on the summit ; and monasteries have managed to live there. The passage in the Gospel according to the Hebrews quoted by Origen (Comment, in Joan. t. 26 ; Migne, PG 14 col. 132), where Jesus is made to say, 'Even now has my mother, the Holy Spirit, seized me by one of my hairs and borne me to the great mountain Tabor', can hardly be said to support the Christian tradition ; but it may have helped to give rise to it. The context of the quotation is lost, so that we cannot tell what event is alluded to ; not improbably it was the temptation. Cp TEMPTATION, 14, and see Moulton, Bibl. and Sem. Studies, Yale Univ., 1901, p. 161, with the references. At any rate Origen himself accepted the tradition (Comment, in Ps. 88:13 [89:12] ; PG 12:1548), 'Tabor is the mountain of Galilee where Christ was transfigured'. In the fourth century it is held by Eusebius, who speaks of Hermon along with Tabor as 'mountains upon which the wonderful transfigurations and frequent sojourns of our Saviour took place' (Comment, in Ps. 88:13 [89:12]; PG 23:1092); by Cyril of Jerusalem, 'Moses . . . and Elias . . . were present with him when he was transfigured on Mt. Tabor' (Catech. 12:16 ; PG 33:744) ; by Jerome, 'Itabyrium et tabernacula Salvatoris, . . . montem Thabor in quo transfiguratus est Dominus' (Epp. 46 and 108 ; PL 22:491 ; ib. 88:9). Before the end of the fourth century, the tradition was widely current in the E., and pilgrims, such as Paula (Jerome, Ep. 46) and Sylvia of Aquitaine, began to venerate the spot. It is generally believed that the Empress Helena founded a basilica on Tabor about 326 A.D. ; whether any remains of it can still be traced may be doubted. The church with three apses, excavated in recent years (plan given by Barnabe l.c. 136), is considered to show characteristics of fourth-, or fifth-century work (de Vogue, Eglises de T. Sainte, 1860, 352+); in 570 the three chapels were seen by Antoninus of Plaisance, and in 670 by Arculf, bishop of Eichstadt, the earliest travellers who refer to them ; their narratives are published by the Societe de l'Orient latin (194 and 185). The only dissentient voice in the early period is that of the Bordeaux Pilgrim (333 A.D.), who places the Transfiguration on the Mt. of Olives (Itinerarium [8th cent.], Soc. de l'Or. lat. 1 18) ; otherwise, down to the time of the Crusades the Christian tradition is unanimous and constantly repeated. It finds a place in the services of the Greek Church for Aug. 6th - e.g. , EifiOacrcv i\ iq/iie pa TTJS fvdeov ei>ij>po<rui i ris avenTiv els rb opos TO &afiiop 6 Aeo-7TOTr)s rrjs OtoTrjTOS auTOU a7ra<7Tpai//ai -njv <opaioTr)Ta ( JlpoAoyioi TO f-eya, Venice, 1876, 348); but in the Western service-books it does not seem to occur. 1

1 In the fourteenth century the dogma of the Uncreated Light of Mt. Tabor was promoted by Gregory Palamas, Archbishop of Thessalonica (about 1349). He asserted that one light of Tabor was visible and comprehensible, the other invisible and incomprehensible; see Migne, PG 150:773+. Gregory became a patron of the curious sect of the 6/mi>aA6i/Jvxoi [omphalopsychoi], drawn from the monks of Mt. Athos, who devoted themselves to the contemplation of the uncreated light of Tabor; Migne, ib. col. 899-900, Nilles, Kalendarium manuale, Innsbruck, 1896, s.v. Aug. 6.

6. The crusaders.[edit]

In the history of the Frank kingdom Tabor maintained its associations with religious devotion and hard righting. In 1099 Tancred occupied the mountain with European troops, and when he withdrew he endowed the church and entrusted it to the care of Benedictine monks, who restored the ancient basilica and built a monastery. Not long after, in 1113, the Turks under Malduk fought a battle with Baldwin I. on the plain below ; the Crusaders were severely beaten, and the monks massacred. But fresh monks soon took their place ; the abbey received new donations; the dignity of archbishop was conferred upon its Abbot Pons and his successors by a bull of Eugenius III. (1145). Then came the advance of Saladin in 1183; his troops ravaged the Greek convent; and in 1187, after the disaster at the Horns of Hattin, the holy place of Tabor was reduced to ruins and abandoned by its Benedictines.

Early in the thirteenth century, Melik el-'Adil, in order to attack the headquarters of the Franks at Acre, fortified Tabor, using part of the ruined church for his towers. The fortifications were completed in 1213 by his son, Melik el-Mu'azzam ; several inscriptions commemorating the work have been found recently among the debris (Barnabi, l.c. 15, 100). It was this fortification of Tabor that occasioned the Fifth Crusade. In 1217 Andrew II., king of Hungary, and other Princes advanced against Tabor with a great host, and besieged the fort seventeen days ; the first assault was boldly delivered and as boldly re pulsed ; delays and divisions in the Christian camp helped to make the second attack fruitless, and the Crusaders were forced to retreat. See the vivid narrative of Vincentius Bellovacensis, Soc. de l'Or. lat. serie hist., 898 ; Kugler, Gesch. d. Kreuzzuge, 312-313; Michaud, Hist, of Crusades, 2:226+. The fortress was afterwards dismantled by Melik el-'Adil in the hope of restoring peace ; and, in the years which followed, the church was rebuilt and served by monks from Hungary (1229) ; for a short time it passed into the possession of the Hospitallers of St. John. But Tabor was not left in peace for long. In 1263 Bibars, the Mameluke Sultan of Egypt, in the course of his campaign against Damascus, finally burnt and devastated the church, and the holy-place of Tabor was left a heap of ruins for 600 years. Franciscans from Nazareth conducted pilgrims to the summit from time to time, and celebrated, as well as they could, the Feast of the Transfiguration on 6th Aug. and the second Sunday in Lent. Not until 1858 did the Franciscans begin to undertake the care and excavation of the ruins ; Greek monks followed soon after ; and in 1873 was built the modest Latin convent which, with the Greek monastery close by, guards the ancient sanctuary. Napoleon's Syrian campaign brings Tabor into general history for the last time ; in 1799 the French troops under Kleber, afterwards reinforced by Napoleon himself, encountered the vast army of Jezzar, and the battle of Mt. Tabor ended in the complete discomfiture of the Turks ; see Lanfrey, Hist, de Napoleon 1er, 1:399-400.

7. Name.[edit]

The derivation of the name Tabor is unknown. In spite of its triliteral form, Winckler considers that the name has survived, 'like Jordan', from pre-Canaanite times, and therefore is not Semitic in origin. For a Semitic derivation he suggests the Eth. dabr 'mountain', with d for t under influence of the liquid (AOF 1423). This interchange of dentals is perhaps to be found in the name of the village at the NW. foot of Tabor, Deburiyeh = DABERATH (q.v.}, possibly a formation from -non ; the Arab, form has preserved the long vowel in the second syllable. One is tempted to conjecture that the primitive form of Tan [ThBVR] was -ini [DBVR] (cp v:n Josh. 11:21, 13:26, Judg. 1:11).

Older etymologies have a certain interest ; e.g. Syr. -Hex. mg. ad a3(op [thaboor] Josh. 19:22 gives f$r)0iap [bethoor], and explains beth'or 'house of light' : Jerome OS 31:2 496 'veniens lumen, veniat lux' (TIN Nun)

Among the Arabs Tabor has long been known as Jebel et-Tur - i.e., 'the mountain' - a name given also to Gerizim, Olivet, and Sinai. Sometimes the Arabs call it Jebel Nur, 'of the light', in allusion to the Transfiguration, for the Christian tradition is accepted by Moslems; Guerin, Galilee, 1:143+. We should expect Tabor to be mentioned in Egyptian documents ; but this is probably not the case. The 'Dapura' in the country of 'Amaura', so called to distinguish it from another Dapura, among the towns conquered by Rameses II. (temple of Karnak), is to be looked for on the Orontes in N. Syria ; the Depuru mentioned next to Kadesh in the papyrus Anastasi I. (224, Chabas, Voy. d'un Egyptien en Syrie, pp. 197, 313), if not the same place, belongs to the same region. The situation of Tapru in the Bulak Papyrus is not specified. The equivalent of these names would probably be iiaa, 'hill', rather than -nan- See WMM, As. u. Eur. 220+. The name of the mountain has not been found in Assyrian records.

8. Literature.[edit]

In addition to the authorities referred to above may be mentioned the following : Survey of W. Pal. 1:388+; Robinson, BR (2), 2:351+; GASm., HG 394+; Buhl, Pal. 68. Pere Barnabe gives a full and valuable collection of material (the point of view is uncritical, and the references are not always to be trusted). For a recent Roman Catholic work which rejects the traditional site of the transfiguration, see Abbe le Camus, Notre voy. aux Pays bibl. (Paris, 1895), 1:82+ G. A. C.


or rather (so RV), OAK OF TABOR (inn p?K, THC Apyoc GABujp [tes argos thaboor] [BA], T . A. THC eKAeKTHC [tes argos tes eklektes] [L ; see below]; quorum Thabor), a locality between the city where Samuel and Saul met and 'Gibeah of God' (see GIBEAH, 2 [3]), 1 S. 10:3-4. It has been supposed by Ewald (Hist. 3:21) and Thenius (without ancient authority) to be identical with the 'palm tree of Deborah' between Ramah and Bethel in mount Ephraim (Judg. 4:5). This is certainly plausible. On the other hand the descriptions of the sites of the two trees cannot be said to agree. The city referred to in 1 S. 9:6+ is not said to be Ramah, and 'Bethel in mount of Ephraim' and 'Gibeah of God' cannot be identified. It is much more likely that the 'oak' (or rather, 'sacred tree') referred to in 1 S. 10:3 was unconnected with any biblical story except that of Saul, and that Tabor is a corruption of some other name, possibly Bahurim (onm) : cp LXX L's rendering (TT?S tK\fKTTJs [tes eklektes]), which presupposes -nn3. See RACHEL'S SEPULCHRE.

T. K. C.


i. f|H toph, 1 S. 10:5 ; AV has a slight preference for 'timbrel'; RV has 'tabret' in Gen. 31:27, Is. 5:12, 24:8, 30:32 Jer. 314, Ezek. 28:13, but timbrel 1 in Ex. 15:20, Judg. 11:34, 1 S. 10:5, 18:6, 2 S. 6:5, 1 Ch. 13:8, Job 21:12, Ps. 81:3 [81:2], 149:3, 150:4. See Music, 3.

2. nsh, topheth, Job 17:6. See TOPHETH.


RV Tab-rimmon (pETQp, 44, as if 'Rimmon is good', or 'wise', but see RIMMON ii. 2), father of BEN-HADAD (1 K. 15:18: -r&BepeMA [B], T&BeNp&HMA [A], TABepeMM&N [L]). Cp TABEEL.


(D O^p) Ex. 26:6, etc. RV 'clasp'. See TABERNACLE, 4(1).


(tfOSPin) 2 S. 238, RV TAHCHEMONITE.


(Ibin ; GeA/vxop [AL], 9oeA/v\op [B b ], SoeiAoMHceN THN GoeAo/wop [B* cum signo perverse lect.], Palmiram [Vg. ]) 'in the wilderness', a name given (2 Ch. 8:4-5) to a city built by Solomon by the Chronicler. This late historian doubtless had in view the great city in the Syrian desert between Damascus and the Euphrates (iimn, "cin of the Nabataean inscr.) known to the Greeks and Romans as Palmyra (see WRS, s.v. 'Palmyra' ED(^},^ the mod. Tadmur, vulgarly Tudmir. 2 This appears from his bringing it into connection with Hamath and the N. He is, however, simply misquoting 1 K. 9:18, where the RV is certainly right in following the Kt. (nan, i.e., Tamar, not as some have supposed Tammor) in preference to the harmonistic Kre 'Tadmor' ("ibnn) adopted by AV following the versions. For the context here clearly shows that not Palmyra, but some place in the S. of Judah is meant (see TAMAR), and we have no reason to think that the boundaries of Israel ever extended so far N. The name Tadmor occurs nowhere else in the OT, nor even in the cuneiform inscriptions, nor can Palmyra be traced in history till just before the Christian era, 42-41 B.C. (Appian, BC 5:9). At that date, however, Palmyra was a place of some importance (cp ARABIA, 3), and it may very well have come into existence some centuries earlier long enough for the real story of its founding to be quite unknown in Israel in the time of the Chronicler.

F. B.

1 For the earliest exact modern account of Palmyra (by Halifax, 1691), see PEFQ Oct. 1890, pp. 273+. See also Post, Second Journey to Palmyra, PEFQ, 1892-93 ; Bernoville, Dix jours en Palmyrhie (1868).

2 On the connection between the names tadmur and TroA/nvpa [palmyra] see Lag. (Ubers. 125, note), who approves the conjecture of Schultens (Vita Saladina ; see the Geog. Index under 'Tadmora', where the form tatmur is cited), that the original was tatmur, with the meaning 'abounding in palms'.


(fnR OnR), Nu. 26:35 . See below, TAHATH.


(DPUSriFl) Jer. 2:16, RV TAHPAXHES.


(trnPl) Gen. 22:24, AV THAHASH.


(nnpl), an Ephraimite name originating in the Negeb, see SHUTHELAH (1 Ch. 7:20 bis voofi( [noome]= cm ! [B only once], Oaa.8, vofj.ee [A], da.a.0 [ L twice]). The name occurs again in v. 25 under the form TAHAN (jnn, daev [B], -an [L] KOL. [A i.e., <xl 0. [kai thaath]]), and similarly in Nu. 26:35 [P] (LXX v. 39 rnvax [tanach]), cp the family of the Tahanites (ib. }npn, 6 rai a^[e]i [o tanach(e)i] [BAFL]). In the priestly genealogies in 1 Ch. 6 which are intended to supply the great singers with a Levitical ancestry, Tahath is twice mentioned among the ancestors of Samuel and Heman (1 Ch. 6:24 [6:9], 6:37 [6:22], KaaB [kaath] [B, but 0. [thaath] v. 37], 6. [AL]), and it is only reasonable to identify Tahath or Tahan ( = Nahath?) with TOHU [q.v.], which is also an Ephraimite name (cp EPHRAIM, 12).


(Finn, note the 'priestly' name TAHATH above), a stage in the wandering in the wilderness; Nu. 33:26-27 (K<\TA<\9 [kataath] [BAL], KATOAAG [katthaath] [F]). The name stands between Makheloth and Terah, both of which are possibly corruptions of Jerahmeel (Che.). See WANDERINGS, WILDERNESS OF.


AV Tachmonite ( psnn, o XANA.NAIOC [o chananaios] [BA], yiOC 6eK6MANei [L]), 2 S. 23:8. Probably miswritten, owing to the repetition of n from the preceding word, for 333,1 (note 6 xa.v. in HA) - i.e., 333n, 'the. . . -ite' (so Marcj. ). This is in accordance with the other descriptions of David's other heroes. But 1333 can hardly be correct. Besides, jssn is preceded (according to the emendation suggested under JASHOBEAM) by rra ; jaan-rra is analogous to anWrrra. o and i being sometimes confounded, it is plausible to correct into p-isrnra - i.e., a man of Beth-cerem (see BETH-HACCEREM) ; i [R] and a [M] were transposed. Cp Carmi, the name of a son of Zabdi, Josh. 7:1, and note that in 1 Ch. 27:2 Jashobeam is called a son of Zabdiel ; also that in 1 Ch. 4:1 Perez and Carmi are brothers, and that in 1 Ch. 27:3 Jashobeam is said to have belonged to the b'ne Perez.

T. K. C.


(DHIISnn, Jer. 43:7 , etc.) or Tehaphnehes (DnJBnPI, Ezek. 30:18); Jer. 2:16 Kethib DJDHn (EV Tahapanes), Judith 1:9 AV TAPHNES, RV TAHPANHES, a city of north-eastern Egypt. Ezek. 30 closes the long enumeration of Egyptian cities threatened by destruction, with Aven-Heliopolis and Pi-beseth-Bubastus, v. 17, and Tahpanhes, v. 18, all three belonging to the Eastern Delta. The long verse, devoted to Tahpanhes, 'where the yokes (better, as LXX, 'sceptres'; see Cornill) of Egypt shall be broken, and the pride of her power shall cease in her' shows the wealth and importance of the place, as does the allusion to 'her daughters' - i.e., surrounding towns (Jer. 43:7-8). Jeremiah, with many fugitives, fleeing from Palestine to Egypt, comes to Tahpanhes and settles there. This points again to the place being near the entrance from Palestine into Egypt - i.e., in the NE. In v. 9 the words 'the entry of Pharaoh's house in Tahpanhes' seem to indicate that the place had a royal palace which, even if used only on occasional visits of the king, would indicate an important city. In 44:1, 46:14 Tahpanhes (which, however, is wanting in the good MSS of LXX in 46:14), Migdol, and Noph are the three most important settlements of Jewish fugitives in N. Egypt, as distinguished from Pathros in the S. In Jer. 2:16, the Egyptians are called 'children of Noph (Memphis) and Tahpanhes'. Judith 1:9, enumerating Taphnas and Ramesse and the whole land of Goshen (Gesem), as far as Tanis and Memphis, etc. , seems to be following those Jewish settlements.

LXX transcribes the name as Ta^fas [taphnes] (indeclinable) in Jer. and Judith ; in Ezek. LXX{B} has TCK^CU [taphnai]; Vg. not Taphnae, as is usually quoted, but Taphnis (indeclinable : the same form occurs as accusative in Jer. 43:7). It has always been concluded from these transcriptions that the reference is to a place which Herodotus, assimilating its name to the Greek word for 'laurels', calls \a.<pvan [daphnai]. According to him (2:30) Psammetik I. established a great camp of soldiers 'in Daphnae near Pelusium' ( et> ^Ad(pvr](Ti ryffi lIeXoi <rq7<n) which the Persians still maintained. In 2:154, he reports that Sesostris, return ing from his conquests, rested there. The It. Anton. places Dafno 16 R. mi. inland from Pelusium ; Steph. Byz. also mentions Aa^vrj [daphne]. {1} Already Wilkinson (Modern Eg. and Thebes, 1:447) identified this place with the modern Tel(l) Defenneh (about 25 English miles in a straight line SW. of the ruins of Pelusium), which was excavated by Flinders Petrie in 1886 (see Petrie, Tanis, 2). Petrie found traces of earlier buildings of the Ramesside period, a great camp, fortified, according to the foundation records, by Psammetichus I., maintained under Necho and Amasis, and evidently abandoned afterwards, the palace or citadel having been destroyed by fire. Many finds of arms, pottery, etc., showed that the garrison had consisted chiefly of Greek mercenaries. The position of this fortress, on the right bank of the Pelusiac branch of the Nile close to the old caravan-road to Syria, explains its great importance and agrees excellently with that of the biblical Tahpanhes as key to Egypt (cp Jer. 43:7) ; the expression in Jer. 216 would be explained by the strong garrison. Such a place would also be best adapted for a Jewish colony which, evidently, subsisted chiefly on trading. Wilkinson s identification may, therefore, be considered as very probable. 1 The Egyptian name of the city has, however, not yet been found, which is not surprising, if we consider that the city received its importance only under Psammetichus I. Such Egyptian etymologies as have been attempted so far are too improbable to be discussed here.

[On the theory that the reference in all the passages which mention 'Tahpanhes' is to N. Arabia (cp PROPHET, 26-27, 40), 'Tahpanhes', like the other traditional names, disappears from the text. For the underlying words see Crit. Bib. on Jer. 2:16, Ezek. 30:17-18]

W. M. M.

1 The form lajfyvas [taphnas] in the Coptic version, of course, proves nothing, being taken mechanically from the Septuagint.


(D^nn ; {2} in 1 K. 11:20b defectively ; 96K [or x]M[e]lNA [BAL] ; Vg. Taphnes ; 1 K. 11:19-20 [twice]), the wife of Pharaoh, whose sister was given to Hadad, the Edomite, to wife. The name has a very Egyptian appearance, although no certain etymology could be given, except that the initial t would be the Egyptian article. The present vowel-points seem to follow the analogy of the city TAHPANHES (q.v. }. See, however, HADAD, according to which article we should not expect an Egyptian name for a queen of Musri in N. Arabia which seems to be meant here instead of Egypt. The possibility remains open, at any rate, that at a later time, when the king of Musri in question had become a Pharaoh in the text, and the whole narrative was referred to Egypt, an Egyptian name was worked into the story. It would be futile to try to reconstruct the various short Egyptian words which could be found in the name, especially as LXX differs somewhat from the Hebrew. [On the Heb. text cp Crit. Bib. on Jer. 46:15.].

W. M. M.

1 No significance, however, should be attached to the fact that the Arabs called a part of the ruins 'the castle of the Jew's daughter' (katsr bint el-Yehudi), which has induced Petrie even to find the alleged 'brick-kiln' of Jer. 43:9 (see BRICK-KILN). It may be mentioned here that Erman (in his review, Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift, 1890, p. 959) has warned us against laying stress on the similarity of the names Defenneh (?) and Daphnje. The best Arabic form is Tel(T) Defeineh or Defineh (others give the plural Defne) - i.e., 'treasure-hill', evidently from finds made here by Arabs, not from an old name of the locality.

2 E.g:, Lagarde once tried to find in Tahpenes the goddess Sohme(t), worshipped especially at Memphis. A ta-Sohme(t) 'the one belonging to Sohmet' would, however, require quite a number of violent emendations


(innn ; e&p&[A] [AL], OARAX [BK]), a descendant of Meribbaal; 1 Ch. 9:41.


(THH D finPI pN,

THN 0ABAC60N H 6CTIN NAAACAI [ten thabasoon e estin nadasai] [B], fHN 66A60N T Qtato f AAACAI [gen ethaoon adasai] [A], |-HN XeTTieiM KAAHC [gen chettieim kades] [L]; Pesh. om. vers.; terram inferiorem Hodshi [Vg.]), a district mentioned between Gilead and Dan-jaan in the account of the movements of Joab in taking the census of the people of Israel 'from Dan even to Beersheba', 2 S. 246.

1. State of the problem.[edit]

That 'Tahtim-hodshi' is corrupt, is too obvious to be questioned. Several remedies have been offered, but not quite satisfactorily, owing to the want of a thorough textual criticism of the whole narrative of the census (vv. 1-9) in the light of parallel passages of geographical description.

1. Ewald (Hist. 3:162, n. 3) thought that for 'Hodshi' (?) we should read 'Hermon' (pcnn). Gratz changed, in addition, 'Tahtim' (?) into 'tahath' (nnn); cp Josh. 113, where Wellhausen, Buhl, Bennett (SBOT, 'Joshua'), and Steuernagel (but not Di. ), read 'the Hittites' (-nnn) under Mt. Hermon. But in this case we require to prefix nnn, thus producing 'the land of the Hittites under Hermon'. H. P. Smith prefers 'the land of the Hittites to Hermon'. But are not Hermon and Dan somewhat too near together?

2. Wellhausen (TBS 217), following Hitzig (for nn) and partly Thenius (for in), reads ncnp D pinri, '(to the land of) the Hittites towards Kadesh'. This is confirmed by LXX {L} (see above), and is adopted by Steuer nagel, Driver, Buhl (SBOT}. But is not Kadesh on the Orontes too far N. ? Wellhausen has to suppose that the boundary line is traced to Kadesh, and that it then comes back (SW. ) to Dan. And had David really conquered the northern Kadesh, and even completely incorporated it into the territory of Israel? Cp Buhl, Pal. 69.

3. Klostermann (ad loc.} and Guthe (Gesch. 94) would read rich/ 1 ? ?MHi '(to the land of) Naphtali towards Kedesh'; cp Dt. 34:1-2 (where, in the description of the prospect from Mt. Nebo, Naphtali is introduced after 'the land of Gilead as far as Dan'), and 2 K. 15:29, where Kedesh is mentioned with Ijon (the name which, according to Klostermann, lurks in the second part of DAN-JAAN [q.v.]) and Gilead, as representing together the far N. of the land of Israel. This is plausible, but involves a somewhat bold emendation of D nnn.

2. Progress possible.[edit]

A more secure solution of the problem can, as has been said above, only be reached in the course of a radical correction of the text. (On Dt. 34:1-2, one of the passages referred to by Klostermann, see NEBO, MOUNT.)

According to the present writer's emended text of 2 S. 8:1-2 (in a section which Budde, quite independently, places very near 2 S. 24:1-9, which it precedes), David had recently conquered the parts of N. Arabia nearest to the land of Judah, viz., Missur and Jerahmeel (the region from which the Israelites appear to have corne). That David treated his new subjects with the cruelty asserted in the MT of 2 S. 8:2, may be confidently denied (see Crit. Bib.}.

A study of the ways of the scribes suggests that the true text of that passage (omitting a number of corrupt dittograms of ^JtDm*) is, ui TUfs -nm c nra-rtN c 2:n D WtDrm TIXD ~ i, 'and he smote Missur and the Jerahmeelites, and subdued the Zarephathites, and Missur became' etc.

What David did next is shown us in 2 S. 24:1-9.

The thought came to him, 'Go, number Missur and Jerahmeel' (v. i), or, as David puts it in his command to Joab, 'Go to and fro throughout all Zarephath-missur, from Dan (? Misran) even to Beer-sheba, {1} and number ye the people' (v. 2). Verses 5-7 describe Joab s proceedings.

'And they passed through Judah, and began from Aroer-jerahmeel, the city that is in the midst of the valley of [Jerahmeel] Jizreel, and they came to Jerahmeel, and to the land of the Rehobothites to Kadesh, and they turned rour.d to the city of Misran. And they came to Missur (or, to the fortress of Missur), and to all the cities of the Horites (Jerahmeelites) and the Kenites; and they came out to the Negeb of Judah, to Beer-sheba. According to v. 9 (originally), Joab gave the number of the men of Missur as 8000, and of the men of Jerahmeel as 5000.

Thus 'Tahtim-hodshi' becomes 'the Rehobothites to Kadesh'. The Rehobothite warriors in David's bodyguard are known to us in the present text as 'Cherethites'. See REHOBOTH.

T. K. C.

1 We now see the original signification of the literary expression 'from Dan even to Beersheba'. There was a southern Dan. Possibly, however, 'from Dan' (pS) may be an early scribe's error (psse), and the original coiner of the phrase wrote 'from Misran' (jnsao). In either case the extent of the Negeb is thus defined. In the lapse of time this was forgotten.

2 Rabbah of the bne Jerahmeel, miscalled in the text of 2 S. 12:25, etc., 'Rabbah of the bne Ammon'.


(-133, Ex. 25:39, etc.; T&AANTON, Mt. 25:24, etc.).



CUMI ( T AAi9A [Ti., - |. \VH] KOYM), two Aramaic words in Mk. 5:41 (see JAIRUS), correctly interpreted by TO Kopdaiov (aol Xyw) gyeipe [to korasion (soi legoo) egeire]: 'little maid (I say unto thee) arise!' The most important variants are (i) ra.fii.Ta. [tabita], etc. (with b for l), and KOV/M [koumi] (see Ti. ). Ta/3ira [tabita], if not purely an error, suggests TABITHA [q.v.]; icovfu [koumi] is of purely grammatical interest ; see Dalman's useful note, Gram. d. Jud.-Palast. Aram. 266, n. i. Talitha, properly 'young one', used very frequently of lambs (in Aramaic more especially of the gazelle), would be represented in Aram, either by talyltha or (cp Dalm. op. cit. 118, n. 6) telitha.


("p pFl, cp Nab. ID^H, and the Lihyan Talmi [DHM Ep. Denk. 5], also GoAOMAlOC [tholomaios] [see BARTHOLOMEW]; cp Wi. GI 2:40, n. i ; 9oA/v\i, -ei. 6&A&Ml)- But the correctness of the reading 'Talmai' (with n) has been questioned 1 (see TALMON, TELEM).

1. One of the sons of ANAK [q.v.] at Hebron (Nu. 13:22 [13:23], fleAajuetr [thelamein] [BA], Oa. [L], -ei [F] ; Josh. 15:14 : SoaAjiiei [B], rbv 0aAjU.cu [AL] ; Judg. 1:10, floA/nei [L], -rbv -V [B], T. Sa^ei [A]).

2. A king of Geshur b. AMMIHUR (i.e., probably Jerahmeel [Che.]) whose daughter (Maacah) was one of David's wives, and mother of Absalom. (2 S. 3:3 : flo/u/mei [thommei] [B] ; 13:37: 9oA^.aiAt)ju. [tholmailem] [B], 0oAoMCu [A] ; 1 Ch. 3:2 : floajuou [B], 0oA/uei [A], 0oA 0j ou [L]).


(|ita, reAMOON [BA] C - [L]), a family of doorkeepers or (reading DHB tJ [Che.]) Asshurites in the temple. Ezra 2:42, Neh. 7:45 (rt\aiuav [tamman] [BN], ToAjuwi/ [A]), cp 1 Ch. 9:17 (ra/ajLtai/ or -/a [B, see Swete], reAfiai/ [A], -lav [L]) ; Neh. 11:19 (reAct/ueii/) ; and 12:25 (om. BX*A, roA/uuoi/ [N c-a mg sup- ], TeA^iwo [L]). In 1 Esd. 5:28 TOLMAN (RV, not in B, TO\^O.V [A]). The clan to which Talmon and another doorkeeper TELEM (07B) belonged was an important one. See TELEM, and cp SHALLUM (8, 11).


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


(npPl), Neh. 7:55 AV = Ezra 2:53, TEMAH.


PEP), 'date-palm'), a place on the SE. border of Judah, mentioned by Ezekiel (47:18 [LXX {2} (pOIN[e]lK6GNOC [phoin[e]ikoonos] BAQ], 47:19 [LXX 9&IM&N [thaiman] K. <t>., 6 being a dittograph both of rtiBTI and lOH], 48:28 [ 0A.IMAN], |^)L [Pesh.], for MT -nbFI, 'ye shall measure' [metiemini, Vg. ]), and, as is usually held, one of the cities fortified by Solomon (1 K. 9:18 Kt. and RV; AV, however, gives TADMOR [q.v.] 6epM&9 [thermath][A, om. BL], leeepMAG [iethermath] [B at 10:23, om. A], 9oAMOp [thodmor] [L ib.]; Palmiram ; ioaotL [Pesh.]). Knobel among critics, and Robinson and Wetzstein among geographers (cp TRADE, 50), have identified Tamar

  • (1) with the Thamara of Eusebius and Jerome ( = the military station Thamaro of Ptol. 4:16 and the Peutinger Tables), a village which is a day's journey from Mapsis 3 (OS 21086 85 3) between Hebron and Elath, and further
  • (2) with the ruin called Kurnub, on an elevated site SE. of 'Ar'ara (AROER, 3). 4 This, however, does not suit the passages in Ezekiel. It appears that some point near the SW. point of the Dead Sea must be meant.

ZOAR [q. v. ] was called 'villa palmarum' in the times of the Crusaders, and Zoar was probably not the only place in the district which rejoiced in its stately palms. Engedi, however, is too far N.

The TAMAR of 1 K. 9:18, which has generally been identified with that of Ezekiel, requires separate treatment. It is credible that Solomon's fortress was for the protection of the commercial road from Ezion-geber to Jerusalem ; but it is not less possible that it was to guard the Negeb towards the land of Musri (see SOLOMON, 7). 'Tamar', both here and elsewhere, is therefore probably miswritten for rcn (Ramath), which is a corruption of 'Jerahmeel' (see TAMAR ii. ). 'In the wilderness, in the land' (p3 nanna) should probably be 'in Arabia, in Missur' (i5fC2 a^J??) (Che. ; see Crit. Bib.

1 Cp Tor, where it is inquired whether 'j, ji, king of ncn.' is not miswritten for 'a^rii king of HDi D' (Talmai, king of Maacah).

2 Reading, 'from HAZAR-AENON [in the NE.] . . . the Jordan forms the boundary (LXX Siopi ijei [diorizei] = S 3 JD) as far as the eastern sea (going along) unto Tamar (mon)'. So Smend, Cornill, Davidson, Toy, etc.

3 See Buhl, Pal. 184, n. 545. The origin of the form 'Mapsis' is not clear. Hommel (Exp. T. 12:288 [1901]) has identified with it the Mai/; [maps] of Ptolemy 5:16:10, and the obscure n& DD on pottery stamps from the Shephelah district (PEF Mem., 1902, pp. 106+).

4 See Van de Velde, Syria and Pal. 2:130+ (more judicious than Robinson [BR 2:616], who did not actually visit Kurnub), who sees that Kurnub cannot be the 'Tamar' of Ezek., and cp Buhl, l.c. and Del. Gen. (4) 581.


(7on, as if 'date palm', 69 ; 6A/v\<\p [BNAUEL]). The name, in the sense of 'date palm', is of course suitable enough for a woman (cp Cant. 7:7-8, [7:8-9]). But it also occurs as a place-name, and we have to find an explanation which will fit both the personal name and the place-name. Winckler (GI 2:98-99, 2:104-105, 2:227) offers such an explanation. Tamar, he thinks, is the Canaanite Ishtar; the myth of Tammuz and Istar was doubtless transplanted into Canaan (cp Stucken, Astralmythen, 14-16). BAAL-TAMAR was the place where the men of Benjamin had their tribal sanctuary, and dedicated to the [female] goddess Ishtar. Cp KIRJATH-JEARIM, SAUL. 'Baalath and Tamar', 1 K. 9:18, should rather be Baalath-tamar (a less original form of Baal-tamar). All this is set forth with great force and learning ; but there is a doubt whether the relics of mythology can be so easily traced, and whether textual criticism, methodically applied, does not here, as often elsewhere, suggest a better explanation.

Proper names in the OT are even more frequently corrupt than has been supposed, and need very careful emendation, and it so happens that ion, both as an appellative and as a proper name, is specially liable to corruption. The passage 1 K. 9:18 is treated separately (see TAMAR 1) ; we are here only considering the passages in which 'Tamar' occurs as the name of a woman. A careful study of this group of passages suggests that 'Tamar' has here most probably arisen out of one of the popular distortions of Jerahme'elith ; another such corruption is MAACAH, and a third is MAHALATH. We may add that -eiTN, ITHAMAR (the name of a son of Aaron) very possibly came from S^cnTi Jerahme'el (n from n); cp JEREMOTH.

1. The wife of Judah's son Er, who subsequently, through her father-in-law, became the mother of PEREZ and ZERAH [q.v.] (Gen. 38:6+ [J], 1 Ch. 2:4, Mt. 1:3 [AV here THAMAR]). The story is referred to in Ruth (4:12) as furnishing a parallel to Ruth's marriage with Boaz. According to Winckler it is a Canaanitish development of the myth of Ishtar (see above). For another and a preferable view of the significance of the story, see JUDAH.

2. Sister of Absalom (2 S. 13:1+, 1 Ch. 3:9 [B always 077/uap [themar] and so A in 1 Ch.]), and probably daughter of the same mother (cp Jos. Ant. 7:8:1); see MAACAH, 2. According to Winckler (GI 2:227-228), not only has this Tamar s name mythological affinities, but the whole story of her being outraged by her half-brother Amnon is mythological. An old myth respecting Tamar, the Canaanitish Ishtar, and her relation to her brother (to whom TAMMUZ corresponds) has been transformed by the people into a quasi-historical narrative. Note especially Tamar's cake, which reminds Winckler of the cakes of Ashtoreth (Jer. 44:19). See, however, above, and cp ABSALOM, DAVID.

3. (0ijfj.ap [B], Thamar, but /uaa%a [maacha] [L]), a daughter of Absalom, 2 S. 14:27-28 (vv. 25-27 late ; see Bu. SHOT, 'Sam.'). Elsewhere we hear of a daughter of Absalom and wife of king Rehoboam called Maacah, and LXX{BA} in 2 S. 14:27 identifies Absalom's daughter Tamar with the wife of king Rehoboam; LXX{L}, indeed, goes further and reads, not Tamar, but Maacah. If the addition in LXX, 2 S. 14:27, relative to the marriage of Absalom's daughter with Rehoboam is correct, one would be inclined to follow LXX{L}'s reading 'Maacah'. But perhaps the difficulty is not really existent. 'Tamar ' and 'Maacah' may both be corruptions of Jerahme'elith ('a Jerahmeelite').

For the rest see MAACAH, 3. Thus two of the cases of the recurrence of a name in the same family would disappear (see also MEPHIBOSHETH, and cp Gray, HPN 6-7).

T. K. C.


is the rendering in RV of 'eshel 7E?N, for which AV has in Gen. 21:33 'grove', mg. 'tree'; in 1 S. 226 'tree', mg. 'grove'; and in 1 S. 31:13 'tree'. The variety of rendering suggests that the Heb. word has an interesting history, and though it has become traditional to render 'tamarisk', the critical tradition needs periodical revision at the hands of critics. 1

1. Apart from LXX, whose rendering apotpa [aroura] Wellhausen (Sam. 124) pronounces unintelligible, the ancients took the word in a general sense, translating sometimes 'grove' or 'plantation' (Aq. devSpui [dendroon] and d&dpufjia [dendrooma] * (?) ; Sym. </>i>reia. [phyteia], Vg. nemus, D Tia Tg. Jer. 1 and 2, and Ber. rab. 54, end), sometimes 'tree' (Sym. tpvr6v [phyton] ; so Onk. Pesh. ) or 'oak tree' (Theod. [rds [tas]] SpDs [drys]; 1 Ch. 10:12, nSi, instead of the Sc*K of 1 S. 31:13). Such a view of the meaning is supported by the Rabbis, and even by Celsius (1:535+), but the rendering 'tree' would be excusable only as a protest against the cultus of some special sacred tree (cp OAK) - philologically it is of course untenable.

2. The tendency to explain obscure Heb. words from the Arabic has led to the identification of 'eshel, ^istt, with the Arab, 'athl, which corresponds phonetically, and means 'tamarisk'. Of this tree perhaps as many as half a dozen species are found in Pal. (Tristram, FFP, 250): our common tamarisk is not one of them. The common riverside species is T. Pallasii, Desc. The tamarisk 'is a very graceful tree, with long feathery branches and tufts, closely clad with the minutest of leaves, and surmounted in spring with spikes of beautiful pink blossom'. 'Though it is often a mere bush, some of the Palestinian tamarisks reach such a size as to afford dense shade . . . Beersheba is well suited for the growth of the tamarisk; and we observed large numbers of the Eastern tamarisk on the banks below the site of Jabesh Gilead' (Tristram, l.c.). It is also common in Egypt, where it was anciently consecrated to Osiris, and bore the (Semitic?) name of asari. 3

3. It may be doubted, however, whether this is really the correct explanation. It will be noticed that Tristram says nothing about tamarisks at Gibeah of Saul. The tree referred to in 1 S. 22:6 was no doubt a sacred tree (see HIGH PLACE, 3 and n. 6). In 1 S. 14:2 we read apparently of a pomegranate tree under which Saul sat (see MICRON). There is no probability in the view that the tree on the high place at Gibeah was a tamarisk. But if we give up 'eshel in 1 S. 22:6, we can hardly defend it in Gen. 21:33 and 1 S. 31:13; the presumption is that the same word is meant in all these passages, and that in all three it is corrupt. Now let us turn to LXX's dpovpa [droura] (thrice). At first sight this looks like an orthodox substitute for a word liable to be misused (cp the Vss. on Gen. 126, and see OAK). But how can LXX possibly have understood the phrase t<f>v- Tfvfftv dpovpav [ephyteusen arouran], if apovpa [aroura] means 'tilled land'? Clearly dpovpa [aroura] must cover some tree-name, and it has been suggested that apovpa [aroura] may come from i^ny or lyny, which LXX, like Tg. and Vg. , understood to mean 'tamarisk'. Thus the harder part of LXX's riddle is explained. It remains to account for LXX's reading ijnj: [ARAR] or -li 1 "!! [ARVAR] in lieu of SSTN ['ShL] - it is no mere interpretation but a genuine reading that LXX gives us. There is only one hypothesis which will do this ; -ijny or -\yny is a corruption of ms>K, asherah (Che. ). This, then, is the true reading in all three places: 'Abraham built an asherah at Beersheba ; Saul sat under the asherah at Gibeah ; the bones of Saul and his sons were buried under the asherak at jabesh' 1

mC N was corrupted in one important MS. into njpj? or nynj; \ in another into SJN. The idea of the latter hypothesis was suggested by Klo., who supposes *? to be a deliberate distortion of mB"N> 2 in order to discourage Asherah-worship. LXX's apovpa [aroura], acc. to him, is nTIK ['RRH], 'the cursed (tree)' - again a protest against tree-worship.

2. 'ar'dr. ijny, Jer. 17:6, 48:6-7 RV mg, EV HEATH.

1 H. P. Smith sounds a note of warning. Though he renders StfX ['ShL] 'tamarisk', he remarks, 'As the word only occurs three times, the species is uncertain'.

2 Sei Spuip.a. [dendrooma] seems to be an error for Sei-Spotva [dendrooma] (see Schleusner, Lex. in YT, s.v.).

3 Pierret, Dict, d'archeol. egypt. 534 ; Maspero, Dawn cf Civ., 28, n. 3.


(T-1GF1), whose worship is supposed, on doubtful grounds, to be alluded to in Ezek. 8:14 (0AMMOZ [BA], Aa)NI t [adoni] Qmg ] Adonis [vg] derives his name from the Bab. Dumuzi {3} ( 4 R. 28, 50a ) - i.e., 'son of life', which, according to G. A. Barton, refers to Tammuz as the child of the goddess of fertility, or perhaps 'a true divine child' ( =Ass. aplu kenu ; so Frd. Del. ).

1. Personality and cult.[edit]

He is variously described as the youthful husband of the goddess Ishtar, as her son, and as the first in the series of her rejected husbands. Every year, in the fourth month (Duzu, see below) - i.e., July - he descended to Hades, and remained there till the next spring. His disappearance gave occasion to drink-offerings and a great bikitu or 'weeping'. The motives of his legend and the meaning of his cultus can be found in the Babylonian myth of the Descent of Ishtar. There is also an illustrative passage in the Gilgamesh-epic, Tab. 6, where, among other lovers of the goddess who have encountered a sad fate, 4 Tammuz ( Dumuzi) is mentioned, 'Tammuz, the spouse of thy youth, thou compellest to weep year after year'. 5 The discovery of Friedrich Delitzsch and Jensen (Kosmol. 197) that 4 R. 30, no. z contains a song of lamentation for Tammuz is not less suggestive. This is how the song runs, as translated by A. Jeremias. 6

'He went down (?) to meet the nether world, he has sated himself, the sun-god caused him to perish (passing) to the land of the dead, with mourning was he filled on the day when he fell into great sorrow'.

The word rendered 'sorrow' (idirtum) occurs again in 5 R. 48, col. 44, where, on the name of the month Tammuz, stands the note - idirtum, 'sorrow'. The Tammuz festival was in fact the idealisation of human sorrow - a kind of 'All Souls Day'. Hence partly the strong hold which it obtained upon the masses. 'Dirges were sung by the wailing women to the accompaniment of musical instruments ; offerings were made to the dead, and it is plausible to assume that visits were paid to the graves'. It is probable that, to gratify the general sentiment, specially important national mournings were placed in the month Tammuz (see below). 'The calendar of the Jewish Church still marks the 17th day of Tammuz as a fast, and Houtsma has shown that the association of the day with the capture of Jerusalem by the Romans represents merely the attempt to give an ancient festival a worthier interpretation. The day was originally connected with the Tammuz cult'. 7

1 It is assumed here that the Asherah was originally a sacred tree. But cp ASHERAH.

2 Siegfr.-Sta. agree, so far as Gen. l.c. is concerned.

3 The form Tamuzu has also been found in the personal name Ur(?)-(ilu) Tamuzu (Jensen, in Kraetzschmar's note on Ezek. 8:14). See further Delitzsch, Heb. and Assyrian, 16, and in Baer's Ezekiel, pref. 17-18; Zimmern, Busspsalmen, 26, 60, and ZA 1:17-24, 1:215-216, 2:270-280; Lenormant, 'Sur le nom de Tammonz', in Proc. of Paris Congress of Orientalists, 2:149-165 ; Baudissin, Stud. z. sem. Rel.-gesch., 135:300+; G. A. Barton, Semitic Origins (1902), p. 86 ; Zimmern, KAT (3), 397+

4 For parallels to this view of Istar in mythology and folklore (including that in Tobit 3:8) see Stucken, Astralmythen, 16.

5 Jeremias, Izdubar-Nimrod, 24 ; cp Maspero, Dawn of Civ. 580, 672; Jastrow, Rel. Bab. Ass. 482.

6 Op. cit. 50 ; but cp on one part of the song Jensen, Kosmol. 226.

7 Jastrow, Rel. Bab. Ass. 682.

The month devoted to Tammuz in the later Jewish Calendar (Meg. Ta'anith, 45b) was the Babylonian month Du'uzu or Du'zu, which was assigned to Ninib, the god of the hot mid-day sun, as regent. See MONTH, 2.

Originally and properly Du'uzu or Dumuzu, is the spirit or god of the spring vegetation; 1 also, by a natural sequence, he is the lord, and his sister Bilili (see BELIAL, 2) is the lady, of the underworld, the region of growth, though also the place of the dead. 2 But it was not possible to keep this conception in its purity; it was natural to identify the vegetation spirit with the sun, and to treat Du'uzu as a manifestation of the solar deity (Ninib). For the drama of the sun is similar to that of plant-life ; after the summer solstice the sun seems gradually to lose its strength, and at length to die, till at the winter solstice it is born again. Originally too, the Du'uzu story was distinct from the Adonis and the Osiris stories ; but at an early date the distinction was forgotten ( ADONIS, 2). The identity of Tammuz and Adonis is asserted by Jerome 3 and other fathers (see ASHTORETH, 2, with n. 3).

According to Robertson Smith the wailing for Tammuz was not originally connected with the death of vegetation, but was a ceremony of mourning for some sacrificial victim, such as is performed among the Todas of S. India to this day. Later, a different explanation was sought for the wailing - one more in harmony with advancing civilisation - and the rite was projected into the myth of the death of Tammuz. Robertson Smith also thinks that the yearly mourning for Tammuz-Adonis is the closest parallel in form to the humiliation of the Hebrew Day of Atonement (Rel. Sem. (4), 411, cp 414).

To this view G. A. Barton (Sem. Or. 114) assents. The story of Adapa, however (KB 6:1, p. 97; cp Jastrow, Kcl. Bab.-Ass. 549), discloses an earlier form of the Tammuz-myth according to which Tammuz did not go into the death-world on leaving the earth, but ascended to the gate of Anu, where he was stationed ('as door-keeper ) with another solar god or vegetation god called Giszrida. According to Jensen (TLZ, 1896, col. 70) another ancient belief made Tammuz, the god of vernal vegetation, the son of abzu (the primaeval ocean). Certainly Gudea (about 3000 B.C.) mentions Tamuzi-abzu (zuaba), i.e., Tammuz of the ocean, beside Ningishzida (identical with Geszida, mentioned above) ; compare, however, Jastrow (KB A 96), who deprecates fusing the two Tammuz-deities, and Barton (Sem. Or. 211-212), who makes this deity a goddess.

1 See Jensen, Kosmol. 197, 227, but especially Frazer, GB (2) 2:115+. Barton thinks that the goddess Ishtar was originally connected with some never-failing spring, and that some sacred tree near it represented her son (Sem. Or. 86).

2 Jensen, Kosmol. 225 ; cp Jastrow, KBA 575. Bilili is the world-principle of generation and growth.

3 There is a remarkable statement of Jerome (ed. Vallarsi, 1:321), 'Bethlehem nunc nostram . . . lucus inumbrabat Thamus, id est Adonidis'. Just before, he tells us that this cult of Adonis has lasted about 180 years, from the times of Hadrian to the empire of Constantine. Evidently he regarded the Adonis cult practised in the reputed grove of the Nativity as a deliberate profanation. It is not probable, however, that any such profanation would have been committed in the time of Hadrian ; it was the Jews, not the Christians, who were at that time the objects of heathen persecution. And we may assume that the predominant element in the cultus in the cave at Bethlehem was not connected with Tammuz-Adonis, but rather with Isis and Sarapis, just as at Byblus the legend of Astarte and Adonis became fused with that of Isis and Osiris (cp Conradi, Kindheitsgeschichte Jesus, 315-316; Usener, Rel.-gesch. Untersuch. 1:202).

4 Toy takes miOl (* *?) n tne sense of 'stench', and renders, 'they are sending a stench to my nostrils' ( 2N 7N). Kraetzschmar agrees with this, and finds in v. 17 a contemptuous reference to the sacrifices of the 'high places', which gave forth to Yahwe no 'sweet savour'. Most see a reference to the Baresma, or bundle of branches of flowering trees, held by worshippers of the solar fire in the Parsee religion (see Vendidad 10:64, Spiegel, Eran. Alterth. 8571). Cp a Cyprian parallel in Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, 137+. Clermont-Ganneau (Etudes d'archeol. orientale, 28 [1880]) supposes some rite in the mysteries of Adonis. This would require us to transfer the last clause of v. 17 to the end of v. 14.

2. OT traces.[edit]

We now turn to the single express reference to Tammuz in the MT. It occurs in the description of heathen rites practised in the temple, which Ezekiel in his captivity professes to have seen when in the ecstatic state. First among these rites - according to Toy's explanation of chap. 8 - comes (perhaps) an Asherah-image (v. 5). Next, the secret worship of reptiles and beasts, probably forms of old-Israelitish worship (v. 10). Next, the women weeping for Tammuz (v. 14). Next, twenty-five men worshipping the sun in the east (v. 16). The last form of heathenism (as most explain v. 17) is not recognised as such by Toy, but we have to mention it here for completeness ; it is 'stretching out the branch to the nose'. 4 According to Toy, the sun-worship of the Jews was probably borrowed from Assyria, so that Tammuz-worship and sun-worship would naturally be mentioned together.

Plausible as this is, a critical scepticism appears justifiable. It is strange that nom [HThMVZ] should occur nowhere else in the OT. In Ezek. 8:5 ntOpn is certainly corrupt ; this may reasonably make us suspect )lOnn- First of all, however, the whole context should be critically examined. The most obvious corrections (if we presuppose some very constant types of corruption) are those in v. 10, on which see SHAPHAN. From the probably true text of this verse we may divine that the whole description of which it forms part relates to heathen rites of Jerahmeelite or N. Arabian origin. Elsewhere (see Crit. Bib.) the text of v. 14 is corrected, and a reference to the cult of the N. Arabian goddess is supposed. See, however, also HADAD-RIMMON, where a reference to Tammuz-worship is suspected to exist both here and in Zech. 12:11. For a generally supposed reference to the parallel cult of Adonis, see GARDEN, 8; and cp NAAMAN. According to Ewald, the 'desire of women' mentioned in Dan. 11:37 is Tammuz-Adonis.

It is maintained by Stucken and Winckler that features of the Tammuz, Adonis, and Osiris myths have attached themselves to certain legendary Israelitish heroes. Thus Abram and Sarai, brother and sister, as well as husband and wife, also Amnon and Tamar, suggest comparison with Tammuz and Ishtar 1 (see Stucken, Astralmythen, 11; Wi. GI 2:23, 2:227-228 cp 2:105-106., and TAMAR, 2). The story of Joseph devoured by a wild beast, also the detail about Moses in the ark of bulrushes (see, however, MOSES, 3), suggest respectively the Adonis and the Osiris myth. David, the beautiful young shepherd, also reminds one of Tammuz or Adonis. Many critics may be inclined to admit that the details here mentioned (Winckler has much more to mention besides) are of mythic origin ; but to connect them directly with the Babylonian myth of Duzu seems to be at present a somewhat bold hypothesis. That the mourning for Jephthah's daughter is analogous to the Tammuz wailing is, however, beyond the possibility of doubt.

T. K. C.

1 Though strictly the sister of Tammuz was Bilili.


(^Itfl), Josh. 21:25 AV, RV TAANACH.


(n-imn ; cp the Talm. pr. name Tanhum), father of SERAIAH [q.v. ] (2 K. 25:23 : e&Ne/v\&9 [B], -MAN [A], GANeeMM&G [I-] I Jer. 40:8 ; e&NAeMAiG [B], e<\N&e/v\ee [AQ], NAB- [N]).

The name, though possibly (cp Nahum in OS) early explained as 'comfort' (cp 62; pointed so as to exclude a woman's name?), may, according to analogies (e.g. Rehum, connected with Jerahme'el), come from an ethnic of the Negeb (cp NAHAMAN I). In 2 K. Seraiah b. Tanhumeth is called a Netophathite ; but the present writer takes Naphtuhite to be meant (cp NETOPHAH) - i.e., he belonged, like (probably) his companions, to the Negeb. In Jer. the designation is apparently given to certain 'sons of EPHAI' (q.v.). But iy 33 (as Kt.) is a corrupt duplication of <n21BJ- Cp Crit. Bib. on Jer. 40:1, 40:5, where it is argued that Gedaliah's Mizpah may have been Zarephath in the Negeb.

T. K. C.


(TANCOOC [BA]) Judith 1:10. See ZOAN.




(D^IPD, marbaddim0, RV 'Carpets', AV 'coverings', RVmg 'cushions', of tapestry are mentioned in Pr. 7:16, 31:22-23. See EMBROIDERY, WEAVING.


(nStp, 78), 'daughter of Solomon', wife of one of the king's prefects (see BEN-ABINADAB), 1 K.4:11 i-r&BAHeei [tablethei] [B], eAei [-thlei] [B ab. vid]- T&BA&6 [tabaath] [I-]. T<\cpA,TA [A]). Probably, however, it was a Salmaean (i.e., Arabian) woman who is meant; point ilpp" . So in v. 15. Her name was perhaps Naphtuhith (cp 78); and her husband's prefecture may have comprised all a7y n1ns:, Naphtoah-arab. See Crit. Bib. ; also SALMAH.

T. K. C.


[AV] or TEPHON [RV] T e4>o>N [AN], T64>CO [V], TOXOAC [tochoas] [Jos. Ant. 13:1:3, 15], Cepho [Vet. Lat.], Syr. ^aja^J). One of the 'strong cities' in Judaea fortified by Bacchides; 1 Macc. 9:50. The name is a corruption either of Tappuah (cp Josh. 168 LXX{B}), in which case BETH-TAPPUAH (q.v. ) may be meant, or of NETOPHAH (q.v.). The latter view (Gra. Gesch. (4) 3:1:8, n. 5) is geographically possible, but is phonetically perhaps rather less natural.


(n-1Sn ; 103, cp APPLE and FRUIT, ").

1. A place grouped with Zanoah, En-gannim, and Enam among the towns of the lowland of Judah (Josh. 15:34), and connected apparently with Hebron (1 Ch. 2:43). (In Josh. iXovBuB [ilouthooth] {1} [B?], adia.0a.ein [adiathaeim] {1} [A], Oatjxpova [L] ; in i Ch. Oawovs [B], 6a,(f><f>ov [A], <t>f0pov8 [L]). Perhaps, however, 'Tappuah and Enam' should rather be and 'Tappuah [of] Enam', and the same place may be referred to in Gen. 38:14 (read 'at Tappuah of Enaim') and in Josh. 15:9, l8:15 (read for 'unto the fountain of the waters of NEPHTOAH', 'unto Nephtoah, or Tappuah, [of] Enam'). In all these passages there is most probably a geographical confusion due to the redactors - i.e. the place originally intended was in the Negeb (cp SOCOH, ZANOAH, ZORAH). Very possibly, too, Tappuah is a popular distortion of Nephtoah or Naphtoah, the name the present writer supposes to underlie the difficult 'Naphtuhim' in Gen. 10:13. See MIZRAIM, 2b, where Gen. 10:13-14 is explained in the light of the theory that c lXD is very often not Misraim, 'Egypt', but Misrim, the Musri on the N. Arabian border of Palestine.

2. A place which appears once (see below) at a critical point of the history of Israel, situated on the border between Ephraim and Manasseh (see KANAH), Josh. 16:8, 17:8. In 17:7 it is called EN-TAPPUAH, and in the next verse we are told that the land or district of Tappuah belonged to Manasseh, but Tappuah itself to the b'ne Ephraim. This is inserted to account for the expression in v. 7, 'and (then) the border goes along southward to the inhabitants (=the district) of En-tappuah'. Conder (Hdbk. 263) identifies En-Tappuah or Tappuah with a spring near Yasuf, at the head of a branch of the Wady Kanah, S. of Shechem and of Michmethath. Robinson, however, and formerly Conder (PEFQ, 1877, p. 48), connected it with Kh. Atuf, and Guerin (Sam. 1:259) with 'Ain el-Fari'ah, both NE. of Nablus. In each case the identification depends on the situation assigned to the torrent KANAH. Probably enough there was a northern Tappuah; but the name (a distortion of Naphtoah) comes from the Negeb. It is historically unsafe to suppose that the northern Tappuah was the city so cruelly treated by Menahem in his hour of victory, 2 K. 15:16 (see TIPHSAH).

(*P Ta<f>ov, 7T>)y;? 6a(j>0ui0 \va<f>(6, a, b, mg.], 6a.<t>e6 [B] ; e<t><f>ov(, mj-y^f 0ad<!>ta6, Oa(f>9<ad [A]; ftun^ore , TrrrjTjc i a<j>8<a6, [fla^iuS] [L]). Dillmann holds that the Ephraimite Tappuah was the royal city of Josh. 12:17 (arar/xwT [Bl, flcujxf>ou [A], ()a.ir<j>ov [L]). With the preceding name Bethel, the list of cities passes into central Palestine. The present writer thinks, however, that Josh. 12:78 has been recast by the redactor, and that the royal cities are really in the Jerahmeelite Negeb (cp SHIMRON-MERON, TIRZAH).

T. K. C.



RV Terah (IT)F1 ; TARAG [BL]. e- [A] 6K&PA.6 [ekarath], 6K9- [F, the preposition e [ek] dittographed]), a stage in the wandering in the wilderness; Nu. 33:27-28. See WANDERING, WILDERNESS OF.

Probably a mutilation of Jerahmeel (cp TERAH) [Che.]. Cp MAKHELOTH, TAHATH, MOSERAH.


(H^nri ; Q\peH\& [B], 6&P&A& [A], 9e. [L] ; therela, therama [OS(2) 31:2, 156:31; cp 261:25]), apparently a Benjamite place-name (Josh. 18:27), but really, like ha-eleph in v. 28, a corruption of ?XD"I\ IRPEEL (q. v. ), or of 7XOm t , of which 7NDT may be a corruption (Che. ). See ELEPH.


(in>Xn [Ba.], IHNn [Gi.] in 1 Ch. 8:35; but innfl [Ba.], innFI[Gi.], EV TAHREA in 9:41-42; Gepee, GAPAX [tharach] [B and N in 9:41], 6&pee. 6&p& [A], 6<\PAA. [L]), a descendant of Saul mentioned in a genealogy of BENJAMIN (q.v. , 9, ii. B), 1 Ch. 8:35 = 9:41.


(ZIZANIA, Mt. 13:25+). The Greek word, which does not occur in LXX, is plainly of Semitic origin. Its Syriac form zizna is (as Lagarde says, Son. 63) equivalent to zinzan, and so derived from \/n [root ZN], which in Ar. means 'to be dry'. A kindred word is Ar. (and Pers. ?) zawan, which denotes the seed of dawsar - i.e., darnel, (ifdnov [zizanion] is, according to Suidas, ^ fv T<a <riT<a alpo [e en too sitoo aira]; the medicinal effects of atpa [aira] are described in Diosc. 2:122. ,

From the statements in Mishna and Talmud (see Low, 133-134) we learn that c :it, the post-biblical Hebrew equivalent of ftfacca [zizania], denoted plants closely resembling wheat, alongside of which they grew, and were indeed sometimes regarded as a degenerate form of wheat produced under unfavourable conditions from the same seeds. In view of these and other statements, it is generally agreed that the plant intended is Lolium temulentum, or darnel (Tristram, NHB 487, where there is a good account of the plant).

It is not improbable that 'darnel' has been associated with 'white crops', especially wheat, from the earliest times. With imperfect methods of cleaning the seed-grain, the seed would be sown with that of the wheat. It grows to about the same height, and would naturally be regarded as a degenerate form. Darnel was long regarded as poisonous (op Hooker, Student's Flora, 454); this, however, is now attributed to the ergot with which it is peculiarly prone to be affected. Its rarity in England, where it is only a 'weed of cultivation', is due to greater care in the sowing. A native of Europe and N. Asia, it occurs throughout the Mediterranean basin.

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


(1) H3 X, tsinnah, 1 K. 10:16 ; see SHIELD, 1

(2) J1T3, kidon, 1 S. 17:6. See JAVELIN, i, 5; SWORD.




(X??S"1D, Ezra 4:9+; T<\p&c}JAAA,MOi [B], Tap<f>. [AL]; I^SvJ), according to most recent writers not an ethnic name, but miswritten for N^DEC, 'tablet-writers' (from Ass. dup-sarru) ; cp Schr. COT on Jer. 51:27, but see SCRIBE. Cp also APHARSITES.


(tr trW:! ; 6&pc[e]lC [BNA, etc.] everywhere except Is. 2:16 [see below] and 23:1, 23:6, 23:10, 23:14 [K&PXHA60N [karchedoon] (BNQT), x&PK- (B* once, N* twice)] where Qmg. twice has G&PCGIC [tharseis] as the reading of Aq. Symm. Theod., and Ezek. 27:12, 27:25 [APXHAONIOI or XARK- (BAQ A -t . 25 adding G&pcoc)] 8813 [KApXHAoN IOI (B); x^AKHAONOC [chalkedonos] (A), GApceiC (Q mg- vid )] ; thrice spelled Tharshish in AV [1 K. 10:22 bis, 22:48]). A son of Javan, Gen. 10:4, 1 Ch. 1:7 (where miswritten ne ^ in, under tne influence of mrSs 1 )-

1. Biblical references.[edit]

In a relatively early passage (Is. 2:16 we find the phrase 'Tarshish ships' 1 as a synonym for large, sea-going vessels. We also find the phrase in 1 K. 10:22 {2} (twice; LXX vavs fK 6. [naus ek tharsis] the second time), 22:49 {3}, Is. 60:9, Ps. 48:7 [48:8], and Ezek. 27:25 . The information given us respecting Tarshish may be very briefly summed up. According to Jer. 10:9 (later than Jeremiah), silver was brought from it, and elsewhere, besides silver, iron, tin, and lead are specified among its riches (Ezek. 27:12 ; cp 38:13). It is mentioned with the iyyim (CVN) or 'coast-lands' (Is. 23:6, 66:19 [wiih other countries], Ps. 72:10). Jonah, when fleeing from the presence of Yahwe, set sail for Tarshish from Joppa (Jon. 1:3, 4:2, cp 2 Ch. 9:2i bis [7r\o?a K 0. [ploia ek o.] once], 20:36-37 - where Tarshish ships have become, through the author's misunderstanding, 'ships that go to Tarshish').

1 LXX, however, does not support the rendering 'Tarshish ships'; SaAatrtrr)? [thalasses] in TTO.V TrAoioi/ 0aAa<r<rr)S [pan ploion thalasses] [BNA, etc.] is an erroneous transliteration ; for another case of this see Dan. 10:6 (0aAa<r<ns [thalasses] [8:7] = #ap<7ets [tharseis] [Theod.] ; cp Vg.'s maris in Ezek. 1:16). In Talm. Jer. Meg. 74a, c^E in CaAaocrios [thalassios] (Levy).

2 Regarded as a redactional insertion (see Kittel, Benzinger). The Hebrew has Yl :K (collective).

3 Stade, Kittel, and Benzinger agree that (following LXX) we should read here mN and mxn (singular). Note m^e j (Kt.), 'was broken'. LXX{B} omits ty Bnjl [tarshish] whilst LXX{A} and LXX{L} have respectively in their insertion after 1 K. 16:28 vaJuv ccs 6 [naun eis o] and vavv . . . tit 6 [naun .... eis tharsis].

2. Where? Tartessus?[edit]

The identification of the locality is difficult. Most scholars since Bochart have thought of Tartessus (T7 l ffff; but Polyb. 3:24:2, Tapcotw [tarseion]) in S. Spain. This was the ancient and, as far as known to the OT writers, the remotest goal of Phoenician commerce (see GEOGRAPHY, 12b). Herodotus (4:152) indeed places Tartessus beyond the Pillars of Hercules; cp Strabo 3:151; Plin. 3:38. Elsewhere (2:148) Strabo, with whom Pausanias (4:19:3) agrees, makes Tartessus the name of the River Baetis (Guadalyuivir), and also of a city in the delta of this river, the surrounding territory being called Tartessis. Diodorus (5:35+) as well as Strabo speaks of the silver, iron, tin, and lead of Tartessus. The exact site seems not determinate, nor is it clear that the Hebrews knew it. Cp SILVER.

[The name Tartessus was extended to the whole of S. Spain. 'As far as the terminus Tartesiorum' is found in Avienus (462), and in the second treaty between Carthage and Rome we read that the Romans are forbidden Mao-Ttas Taporjt ou juij Ajjcjea-flai eireKetfa [mastias tarseion me lezethai epekeina] (Polyb. 3:24:3) - i.e., they are not to go beyond the city of Mastia in the land called Tarseion = Tarshish. See E. Meyer, GA 2:687 (425).]

What is likely is, that Tarshish is a Semitised form of the native name.

3. Carthage?[edit]

LXX in Ezek. and Is. 23 renders 'Tarshish' by 'Carthage'. In its ordinary sense this name is of course unsuitable. But when the Carthaginians brought the Phoenician settlement of Mastia (see section 1, end) in the land of Tarseion (Tarshish?) under their rule, they made it a Kart-hadasht ( =Carthage), so that LXX's rendering in a new sense appears to be defensible (Wi. AOF 1:445-446).

4. Tarsus.[edit]

Tarsus in Cilicia is the identification adopted by Josephus and Jerome, and in modern times by Baron Bunsen, Sayce, 1 and - for Gen. 10:4 - by A. H. Keane (who takes 'a son of Javan' to mean 'an Asiatic Greek' ; cp The Gold of Ophir : 92+). The objections to this are

  • (1) that the recorded foundation of TARSUS [q. v. ] does not go back far enough, and
  • (2) that its name, as given on coins and in Assyrian inscriptions, has z instead of s.

5. Phoenicia?[edit]

Le Page Renouf (PSBA 16:104-108, 16:138-141) advocates the claims of the Phoenician coast, so that the phrase 'Tarshish ships' would be equivalent to 'Phoenician ships'. This is in accordance with W. M. Mailer's explanation of the Egyptian phrase 'Kefto ships' as = 'ships built in the Kefto style', As. u. Eur. 349, n. 2 (cp CAPHTOU). But plausible as this interpretation of 'ships of Tarshish' may be, the sense 'Phoenicia' for 'Tarshish' has not been made out. It would appear as if this learned Egyptologist had read the text of Is. 23:10 too unsuspiciously. Of course, too, the sense 'Phoenicia' for 'Tarshish' cannot easily be made to agree with the biblical references (apart from the phrase mentioned) to the city or district of Tarshish.

6. Tyrseni?[edit]

Knobel (Gen.(2) ) and Franz Delitzsch (Gen. (5)) separate the Tarshish of Gen. 10:4 from that of other passages, and suppose it to mean the Tyrseni - i.e., the Etruscans. This we may at once venture to reject ; if Tyrseni are meant, it must be those of the AEgean (cp TIRAS). These famous sea-rovers appear in the Egyptian inscriptions as Tur(u)sha, 2 and if they are referred to at all in Gen. 10:4, it would be best to read there, not 'Tarshish', but 'Turus' or 'Turush'. If we take this step, it becomes possible that the phrase 'ships of Tarshish' may have been originally 'ships of Turush' (wsh7pi?). In this case the expression would be very old, and be a monument of the times when 'ships of the Turush' were no unfrequent sights. later, Turush might very possibly be confounded with the Tars implied in the Greek form Tap<nf)ioi> [tarseion] = Tartessus (see section 2).

1 In Exp.T, 1902, p. 179.

2 It is safe to recognise in the Turusha, expressly mentioned by Rameses III. as a maritime people, Tyrsenian pirates who appear in the old Greek tradition - by no means the Etruscans (E. Meyer, GA 1:313, 260).

7. The N. Arabian Asshur?[edit]

It has hitherto been assumed in this article that the Hebrew text of the passages referred to is on the whole correct, though the doubtfulness of Gen. 10:4 and Is 23:10 has been alluded to. Now, however, we must proceed further, and take into account the fact that there is much corruption in the Hebrew text of the OT, and specially in the readings of the proper names. As a preliminary, we must separate the inquiry as to the signification of oniyyoth Tarshish (trcnD ni JN : EV 'ships of Tarshish') from that as to the meaning of trc in. where it stands alone, partly because most critics (e.g. , Stade, GVI 1:533, note) agree that 'Tarshish-ships' means 'ships of the largest dimensions', 1 and partly because a close examination of the passages where the phrase n nvjN occurs appears to show that the text is corrupt, 'ships' being, according to the text here adopted, nowhere referred to except in 1 K. 10:22, 22:48 and 2 Ch. 9:21. Confining our attention in the first instance to these three passages, and more especially to those in Kings as primary, we are struck by the improbability of the language employed (as the text represents). In 1 K. 10:22 we have 'a navy of Tarshish with the navy of Hiram'; in 22:48, 'ships of T. to go to Ophir for gold'. If we knew nothing about a place supposed to have been called Tarshish, should we not suppose that trtrin represented something connected with naval architecture or management? Should this consideration seem to warrant emendation, no better one presents itself, perhaps, than B IB ; D (Ezek. 27:29) - i.e., the phrase 'ships of Tarshish' means, not our 'East-Indiamen', but 'galleys with oars'. In Is. 33:21 we actually find almost the very phrase here taken as the original of n K, viz , e s* \JN ( EV 'galley with oars').

Turning to the remaining passages in which the phrase 'ships of T.' is supposed to occur, we are struck by finding that here too there is frequently the appearance of corruption. In the passage which, if correctly read, is the earliest authority for this phrase (Is. 2:16), we cannot possibly avoid reading, at the end of the list of objects 'high and lifted up', in lieu of 'ships of T.', 'palaces of Asshur' ( || 'dwellings of Jerahmeel') ; cp Am. 3:9, where, as Winckler has already seen, 3 'Ashdod' should be 'Asshur'. Similarly in Ezek. 27:25, Is. 60:9 and Ps. 48:8, 'ships of Tarshish' should probably be 'tribes (n lSN) of Asshur'. In all the other passages where this word occurs (the harmonising must be due to an early editor), s"Z"V\ (Tarshish) should probably be emended into linp N (Ashhur) or "titi R (Asshur) ; an interesting proof of this is suggested by Ezek. 38:3. {4} By 'Asshur' is meant, of course, not the famous rival of Babylonia, but a N. Arabian district of somewhat uncertain extent, also known perhaps as Geshur (see GESHUR, 2). That the Chronicler in the third century B.C. read_ trC"in,.and supposed it to be a comparatively distant maritime region, is no obstacle to the theory here maintained, whilst an objection drawn from Gen. 10:4 (Tarshish, a son of Javan) would imply that we possessed the Table of Nations in its original form (see TIRAS, 2). See Crit. Bib.

F.B., 1-2 ;

T.K.C., 3-7.

1 See, however, Benzinger's note on 1 K. 10:22.

2 The Jerahmeelites also appear to be referred to in Is. 2:20 (see MOLE).

3 Alttest. Unt. 185, where, however, Winckler supposes a reference to Assyria.

4 We there find C :< rin "Vlbl JTT1 N^, where "inD almost certainly represents "IWC : K, and at once suggests that the following word Sri (which has no 1) is a corrupt dittogram of the same N. Arabian name. Certainly Tartessus docs not suit at all.



1. One of the 'seven (?) princes' at the court of Ahasuerus (Esth. 1:14 MT). On the <rapcra0cuos [sarsathaios] ( crape <r#eos [saresthos]) of LXX{BNAL /3 [beta]}, see SHETHAR. If the underlying story of the Jewish deliverance is N. Arabian (see PURIM, 3), Tarshish probably comes from Asshur or Ashhur. See TARSHISH (above), and cp SHETHAR-BOZNAI.

2. b. Bilhan, of BENJAMIN ( 9, ii. [a]), 1 Ch. 7:10 (pa.fj.fffffai [B], tfapcreu [AL]). Here, at any rate, 'Asshur' or 'Ashhur' is the underlying original.

'JEDIAEL', the branch of Benjamin to which 'Bilhan' belongs, certainly comes from 'Jerahmeel'; so also probably does 'Bilhan' itself. Of Bilhan's sons, Je'ush (son of Aholibamah = Jerahmeel, Gen. 36:5) comes from 'Ishmael', 'Benjamin' from 'Ben-jerahmeel', EHUD (probably) from O'7n]=7n]X (Bahurim) = 5XOn7', 'Chena'anah' from 'Cheniah' (cp Coniah) = ']'p ('Kenite'), 'Zethan' from Sarephath and 'Ahishahar' from 'Ashhur' (see SHEHARIAH). 1 It will be understood that the ethnics may early have become corrupted, and that the corruptions may soon have attained an independent existence, and have become further corrupted.

T. K. C.


op trin px), Ezek. 10:9, RV mg.

1. Occurrences[edit]

The text of EV has here 'the appearance of the wheels was as the colour <! * ) of a beryl stone'; the mg. gives a needful warning (cp TOPAZ) against trusting this too implicitly. More commonly, however, 'stone' (eben) is omitted, and the stone referred to is simply called in MT 'tarshish', in EV 'beryl'. Thus in Ezek. 1:16 (nearly = 10:9b) EV has 'like unto the colour of a beryl' and in Cant. 5:14, 'set with beryl'. 'Beryl', however, lacks justification (see BERYL), and in Cant. l.c. RVmg suggests 'topaz' (see TOPAZ, end), whilst in Ezek. 28:13 AVmg offers us 'chrysolite', thus, as it were, connecting the Old and the New Testaments (see Rev. 21:20).

'Chrysolite' rests on the authority of LXX, which, supported by Jos. Ant. 3:7:3, BJ 5:5:7), Aq. Ezek. 1:16, 10:9, Dan. 10:6, and Vg. (except Ezek. 1:16 Cant. 5:14), thrice (Ex. 28:20, 39:13 [36:20], Ezek. 28:13) renders cTin by \pvcroAi0os [chrysolithos(n)]. It should be added, however, that in Ezek. 10:9 LXX gives At flos av9paKo<; (Yl px)> [lithos anthrakos] and that in Ezek. 1:16, Cant. 5:14 it is content to transliterate <?apcrei [tharseis] (cp Symm., Theod. Dan. 10:6 and Theod. Ezek. 10:9); also that Symm. in Ex. 28:20, Ezek. 1:16, 10:9, Cant. 5:14 gives voucu Sos [hyakinthos] (cp Vg. Cant. 5:14, and see JACINTH); and that LXX in Dan. 10:6 gives OdAacrcra [thalassa] (cp Vg. Ezek. 1:15, and see TARSHISH).

1 Cp 1 S. 6:19, where the original of LXX's text (note [oil v toi If X oviov) must have run, CB : 3 TV? ffJK? rjSin J3 1 ? ] in. }, 'and the Kenites were angry with the men of Beth-cusham'. Cp SHIMSHAI.

2 Ebers, Durch Gasen, 137.

2. Identifications.[edit]

The modern chrysolite is, of course, excluded. There remain the 'hyacinthus' - i.e., the sapphire of the moderns (see JACINTH) - and the topaz, which pliny's description of the chrysolite as 'aureo fulgore tralucens' (HN 37:42-43) has led some (HWB, 334/>, Del., Kraetzschmar) to identify with the chrysolite of the ancients (see, however, CHRYSOLITE). For the hyacinthus no plausible case can be made out. The chrysolite or topaz (?) has found some favour because Pliny speaks of a large chrysolite from Spain, and Tarshish is generally placed in southern Spain. But Pliny also states that chrysolites were found in Arabia, and it seems likely

  • (1) that the Hebrews would have obtained precious stones chiefly from Arabia, and consequently
  • (2) that if the name of the stone under consideration were derived from a country, the country would be some part of Arabia.

Luther's identification of tarshish with the turquoise would therefore be plausible if the name tarshish could be traced to some ancient name of the Wady Maghara in the Sinaitic Peninsula, where the turquoise-mines were worked. But the mere similarity of names is of course valueless, and the Sinaitic turquoises so quickly lose their colour 2 that they can hardly have been much in requisition. We must, therefore, look farther for a clue to the meaning of 'tarshish'.

3. The Assyrian elmeshu?[edit]

Let us then, as we have done already in the case of the moBi pitdah (see TOPAZ), turn to the Assyrian lexicon. It is well known that to the Assyrians the precious stone par excellence was that called elmeshu (etymologically identical with Heb. hallamish; see FLINT), which is hardly the diamond (Del. Prol. 85; Ass. HWB s.v.), but may perhaps be the white sapphire.

Here are two Assyrian passages given by Delitzsch in which the name occurs: 'Like a ring of elmeshu may I be precious in thine eyes', and 'a carriage whose wheels were of gold and elmesu' (cp Ezek. 1:16). It is, at any rate, possible that the tarshish-stone should rather be the 'halmish-stone', 1 and that the inferred Hebrew form E^Ippn (Ass. elmeshu) is equivalent to the attested form hashmal in Ezek. 1:4, 1:27, 8:2 (cp AMBER, i).

Probably enough the halmish-stone is referred to again in Job 28:18a, where ramoth we-gabish ( trnai niSNi) should perhaps be []cii tro^n [HLMYSh ....], 2 and in v, 19, where ty D^ri should be read for 0-13 (see TOPAZ).

There is also, however, the possibility that j? s5nn [px] or 'Tarshish [stone]', is a corruption of JVWN [3N, 'Asshurite stone' or -flntPN N 'stone of Ashhur' (cp TARSHISH, 7).

T. K. C.

1 I.e., n and n, h [L] and -|, Q [S] and y; [Sh] (cp old Hebrew script) have been confounded.

2 So, at least, if n in JYIIDNT represents > in ty B?!"! Otherwise rrtONI ma y spring from VDN1, which became first l^N") and then 1CN"I (with stroke of abbreviation). There is no inducement to make niONT come from TOjn ('the Ra'amathite stone').

3 Pausanias calls it Tapo-eis [tarseis]. Other forms are Teptrds [tersos], or apcros [tharsos].


(TAPCOC. Acts 9:30, 11:25, 22:3 ; Ethnic, T&pceyc. 2 Macc. 4:30, Acts 9:11, 21:39).

Tapcro? [tarsos] (Attic, Tappos [tarros]) = 'wing', or 'feather'. The town was said to have derived its name from a feather which fell from the wing of Pegasus (cp Juv. Sat. 3:118) ; but that was a legend based upon an etymological fancy. It is the nn [ThRZ] of late coins (with Aramaic inscriptions), and is mentioned under the name Tarzi by Shalmaneser (Black Obelisk Inscr. l. 138; Scheil, RP(2), 447; Wi. GBA, 196, 256) in the ninth century. For stories of its origin, see Ammianus, 14:83, and Strabo, 673, and on the name cp Jensen, Hittiter u. Armenier 1898, pp. 62-63, 160+. [The Heracles of Tarsus was the Cilician god Sandan. Dio Chrys. calls him the [archegos] of the Tarsians (2:23), and he may be identified with the Baal of Tarsus named on coins. He was worshipped by the periodical erection of 'a very fair pyre' {ibid.), a rite presumably analogous to that described in the De Dea Syria, ch. 49 - WRS. See RS (2), 377, where Is. 30:33 is compared. On Sandan, WRS refers to K. O. Muller in Rhein Mus. 1829, and E. Meyer in ZDMG, 1877, pp. 736-737. On the identification, sometimes proposed, of Tarsus with Tarshish, see TARSHISH.]

1. Site and history.[edit]

Tarsus the chief town of CILICIA [q. v. ] was situated on the right bank of the ancient Cydnus in the wide and fertile plain between Mt. Taurus and the sea, thus commanding the passes leading from Cilicia into Lycaonia or Cappadocia. Almost necessarily also the route through Mt. Amanus into Syria involved passage by Tarsus. The city thus at an early date attained importance. Xenophon (who uses the plural form, Tapcro: [tarsoi]) 3 speaks of it, in 401 B.C., as a great and prosperous city (TTO\LV fj-eydXr/v KO.I fvdai/jiova, [polis megalen kai eudaimona]), the residence of Syennesis the king of Cilicia (Anab. 1:2, 1:23). In the time of Alexander the Great it was the residence of a Persian satrap, who fled on his approach, so that the city surrendered with out resistance. Alexander nearly died here from a fever aggravated by bathing in the icy waters of the Cydnus (Arrian, Anab. 24; cp Paus. 8:28:3). After Alexander's death Tarsus usually belonged to the Syrian empire, and under the Seleucid kings Antiochus VII. to Antiochus IX. was one of the royal mints. For a short time under Antiochus IV. (175-164 B.C.) it bore the name 'Antioch on the Cydnus' ( Airtoxeta TT/JOS T$ Ki Sfy ; Antiochia ad Cydnum) as we find from the coins (see Head, Hist. Numm. 612-613). For a time it was in the possession of the Ptolemies.

Coming down to Roman times, we find that in the Civil War Tarsus took the side of Caesar, though it was to Pompeius that she owed her liberation from the sway of eastern rulers. Caesar in consequence honoured the city with a visit, and its name was changed to Juliopolis (Caes. Bell. Alex. 66; cp Dio Cass. 47:26). For this attachment Cassius ordered it to be plundered ; but, on the other hand, Antonius rewarded it with municipal freedom and exemption from taxes (i.e. , it became a civitas libera et immunis). But none the less it was the seat of a conventus - i.e., periodical assizes (cp Acts 19:38) were held within it by the Roman governor (Cic. Ep. ad Att. 5:164, etc.), though in strict theory a 'free city' was outside the province and the governor's jurisdiction (see further, with reference to Tarsus, Philostr. V. Apoll. 1:12, tv Tapffois 5t &pa ayopav f/yev [en tarsois de ara agoran egen]; and Momms.-Marq. Rom. Staatsverw. 1:80 n. 3). {1} Like Thessalonica, the legal position of which was similar, Tarsus was the headquarters of the Roman governor.

The freedom (libertas, a.vrovojj.ia [autonomia]) or self-government which Tarsus enjoyed is expressly attributed to Antonius (App. Bell. Civ. 5:7). It was at Tarsus that Antonius received Cleopatra in 38 B.C. when she sailed up the Cydnus in the character of Aphrodite (Plut. Ant. 25-26). Rut others attribute the status to the bounty of Augustus (Lucian, Macrob. 21 ; cp Dio Chrysos. 236 R, KaKelvos [kakeinos] [i.e., Augustus] vfj.it Trape cr^e x t "P" LV o^ow Ttfiiji eoucriai> TOV nora.fj.ov TTJS 6aAacr<r>)s TTJS xa.9 aiirous, thus summing up municipal independence, freedom from taxation and control of internal sources of revenue). Probably Augustus confirmed in this respect the action of his rival.

Note that it by no means followed that Paul's possession of Rinnan citizenship (Acts 22:28) was a consequence of the autonomy enjoyed by Tarsus. The citizenship of Tarsus possessed by all Tarsians who came within the prescribed conditions, could never carry with it Roman citizenship (cp Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, 30-31).

2. NT references.[edit]

It is not easy to estimate the influence exerted upon the intellectual life of Paul by the peculiar surroundings and circumstances in which he was placed at Tarsus. Tarsus was indeed renowned as a place of education under the early Empire. Strabo (673) even ranks Tarsus above the other two great 'University cities' of his time for love of learning. It was the home of eminent Stoics, like Athenodorus the tutor of Augustus, and Nestor, who taught Tiberius (Strabo, 674). A remarkable feature was that this zeal for learning was not an extraneous characteristic, but was due to natives of the city itself (Strabo, l.c. ), so that Tarsus rather sent teachers to the rest of the world, then received students therefrom. It would doubtless be very satisfactory to have been able to trace in Paul's writings (as, e.g. , in the case of the writer of Lk. and Acts) some tinge of Hellenic culture, some echo from the lecture-rooms of Tarsus ; but the attempt must be abandoned. The three references to Hellenic literature (Acts l7:28, 1 Cor. 15:32, Tit. 1:12) by no means bear out this imagination, but are merely floating sentiments of a popular character. Passages like 1 Cor. 1:20 or Col. 2:8 would hardly favour the probability of finding a tinge of classical culture or philosophy in Paul. Even the speech in Athens, if its historicity is to be accepted as beyond dispute, cannot on an unbiassed view be made to support the somewhat extravagant claims made on Paul's behalf by some modern commentators. Seeing that Paul s teacher Gamaliel was inclined to encourage Greek studies, the fact that so little trace of such can be found in Paul is itself an argument against attaching undue weight to the Hellenic influences which surrounded his early life 2 (see ATHENS).

This verdict, on the other hand, by no means implies the denial of the formative influences of Tarsian life upon Paul. In a city which was in contact, both in the philosophic schools and in its harbour, with both the eastern and the western world; which entered intimately into the general life of the Roman provincial organisation to which it belonged, but also retained the vestiges of that vigorous municipal life which was so characteristically Greek - in such a town Paul could not fail to gain that familiarity with cosmopolitan ideas, that knowledge of the working of complex organisations, and that grasp of Roman ideas and methods, which runs through his life and work. In short, it is the Roman, rather than the Greek, that we find in Paul.

After his conversion, Tarsus became once more Paul's home when he was obliged to quit Jerusalem (Acts 9:30). Here he remained until brought by Barnabas to Antioch (Acts 11:25). This period of residence and preaching in Tarsus and other Cilician towns (cp Gal. 1:21) extended over several years. Doubtless Tarsus was again visited on the second missionary tour (Acts 15:41) ; for the Roman road ran from Tarsus through the Cilician Gates, in Mt. Taurus, giving access to Lycaonia (cp Acts 16:1). Similarly, on the third missionary tour, Acts 18:23 conceals a visit to Tarsus, on which occasion, so far as the record goes, Paul looked for the last time upon the busy quays and market-squares of his native town.

Tarsus is now Tersus. The ruins of the old town are concealed 15 or 20 feet deep in the silt of the river and no systematic excavation has yet been made. See Murray's Hdbk. to AM 184-185; The chief coin-type resembles that of Antioch, being the Tyche of Tarsus seated, with the river Cydnus swimming at her feet. The imperial coinage shows great variety of subject. Among the titles are MtjTpoiroAt? [metropolis], EAmde pa [eleuthera], Neioxopos, and Ilpw-n) /ieyurnj /caAAio-nj ypan/aaTC 0ouArjs.

W. J. W.

1 On the constitution of Tarsus under the Romans, see the details given in Dio Chrysos. 2 43 R.

2 [WRS, EB (9), 23:67b, presumes that Paul formed no higher opinion of the culture of Tarsus than did his contemporary Apollonius of Tyana, whose testimony as to the character of the citizens (Vit. Ap. 1 7) is confirmed by Dio Chrysostom He thinks that 'sensuous Eastern religion had more attraction for the inhabitants than the grave philosophy of the Porch'.]


(prnn ; e&pe&K [BAL]), the god of the people of Avvah (imported into Samaria), 2 K. 17:31. Perhaps Tartahu, the 'lance-star' of the Babylonians (cp nmn, 'lance', Job-11:21; MT nmn), identified by Jensen 1 with Antares, and by Hommel 2 with Procyon, and regarded by the Babylonians as the star of the god Ninib. By a textual error 3 prnn became inn:, or (perhaps better, see NIBHAZ) jra:, and by another error, similar to that which has duplicated the deity of Sepharvaim, made its way into the text, and was even in one form of the text (see LXX{L}) 4 assigned to the people of the imaginary city of HEN?????A [q. v. ] in order to leave Nibhaz for the Avvites.

If, however (cp SUCCOTH-BENOTH), the colonists of piD^i Shimron, came from the non-Israelite Negeb, both Nibhaz (Nibharu?) may be a corruption of Jerahmeel and Tartak of Terah (a distorted form of Jerah = Jerahmeel (see Crit. Bib.).

T. K. C.


(jrnn ; in 2 K. 0AN0AN [thanthan] [B], e<\p6. [A], TANG. [M; in Is. TANA6,\N [BN c - a d - a - al Q*J, N&6AN [X*A], 0&p6 [Q m>f -] ; Tharthan) is an exact reading of the familiar Assyrian title, tartani, turtanu, tartan, which occurs in 2 K. 13:17, and Is. 20:1.

In Assyrian historical times, the Tartan was the commander-in-chief of the army, and ranked next to the king. The office seems to have been duplicated, and there was a tartanu imni or 'tartan of the right', as well as a tartanu shumeli or 'tartan of the left'. In later times the title became territorial ; we read of a tartan of Kummuh, or Commagene. The title is also applied to the commanders of foreign armies ; thus Sargon speaks of the Tartan Musurai, or Egyptian Tartan. The Tartan of 720 B.C. was probably called Ashur-iska-danin ; in 694 B.C., Abda , and in 686 B.C. Bel-emurani, held the title. It does not seem to have been in use among the Babylonians.

C. H. W. J.

1 Kosmol. 49+.; cp 150:53.

2 Exp. T 9:331; GBA 666,

3 The error may have been partly due to a reminiscence of Nergal (Sllj) < 11m3 springs out of i23p.

4 <ca t avSpei atuirctjix fTTOtr^O av TTJP 6ap6a.K KOU 01 fiiaiot 7roiT/(roti TV\V e^3Aaieep.


a term for hell (so EV text) in RV mg. of 2 Pet. 2:4. The Greek, however, has raprapwcras [tartaroosas] = eis Tdprapov pi\{/as [eis tartaron ripsas]. Sextus Empiricus (about 200 A.D.), speaking of the expulsion of Kronos by Zeus, has KaTfTaprapwcre [katetartaroose].

Tdprapos [tartaros] occurs twice in Job, viz. (a) in 40:15 [40:20], where, however, TeTpaitoviv ev TU> raprapa) [tetraposin en too tartara] must be an error for rer. ei> TU> aypu [tetraposin en too agroo] (so Grabe, ap. Schleusner), the initial rap [tar] being dittographic, and T (T) miswritten for y (g), and (b), in 41:23 [41:24], where rbi> Se rdprapov TTJS a/ivtro-ov [to de tartaron tes ????issou] may represent cinn I?p1p 'the bottom of the' abyss (see OINTMENT, 3, with n. i).

Upon Job 41:23 [41:24], among other passages, is based the theory that BEHEMOTH AND LEVIATHAN [q.v.] belong primarily to mythological zoology. Leviathan is in fact a reflection of Tiamat, the chaos-dragon (cp DRAGON, 7), and, according to one form of the creation-myth, was cast into the abyss under ward. But Tartaros was not properly a watery abyss ; it had, according to the Greek myth, 'a gate of brass and a threshold of bronze'. The essential parts of the conception are depth of situation and (of course) darkness. Tartaros was 'as far beneath Hades as heaven is high above the earth' (Il. 8:13+ ; cp Hes. Theog. 807), and the Titans are even described as 'below Tartaros' (roi)s virorapTapiovs [tous hypotartarious), I1. 14:279. Analogous to the fate of Kronos and the Titans was the fate of the fallen angels, who, according to 2 Pet. 2:4, were 'committed to pits of darkness' (<npots b<t>ov : [sirois zoophou]), having been 'hurled into Tartaros'. The allusion may be to the passage on the punishment of AZAZEL [q.v. ] in Enoch 10, where the vigorous Greek version (Syncellus) gives, fyi/3a\e O.VTOV etj rb aKbros . . . Kal iviK&\vij/ov avrf CTKOTOS. For a more remote parallel see Rev. 20:2. See ABYSS ; ESCHATOLOGY, 89.

T. K. C. , 5.




(fiyy), Nu. 15:38 RVmg, EV FRINGES.


(TATAM [BL], -MI [A]), Josh. l5:59 LXX, Between KULON and SORES.


or rather (RV) TATTENAI (*3nFl ; T AN GAN&IOC [L]; Ezra 5:3 GANANAI [B], e&ee. [A], 5:8 e^ee&NAC [A], 66 Acocere [o doosete] [BA] v. 13, TANOANAI [B], 0A89&NAI [A]), 'the governor of the region beyond the river' (see GOVERNMENT, 25, Ezra 5:3, 6:6), called in 1 Esd. SISINNES (q.v. ). We shall assume here that the present form of the text is original (see, however, Crit. Bib., where this and other names are disputed). According to Meissner (ZATW, 1897, p. 191-192), this Persian official is mentioned in neo-Babylonian contracts. Here, in texts of the first and third years of the reign of Darius, is mentioned a certain Ush-ta-an-ni or Ush-ta-nu, satrap of Babylon and Syria. The dates agree, and also the titles (snnj "ny nnB, pihat ebir nari}. The name corresponds to old Pers. Vishtana, and appears in a Greek form as Riffdav-rj^ [bisthanes] (Arr. 3:19:4), Iffrdvrjs ['istanes] (Arr. 7:6:4), and Tffrdvris [hystanes] (Herod. 7:77). On the other hand, it is a much easier transition to ^nn from old Pers. Thithina (a form assumed by Marq. Fund. 52, and E. Meyer, Entst. des. Jud. 32) than from old Pers. Vishtana, for we have, on Meissner's hypothesis, to suppose that ;nn was corrupted from MriB l. According to Arrian, however (7:6:4), there were two contemporary persons named respectively Sisines and Histanes. May not the document from which the name of the Syrian satrap in Ezra and Nehemiah is derived have confounded the two names? As to the historicity of what is told us of Tattenai and Shetharbozenai, we must draw a distinction between the narrative and the inserted documents on which the narrative is supposed to be based. According to Wellhausen (GGA 1897, no. 2), the official correspondence is but an invention for dramatic effect. Sisines (Tatnai), for instance, attempted to get the building of the temple interrupted, and failed. But the Jewish writers had no access to official archives. The same view is taken by Kosters (Herstel, 29). Marquart, however (Fund. 49), thinks that the 'kernel' of the decree of Darius may be genuine, whilst Meyer (Entst. des Jud. 41-53; maintains that the documents are almost entirely genuine, and the narrative therefore in the highest degree trustworthy. The only passage in the documents to which this scholar takes exception is Ezra. 6:12aa, which is certainly not the language appropriate to an imperial decree. This criticism seems hardly keen enough. Even the name Sisines, on which Meyer relies so much, is very doubtful, and Rosters and Wellhausen's criticisms are not altogether baseless. Cp EZRA-NEHEMIAH, 6.

T. K. C.

1 Cp Jude 6, VTTO 6$ov [hypo zophon], 'under darkness' (cp Enoch 10:5, above). The reading aeipcus [seirais] ('chains') is not accepted by editors (see Var. Bible), though both JudeO and the foundation-passage in Enoch speak of bonds.



  • The modern sheikh (1).
  • Religious dues (2).
  • Monarchical idea (3).
  • Political taxation (4-7).
  • Sanctuary dues (8).
  • Tithe (9-10).
  • Firstlings (11-13).
  • Levitical cities (14).
  • Expenses of worship (15).
  • Priests' revenue (16-18).

1. The modern sheikh.[edit]

The nomads of the Arabian desert know nothing of tax or tribute, either to their sheikhs or to Allah ; so far indeed from finding a source of revenue in their people, the sheikhs are under obligation to spend their own private fortune for the public good. It is expected of a sheikh that he entertain strangers and visitors better and more sumptuously than an ordinary member of the tribe possibly can ; his duty is to support the poor and to share what he has with his friends (Burckhardt, Notes on the Bedouins, 1830). Often enough it happens that, even with a rich sheikh, this ends in poverty ; but a reckless hospitality always brings high repute. The means for such hospitality have to be found in war and pillage. The Syrian towns and villages on the borders of the settled land have to pay their regular 'brotherhood' (huwwe) to the Bedouins. By ancient custom a special share of the booty taken in war falls to the commander ; he has the first choice, and in old Arabia was entitled to a fourth of the whole. In ancient Israel the practice was similar. The only due, if we may so call it, falling to the chief is a larger share of the spoil ; Gideon, for example, receives the golden 'crescents' of the Midianites (Judg. 8:24; cp 5:30). David sends his share in the spoil (shalal, ^y, T&V ffKvXwv [skyloon] {2}) from the Amalekite raid in presents to his friends in Judah (1 S. 30:26-27).

1 The verb he'erik (7'7yn) is rendered 'tax' in 2 K. 23:35 EV; in Lev. 27:8, 27:12 'value, and in 27:14 'estimate'. The subst. 'erek (7-y) is taxation in 2 K. 23:35; it occurs frequently in P (Lev. 27:3, Nu. 18:18 etc.), where RV regularly has 'estimation'. For the 'raiser of taxes', Dan. 11:20, nogesh (w]]) cp. EXACTOR

On the 'taxing', RV 'enrolment' (anoypa/n [apographe]), of Lk. 2:2, Acts 5:37, cp. QUIRINIUS, JUDAS, 10. The verb anoypa/Ecreai [apographesthai] in Lk. 2:1, 3:5, Heb. 12:23; anoypa/Eiv [apographein] in 1 Esd. 8:30 (LXX{L}, in LXX{BA} ano ypa/ns [apo graphes], see Swete).

2 shalal is also n-poco/uj} [pronome], e.g., in Nu. 31:32, and c.pTrayij [arpage] [BNA] in Is. 10:2. For other terms used see SPOIL.

2. Religious dues.[edit]

The offerings also which were presented to the god did not originally come under the category of dues which were demanded and had to be paid. When a beast from the flock or herd was slaughtered, there was no question of a definite tax or tribute ; it was a case of voluntary giving. Indeed in the most ancient Semitic ritual the notion of giving to a deity at all has no place, or at best only a very subordinate one ; the root-idea being that the blood poured out and the sacrificial meal are fitted to renew and strengthen sacramentally the mystic bond in which the deity and his worshippers are united (on this subject cp SACRIFICE).

A solitary exception would seem to be found in the paschal offering. Following Wellhausen (Prol. (4)) and Robertson Smith (Rel. Sem. (2), 463-464), most recent scholars explain it as an offering of the firstborn of the flock. If this be right, its character as a due payable to the deity can hardly be denied ; and it is certain that the paschal offering was, in the later period at least, so regarded. Robertson Smith, indeed (loc. cit. ), seeks the original explanation of this sacrifice of firstlings in another region of thought ; the exact parallel to the sacrifice of the firstlings of cattle he finds, not in the yearly offering of the first-fruits of the field generally, but in the law of Lev. 19:23+, according to which the fruits of a newly planted field for the first three years may not be eaten. 'The characteristic feature of this ordinance, from which its original meaning must be deduced, is the taboo on the produce of the first three years, not the offering at the temple paid in the fourth year'. This same conception of a taboo is what he finds underlying the sacrifice of the firstlings of the flock. That which is taboo has supernatural attributes which forbid its being appropriated to common uses. This character of taboo attached, he thinks, in the oldest times, in a certain measure to all domestic animals, and naturally therefore in an intensified degree to the firstborn. It is, however, hardly necessary to have recourse to this line of explanation. Certainly no other instance of an offering of firstlings besides the passover can be adduced for the earliest Hebrew period before the settlement in Canaan. And the passover itself, as is shown in more detail elsewhere (FEASTS, 2, PASSOVER, 9-11) was not originally, or before the settlement, a sacrifice of the firstborn. The passover ritual points clearly to the contrary, and shows that under this sacrifice lay the same fundamental ideas as under all the other sacrifices, namely, that the blood of the victim was to renew the communion with the deity, and thereby, in this particular instance, be a powerful protective against pestilence and the like. It was only in the course of the subsequent development that the passover was brought into connection with the sacrifice of the first born, or sought to be explained as such.

As already said, the sacrifice of the firstborn cannot be proved, in the Hebrew domain, for the oldest period ; all the probabilities point rather to the other conclusion ­- that it was a secondary development ; out of the custom of offering the first-fruits of the field arose the other of offering those of the flock and of the herd, and here accordingly we have only the extension to animals and men of the deity s original claim to be presented annually with the first-fruits of the field.

The entire conception of sacrifice as being a tribute due to God is in Hebrew religion subsequent to the settlement in Palestine, and on internal evidence must be regarded as impossible in the earlier time, for it had its origin in the complete revolution in the idea of God which followed upon the settlement. The tribal and national god became thereby a territorial god, and thus came into the position which the Canaanites had assigned to their Baal ; he himself became the 'baal', that is, 'lord' of the land, in the sense, especially, that he was lord of the soil, and that the produce of the soil was regarded as his gift (see BAAL). This whole view of the deity as the bestower of all the gifts of nature is, it is obvious, possible only for an agricultural people. As soon as this view had become the prevailing one, however, the next step was exceedingly simple, nay, it was inevitable ; thanks were offered to the deity for the gifts of the soil, and he was acknowledged as the giver by having the firstlings and the best of the fruits of the earth returned to him in sacrifice. The Canaanites had already come to this view of their offerings, and the Israelites took it over from them, as we see very specially in their adoption of the originally Canaanite yearly festivals. All these festivals are agricultural in character : they are intimately associated with harvest, and the idea they express is that the harvest is sanctified by the festal offering.

3. Monarchical idea.[edit]

In the further development in Israel a new thought came to be added. Once the monarchy had become established, the monarchical idea was applied to Yahwe also, and he was thought of as the supreme king of his people (cp MESSIAH, MOLECH). But among the rights of kings one of the first was that of levying tax and tribute ; and, as we shall see later, it was exercised very early (David, Solomon) ; cp GOVERNMENT, 19. A main duty of subjects was and. is the payment of the king s dues ; this principle was applied to the deity and to his worship in sacrifice, as soon as he came to be regarded as the king of his people. How nearly related ; are the two things - secular taxation and sacred tribute - is instructively shown by the instance quoted by Robertson Smith (Rel. Sem. (2), 246) ; at Tyre tithes were paid to Melkarth as 'king of the city'. The same thing is seen in the motives assigned for sacrifice by the later Hebrews. The offerings brought voluntarily to the altar are regarded as a tribute to the deity on quite the same footing as the presents voluntarily brought to an earthly king. To the sacrifices offered during the Hebrew monarchy equally apply the words of Homer :

5wpa deovs iTfiOfi, dup aidoiovs j3ain\rjas. [doora theous peithei, door aidoios basileas]

One does not come into the king's presence empty-handed (Judg. 3:17-18, 1 S. 10:27), but, if one has aught to ask, brings a gift of homage ; so, in like manner, when one 'seeks the face' of God (Mal. 1:8). Precisely similar is the ancient Greek conception of sacrifice as being the tribute and homage due to the divinity on whom a man is dependent (Nagelsbach, Homerische Theologie, 186). In the last resort, the offering comes to be expressly called 'a gift' to the deity ; minhah (Gen. 4:3-3, 1 S. 2:17, and often) or korban.

Political taxation.[edit]

Such in general is the course of the development. As to the development in detail of taxation and tribute as political institutions the deficiency of our sources leaves us very much in the dark.

4. Saul.[edit]

Under Saul we hear not hing of special dues levied by him ; he had no capital and no special court, but lived on his ancestral holding at Gibeah. Nor had he any state officials to govern the land under his orders and receive their pay from him. We may take it for granted as self-evident that, in accordance with ancient custom, he claimed and received his special share of the spoils of war, as we are expressly told that David at a later time did (2 S. 8:11, 12:30). We hear of gifts of homage, as, for example, when he was elected to be king (1 S. 10:27), or when his favour was specially sought (1 S. 16:20). It is easily conceivable that this source of income, added to the revenue derived from his property at Gibeah, may have been amply sufficient for the modest requirements of his throne. At any rate, it is not safe to draw from what is said in 1 S. 17:25 strict inferences as to the existence of certain specified exactions in Saul's day. The passage promises freedom from taxation to the slayer of the giant and to his house, thus presupposing the existence of fixed taxes. But this is evidence only for the much later period of the author, or editor, to whom it appeared self-evident that such must have arisen as soon as a monarchy had come into being. The same observation applies to the so-called 'manner' or constitution of the monarchy as set forth to the people by Samuel (1 S. 8:10+, esp. v. 15), where also taxes, and, in particular, tithes of the field and the vineyard are mentioned.

5. David, Solomon.[edit]

Under David, and still more under Solomon, we see the system growing. Under David, in addition to the king's share of booty (2 S. 1:10, 12:30), prominence is given to the tribute received from subjugated peoples (1 K. 5:1 [4:21], 2 K. 3:4), and the voluntary gifts of subjects still continued to come in (1 K. 10:25). We may, nevertheless, conjecture with some degree of probability that David's numbering of the people (2 S. 24:1-2) was connected with the levying of taxes, and was intended to be used in regulating their incidence and the exaction of military service. The duties of the 'governors' (D 3W. netsibim, EV 'garrisons', 2 S. 8:14) also, whom he set over conquered territory, must essentially have consisted in the collection of tribute. We are expressly told, at all events, that this was the object of Solomon s division of the kingdom into districts. If the text (1 K. 4:7-19) is correct, it would seem that the king's own tribe (Judah) was exempt from dues and imposts (but see GOVERNMENT, 19). However this may be, the purpose of the division is given with substantial correctness in the text as it stands (see special articles on the names of the 'officers'). The statement that each 'officer' (or 'prefect') had to provide victuals for the king and his household for a month in the year may owe its form to a desire to show the glory of Solomon s court ; but in substance the narrative is undoubtedly correct : the chief object of the division into districts had reference to taxation, and in connection with this to the 'task work' or personal service which was exacted (1 K. 5:25). We also hear that Solomon levied toll on the caravans travelling by the trade-routes through the kingdom (1 K. 10:15). The complaint made by the people after his death leaves the impression that his system of taxes, besides being grievous in itself, was objected to as something new and unaccustomed.

6. Later kings.[edit]

We find hardly any other references to regular taxes in pre-exilic times ; but the 'king's mowings' are mentioned in Am. 7:1 (see GOVERNMENT, 19 ; MOWINGS; and on tne text, LOCUSTS). From the fact that in post-exilic times tithe appears from the first as an established institution, we may perhaps infer that it was of pre-exilic origin. The narrator of 1 S. 8:14-15 regards it as an ancient institution. With this would harmonise the fact that Am. 4:4 knows of a tithe paid to the sanctuary. For the rest, in the ideal state as constructed by Ezekiel we find no such thing as taxes; the prince maintains his court and officers out of the revenue of the princely domains. He gives the princely domain to his officers in fief. This also is an arrangement which we may unhesitatingly presume to have existed in the earlier times (1 S. 8:12). A property-tax was imposed only for extraordinary emergencies, not regularly (2 K. 23:35). See GOVERNMENT, 20.

7. Post-exilic.[edit]

In post-exilic times a heavy tribute was exacted, of course, by all the overlords of the country. Unfortunately we are without information as to the nature of the taxes or how they were levied. On the latter point, however, it is practically self-evident that the Persian rulers, like the Syrian and Roman after them, availed themselves of the local Jewish administrations for assessment and collection. The land as such paid, doubtless, a definite composition as tribute. Moreover, when it had a governor of its own, the community had also to pay for his support, as well as make a contribution towards that of the resident Persian official in Samaria under whom it was placed. That these burdens were not trifling can be seen from such a passage as Neh. 5:14: the governor drew 40 shekels a day besides what the 'rulers' and their subordinates extorted from the people. If we find a Nehemiah in public discourse to the people characterising this as severely oppressive and taking merit and credit to himself for having drawn nothing from the people, but on the contrary, having met all charges out of his own private means, we may safely conclude that the pressure of these dues was not regarded as light.

Besides these direct taxes were the indirect ones levied by the Persian court : rents, customs, tolls, etc. (Ezra 4:13, 4:20, 7:24); unfortunately, we are very insufficiently informed as to the meaning of the various technical expressions here. 1

1 [Of the three terms in Ezra 4:13, 4:20, 7:24 (Bibl. Aram.), mindah (mjp, AV 'toll', RV 'tribute') is quite general, a tax for every one (Ass. mandattu), belo (0^3, AV 'tribute', so RV 'custom'), lit. what is brought (Ass. biltu- \/S3 [root YBL]). and halak (]jSri, AV 'custom'), a 'toll' (so RV) exacted of travelers. From the Ass., also, comes Aram, maksa, 'toll', and makesa, 'toll-gatherer' (publican).]

Over and above these were the requirements of the internal administration, and even if these may on the whole have been relatively light, nevertheless the maintenance of the temple, of the sacrificial system, and of the priests and Levites, must have cost considerable sums. The voluntary gifts of worshippers were not enough, and soon (under Ezra; cp Neh. 10:33-34) a fixed poll-tax, besides other payments in kind, had to be established (see below, 15). On other accounts, also, heavy demands were from time to time made on the community, as, for example, for temple restoration and wall-building; in the latter connection also in the form of corvee, even if in both cases, as it would seem, the voluntary character of the service was formally retained.

The priests and Levites, and the whole personnel of the temple, were declared wholly exempt from taxation by decree of the king of Persia to Ezra (Ezra 7:24). On the rest of the people the burden of taxation pressed all the more heavily as the community, broadly speaking, was a poor one. Thus, in Nehemiah s time, the complaint was raised by many that in order to pay their taxes they had been compelled to borrow money and mortgage their property, thus coming into great straits (Neh. 5:4-5).

Nor did matters improve after Alexander, in the days of the Seleucids and Ptolemies. The principal burden was the poll tax (Jos. Ant. 12:4:1) of which we learn more particularly from (Pseudo-) Aristotle (Oeconom. 2:1:4) that in the Syrian kingdom, as distinguished from the Egyptian-Roman, it was, strictly speaking, a kind of trade-tax, a percentage that varied according to the nature of the work and the means of the individual, not a personal tax, uniform and unchanging. 1

In addition to this there were now also other taxes, presumably indirect, which Josephus (Ant. 12:3:3) refers to but does not name. A characteristic example of the manner in which new dues arose out of voluntary gifts is seen in the crown tax which grew out of the voluntary gift to the sovereign of a golden crown of honour. The priesthood of Jerusalem were exempted from all such dues and tribute from the time of Antiochus the Great (Jos, Ant. 12:3:3).

The method of collecting was by farming to the highest bidder (Jos. Ant. 12:4:1+, 12:5, 1 Macc. 11:28, 13:15) and, indeed, according to the same authority (loc. cit.), the taxes of each individual city were let from year to year. Elsewhere it appears that there were also farmers-general of taxes for the whole land (see below). This system was widely spread throughout the whole of antiquity, and was adopted also under the Roman Empire. Even at present [late 19th century] it is in the Turkish Empire the usual method of raising certain dues. The advantages and disadvantages of the system can easily be seen in actual operation there. That it is the least favourable of all for the taxed needs no showing ; at all times the farmers have known how to enrich themselves at the expense of the taxed, since any surplus naturally falls to them.

A classical instance, in fact, is one that comes to us from Judaea. A certain Joseph b. Tobia, who, it ought to be mentioned, had the reputation of being very lenient with his own countrymen, had acquired the taxing rights under Euergetes and Philopator by bidding twice as much as any other competitor, and paid the (for those times) enormous yearly sum of 16,000 talents, nevertheless accumulating vast wealth during his twenty-two years' tenure.

The question of immunity from taxes played a great part, naturally, from the Maccabaean period onwards, in all the dealings between the Jewish leaders and their Syrian overlords ; it was more or less identical with the entire question of dependence or independence. Jonathan was able to secure immunity from Demetrius II. (1 Macc. 11:34-37 ; see ISRAEL, 26), but this privilege does not seem to have been long maintained, for at a later date Simon had to demand it anew for all time to come (cp ISRAEL, 78). We are unable to say, it must be added, how great a relief, if any, this meant for the subjects concerned. Fundamentally, it meant nothing more than a change in the taxing authority ; the continued wars in any case were enormously costly.

1 It has been recently maintained by Willrich (Judaica, 1900, pp. 52-58) that under the Seleucids the poll-tax was still a thing unknown, that it was not introduced until the time of Augustus. As against this, see the evidence marshalled in Schurer, GJV (3), 1:229-230.

When the country became tributary to the Romans (Jos. Ant. 14:4:4, BJ 1:7:6) they at once took in hand the system of taxation. Gabinius divided the country into five districts - probably taxation areas after their usual practice in subject provinces (Schurer, (GJV (3), 1:340 ; cp ISRAEL, 85) -in which the local authorities were at the same time the leviers of taxes. Here also Caesar showed his friendly disposition towards the Jews by respecting the sabbatical year as regarded taxation. The Roman census and the Roman system of taxation as a whole do not seem, however, to have been introduced for some considerable time, the raising of the taxes being left in the hands of the native authorities. Herod the Great, at least, paid sometimes (whether always is doubtful) a definite tribute to the Romans, but as regarded the raising of this sum he could exercise independent authority as rex socius. Thus, he could remit taxes wholly or in part (Jos. Ant. 15:10:4, 16:2:5, 17:2:1). We nowhere hear of a Roman tax during his reign (cp ISRAEL, 87, end). The situation changed when, after the time of Herod and Archelaus, the land was administered by procurators ; the Roman taxes, including the personal tax of the census, were now introduced. The new division of the land into eleven toparchies, like that formerly made by Gabinius (see above) doubtless had reference primarily to taxation. The procurators levied these taxes through native com missions. The indirect taxes were now also farmed to the publicans (see PUBLICAN). From the NT (Lk. 19:1 and elsewhere ; cp Jos. BJ 2:144) we learn that these were mostly Jews ; intelligibly enough, they were not popular : in the NT 'publican' and 'sinner' are virtually synonymous (cp ISRAEL, 90).

On the whole subject of Roman taxation see Schurer, GJV (3), 1:508+, and the copious literature there referred to; cp QUIRINIUS, 2-3.

8. Sanctuary dues.[edit]

Sanctuary dues fall under two categories:

  • (1) the regular offerings at the sanctuary prescribed by custom or by law
  • (2) the occasional gifts which the priests received for their services on each sacrificial occasion.

As for the first of these two classes, it has been already observed that in the old times no other dues were known beyond the offerings themselves, as also that it was only in a secondary way that the offerings assumed the character of dues. To this class of dues, in the strict sense of the word - that is to say, regular offerings definitely fixed by custom or law, as distinguished from free gifts presented on all or any of the various occasions of public or private life - belong the offerings of the first-fruits of the ground and of the firstlings of cattle. To both these Yahwe from an early date set up, so to say, a legal claim.

Even in the oldest decalogue (Ex. 34:26 J) it is made a legal injunction that the Israelites are to bring to Yahwe 'the best, the first-fruits of thy ground' (rr^ tn irnnx ?33> irpuToyevrj/jLaTa [prootogenemata]). 1 The Book of the Covenant (Ex. 22:29 [22:28]) has the ordinance: 'thou shall not delay (to offer) thine abundance and the best of thy winepress'; the exact meaning of the expression is doubtful, 2 but the idea of first-fruits is not directly contained in the words themselves at any rate, and neither is the injunction in substance quite the same as that of the old decalogue. There only the first-fruits of the field are spoken of, whilst here, in all probability, oil and wine also are intended ; there an offering to God at the harvest festival is intended, here no such fixed date is given. Most probably the two laws were intended to run concurrently ; alongside of the precept to offer the first-fruits of the harvest at the harvest festival stood the other injunction not to be niggardly towards Yahwe with the fulness wherewith he had blessed floor and press.

Nothing is said as to the amounts of such offerings. Apart from the offerings definitely provided for in the ritual of the old feasts, it is clear that the amount of first-fruits to be offered was left to the free will of the individual offerer. In particular, JE has no hint that at that early date it was already the custom to give to God the tenth part of the produce. Not until D is this expressly laid down by law. As the taxes and tributes payable to the king were, throughout, of older date than those payable to the temple, so also the tithe was first of all exacted by the state, and not till afterwards took its place among the dues of the sanctuary.

Indeed, in the time of the old decalogue and of the book of the covenant there is as yet no word of dues at all in the strictest sense of the word, but only of definite offerings fixed by custom. Men offered the first-fruits to Yahwe in sacrifice, and in the sacrificial meal became Yahwe's guests. This custom is presupposed in L> as still maintaining its ancient standing (see below). Accordingly we have not in D, as in later times, to do with a tax designed to fill the temple treasury, to defray the cost of the temple worship, and the like. The maintenance of the temple in Jerusalem, and of the regular worship there, was the king s affair; the priests derived their income from the offerings that were brought (see below, 16), and thus there was no occasion for levying on behalf of the temple any regular dues over and above such voluntary offerings as might be made at the sanctuary (cp 2 K. 12:5+). Further, in bringing his first-fruits the idea in the mind of the pious Israelite in early times was not at all that Yahwe had a claim to the fruits as being the giver of them ; his action was dictated by the consideration that his whole harvest, and all the bread which he enjoyed from year to year, was pure and hallowed only if some part of it had been received by Yahwe. It is one of the heavy punishments with which the nation is threatened by Hosea, that in its exile Israel shall have only 'bread of mourners' to eat, bread that is unclean, inasmuch as no portion of it can be brought into the house of Yahwe (Hos. 9:4).

1 Bikkurim being always a relative idea, it makes little material difference whether we translate 'the best, that is to say, the first-fruits of the ground', or 'the best of the first-fruits of the ground'. Still, as in v. 22 (cp 23:16) the harvest festival is designated as the feasl of first-fruits, the expression bikkrim ought, doubtless, to be taken as referring to the first-fruits that are offered and not to the first-fruits generally, and thus equivalent to resith.

2 On the meaning of IVDni inxSa see the commentaries. LXX has aTropxas aAoji/os Kai. Arjt/ov [aparchas aloonos kai lenou], thus taking it to mean the first-fruits. Doubtless it was led to this rendering by the parallel clause: 'thy firstborn son shalt thou give unto me', etc.

9. Tithe.[edit]

The sanctuary tithe is first met with in Am. 4:4, which passage shows that in the northern kingdom it was . customary, in the yearly pilgrimages to the sanctuary, in addition to the daily offering, to bring tithes on the third day. The narrative of E, dating from somewhere about the same period, tells of Jacob's vow to pay the tithe at the sanctuary at Bethel (Gen. 28:22).

D makes it quite evident that the tithe intended simply means the first-fruits, of which the proportion, roughly speaking, of a tenth had been gradually fixed by custom. For in Deuteronomy (14:22+) it is enjoined that the produce of the field (corn, wine, oil) is to be tithed ; but, exactly as in the earlier time (see above, 8), in such a manner that this tithe is not to be paid, so to say, into the sanctuary, but simply to be laid out in a sacrificial meal at the sanctuary. Should the distance from Jerusalem, however, be so great as to make it impossible to carry thither the tithe in kind, then (v. 25) 'thou shall turn the tithe into money and carry the money with thee and go to the place which Yahwe will choose, and there thou shall bestow the money for whatever thou desirest, oxen or sheep, or wine or strong drink, or whatsoever thy soul asketh of thee, and thou shall eat it there before Yahwe thy God, and rejoice, thou and thy household and the Levite that is within thy gates'. Now, this tenth is actually called the first-fruit (resith, jrtS N i) in Dt. 26:2, and is accompanied by a further regulation as regards ritual, which may very well have been in accordance with ancient custom, although the text itself appears to be a later addition (see Steuernagel, ad loc. ): the regulation, namely, that the Israelite who makes the offering is to put a small portion of the tithe into a basket, and set it down before the altar of Yahwe, and in doing so to make use of a prescribed form of prayer.

10. Third year tithe.[edit]

Along with these general regulations regarding the tithe D gives also a special one for the tilhe of every third year (14:29-29); every third year the entire tithe is to be expended at home on the poor and indigent, in which calegory the Levite also is included in D, no part of it being applied to a sacrificial meal in the sanctuary. In devoting the tithe to this purpose, also, a special prayer is to be used, which is given in Dt. 26:12+ This tithe constitutes one of the main sources of income of the rural priesthood (see below, 17). This shows that by the 'third year' we are to understand not a fixed date holding good for the whole country, but a relative one, falling differently in different places or with different families, yet always in such a way that every year some portion of the Israelite nation was paying its 'tithe of the third year' for the poor and similar objects. It is a debatable question whether by this tenth of the third year we are to understand a second tithe every third year over and above the yearly tithe that has already been spoken of. The precept was interpreted in this sense by LXX, which gives 'the second tithe' (r6 devrepov Tri5tKa.Tov) for -\yycn rutf, 'in the year of tithing', in Dt. 26:12, and the same view is taken by some modern scholars (e.g. , Steuernagel). For various reasons, however, it seems highly improbable. In the first place, we should have expected in the text of the law some kind of explicit indication thai quite another tithe than the preceding - a second tithe, in fact - is being spoken of ; but of this there is no hint. Moreover, the imposilion of a due of two-tenths of the whole produce of the field over and above the various payments exigible by the state would be something quite unusual and unheard of, and not at all in harmony with the general spirit of Deuteronomy. It is not permissible to evade this argument by answering that the yearly tithe paid in Jerusalem was not a tenlh reckoned with any precision. The exact opposite would seem to be the fact, if it is remembered that the 'renewal' in D, as contrasted with the old law, consisted precisely in this, that for a sacrificial offering to be made at discretion was substituted an offering of which the amount was precisely determined by law, and that amount fixed at one-tenth of the total produce.

A later decision in Dt. 18:4 further enacts that the priest has a claim to the best of the corn, the wine, and the oil, as well as of the sheep-shearing ; over and above the tithe the reshith also. This again is not in the spirit of D, which regards the reshith and the tithe as identical (see above, 8). We have here again an expression of the growing claims of the priesls, who in other directions also were dissatisfied with the revenues assigned to them by D (see below, 13).

11. Firstlings.[edit]

The course of the development of the offering of the firstlings ran parallel with thai of the offering of first-fruits. For its origin, see above, 2. The law of the older decalogue in Ex. 34:19-20 runs, 'every firstborn is mine, and all the catlle that is male, the firstlings of ox and sheep. But the firstling of an ass thou shall redeem with a sheep, or, if thou will not redeem it, then thou shall break its neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shall redeem'. The expression peter rehem (crn las) means the first offspring of the mother, not the earliest of the animals born year after year (cp WRS Rel. Sem. 462-463). Here, accordingly, even at this early date the demand is extended to human beings and to animals that cannot be offered in sacrifice. This is, in point of fact, however, quite secondary ; the original precept had reference only to sacrificial animals. For it may be taken as certain that genuine Yahwism was always opposed to human sacrifices, and therefore that in the law of the redemption of the human firstborn we are to see not a toning down of an ancient custom which had demanded human sacrifice, but only an expedient for extending the precept relating to firstlings so as to include men and non-sacrificial animals. We should also take note of the parallelism with the first-fruits of the ground, and consider how opposed to such sacrifices is the entire character of the sacrificial system in ancient Israel so far as we know it. Literary analysis also shows that the words in question are secondary. In the original ten short words (see DECALOGUE) the precept probably ran, 'every first birth is mine' - a law which, as matter of course, applied only to animals capable of being offered. See further, FIRSTBORN ; SACRIFICE, 3 ; also ISAAC, 4.

In the Book of the Covenant also, Ex. 22:29 [22:28], the claim to the human firstborn is made ; but here, too, the originality of the clause is highly questionable. To begin with, the position of the firstborn of men - between the fruits of the field and offerings from the herd - is remarkable. Moreover, it would be unnatural to under stand the requirement literally ; it must be supplemented by the precept of redemption ; but this highly important point is not mentioned, although in view of the inclination occasionally shown by the people to offer human sacrifices, it could hardly be omitted as too self-evident. With reference to offerings of the firstborn there is added the further detail that the animals are to be sacrificed on the eighth day after birth.

12. In D.[edit]

We know not at what date it was that the law relating to human firstborn first became general. The deuteronomistic passage in Ex. 13:11-12 presupposes it as a settled custom. D itself (Dt. 14:23, 15:19) has nothing to say on the subject ; D plainly has no intention of laying down a complete law about offerings of firstborn, but only of settling points where traditional custom had necessarily to be departed from in consequence of the centralisation of worship. The chief stress accordingly is laid upon the injunction that this offering is to be made year by year at the place which Yahwe will choose. This, but still more the further command not to do any work with the firstling of cattle or to shear the firstling of the flock ( Dt. 15:20 [15:19] ), shows that, according to the intention of D, the animal was not to be offered exactly on the eighth day after birth. That the offering of the firstborn was to be made precisely at the Passover feast is nowhere expressly laid down ; but the connection into which the two are brought in the narrative of the exodus (Ex. 13:11+) shows that their union had already been accomplished at the time when that account was written (cp PASSOVER). Since blemished animals could not be offered in sacrifice it is enjoined that they are to be consumed as ordinary food under the same conditions as those applied to ordinary slaughtering in D (Dt. 15:21+). Substitution, or redemption of such animals, is not required ; but this does not exclude the possibility that the custom nevertheless existed, since D, as already remarked, does not start with the intention of giving a complete law on this subject. From all these considerations it is plain that here also there is no question of a 'due' in the strict sense of that word, but only of an offering. Like the first-fruits so also ought the firstlings to be set apart for a sacrificial meal in which of course the priest has his usual share (see below, 16).

13. In P.[edit]

It is on this last point that P makes a characteristic change affecting principle; all offerings of firstlings are now, for the first time, converted into simple dues payable to the priests, the fixed offerings become mere taxes. Even Ezekiel (44:30) had demanded for the priests the first of all firstlings of everything C?j nisz-^r nT ; N-i). But the Priestly Code claims not merely a portion but the whole of the firstlings for the priests; all the first-fruits of corn, wine, and oil are handed over by Yahwe to the priests (Nu. 18:12+). The entire tithe belongs to the Levites, who, in turn, have to make over their tenth part of this to the priests (Nu. 18:20). The firstlings of clean beasts are offered in kind ; after their blood has been sprinkled on the altar and the fat burnt, the flesh falls to the priests. The firstborn of unclean beasts, and of man, must be redeemed. The redemption money belongs to the priest (Nu. 18:15+, cp Neh. 10:37). The amount of the redemption money is in the case of human firstborn fixed at five shekels (Nu. 18:16; cp Dillmann, in loc.}. In the case of unclean beasts the estimated value is to be paid with addition of a fifth (Lev. 27:26-27; certainly secondary).

Apart from this change in the scope of the law, P shows a quite extraordinary advance in the amount of such payments. The firstborn is given to the priests ; but the Passover remains unaffected by this. In the case of fruits of the earth the payment of the reshith is retained as well as that of the tithes already enjoined in D (see above, 9; Nu. 18:12, 18:20+), and, besides the 'best' of the winepress and the threshing floor, there is demanded payment of the first-fruits (bikkurim, DH133) of all that grows in the field. What we are to understand by this expression is not quite certain. The most probable interpretation still is that which takes it as referring to the fruits that have come earliest to maturity (Nu. 18:13, EV 'first-ripe'; cp the commentaries). Over and above all this we find in Nu. 15:17+, the further demand that the first of the nDHVi 'arisah ('dough' [EV]? 'coarse meal' [RVmg] ? 'kneading trough' ? see FOOD, 1a), a cake, must also be given. In accordance with this the post-exilic community drew a distinction between reshith and bikkurim, and paid on both. In Neh. 10:36-38 the entire community comes under a solemn obligation to bring the bikkurim of all fruits of the tilled land and of all trees to the temple, and moreover to pay to the priests the reshith of the wine and oil and tree fruits, and also of the 'arisah - all this to be, along with the tithe, the portion of the Levites (cp Neh. 12:44, 13:5, 2 Ch. 3:1, 5:12). Finally, Lev. 19:23 enjoins that the fruit of newly-planted trees must not be eaten within the first three years, and that in the fourth year the entire yield must be given to Yahwe - that is, to the priests.

Nor is even this enough ; the decision preserved in Lev. 27:32-33 includes cattle also in the tithe ; the offerer in rendering this tithe must not select the animals : each tenth head at the counting belongs to Yahwe. If, however, it should so chance that one animal has been changed for another, both shall belong to the sanctuary. Even in Neh. 10:37-39 (cp 12:44-47, 13:5, 13:12) there is no allusion to any such law. It must, therefore, have come into existence at a later date.

14. Levitical cities.[edit]

In real life such a tithing of cattle is impracticable. But the legal theorist did not concern himself about any such consideration as that ; he was able, therefore, to put the copestone on his system by that extraordinary enactment which assigns to the tribe of Levi forty-eight cities, each having a territory of 2000 cubits square (cp LEVITES, 6). The impossibility of carrying out such a theory is demonstrated by any map of Palestine. But nothing can better reveal the spirit underlying such legislation than the fact that the lawgiver in the same breath in which he assigns these forty-eight cities to the Levites alleges, as a reason for the dues he is imposing, that the Levites had received no inheritance in land like the other tribes.

15. Expenses of worship.[edit]

Another point deserves notice : in Ezekiel the people already pay their dues as a tax to the prince, who, however, has laid upon him in return the responsibility for the expenses of the public worship (Ezek. 45:13+). In P it is the priests who receive these taxes ; but they keep them to themselves : the support of the regular cultus is not their concern. On the contrary, a further tax has to be levied for that purpose ; a poll tax of half a shekel has to be exacted (Ex. 30:11+). With the spread of the Persian monetary system the third of a shekel found its way into Palestine, and accordingly in Neh. 10:32 [10:33] we find the temple tax fixed at that amount. The coinage of the Maccabees reverted to the older type, and thus in the time of Jesus we find the temple tax again fixed at half a shekel (Mt. 17:24, 17:27 ; cp Benzinger, HA 193).

16. Priests' revenue.[edit]

As to the manner in which priestly service was paid in the early period we know very little. At first the priest was not so much a sacrificer as a guardian of the image and giver of oracles whose business it was to impart Yahwe's torah or oracle to those who consulted him (see PRIESTS). It may with safety be assumed that the priest received payment for communicating the oracle, precisely as did seers such as Samuel, Ahijah, and the like (1 S. 9:7-10, 1 K. 14:2-3). When a sacrificer came to the sanctuary and arranged a sacrificial meal, he naturally invited the priest to it, or gave him some portion of the flesh for such service as he had rendered. But these gifts were voluntary, and regulated not by law but by custom. 1 The priests' right to a definite share is not recognised ; this is proved by the story of the sons of Eli (1 S. 2:13+), who demand a tribute of flesh, and even take it by force instead of accepting what is voluntarily given, but in doing so show themselves to be 'sons of Belial', heedless of law and priestly duty, thus bringing the offering of Yahwe into contempt.

It is clear that at the greater sanctuaries, and particularly at Jerusalem, a fixed practice gradually established itself in regard to this, with the result that a definite share of the offering and certain other perquisites fell to the lot of the priests. As early as in David s time, we learn that the shewbread loaves in the sanctuary were the priests perquisite, although they could also be eaten by ceremonially pure laymen (1 S. 21:3+). With regard to a considerably later period we find that the fines paid to the sanctuary for various (presumably ceremonial) offences also fell to the priests (2 K. 12:16 [12:17]). On the other hand, the income from voluntary gifts and votive offerings was to be applied to the maintenance of the temple ; the control of this money was taken from the priests because they applied the whole of it to their own uses (2 K. 12:4+ [12:5+]). This was by royal ordinance; possibly tradition had previously sanctioned such an application of the revenues. Finally, we gather from 2 K. 23:9 that the unleavened bread, or meal offering, with which no sacrificial meal was associated, fell to the priests.

1 1 S. 2:28, where all the offerings of the children of Israel made by fire are assigned to the priests, is of post-deuteronomic origin ; cp Dt. 18:1.

17. In D.[edit]

The priestly revenues are legally regulated for the first time in D. It is not impossible that the practice in Jerusalem lies at the basis of its provisions. In any case the legislation had a very special motive for thus disposing of the questions involved. For by the centralisation of the worship the priests of the high places and rural altars were made penniless. To remedy this, D gives the Levites the right to discharge priestly functions in the sanctuary at Jerusalem, and to share in the temple revenues (Dt. 18:6-7). But if all priests were thus relegated to the sanctuary at Jerusalem it is easy to see that the dues for offerings there required to be strictly regulated and perhaps also raised. The right of the priests as towards the people who sacrificed in the temple now became definite (Dt. 18:3) ; the shoulder, the two cheeks, and the maw of every animal sacrificed belonged to the priests. That such a provision was wholly inadequate in view of the increased number of clergy and the diminished number of offerings in consequence of the centralisation, was seen by the Deuteronomist himself. The rural priests, accordingly, are bidden to look specially to the sacrificial meals set on foot by the offerers ; but at the same time details as to this are left to the charitable disposition of the worshippers (Dt. 12:12, 12:18-19). For the tithe of the third year (Dt. 14:28-29, 26:12+) and for the resith assigned in a subsequent decision to the priests (Dt. 18:4), see above, section 9-10.

18. Later.[edit]

These dues to the priests increased in amount also, like the other dues, in process of time. In Ezekiel (44:28+), besides the minhah, the sin-offering, the guilt-offering, and 'every devoted thing' are handed over to the priesthood. According to P the priests receive, in addition to the dues mentioned above (first-fruits, etc.), 'the most holy things' - i.e. , the minhah, the sin-offering, and the guilt-offering in so far as these are not burnt ; they may be eaten only by males of the family of Aaron, and that 'only in the holy place'; what is left over must be burnt (Nu. 18:8-9, Lev. 10:12-13, cp Ex. 29:32+). So also with the shewbread (Lev. 24:9). Of the burnt-offering, the skin of the animal sacrificed belongs to the priest (Lev. 7:8 ; this may perhaps have been an ancient custom), of the peace-offerings the right thigh and the breast (Lev. 7:34, Ex. 29:27-28), and, besides, one cake of each meal-offering, of whatever kind, offered along with these (Lev. 7:13). With the breast of the peace-offering which belongs to the priest is performed the peculiar ceremony of waving ; that is to say, the priest swings it upon his hands towards the altar and back again, a symbolical representation of the idea that this portion is presented to Yahwe as a gift, but by him delivered over to his servant (Lev. 7:30-34, 9:21, 10:14, Nu. 6:20). The thigh pertaining to the priests is always designated as 'the heave thigh' ( Lev. 7:34). This expression presumably does not refer to any special ceremony analogous to that of waving, but is intended to denote that the part in question is 'lifted u'p from the offering as the priests perquisite (cp SACRIFICE, 14, 21a, 29a). The last-named portions of the burnt-offerings and peace-offerings may be consumed by the male and female members of the priests families alike, and in any clean place - and thus, with out the sanctuary (Lev. 10:14-15, Nu. 18:9). The slaves also of the priest may eat of it ; but not (for example) daughters married to 'strangers' - i.e. , to men who are not priests. And if a 'stranger' - say, for example, a hired servant of the priest - 'unwittingly' eat of it, he shall pay to the priest the value of the holy thing with an added fifth (Lev. 22:10+).

With further detail as regards the rights of priests it is laid down that the guilt-offering and the sin-offering, as well as the skin of the burnt-offering, shall belong to the officiating priest (Lev. 5:7); of the meal-offering he is entitled to all that is 'baked in the oven or dressed in the frying-pan and in the baking-pan'; the rest shall belong to the priesthood as a whole (Lev. 7:9-10) , of peace-offerings the wave breast seems to have pertained to the priesthood in general, whilst the acting priest received the shoulder and the cakes (Lev. 7:31 ; cp 7:33, 7:14).

The more detailed regulations of post-biblical times will be found collected in a series of tractates in the Mishna : Terumoth, Ma'aserdth, Ma'asher sheni, Challa, 'Orla, Bikkurim, Shekalim, Bekoroth. See, further, Wellh. Prol. (4), 149+ and passim; the archaeological text-books of De Wette, Ewald, Keil, Schegg, Benzinser, Nowack, and the articles 'Erstgehurt' and 'Erstlings-opfer' in PKK, Winer, Schenkel, and Riehm. I. B.


1 In the earliest stage of the Christian Church the two most striking figures are those of the apostle and the prophet. In several important passages a third figure is found in their company, that of the teacher (didacrKaAos [didaskalos])

Thus in 1 Cor. 12:28, Paul declares that 'God hath set in the Church first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers. . .' In his enumeration of gifts in Rom. 12:6-8 we have the order 'prophecy', 'ministry' (SiaKoviav [diakonian]), 'he that teacheth', 'he that exhorteth', and so forth. And in Eph. 4:11, 'apostles', 'prophets', 'evangelists', 'pastors (Troi^fVa? [poimenas]) and teachers' are among the gifts of Christ to his Church. In Acts 13:1 we read of 'prophets and teachers' as belonging to the church in Antioch.

These notices taken together suggest a class of men endowed with a spiritual gift for the instruction of the Church, and taking rank next after the apostles and the prophets. Their function probably consisted in a Christian exposition of the OT scriptures and an application of the Gospel to the needs of common life, and stood in contrast with the enthusiastic utterances of the prophets. The vagueness of the term teachers might suggest that it included any who gave instruction, and that the word denoted a function rather than a permanent office. It is quite likely that this was so at first. The use of the word as a title, however, is assured by the evidence of the Didache, where, although teachers are far less prominent than prophets, they are joined with them as a cognate class, and honour is claimed for 'the bishops and deacons' on the ground that 'they too minister the ministry of the prophets and teachers'.

In the African church the title remains to the beginning of the third century, and is found in conjunction with that of 'presbyter'. Thus we have in the Passion of St. Perpetua (ch. 13) a mention of 'Aspasius the presbyter-doctor' (cp Cypr. ep. 29). About the same time Origen as a layman at the head of the Christian school in Alexandria affords the most illustrious example of the exercise of the gift of teaching apart from the regular orders of the ministry.

Of these three grades of what was pre-eminently 'the ministry of the word', in contradistinction to official administration, each in its turn ceased to exist as a separate order. The apostles are the first to disappear. The Twelve and Paul passed away by death, and in the next generation the title was already becoming sacred to them ; the apostles of the Didache are a survival, destined immediately to disappear. The prophets on the contrary are still in full power, at any rate in certain localities. Yet even they show premonitory symptoms of decay ; and the failure of the Montanistic movement to re-establish them as a permanent order in the Church led to the final disappearance of prophecy as an institution. The teachers fulfilled a ministry which would naturally grow in importance as the authoritative voices of apostles and prophets were ceasing to be heard, and as the inroad of heresy increased the demand for the grace of true teaching. That they too ceased to be a distinct class in the Church was clue to the fact that their duties were taken over more and more by the administrative order, which gathered round its chief representatives many of the functions and much of the prestige of apostles, prophets and teachers alike. Cp MINISTRY, 39.

J. A. R.

1 In the OT Hab. 2:18, etc., the word is rn7c ; for later terms see EDUCATION, 15-17.