International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Sephar — Shaphat
Sephar
Sephar - se'-far: Only in Genesis 10:30 cepharah, "toward Sephar"), as the eastern limit of the territory of the sons of Yoktan (Joktan). From the similarity between the names of most of Yoktan's sons and the names of South Arabian towns or districts, it can hardly be doubted that Sephar is represented by the Arabic Qafar. The appropriateness of the site seems to outweigh the discrepancy between Arabic "z" and Hebrew "s". But two important towns in South Arabia bear this name. The one lies a little to the South of San`a'. According to tradition it was founded by Shammir, one of the Sabean kings, and for a long time served as the royal seat of the Tubbas. The other Zafar stands on the coast in the district of Shichr, East of Chadramaut. The latter is probably to be accepted as the Biblical site.
A. S. Fulton
Sepharad
Sepharad - se-fa'-rad, sef'-a-rad (cepharadh): Mentioned in Obadiah 1:20 as the place of captivity of certain "captives of Jerusalem," but no clear indication is given of locality. Many conjectures have been made. The Targum of Jonathan identifies with Spain; hence, the Spanish Jews are called Sephardim. Others (Pusey, etc.) have connected it with the "(Tsparda" of the Behistun Inscription, and some have even identified it with "Sardis." The now generally accepted view is that which connects it with the "Saparda" of the Assyrian inscriptions, though whether this is to be located to the East of Assyria or in Northern Asia Minor is not clear. See Schrader, Cuneiform Inscriptions,II , 145-46; Sayce,HCM , 482-84; articles inDB ,HDB ,EB , etc.
James Orr
Sepharvaim
Sepharvaim - sef-ar-va'-im, se-far-va'-im (cepharwayim: Sephpharouaim, Seppharoudim, Seppharoun, Seppharoumain, Eppharouaim, Sepphareim, the first two being the forms in manuscripts Alexandrinus and Vaticanus respectively, of the passages in Kings, and the last two in Isaiah):
1. Formerly Identified with the Two Babylonian Sippars:
This city, mentioned in 2 Kings 17:24; 18:34; 19:13; Isaiah 36:19; 37:13, is generally identified with the Sip(p)ar of the Assyrians-Babylonian inscriptions (Zimbir in Sumerian), on the Euphrates, about 16 miles Southwest of Bagdad. It was one of the two great seats of the worship of the Babylonian sun-god Samas, and also of the goddesses Ishtar and Anunit, and seems to have had two principal districts, Sippar of Samas, and Sippar of Anunit, which, if the identification were correct, would account for the dual termination -ayim, in Hebrew. This site is the modern 'Abu-Habbah, which was first excavated by the late Hormuzd Rassam in 1881, and has furnished an enormous number of inscriptions, some of them of the highest importance.
2. Difficulties of That Identification: Besides the fact that the deities of the two cities, Sippar and Sepharvaim, are not the same, it is to be noted that in 2 Kings 19:13 the king of Sepharvaim is referred to, and, as far as is known, the Babylonian Sippar never had a king of its own, nor had Akkad, with which it is in part identified, for at least 2 Kings 1:1-18;, 200 years before Sennacherib. The fact that Babylon and Cuthah head the list of cities mentioned is no indication that Sepharvaim was a Babylonian town--the composition of the list, indeed, points the other way, for the name comes after Ava and Hamath, implying that it lay in Syria.
3. Another Suggestion: Joseph Halevy therefore suggests (ZA, II, 401 ff) that it should be identified with the Sibraim of Ezekiel 47:16, between Damascus and Hamath (the dual implying a frontier town), and the same as the Sabara'in of the Babylonian Chronicle, there referred to as having been captured by Shalmaneser. As, however, Sabara'in may be read Samara'in, it is more likely to have been the Hebrew Shomeron (Samaria), as pointed out by Fried. Delitzsch.
LITERATURE.
See Schrader, The Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testament, I, 71 f; Kittel on K; Dillmann-Kittel on Isa, at the place;HDB , under the word
T. G. Pinches
Sepharvites
Sepharvites - se'-far-vits, se-far'-vits> (cepharwim): In 2 Kings 17:31, the inhabitants of SEPHARVAIM (which see), planted by the king of Assyria in Samaria. They continued there to burn their children to their native gods.
Sepphoris
Sepphoris - sef'-o-ris: A city of Galilee, taken by Josephus (Vita, IX, lxvii, 71) and later destroyed by the son of Varus (Ant., XVII, x, 9).
Septuagint, 1
Septuagint, 1 - sep'-tu-a-jint:
I. IMPORTANCE
II. NAME
III. TRADITIONAL ORIGIN
1. Letter of Aristeas
2. Evidence of Aristobulus and Philo
3. Later Accretions
4. Criticism of the Aristeas Story
5. Date
6. Credibility
IV. EVIDENCE OF PROLOGUE TO SIRACH
V. TRANSMISSION OF THE SEPTUAGINT TEXT
1. Early Corruption of the Text
2. Official Revision of Hebrew Text circa 100 AD
3. Adoption of Septuagint by Christians
4. Alternative 2nd-Century Greek Versions
5. Aquila
6. Theodotion
7. Symmachus and Others
8. Origen and the Hexapla
9. Hexaplaric Manuscripts
10. Recensions Known to Jerome
11. Hesychian Recension
12. Lucianic Recension
VI. RECONSTRUCTION OF SEPTUAGINT TEXT; VERSIONS, MANUSCRIPTS AND PRINTED EDITIONS
1. Ancient Versions Made from Septuagint
2. Manuscripts
3. Printed Texts
4. Reconstruction of Original Text
VII. NUMBER, TITLES AND ORDER OF BOOKS
1. Contents
2. Titles
3. Bipartition of Books
4. Grouping and Order of Books
VIII. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VERSION AND ITS COMPONENT PARTS
1. Grouping of Books on Internal Evidence
(1) The Hexateuch
(2) The "Latter" Prophets
(3) Partial Version of the "Former" Prophets
(4) The "Writings"
(5) The Latest Septuagint Translations
2. General Characteristics
IX. SALIENT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE GREEK AND HEBREW TEXTS
1. Sequence
2. Subject-Matter
LITERATURE
I. Importance. The Greek version of the Old Testament commonly known as the Septuagint holds a unique place among translations. Its importance is manysided. Its chief value lies in the fact that it is a version of a Hebrew text earlier by about a millennium than the earliest dated Hebrew manuscript extant (916 AD), a version, in particular, prior to the formal rabbinical revision of the Hebrew which took place early in the 2nd century AD. It supplies the materials for the reconstruction of an older form of the Hebrew than the Massoretic Text reproduced in our modern Bibles. It is, moreover, a pioneering work; there was probably no precedent in the world's history for a series of translations from one language into another on so extensive a scale. It was the first attempt to reproduce the Hebrew Scriptures in another tongue. It is one of the outstanding results of the breaking-down of international barriers by the conquests of Alexander the Great and the dissemination of the Greek language, which were fraught with such vital consequences for the history of religion. The cosmopolitan city which he founded in the Delta witnessed the first attempt to bridge the gulf between Jewish and Greek thought. The Jewish commercial settlers at Alexandria, forced by circumstances to abandon their language, clung tenaciously to their faith; and the translation of the Scriptures into their adopted language, produced to meet their own needs, had the further result of introducing the outside world to a knowledge of their history and religion. Then came the most momentous event in its history, the starting-point of a new life; the translation was taken over from the Jews by the Christian church. It was the Bible of most writers of the New Testament. Not only are the majority of their express citations from Scripture borrowed from it, but their writings contain numerous reminiscences of its language. Its words are household words to them. It laid for them the foundations of a new religious terminology. It was a potent weapon for missionary work, and, when versions of the Scriptures into other languages became necessary, it was in most cases the Septuagint and not the Hebrew from which they were made. Preeminent among these daughter versions was the Old Latin which preceded the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.), for the most part a direct translation from the Hebrew, was in portions a mere revision of the Old Latin; our Prayer-book version of the Psalter preserves peculiarities of the Septuagint, transmitted through the medium of the Old Latin. The Septuagint was also the Bible of the early Greek Fathers, and helped to mold dogma; it furnished proof-texts to both parties in the Arian controversy. Its language gives it another strong claim to recognition. Uncouth and unclassical as much of it appears, we now know that this is not wholly due to the hampering effects of translation. "Biblical Greek," once considered a distinct species, is now a rather discredited term. The hundreds of contemporary papyrus records (letters, business and legal documents, etc.) recently discovered in Egypt illustrate much of the vocabulary and grammar and go to show that many so-called "Hebraisms" were in truth integral parts of the koine, or "common language," i.e. the international form of Greek which, since the time of Alexander, replaced the old dialects, and of which the spoken Greek of today is the lineal descendant. The version was made for the populace and written in large measure in the language of their everyday life.
II. Name. The name "Septuagint" is an abbreviation of Interpretatio secundum (or juxta) Septuaginta seniores (or viros), i.e. the Greek translation of the Old Testament of which the first installment was, according to the Alexandrian legend (see III , below), contributed by 70 (or 72) elders sent from Jerusalem to Alexandria for the purpose at the request of PtolemyII . The legend in its oldest form restricts their labors to the Pentateuch but they were afterward credited with the translation of the whole Bible, and before the 4th century it
had become customary to apply the title to the whole collection: Aug., De Civ. Dei, xviii.42, "quorum interpretatio ut Septuaginta vocetur iam obtinuit consuetudo" ("whose translation is now by custom called the Septuagint"). The manuscripts refer to them under the abbreviation hoi o' ("the seventy"), or hoi ob', ("the seventy-two"). The "Septuagint" and the abbreviated form "LXX" have been the usual designations hitherto, but, as these are based on a now discredited legend, they are coming to be replaced by "the Old Testament in Greek," or "the Alexandrian version" with the abbreviation "G".
III. Traditional Origin. The traditional account of the translation of the Pentateuch is contained in the so-called letter of Aristeas (editions of Greek text, P. Wendland, Teubner series, 1900, and Thackeray in the App. to Swete's Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 1900, etc.; Wendland's sections cited below appear in Swete's Introduction, edition 2; English translation by Thackeray, Macmillan, 1904, reprinted from JQR, XV, 337, and by H. T. Andrews in Charles' Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, II, 83-122, Oxford, 1913).
1. Letter of Aristeas: The writer professes to be a high official at the court of Ptolemy Philadelphus (285-247 BC), a Greek interested in Jewish antiquities. Addressing his brother Philocrates he describes an embassy to Jerusalem on which he has recently been sent with another courtier Andreas. According to his narrative, Demetrius of Phalerum, a prominent figure in later Athenian history, who here appears as the royal librarian at Alexandria, convinced the king of the importance of securing for his library a translation of the Jewish Law. The king at the same time, to propitiate the nation from whom he was asking a favor, consented, on the suggestion of Aristeas, to liberate all Jewish slaves in Egypt. Copies follow of the letters which passed between Ptolemy and Eleazar, the high priest at Jerusalem. Ptolemy requests Eleazar to select and dispatch to Alexandria 72 elders, proficient in the Law, 6 from each tribe, to undertake the translation the importance of the task requiring the services of a large number to secure an accurate version Eleazar complies with the request and the names of the selected translators are appended to his letter.
There follow: (1) a detailed description of votive offerings sent by Ptolemy for the temple; (2) a sketch of Jerusalem, the temple and its services, and the geography of Palestine, doubtless reflecting in part the impressions of an eyewitness and giving a unique picture of the Jewish capital in the Ptolemaic era; (3) an exposition by Eleazar of portions of the Law.
The translators arrive at Alexandria, bringing a copy of the Law written in letters of gold on rolls of skins, and are honorably received by Ptolemy. A seven days' banquet follows, at which the king tests the proficiency of each in turn with hard questions. Three days later Demetrius conducts them across the mole known as the Heptastadion to the island of Pharos, where, with all necessaries provided for their convenience, they complete their task, as by a miracle, in 72 days; we are expressly told that their work was the result of collaboration and comparison. The completed version was read by Demetrius to the Jewish community, who received it with enthusiasm and begged that a copy might be entrusted to their leaders; a solemn curse was pronounced on any who should venture to add to or subtract from or make any alteration in the translation. The whole version was then read aloud to the king who expressed his admiration and his surprise that Greek writers had remained in ignorance of its contents; he directed that the books should be preserved with scrupulous care.
2. Evidence of Aristobulus and Philo: To set beside this account we have two pre-Christian allusions in Jewish writings. Aristobulus, addressing a Ptolemy who has been identified as Philometor (182-146 BC), repeats the statement that the Pentateuch was translated under Philadelphus at the instance of Demetrius Phalereus (Eusebius, Praep. Ev., XIII, 12,664b); but the genuineness of the passage is doubtful. If it is accepted, it appears that some of the main features of the story were believed at Alexandria within a century of the date assigned by "Aristeas" to the translation Philo (Vit. Moys, ii.5 ff) repeats the story of the sending of the translators by Eleazar at the request of Philadelphus, adding that in his day the completion of the undertaking was celebrated by an annual festival on the isle of Pharos. It is improbable that an artificial production like the Aristeas letter should have occasioned such an anniversary; Philo's evidence seems therefore to rest in part on an independent tradition. His account in one particular paves the way for later accretions; he hints at the inspiration of the translators and the miraculous agreement of their separate VSS: "They prophesied like men possessed, not one in one way and one in another, but all producing the same words and phrases as though some unseen prompter were at the ears of each." At the end of the 1st century AD Josephus includes in his Antiquities (XII, ii, 1 ff) large portions of the letter, which he paraphrases, but does not embellish.
3. Later Accretions: Christian writers accepted the story without suspicion and amplified it. A catena of their evidence is given in an Appendix to Wendland's edition. The following are their principal additions to the narrative, all clearly baseless fabrications.
(1) The translators worked independently, in separate cells, and produced identical versions, Ptolemy proposing this test of their trustworthiness. So Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Augustine, the Chronicon Paschale and the Cohortatio ad Graecos (wrongly attributed to Justin); the author of the last work asserts that he had seen the cells and heard the tradition on the spot. (2) A modification of this legend says that the translators worked in pairs in 36 cells. So Epiphanius (died 403 AD), and later G. Syncellus, Julius Pollux and Zonaras. Epiphanius' account is the most detailed. The translators were locked up in sky-lighted cells in pairs with attendants and shorthand writers; each pair was entrusted with one book, the books were then circulated, and 36 identical versions of the whole Bible, canonical and apocryphal books, were produced; Ptolemy wrote two letters, one asking for the original Scriptures, the second for translators. (3) This story of the two embassies appears already in the 2nd century AD, in Justin's Apology, and (4) the extension of the translators' work to the Prophets or the whole Bible recurs in the two Cyrils and in Chrysostom. (5) The miraculous agreement of the translators proved them to be no less inspired than the authors (Irenaeus, etc.; compare Philo). (6) As regards date, Clement of Alexandria quotes an alternative tradition referring the version back to the time of the first Ptolemy (322-285 BC); while Chrysostom brings it down to "a hundred or more years (elsewhere "not many years") before the coming of Christ." Justin absurdly states that Ptolemy's embassy was sent to King Herod; the Chronicon Paschale calls the high priest of the time Onias Simon, brother of Eleazar.
Jerome was the first to hold these later inventions up to ridicule, contrasting them with the older and more sober narrative. They indicate a growing oral tradition in Jewish circles at Alexandria. The origin of the legend of the miraculous consensus of the 70 translators has been reasonably sought in a passage in Exodus 24:1-18 Septuagint to which Epiphanius expressly refers. We there read of 70 elders of Israel, not heard of again, who with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu form a link between Moses and the people. After reciting the Book of the Covenant Moses ascends to the top of the mount; the 70, however, ascend but a little way and are bidden to worship from afar: according to the Septuagint text "They saw the place where the God of Israel stood .... and of the elect of Israel not one perished" (Exodus 24:11), i.e. they were privileged to escape the usual effect of a vision of the Deity (Exodus 33:20). But the verb used for "perish" (diaphonein) was uncommon in this sense; "not one disagreed" would be the obvious meaning; hence, apparently the legend of the agreement of the translators, the later intermediaries between Moses and Israel of the Dispersion. When the translations were recited, "no difference was discoverable," says Epiphanius, using the same verb, cave-dwellings in the island of Pharos probably account for the legend of the cells. A curious phenomenon has recently suggested that there is an element of truth in one item of Epiphanius' obviously incredible narrative, namely, the working of the translators in pairs. The Greek books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel fall into two nearly equal parts, apparently the work of separate translators (see VIII , 1, (2), below); while in Exodus, Leviticus and Psalms orthographical details indicate a similar division of the books for clerical purposes. There was, it seems, a primitive custom of transcribing each book on 2 separate rolls, and in the case of Jeremiah and Ezekiel the practice goes back to the time of translation (JTS, IV, 245 ff, 398 ff; IX, 88 ff).
4. Criticism of the Aristeas Story: Beside the later extravagances, the story of Aristeas appears comparatively rational. Yet it has long been recognized that much of it is unhistorical, in particular the professed date and nationality of the writer. Its claims to authenticity were demolished by Dr. Hody two centuries ago (De bibliorum textibus originalibus, Oxon., 1705). Clearly the writer is not a Greek, but a Jew, whose aim is to glorify his race and to disseminate information about their sacred books. Yet the story is not wholly to be rejected, though it is difficult to disentangle truth from fiction. On one side his veracity has since Hody's time been established; his court titles, technical terms, epistolary formulas, etc., reappear in Egyptian papyri and inscriptions, and all his references to Alexandrian life and customs are probably equally trustworthy (sections 28, 109 ff, measures to counteract the ill effects upon agriculture of migration from country to town; section 167, treatment of informers (compare section 25); section 175 reception of foreign embassies (compare section 182)). The import of this discovery has, however, since its announcement by Lombroso (Recherches sur l'economie politique de l'Egypte, Turin, 1870), been somewhat modified by the new-found papyri which show that Aristeas' titles and formulas are those of the later, not the earlier, Ptolemaic age.
5. Date: The letter was used by Josephus and probably known to Philo. How much earlier is it? Schurer (HJP, II, iii, 309 f (GJV4,III, 608-16)), relying on (1) the questionable Aristobulus passage, (2) the picture drawn of Palestine as if still under Ptolemaic rule, from which it passed to the Seleucids circa 200 BC, argued that the work could not be later than that date. But it is hard to believe that a fictitious story (as he regards it to be) could have gained credence within little more than half a century of the period to which it relates, and Wendland rightly rejects so ancient an origin. The following indications suggest a date about 100-80 BC.
(1) Many of Aristeas' formulas, etc. (see above), only came into use in the 2nd centuryBC (Strack, Rhein. Mus., LV, 168 ff; Thackeray, Aristeas, English translation, pp. 3, 12). (2) The later Maccabean age or the end of the 2nd century BC is suggested by some of the translators' names (Wendland, xxvi), and (3) by the independent position of the high priest. (4) Some of Ptolemy's questions indicate a tottering dynasty (section 187, etc.). (5) The writer occasionally forgets his role and distinguishes between his own time and that of Philadelphus (sections 28, 182). (6) He appears to borrow his name from a Jewish historian of the 2nd century BC and to wish to pass off the latter's history as his own (section 6). (7) He is guilty of historical inaccuracies concerning Demetrius, etc. (8) The prologue to the Greek Ecclesiasticus (after 132 BC) ignores and contradicts the Aristeas story, whereas Aristeas possibly used this prologue (Wendland, xxvii; compare Hart, Ecclesiasticus in Greek, 1909). (9) The imprecation upon any who should alter the translation (section 311) points to divergences of text which the writer desired to check; compare section 57, where he seems to insist on the correctness of the Septuagint text of Exodus 25:22, "gold of pure gold," as against the Hebrew. (10) Allusions to current criticisms of the Pentateuch (sections 128, 144) presuppose a familiarity with it on the part of non-Jewish readers only explicable if the Septuagint had long been current. (11) Yet details in the Greek orthography preclude a date much later than 100 BC.
6. Credibility: The probable amount of truth in the story is ably discussed by Swete (Intro, 16-22). The following statements in the letter may be accepted: (1) The translation was produced at Alexandria, as is conclusively proved by Egyptian influence on its language. (2) The Pentateuch was translated first and, in view of the homogeneity of style, as a whole. (3) The Greek Pentateuch goes back to the first half of the 3rd century BC; the style is akin to that of the 3rd-century papyri, and the Greek Genesis was used by the Hellenist Demetrius toward the end of the century. (4) The Hebrew rolls were brought from Jerusalem. (5) Possibly Philadelphus, the patron of literature, with his religious impartiality, may have countenanced the work. But the assertion that it owed its inception wholly to him and his librarian is incredible; it is known from other sources that Demetrius Phalereus did not fill the office of librarian under that monarch. The language is that of the people, not a literary style suitable to a work produced under royal patronage. The importation of Palestinian translators is likewise fictitious. Dr. Swete acutely observes that Aristeas, in stating that the translation was read to and welcomed by the Jewish community before being presented to the king, unconsciously reveals its true origin. It was no doubt produced to meet their own needs by the large Jewish colony at Alexandria. A demand that the Law should be read in the synagogues in a tongue "understanded of the people" was the originating impulse.
IV. Evidence of Prologue to Sirach. The interesting, though in places tantalizingly obscure, prologue to Ecclesiasticus throws light on the progress made with the translation of the remaining Scriptures before the end of the 2nd century BC.
The translator dates his settlement in Egypt, during which he produced his version of his grandfather's work, as "the 38th year under Euergetes the king." The words have been the subject of controversy, but, with the majority of critics, we may interpret this to mean the 38th year of Euergetes II, reckoning from the beginning (170 BC) of his joint reign with Philometor, i.e. 132 BC. Euergetes I reigned for 25 years only. Others, in view of the superfluous preposition, suppose that the age of the translator is intended, but the cumbrous form of expression is not unparalleled. A recent explanation of the date (Hart, Ecclesiasticus in Greek) as the 38th year of Philadelphus which was also the 1st year of Euergetes I (i.e. 247 BC) is more ingenious than convincing.
The prologue implies the existence of a Greek version of the Law; the Prophets and "the rest of the books." The translator, craving his readers' indulgence for the imperfections of his own work, due to the difficulty of reproducing Hebrew in Greek, adds that others have experienced the same difficulties: "The Law itself and the prophecies and the rest of the books have no small difference when spoken in their original language." From these words we may understand that at the time of writing (132-100 BC) Alexandrian Jews possessed Greek versions of a large part (probably not the whole) of "the Prophets," and of some of "the Writings" or Hagiographa. For some internal evidence as to the order in which the several books were translated see VIII , below.
V. Transmission of the Septuagint Text. The main value of the Septuagint is its witness to an older Hebrew text than our own. But before we can reconstruct this Hebrew text we need to have a pure Greek text before us, and this we are at present far from possessing. The Greek text has had a long and complex history of its own. Used for centuries by both Jews and Christians it underwent corruption and interpolation, and, notwithstanding the multitude of materials for its restoration, the original text has yet to be recovered. We are much more certain of the ipsissima verba of the New Testament writers than of the original Alexandrian version of the Old Testament. This does not apply to all portions alike. The Greek Pentateuch, e.g., has survived in a relatively pure form. But everywhere we have to be on our guard against interpolations, sometimes extending to whole paragraphs. Not a verse is without its array of variant readings. An indication of the amount of "mixture" which has taken place is afforded by the numerous "doublets" or alternative renderings of a single Hebrew word or phrase which appear side by side in the transmitted text.
1. Early Corruption of the Text: Textual corruption began early, before the Christian era. We have seen indications of this in the letter of Aristeas (III, 5, (9) above). Traces of corruption appear in Philo (e.g. his comment, in Quis Rer. Div. Her. 56, on Genesis 15:15, shows that already in his day tapheis, "buried," had become trapheis, "nurtured," as in all our manuscripts); doublets already exist. Similarly in the New Testament the author of Hebrews quotes (Genesis 12:15) a corrupt form of the Greek of Deuteronomy 29:18.
2. Official Revision of Hebrew Text circa 100 AD: But it was not until the beginning of the 2nd century AD that the divergence between the Greek and the Palestinian Hebrew text reached an acute stage. One cause of this was the revision of the Hebrew text which took place about this time. No actual record of this revision exists, but it is beyond doubt that it originated in the rabbinical school, of which Rabbi Akiba was the chief representative, and which had its center at Jamnia in the years following the destruction of Jerusalem. The Jewish doctors, their temple in ruins, concentrated their attention on the settlement of the text of the Scriptures which remained to them. This school of eminent critics, precursors of the Massoretes, besides settling outstanding questions concerning the Canon, laid down strict rules for Biblical interpretation, and in all probability established an official text.
3. Adoption of Septuagint by Christians: But another cause widened still farther the distance between the texts of Jerusalem and Alexandria. This was the adoption of the Septuagint by the Christian church. When Christians began to cite the Alexandrian version in proof of their doctrines, the Jews began to question its accuracy. Hence, mutual recriminations which are reflected in the pages of Justin's Dialogue with Trypho. "They dare to assert," says Justin (Dial., 68), "that the interpretation produced by your seventy elders under Ptolemy of Egypt is in some points inaccurate." A crucial instance cited by the Jews was the rendering "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14, where they claimed with justice that "young woman" would be more accurate. Justin retaliates by charging the Jews with deliberate excision of passages favorable to Christianity.
4. Alternative 2nd Century Greek Versions: That such accusations should be made in those critical years was inevitable, yet there is no evidence of any material interpolations having been introduced by either party. But the Alexandrian version, in view of the revised text and the new and stricter canons of interpretation, was felt by the Jews to be inadequate, and a group of new translations of Scripture in the 2nd century AD supplied the demand. We possess considerable fragments of the work of three of these translators, namely, Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, besides scanty remnants of further anonymous versions
5. Aquila: The earliest of "the three" was Aquila, a proselyte to Judaism, and, like his New Testament namesake, a native of Pontus. He flourished, according to Epiphanius (whose account of these later translators in his De mens. et pond. is not wholly trustworthy), under Hadrian (117-38 AD) and was related to that emperor; there is no ~probability in Epiphanius' further statement that Hadrian entrusted to Aquila the superintendence of the building of Aelia Capitolina on the site of Jerusalem, that there he was converted to Christianity by Christian exiles returning from Pella, but that refusing to abandon astrology he was excommunicated, and in revenge turned Jew and was actuated by a bias against Christianity in his version of the Old Testament. What is certain is that he was a pupil of the new rabbinical school, in particular of Rabbi Akiba (95-135 AD), and that his version was an attempt to reproduce exactly the revised official text. The result was an extraordinary production, unparalleled in Greek literature, if it can be classed under that category at all. No jot or tittle of the Hebrew might be neglected; uniformity in the translation of each Hebrew word must be preserved and the etymological kinship of different Hebrew words represented. Such were some of his leading principles. The opening words of his translation (Genesis 1:1) may be rendered: "In heading rounded God with the heavens and with the earth." "Heading" or "summary" was selected because the Hebrew word for "beginning" was a derivative of "head." "With" represents an untranslatable word ('eth) prefixed to the accusative case, but indistinguishable from the preposition "with." The Divine Name (the tetragrammaton, YHWH) was not translated, but written in archaic Hebrew characters. "A slave to the letter," as Origen calls him, his work has aptly been described by a modern writer as "a colossal crib" (Burkitt, JQR, October, 1896, 207 ff). Yet it was a success. In Origen's time it was used by all Jews ignorant of Hebrew, and continued in use for several centuries; Justinian expressly sanctioned its use in the synagogues (Nov., 146). Its lack of style and violation of the laws of grammar were not due to ignorance of Greek, of which the writer shows, in vocabulary at least, a considerable command. Its importance lay and lies (so far as it is preserved) in its exact reproduction of the rabbinical text of the 2nd century AD; it may be regarded as the beginning of the scientific study of the Hebrew Scriptures. Though "a bold attempt to displace the Septuagint," it cannot be charged with being intentionally antagonistic to Christianity. Of the original work, previously known only from extracts in manuscripts, some palimpsest fragments were recovered from the Cairo Genizah in 1897 and edited by F. C. Burkitt (Fragments of the Books of Kings, 1897) and by C. Taylor (Sayings of the Jewish Fathers2, 1897; Hebrew-Greek Cairo Genizah Palimpsests, 1900). The student of Swete's Old Testament will trace Aquila's unmistakable style in the footnotes to the Books of Samuel and Kings; the older and shorter B text in those books has constantly been supplemented in the A text from Aquila. A longer specimen of his work occurs in the Greek Ecclesiastes, which has no claim to be regarded as "Septuagint"; Jerome refers to a second edition of Aquila's version, and the Greek Ecclesiastes is perhaps his first edition of that book, made on the basis of an unrevised Hebrew text (McNeile, Introduction to Ecclesiastes, Cambridge, 1904, App. I). The suggested identification of Aquila with Onkelos, author of the Targum of that name, has not been generally accepted.
6. Theodotion: Epiphanius' account of the dates and history of Theodotion and Symmachus is untrustworthy. He seems to have reversed their order, probably misled by the order of the translations, in the columns of the Hexapla (see below). He also apparently confused Aquila and Theodotion in calling the latter a native of Pontus. As regards date, Theodotion, critics are agreed, preceded Symmachus and probably flourished under M. Aurelius (161-80), whereas Symmachus lived under Commodus (180-92); Irenaeus mentions only the versions of Aquila and Theodotion, and that of Symmachus had in his day either not been produced or at least not widely circulated. According to the more credible account of Irenaeus, Theodotion was an Ephesian and a convert to Judaism. His version constantly agrees with the Septuagint and was rather a revision of it, to bring it into accord with the current Hebrew text, than an independent work. The supplementing of lacunae in the Septuagint (due partly to the fact that the older version of some books did not aim at completeness) gave scope for greater originality. These lacunae were greatest in Job and his version of that book was much longer than the Septuagint. The text of Job printed in Swete's edition is a patchwork of old and new; the careful reader may detect the Theodotion portions by transliterations and other peculiarities. Long extracts from Theodotion are preserved in codex Q in Jeremiah. As regards the additional matter contained in Septuagint, Theodotion was inconsistent; he admitted, e.g., the additions to Daniel (Sus, Bel and the Dragon, and the Song of Three Children), but did not apparently admit the non-canonical books as a whole. The church adopted his Daniel in place of the inadequate Septuagint version, which has survived in only one Greek manuscript; but the date when the change took place is unknown and the early history of the two Greek texts is obscure. Theodotion's renderings have been found in writings before his time (including the New Testament), and it is reasonably conjectured that even before the 2nd century AD the Septuagint text had been discarded and that Theodotion's version is but a working over of an older alternative version Theodotion is free from the barbarisms of Aquila, but is addicted to transliteration, i.e. the reproduction of Hebrew words in Greek letters: His reasons for this habit are not always clear; ignorance of Hebrew will not account for all (compare VIII , 1, (5), below).
7. Symmachus and Others: Beside the two versions produced by, and primarily intended for, Jews was a third, presumably to meet the needs of a Jewish Christian sect who were dissatisfied with the Septuagint. Symmachus, its author, was, according to the more trustworthy account, an Ebionite, who also wrote a commentary on Matthew, a copy of which was given to Origen by Juliana, a lady who received it from its author (Euseb., HE, VI, 17). Epiphanius' description of him as a Samaritan convert to Judaism may be rejected. The date of his work, as above stated, was probably the reign of Commodus (180-192 AD). In one respect the version resembled Aquila's, in its faithful adherence to the sense of the current Hebrew text; its style, however, which was flowing and literary, was a revolt against Aquila's monstrosities. It seems to have been a recasting of Aquila's version, with free use of both Septuagint and Theodotion. It carried farther a tendency apparent in the Septuagint to refine away the anthropomorphisms of the Old Testament.
Of three other manuscripts discovered by Origen (one at Nicopolis in Greece, one at Jericho) and known from their position in the Hexapla as Quinta, Sexta, and Septima, little is known. There is no reason to suppose that they embraced the whole Old Testament. Quinta is characterized by Field as the most elegant of the Greek versions F.C. Burkitt has discussed "the so-called Quinta of 4 Kings" in PSBA, June, 1902. The Christian origin of Sexta betrays itself in Habakkuk 3:13 ("Thou wentest forth to save thy people for the sake of (or "by") Jesus thy anointed One").
8. Origen and the Hexapla: These later versions play a large part in the history of the text of the Septuagint. This is due to the labors of the greatest Septuagint scholar of antiquity, the celebrated Origen of Alexandria, whose active life covers the first half of the 3rd century. Origen frankly recognized, and wished Christians to recognize, the merits of the later VSS, and the divergences between the Septuagint and the current Hebrew. He determined to provide the church with the materials for ascertaining the true text and meaning of the Old Testament. With this object he set himself to learn Hebrew--a feat probably unprecedented among non-Jewish Christians of that time--and to collect the later versions The idea of using these versions to amend the Septuagint seemed to him an inspiration: "By the gift of God we found a remedy for the divergence in the copies of the Old Testament, namely to use the other editions as a criterion" (Commentary on Matthew 15:14). The magnum opus in which he embodied the results of his labors was known as the Hexapla or "six-column" edition. This stupendous work has not survived; a fragment was discovered toward the end of the 19th century in the Ambrosian Library at Milan (Swete, Introduction, 61 ff) and another among the Cairo Genizah palimpsests (ed C. Taylor, Cambridge, 1900). The material was arranged in six parallel columns containing (1) the current Hebrew text, (2) the same in Greek letters, (3) the version of Aquila, (4) that of Symmachus, (5) that of the Septuagint, (6) that of Theodotion. The text was broken up into short clauses; not more than two words, usually one only, stood in the first column. The order of the columns doubtless represents the degree of conformity to the Hebrew; Aquila's, as the most faithful, heads the VSS, and Symmachus' is on the whole a revision of Aquila as Theodotion's is of the Septuagint. But Origen was not content with merely collating the VSS; his aim was to revise the Septuagint and the 5th column exhibited his revised text. The basis of it was the current Alexandrian text of the 3rd century AD; this was supplemented or corrected where necessary by the other versions Origen, however, deprecated alteration of a text which had received ecclesiastical sanction, without some indication of its extent, and the construction of the 5th column presented difficulties. There were (1) numerous cases of words or paragraphs contained in the Septuagint but not in the Hebrew, which could not be wholly rejected, (2) cases of omission from the Septuagint of words in the Hebrew, (3) cases of paraphrase and minor divergences, (4) variations in the order of words or chapters. Origen here had recourse to a system of critical signs, invented and employed by the grammarian Aristarchus (3rd century BC) in his edition of Homer. Passages of the first class were left in the text, but had prefixed to them an obelus, a sign of which the original form was a "spit" or "spear," but figuring in Septuagint manuscripts as a horizontal line usually with a dot above and a dot below; there are other varieties also. The sign in Aristarchus indicated censure, in the Hexapla the doubtful authority of the words which followed. The close of the obelized passage was marked by the metobelus, a colon (:), or, in the Syriac VSS, shaped like a mallet. Passages missing in the Septuagint were supplied from one of the other versions (Aquila or Theodotion), the beginning of the extract being marked by an asterisk--a sign used by Aristarchus to express special approval--the close, by the metobelus. Where Septuagint and Hebrew widely diverged, Origen occasionally gave two VSS, that of a later translator under an asterisk, that of Septuagint obelized. Divergence in order was met by transposition, the Hebrew order being followed; in Proverbs, however, the two texts kept their respective order, the discrepancy being indicated by a combination of signs. Minor supposed or real corruptions in the Greek were tacitly corrected. Origen produced a minor edition, the Tetrapla, without the first two columns of the larger work. The Heptapla and Octapla, occasionally mentioned, appear to be alternative names given to the Hexapla at points where the number of columns was increased to receive other fragmentary versions. This gigantic work, which according to a reasonable estimate must have filled 5,000 leaves, was probably never copied in extenso. The original was preserved for some centuries in the library of Pamphilus at Caesarea; there it was studied by Jerome, and thither came owners of Biblical manuscripts to collate their copies with it, as we learn from some interesting notes in our uncial manuscripts (e.g. a 7th-century note appended to Esther in codex S). The Library probably perished circa 638 AD, when Caesarea fell into the hands of the Saracens.
9. Hexaplaric Manuscripts: But, though the whole work was too vast to be copied, it was a simple task to copy the 5th column. This task was performed, partly in prison, by Pamphilus, a martyr in the Diocletian persecution, and his friend Eusebius, the great bishop of Caesarea. Copies of the "Hexaplaric" Septuagint, i.e. Origen's doctored text with the critical signs and perhaps occasional notes, were, through the initiative of these two, widely circulated in Palestine in the 4th century. Naturally, however, the signs became unintelligible in a text detached from the parallel columns which explained them; scribes neglected them, and copies of the doctored text, lacking the precautionary symbols, were multiplied. This carelessness has wrought great confusion; Origen is, through others' fault, indirectly responsible for the production of manuscripts in which the current Septuagint text and the later versions are hopelessly mixed. No manuscripts give the Hexaplaric text as a whole, and it is preserved in a relatively pure form in very few: the uncials G and M (Pentatruch and some historical books), the cursives 86 and 88 (Prophets). Other so-called Hexaplaric manuscripts, notably codex Q (Marchalianus: Proph.) preserve fragments of the 5th and of the other columns of the Hexapla. (For the Syro-Hexaplar see below,VI , 1.) Yet, even did we possess the 5th column entire, with the complete apparatus of signs, we should not have "the original Septuagint," but merely, after removing the asterisked passages, a text current in the 3rd century. The fact has to be emphasized that Origen's gigantic work was framed on erroneous principles. He assumed (1) the purity of the current Hebrew text, (2) the corruption of the current Septuagint text where it deviated from the Hebrew. The modern critic recognizes that the Septuagint on the whole presents the older text, the divergences of which from the Hebrew are largely attributable to an official revision of the latter early in the Christian era. He recognizes also that in some books (e.g. Job) the old Greek version was only a partial one. To reconstruct the original text he must therefore have recourse to other auxiliaries beside Origen.
10. Recensions Known to Jerome: Such assistance is partly furnished by two other recensions made in the century after Origen. Jerome (Praef. in Paralipp.; compare Adv. Ruf., ii.27) states that in the 4th century three recensions circulated in different parts of the Christian world: "Alexandria and Egypt in their Septuagint acclaim Hesychius as their authority, the region from Constantinople to Antioch approves the copies of Lucian the martyr, the intermediate Palestinian provinces read the manuscripts which were promulgated by Eusebius and Pamphilus on the basis of Origen's labors, and the whole world is divided between these three varieties of text."
11. Hesychian Recension: Hesychius is probably to be identified with the martyr bishop mentioned by Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, VIII, 13) along with another scholar martyr, Phileas bishop of Thmuis, and it is thought that these two were engaged in prison in revising the Egyptian text at the time when Pamphilus and Eusebius were employed on a similar task under similar conditions. How far existing manuscripts preserve the Hesychian recension is uncertain; agreement of their text with that of Egyptian versions and Fathers (Cyril in particular) is the criterion. For the Prophets Ceriani has identified codex Q and its kin as Hesychian. For the Octateuch N. McLean (JTS, II, 306) finds the Hesychian text in a group of cursives, 44, 74, 76, 84, 106, 134, etc. But the first installments of the larger Cambridge Septuagint raise the question whether Codex B (Vaticanus) may not itself be Hesychian; its text is more closely allied to that of Cyril Alex. than to any other patristic text, and the consensus of these two witnesses against the rest is sometimes (Exodus 32:14) curiously striking. In the Psalter also Rahlfs (Septuaginta-Studien, 2. Heft, 1907, 235) traces the Hesychian text in B and partially in Codex Sinaiticus. Compare von Soden's theory for the New Testament.
See TEXT AND MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
12. Lucianic Recension: The Lucianic recension was the work of another martyr, Lucian of Antioch (died 311-12), probably with the collaboration of the Hebraist Dorotheus. There are, as Hort has shown, reasons for associating Lucian with a "Syrian" revision of the New Testament in the 4th century, which became the dominant type of text. That he produced a Syrian recension of the Greek Old Testament is expressly stated by Jerome, and we are moreover able with considerable certainty to identify the extant manuscripts which exhibit it. The identification, due to Field and Lagarde, rests on these grounds: (1) certain verses in 2 Kings are in the Arabic Syro-Hexaplar marked with the letter L, and a note explains that the letter indicates Lucianic readings; (2) the readings so marked occur in the cursives 19, 82, 93, 108, 118; (3) these manuscripts in the historical books agree with the Septuagint citations of the Antiochene Fathers Chrysostom and Theodoret. This clue enabled Lagarde to construct a Lucianic text of the historical books (Librorum Vet. Test. canonic. pars prior, Gottingen, 1883); his death prevented the completion of the work. Lagarde's edition is vitiated by the fact that he does not quote the readings of the individual manuscripts composing the group, and it can be regarded only as an approximate reconstruction of "Lucian." It is evident, however, that the Lucianic Septuagint possessed much the same qualities as the Syrian revision of the New Testament; lucidity and completeness were the main objects. It is a "full" text, the outcome of a desire to include, so far as possible, all recorded matter; "doublets" are consequently numerous. While this "conflation" of texts detracts from its value, the Lucianic revision gains importance from the fact that the sources from which it gleaned include an element of great antiquity which needs to be disengaged; where it unites with the Old Latin version against all other authorities its evidence is invaluable.
Continued in SEPTUAGINT, 2.
Septuagint, 2
Septuagint, 2 - Continued from SEPTUAGINT, 1.
VI. Reconstruction of Septuagint Text; Versions, Manuscripts and Printed Editions.
The task of restoring the original text is beset with difficulties. The materials (MSS, VSS, patristic citations) are abundant, but none has escaped "mixture," and the principles for reconstruction are not yet securely established (Swete, Introduction, I, iv-vi; III, vi).
1. Ancient Versions Made from Septuagint: Among the chief aids to restoration are the daughter versions made from the Septuagint, and above all the Old Latin (pre-Hieronymian) version, for the earliest (African) Old Latin version dates from the 2nd century AD, i.e. before Origen, and contains a text from which the asterisked passages in Hexaplaric manuscripts are absent; it thus "brings us the best independent proof we have that the Hexaplar signs introduced by Origen can be relied on for the reconstruction of the LXX" (Burkitt). The Old Latin also enables us to recognize the ancient element in the Lucianic recension. But the Latin evidence itself is by no means unanimous. Augustine (De Doctr. Christ., ii.16) speaks of the infinite variety of Latin VSS; though they may ultimately prove all to fall into two main families, African and European. Peter Sabatier's collection of patristic quotations from the Old Latin is still useful, though needing verification by recent editions of the Fathers. Of Old Latin manuscripts one of the most important is the codex Lugdunensis, edited by U. Robert (Pentateuchi e codex Lugd. versio Latin antiquissima, Paris, 1881; Heptateuchi partis post. versio Latin antiq. e codex Lugd., Lyons, 1900). The student should consult also Burkitt's edition of The Rules of Tyconius ("Texts and Studies," III, 1, Cambridge, 1894) and The Old Latin and the Itala (ibid., IV, 3, 1896).
Jerome's Vulgate is mainly a direct translation from the Hebrew, but the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) Psalter, the so-called Gallican, is one of Jerome's two revisions of the Old Latin, not his later version from the Hebrew, and some details in our Prayer-book Psalter are ultimately derived through the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) Psalter from the Septuagint. Parts of the Apocrypha (Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees) are also pure Old Latin, untouched by Jerome.
The early date (2nd century AD) once claimed for the Egyptian or Coptic versions (Bohairic, i.e. in the dialect of Lower Egypt, Sahidic or Upper Egyptian and Middle Egyptian) has not been confirmed by later researches, at least as regards the first-named, which is probably not earlier than the 3rd or 4th century AD. Rahlfs (Sept-Studien, II, 1907) identifies the Bohairic Psalter as the Hesychian recension. The Sahidic version of Job has fortunately preserved the shorter text lacking the later insertions from Theodotion (Lagarde, Mittheilungen, 1884, 204); this does not conclusively prove that it is pre-Origenic; it may be merely a Hexaplaric text with the asterisked passages omitted (Burkitt, EB, IV, 5027). The influence bf the Hexapla is traceable elsewhere in this version
The Ethiopic version was made in the main from the Greek and in part at least from an early text; Rahlfs (Sept. Stud., I, 1904) considers its text of S-K, with that of codex B, to be pre-Origenic.
The Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) or Peshitta Syriac version was made from the Hebrew, though partly influenced by the Septuagint. But another Syriac version is of primary importance for the Septuagint text, namely, that of Paul, bishop of Tella (Constantine in Mesopotamia), executed at Alexandria in 616-17 and known as the Syro-Hexaplar. This is a bald Syriac version of the Septuagint column of the Hexapla, containing the Hexaplar signs. A manuscript of the poetical and prophetical books is in the Ambrosian Library at Milan and has been edited by Ceriani (Monumenta sacra et profana, 1874); fragments of the historical books are also extant (Lagarde and Rahlfs, Bibliothecae Syriacae, Gottingen, 1892). This version supplements the Greek Hexaplaric manuscripts and is the principal authority for Origen's text. For the original version of Daniel, which has survived in only one late MS, the Syro-Hexaplar supplies a second and older authority of great value.
The Armenian version (ascribed to the 5th century) also owes its value to its extreme literalness; its text of the Octateuch is largely Hexaplaric.
A bare mention must suffice of the Arabic version (of which the prophetical and poetical books, Job excluded, were rendered from the Septuagint); the fragments of the Gothic version (made from the Lucianic recension), and the Slavonic (partly from Septuagint, also Lucianic) and the Georgian versions.
2. Manuscripts: For a full description of the Greek manuscripts see Swete, Introduction, I, chapter V. They are divided according to their script (capitals or minuscules) into uncials and cursives, the former ranging from the 4th century (four papyrus scraps go back to the 3rd century; Nestle in Hauck-Herzog, Realencyklopadie fur protestantische Theologie und Kirche, XXIII, 208) to the 10th century AD, the latter from the 9th to the 16th century AD. Complete Bibles are few; the majority contain groups of books only, such as the Pentateuch, Octateuch (Gen-Ruth), the later historical books, the Psalter, the 3 or 5 "Solomonic" books, the Prophets (major, minor or both). Uncials are commonly denoted by capital letters (in the edition of Holmes and Parsons by Roman figures); cursives, of which over 300 are known, by Arabic figures; in the larger Cambridge Septuagint the selected cursives are denoted by small Roman letters.
The following are the chief uncials containing, or which once contained, the whole Bible: B (Vaticanus, at Rome, 4th century AD), adopted as the standard text in all recent editions; Codex Sinaiticus, at Petersburg and Leipzig, 4th century AD), discovered by Tischendorf in 1844 and subsequent years in Catherine's Convent, Mt. Sinai; A (Alexandrinus, British Museum, probably 5th century AD); C (Ephraemi rescriptus, Paris, probably 5th century), a palimpsest, the older Biblical matter underlying a medieval Greek text of works of Ephrem the Syrian. For the Octateuch and historical books: D (Cottonianus, British Museum, probably 5th or 6th century), fragments of an illuminated Gen, the bulk of which perished in a fire at Ashburnham House in 1731, but earlier collations of Grabe and others are extant, which for the lost portions are cited in the Cambridge texts as D (Dsil, i.e. silet Grabius, denotes an inference from Grabe's silence that the manuscript did not contain a variant); F (Ambro-sianus, Milan, 4th to 5th century), fragments of the Octateuch; G (Sarravianus, fragments at Leyden, Paris and Petersburg, 4th to 5th century), important as containing an Origenic text with the Hexaplar signs; L (Purpureus Vindobonensis, Vienna, 5th to 6th century), fragments of an illuminated manuscript Genesis on purple vellum; M (Coislinianus, Paris, 7th century), important on account of its marginal Hexaplaric matter. For the Prophets, Q (Marchalianus, Rome, 6th century) is valuable, both for its text, which is "Hesychian" (see above), and for its abundant marginal Hexaplaric matter. A curious mixture of uncial and cursive writing occurs in E (Bodleianus, probably 10th century), fragments of the historical books (to 3 R 16 28) preserved at Oxford, Cambridge (1 leaf), Petersburg and London; Tischendorf, who brought the manuscript from the East, retained the tell-tale Cambridge leaf, on which the transition from uncial to cursive script occurs, until his death. The long-concealed fact that the scattered fragments were part of a single manuscript came to light through Swete's identification of the Cambridge leaf as a continuation of the Bodleian fragment. Many of the cursives still await investigation, as do also the lectionaries. The latter, though the manuscripts are mainly late, should repay study. The use of the Septuagint for lectionary purposes was inherited by the church from the synagogue, and the course of lessons may partly represent an old system; light may also be expected from them on the local distribution of various types of text.
3. Printed Texts: Of the printed text the first four editions were (1) the Complutensian Polyglot of Cardinal Ximenes, 1514-17, comprising the Greek, Hebrew and Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) texts, the last in the middle place of honor being compared to Jesus in the midst between the two thieves (!). The Greek was based on manuscripts from the Vatican and one from Venice; it exhibits on the whole the Lucianic recension, as the Hesychian is by a curious coincidence represented in (2) the Aldine edition of 1518, based on Venetian manuscripts. (3) The monumental Sixtine edition, published at Rome in 1586 under the auspices of Pope Sixtus V and frequently reprinted, was mainly based on the codex Vaticanus, the superiority of which text is justly recognized in the interesting preface (printed in Swete's Intro). (4) The English edition (Oxford, 1707-20) begun by Grabe (died 1712) was based on the codex Alexandrinus, with aid from other manuscripts, and had the peculiarity that he employed Origen's critical signs and different sizes of type to show the divergence between the Greek and the Hebrew. Of more recent editions three are preeminent. (5) The great Oxford edition of Holmes and Parsons (Oxford, 1798-1827, 5 volumes, folio) was the first attempt to bring together in a gigantic apparatus criticus all the evidence of uncial and cursire manuscripts (upward of 300), versions and early Citations from Philo and Josephus onward. As a monumental storehouse of materials "H. and P." will not be wholly superseded by the latest edition now (1913) in preparation. (6) The serviceable Cambridge "manual," edition of Swete (lst edition 1887-94, edition 3, 1901-7, 3 volumes, 8vo), is in the hands of all serious Septuagint students. The text is that of B, or (where B fails) of A, and the apparatus contains the readings of the principal uncial manuscripts. New materials discovered since the edition of H. and P., especially codex S, are employed, and greater accuracy in the presentation of the other evidence has been made possible by photography. The fact that the text here printed is but a provisional one is sometimes overlooked. Swete's edition was designed as a precursor to (7) the larger Cambridge Septuagint, of which three installments embracing the Pentateuch have (1913) appeared (The Old Testament in Greek, edition A.E. Brooke and N. McLean, Cambridge, 1911 pt. III. Numbers and Deuteronomy). The text is a reprint of Swete's except that from Ex onward a few alterations of errors in the primary manuscript have been corrected, a delicate task in which the editors have rejected a few old readings without sufficient regard to the peculiarities of Hellenistic Greek. The importance of the work lies in its apparatus, which presents the readings of all the uncials, versions and early citations, and those of a careful representative selection of the cursives. The materials of H (Law of Holiness, Leviticus 1:1; Leviticus 17:1-16 through Leviticus 26:1-46) and P (the Priestly Code) are brought up to date and presented in a more reliable and convenient form. Besides these there is (8) Lagarde's reconstruction of the Lucianic recension of the historical books, which, as stated, must be used with caution (see above)
4. Reconstruction of Original Text: The task of reconstructing the Oldest text is still unaccomplished. Materials have accumulated, and much preliminary "spade-work" has been done, by Lagarde in particular (see his "axioms" in Swete, Introduction, 484, ff) and more recently by Nestle and Rahlfs; but the principles which the editor must follow are not yet finally determined. The extent to which "mixture" has affected the documents is the stumbling-block. Clearly no single Moabite Stone presents the oldest text. That of codex B, as in the New Testament, is on the whole the purest. In the 4 books of "Reigns" (1 Samuel through 2 Kings), e.g., it has escaped the grosser interpolations found in most manuscripts, and Rahlfs (Sept.-Studien, I, 1904) regards its text as pre-Origenic. It is, however, of unequal value and by no means an infallible guide; in Judges, e.g., its text is undoubtedly late, no earlier than the 4th century AD, according to one authority (Moore," Jgs," ICC). In relation to two of the 4th-century recensions its text is neutral, neither predominantly Lucianic nor Hexaplaric; but it has been regarded by some authorities as Hesychian. Possibly the recension made in the country which produced the Septuagint adhered more closely than others to the primitive text; some "Hesychian" features in the B text may prove to be original. Still even its purest portions contain marks of editorial revision and patent corruptions. Codex Alexandrinus presents a quite different type of text, approximating to that of the Massoretic Text. In the books of "Reigns" it is practically a Hexaplaric text without the critical signs, the additional matter being mainly derived from Aquila. Yet that it contains an ancient element is shown by the large support given to its readings by the New Testament and early Christian writers. Individual manuscripts must give place to groups. In order to reconstruct the texts current before Origen's time, it is necessary to isolate the groups containing the three 4th-century recensions, and to eliminate from the recensions thus recovered all Hexaplaric matter and such changes as appear to have been introduced by the authors of those recensions. Other groups brought to light by the larger Cambridge text have also to be taken into account. The attempt to Renetrate into the earlier stages of the history is the hardest task. The Old Latin version is here the surest guide; it has preserved readings which have disappeared from all Greek manuscripts, and affords a criterion as to the relative antiquity of the Greek variants. The evidence of early Christian and Jewish citations is also valuable. Ultimately, after elimination of all readings proved to be "recensional" or late, the decision between outstanding variants must depend on internal evidence. These variants will fall into two classes: (1) those merely affecting the Greek text, by far the larger number and presenting less difficulty; (2) those which imply a different Hebrew text. In adjudicating on the latter Lagarde's main axioms have to be borne in mind, that a free translation is to be preferred to a slavishly literal one, and a translation presupposing another Hebrew original to one based on the Massoretic Text.
VII. Number, Titles and Order of Books. 1. Contents: In addition to the Hebrew canonical books, the Septuagint includes all the books in the English Apocrypha except 2 Esdras (The Prayer of Manasseh only finds a place among the canticles appended in some manuscripts to the Psalms) besides a 3rd and 4th book of Maccabees. Swete further includes in his text as an appendix of Greek books on the borderland of canonicity the Ps of Sol (found in some cursives and mentioned in the list in codex A), the Greek fragments of the Book of Enoch and the ecclesiastical canticles above mentioned. Early Christian writers in quoting freely from these additional books as Scripture doubtless perpetuate a tradition inherited from the Jews of Alexandria. Most of the books being original Greek compositions were ipso facto excluded from a place in the Hebrew Canon. Greater latitude as regards canonicity prevailed at Alexandria; the Pentateuch occupied a place apart, but as regards later books no very sharp line of demarcation between "canonical" and "uncanonical" appears to have been drawn.
2. Titles: Palestinian Jews employed the first word or words of each book of the Pentateuch to serve as its title; Genesis e.g. was denoted "in the beginning," Exodus "(and these are the) names"; a few of the later books have similar titles. It is to the Septuagint, through the medium of the Latin VSS, that we owe the familiar descriptive titles, mostly suggested by phrases in the Greek version. In some books there are traces of rival titles in the Ptolemaic age. Exodus ("outgoing") is also called Exagoge ("leading out") by Philo and by the Hellenist Ezekiel who gave that name to his drama on the deliverance from Egypt. Philo has also alternative names for Deuteronomy--Epinomis ("after-law") borrowed from the title of a pseudo-Platonic treatise, and for Judgess "the Book of Judgments." The last title resembles the Alexandrian name for the books of Samuel and Kings, namely, the four Books of Kingdoms or rather Reigns; the name may have been given in the first place to a partial version including only the reigns of the first few monarchs. Jerome's influence in this case restored the old Hebrew names as also in Chronicles (= Hebrew "Words of Days," "Diaries"), which in the Septuagint is entitled Paraleipomena, "omissions," as being a supplement to the Books of Reigns.
3. Bipartition of Books: Another innovation, due apparently to the Greek translators or later editors, was the breaking up of some of the long historical narratives into volumes of more manageable compass. In the Hebrew manuscripts, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah form respectively one book apiece. In the Septuagint the first three of these collections are subdivided into two volumes as in modern Bibles; an acquaintance with the other arrangement is, however, indicated in Codex B by the insertion at the end of 1 R, 3 R, 1 Chronicles of the first sentence of the succeeding book, a reminder to the reader that a continuation is to follow. Ezra-Nehemiah, the Greek version (2 Esdras) being made under the influence of Palestinian tradition, remains undivided. Originally Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah formed a unit, as was apparently still the case when the oldest Greek version (1 Esdras) was made.
4. Grouping and Order of Books: In the arrangement of books there is a radical departure from Palestinian practice. There were three main unalterable divisions in the Hebrew Bible, representing three stages in the formation of the Canon: Law, Prohets "Former" i.e. Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, and "Latter") and "Writings." This arrangement was known at Alexandria at the end of the 2nd century BC (Sir, prol.) but was not followed. The "Writings" were a miscellaneous collection of history and poetry with one prophetical book (Daniel). Alexandrian scholars introduced a more literary and symmetrical system, bringing together the books of each class and arranging them with some regard to the supposed chronological order of their authors. The Law, long before the Greek translation, had secured a position of supreme sanctity; this group was left undisturbed, it kept its precedence and the individual books their order (Leviticus and Numbers, however, exchange places in a few lists). The other two groups are broken up. Ruth is removed from the "Writings" and attached to Judges. Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah are similarly transferred to the end of the historical group. This group, from chronological considerations, is followed by the poetical and other "Writings," the Prophets coming last (so in Codex Vaticanus, etc.; in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus, prophets precede poets). The internal order of the Greek Hagiographa, which includes quasi-historical (Esther, Tobit, Judith) and Wisdom books, is variable. Daniel now first finds a place among the Prophets. The 12 minor prophets usually precede the major (Codex Sinaiticus and Western authorities give the four precedence), and the order of the first half of their company is shuffled, apparently on chronological grounds, Hosea being followed by Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Jeremiah has his train of satellites, Baruch, Lamentation (transferred from the "Writings") and Epistle of Jeremiah; Susanna and Bel and the Dragon consort with and form integral parts of Daniel. Variation in the order of books is partly attributable to the practice of writing each book on a separate papyrus roll, kept in a cylindrical case; rolls containing kindred matter would tend to be placed in the same case, but there would be no fixed order for these separate items until the copying of large groups in book-form came into vogue (Swete, Introduction, 225 f, 229 f).
VIII. Characteristics of the Version and Its Component Parts.
Notwithstanding the uncertain state of the text, some general characteristics of the version are patent. It is clear that, like the Hebrew itself, it is not a single book, but a library. It is a series of versions and Greek compositions covering well-nigh 400 years, since it includes a few productions of the 2nd century AD; the bulk of the translations, however, fall within the first half of the period (Sirach, prolegomena).
1. Grouping of Septuagint Books on Internal Evidence:
The translations may be grouped and their chronological order approximately determined from certain characteristics of their style. (1) We may inquire how a Hebrew word or phrase is rendered in different parts of the work. Diversity of renderings is not an infallible proof that different hands have been employed, since invariable uniformity in translation is difficult of attainment and indeed was not the aim of the Pentateuch translators, who seem rather to have studied variety of expression. If, however, a Hebrew word is consistently rendered by one Greek word in one portion and by another elsewhere, and if each of the two portions has other features peculiar to itself, it becomes highly probable that the two portions are the work of different schools. Among "test-words" which yield results of this kind are "servant" in "Moses the servant of the Lord," "Hosts" in "Lord of Hosts," "Philistines" (Swete, Introduction, 317 f; Thackeray, Grammar of the Old Testament, 7 ff). (2) We may compare the Greek with that of dated documents of the Ptolemaic age. The translations were written in the koine or "common" Greek, most of them in the vernacular variety of it, during a period when this new cosmopolitan language was in the making; the abundant dated papyri enable us to trace some stages in its evolution. The Petrie and Hibeh papyri of the 3rd century BC afford the closest parallels to the Greek Pentateuch. The following century witnessed a considerable development or "degeneracy" in the language, of which traces may be found in the Greek of the prophetical books. Beside the vernacular Greek was the literary language of the "Atticistic" school which persistently struggled, with indifferent success, to recover the literary flavor of the old Greek masterpieces. This style is represented in the Septuagint by most of the original Greek writings and by the paraphrases of some of the "Writings." (3) We may compare the Greek books as translations, noting in which books Iicense is allowed and which adhere strictly to the Hebrew. The general movement is in the direction of greater literalism; the later books show an increasing reverence for the letter of Scripture, resulting in the production of pedantically literal VSS; the tendency culminated in the 2nd century AD in the barbarisms of Aquila. Some of the "Writings" were freely handled, because they had not yet obtained canonical rank at the time of translation. Investigation on these lines goes to show that the order of the translation was approximately that of the Hebrew Canon. The Greek Hexateuch may be placed in the 3rd century BC, the Prophets mainly in the 2nd century BC, the "Writings" mainly in the 2nd and 1st centuries BC.
(1) The Hexateuch. The Greek Pentateuch should undoubtedly be regarded as a unit: the Aristeas story may so far be credited. It is distinguished by a uniformly high level of the "common" vernacular style, combined with faithfulness to the Hebrew, rarely lapsing into literalism. It set the standard which later translators tried to imitate. The text was more securely established in this portion and substantial variant readings are comparatively few. The latter part of Exodus is an exception; the Hebrew had here not reached its final form in the 3rd century BC, and there is some reason for thinking that the version is not the work of the translator of the first half. In Deuteronomy a few new features in vocabulary appear (e.g. ekklesia; see Hort, Christian Ecclesia, 4 ff). The Greek version of Josephus forms a link between the Pentateuch and the later historical books. The text was not yet fixed, and variants are more abundant than in the Pentateuch. The earliest VS, probably of selections only, appears from certain common features to have been nearly coeval with that of the Law.
(2) The "Latter" Prophets. There is little doubt that the next books to be translated were the Prophets in the narrower sense, and that Isaiah came first. The style of the Greek Isaiah has a close similarity, not wholly attributable to imitation, to that of the Pentateuch: a certain freedom of treatment connects it with the earlier translation period: it was known to the author of Wisdom (Isaiah 3:10 with Ottley's note). The translation shows "obvious signs of incompetence" (Swete), but the task was an exacting one. The local Egyptian coloring in the translation is interesting (R. R. Ottley, Book of Isaiah according to the Septuagint, 2 volumes, Greek text of A, translation and notes, Cambridge, 1904-6, with review in JTS, X, 299). Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Minor Prophets were probably translated en bloc or nearly so. The Palestinian Canon had now been enlarged by a second group of Scriptures and this stimulated a desire among Alexandrian Jews to possess the entire collection of the Prophets in Greek. The undertaking seems to have been a formal and quasi-official one, not a haphazard growth. For it has been ascertained that Jeremiah and Ezekiel were divided for translation purposes into two nearly equal parts; a change in the Greek style occurs at the junctures. In Jeremiah the break occurs in chapter 29 Septuagint order); the clearest criterion of the two styles is the twofold rendering of "Thus saith the Lord." The last chapter (Jeremiah 52:1-34) is probably a later addition in the Greek. The translator of the second half of Jer also translated the first half of Baruch (Jeremiah 1:1-3:Jeremiah 8:1-22); he was incompetent and his work, if our text may be relied on, affords flagrant examples of Greek words being selected to render words which he did not understand merely because of their similar sound. Ezekiel is similarly divided, but here the translator of the first half (chapters 1 through 27) undertook the difficult last quarter as well (chapters 40 through 48), the remainder being left to a second worker. An outstanding test is afforded by the renderings of the refrain, "They shall know that I am the Lord." The Greek version of "the twelve" shows no trace of a similar division; in its style it is closely akin to the first half of Ezekiel and is perhaps by the same hand (JTS, IV, 245, 398, 578). But this official version of the Prophets had probably been preceded by versions of short passages selected to be read on the festivals in the synagogues. Lectionary requirements occasioned the earliest versions of the Prophets, possibly of the Pentateuch as well. Two indications of this have been traced. There exists in four manuscripts a Greek version of the Psalm of Habakkuk (Habakkuk 3:1-19), a chapter which has been a Jewish lesson for Pentecost from the earliest times, independent of and apparently older than the Septuagint and made for synagogue use. Similarly in Ezekiel of the Septuagint there is a section of sixteen verses (36:24-38) with a style quite distinct from that of its context. This passage was also an early Christian lesson for Pentecost, and its lectionary use was inherited from Judaism. Here the Septuagint translators seem to have incorporated the older version, whereas in Habakkuk 3:1-19 they rejected it (JTS, XII, 191; IV, 407).
(3) Partial Version of the "Former" Prophets. The Greek style indicates that the history of the monarchy was not all translated at once. Ulfilas is said to have omitted these books from the Gothic version as likely to inflame the military temper of his race; for another reason the Greek translators were at first content with a partial version. They omitted as unedifying the more disastrous portions, David's sin with the subsequent calamities of his reign and the later history of the divided monarchy culminating in the captivity. Probably the earliest versions embraced only (1) 1 R, (2) 2 R 1 1 through 11 1 (David's early reign), (3) 3 R 2 12 through 21 13 (Solomon and the beginning of the divided monarchy); the third book of "Reigns" opened with the accession of Solomon (as in Lucian's text), not at the point where 1 Kings opens. These earlier portions are written in a freer style than the rest of the Greek "Reigns," and the Hebrew original differed widely in places from that translated in the English Bible (JTS, VIII, 262).
(4) The "Writings."
The Hagiographa at the end of the 2nd century BC were regarded as national literature. (Sirach, prolegomena "the other books of our fathers"), but not as canonical. The translators did not scruple to treat these with great freedom, undeterred by the prohibition against alteration of Scripture (Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32). Free paraphrases of extracts were produced, sometimes with legendary additions. A partial version of Job (one-sixth being omitted) was among the first; Aristeas, the historian of the 2nd century BC, seems to have been acquainted with it (Freudenthal, Hellenistische Studien, 1875, 136 ff). The translator was a student of the Greek poets; his version was probably produced for the general reader, not for the synagogues. Hatch's theory (Essays in Biblical Greek, 1889, 214) that his Hebrew text was shorter than ours and was expanded later is untenable; avoidance of anthropomorphisms explains some omissions, the reason for others is obscure. The first Greek narrative of the return from exile (1 Esdras) was probably a similar version of extracts only from Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah, grouped round a fable of non-Jewish origin, the story of the 3 youths at the court of Darius. The work is a fragment, the end being lost, and it has been contended by some critics that the version once embraced the whole of Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah (C. C. Torrey, Ezra Studies, Chicago, 1910). The Greek is obviously earlier than Esdras B and is of great value for the reconstruction of the Hebrew. The same translator appears from peculiarities of diction to have produced the earliest version of Dnl, treating it with similar freedom and incorporating extraneous matter (the Song of Three Children, Susanna, Bel). The maximum of interpolation is reached in Esther, where the Greek additions make up two-thirds of the story. The Greek Proverbs (probably 1st century BC) includes many maxims not in the Hebrew; some of these appear to be derived from a lost Hebrew collection, others are of purely Greek origin. This translator also knew and imitated the Greek classics; the numerous fragments of iambic and hexameter verse in the translation cannot be accidental (JTS, XIII, 46). The Psalter is the one translation in this category in which liberties have not been taken; in Psalms 13:1-6 (14):3 the extracts from other parts of Psalms and from Isaiah included in the B text must be an interpolation possibly made before Paul's time (Romans 3:13 ff), or else taken from Romans. The little Psalms 150 in Septuagint, described in the title as an "autograph" work of David and as "outside the number," is clearly a late Greek production, perhaps an appendix added after the version was complete.
(5) The Latest Septuagint Translations. The latest versions included in the Septuagint are the productions of the Jewish translators of the 2nd century AD; some books may be rather earlier, the work of pioneers in the new school which advocated strict adherence to the Hebrew. The books of "Reigns" were now completed, by Theodotion, perhaps, or by one of his school; the later portions (2 R 11 2 through 3 R 2 11, David's downfall, and 3 R 22-4 R end, the downfall of the monarchy) are by one hand, as shown by peculiarities in style, e.g. "I am have with child" (2 R 11 5) = "I am with child," a use which is due to desire to distinguish the longer form of the pronoun 'anokhi ("I," also used for "I am") from the shorter 'ani. A complete version of Jdg was now probably first made. In two cases the old paraphrastic versions were replaced. Theodotion's Daniel, as above stated, superseded in the Christian church the older version A new and complete version of Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah was made (Esdras B), though the older version retained its place in the Greek Bible on account of the interesting legend imbedded in it; the new version is here again possibly the work of Theodotion; the numerous transliterations are characteristic of him (Torrey, Ezra Studies; theory had previously been advanced by Sir H. Howorth). In the Greek Ecclesiastes we have a specimen of Aquila's style (see McNeile's edition, Cambridge, 1904). Canticles is another late version
2. General Characteristics: A marked feature of the whole translation is the scrupulous avoidance of anthropomorphisms and phrases derogatory to the divine transcendence. Thus Exodus 4:16, "Thou shalt be to him in things pertaining to God" (Hebrew "for" or "as God"); Exodus 15:3, "The Lord is a breaker of battles" (Hebrew "a Man of war"); Exodus 24:10, "They saw the place where the God of Israel stood" (Hebrew "they saw the God of Israel"); Exodus 24:11, "Of the elect of Israel not one perished and they were seen in the place of God" (Hebrew "Upon the nobles .... He laid not His hand, and they beheld God"). The comparison of God to a rock was consistently paraphrased as idolatrous, as was sometimes the comparison to the sun from fear of sun-worship (Psalms 83:1-18 (84):12, "The Lord loves mercy and truth" for Hebrew "The Lord is a sun and shield"). "The sons of God" (Genesis 6:2) becomes "the angels of God." For minor liberties, e.g. slight amplifications, interpretation of difficult words, substitution of Greek for Hebrew coinage, translation of place-names, see Swete, Introduction, 323 ff. Blunders in translation are not uncommon, but the difficulties which these pioneers had to face must be remembered, especially the paleographical character of the Hebrew originals. These were written on flimsy papyrus rolls, in a script probably in a transitional stage between the archaic and the later square characters; the words were not separated, and there were no vowel-points; two of the radicals (waw and yodh) were also frequently omitted. Add to this the absence at Alexandria, for parts at least of the Scriptures, of any sound tradition as to the meaning. On the other hand the vocalization adopted by the translators, e.g. in the proper names, is of great value in the history of early Semitic pronunciation. It must further be remembered that the Semitic language most familiar to them was not Hebrew but Aramaic, and some mistakes are due to Aramaic or even Arabic colloquialisms (Swete, Introduction, 319).
IX. Salient Differences between Greek and Hebrew Texts.
Differences indicating a Hebrew original other than the Massoretic Text affect either the sequence or the subject-matter (compare Swete, Introduction, 231 ff).
1. Sequence: The most extensive discrepancies in arrangement of materials occur in (1) Exodus 35:1-35 through 39, the construction of the Tabernacle and the ornaments of its ministers, (2) 3 R 4 through 11, Solomon's reign, (3) Jeremiah (last half), (4) Proverbs (end). (1) In Exodus the Septuagint gives precedence to the priests' ornaments, which in the Hebrew follow the account of the Tabernacle, and omits altogether the altar of incense. The whole section describing the execution of the instructions given in the previous chapters in almost identical words is one of the latest portions of the Pentateuch and the text had clearly not been finally fixed in the 3rd century BC; the section was perhaps absent from the oldest Greek version In Exodus 20:13-15 Codex B arranges three of the commandments in the Alexandrian order (7, 8, 6), attested in Philo and in the New Testament. (2) Deliberate rearrangement has taken place in the history of Solomon, and the Septuagint unquestionably preserves the older text. The narrative of the building of the Temple, like that of the Tabernacle, contains some of the clearest examples of editorial revision in the Massoretic Text (Wellhausen, Hist of Israel, 67, 280, etc.). At the end of 3 R Septuagint places chapters 20 and 21 in their proper order; Massoretic Text reverses this, interposing the Naboth story in the connected account of the Syriac wars and justifying the change by a short preface. (3) In Jeremiah the chapter numbers differ from the middle of chapter 25 to the end of chapter 51, the historical appendix (chapter 52) concluding both texts. This is due to the different position assigned to a group of prophecies against the nations: Septuagint places them in the center, Massoretic Text at the end. The items in this group are also rearranged. The diversity in order is earlier than the Greek translation; see JTS ,IV ; 245. (4) The order of some groups of maxims at the end of Proverbs was not finally fixed at the time of the Greek translation; like Jeremiah's prophecies against the nations, these little groups seem to have circulated as late as the 2nd or 1st century BC as separate pamphlets. The Psalms numbers from 10 to 147 differ by one in Septuagint and Massoretic Text, owing to discrepancies in the lines of demarcation between individual psalms.
2. Subject Matter: Excluding the end of Exodus, striking examples of divergence in the Pentateuch are few. Septuagint alone preserves Cain's words to his brother, "Let us go into the field" (Genesis 4:8). The close of Moses' song appears in an expanded form in Septuagint (Deuteronomy 32:43). Similarly Hannah's song in 1 R 2 (? originally a warrior's triumph-song) has been rendered more appropriate to the occasion by the substitution in verse 8c of words about the answer to prayer, and enlarged by the insertion of a passage from Jeremiah; the changes in both songs may be connected with their early use as canticles. In Joshua the larger amount of divergence suggests that this book did not share the peculiar sanctity of the Law. But the books of "Reigns" present the widest differences and the fullest scope for the textual critic. The Septuagint here proves the existence of two independent accounts of certain events. Sometimes it incorporates both, while the Massoretic Text rejects one of them; thus Septuagint gives (3 R 2 35a ff,46a ff) a connected summary of events in Solomon's personal history; most of which appear elsewhere in a detached form, 3 R 12 24a-z is a second account of the dismemberment of the kingdom; 16:28a-h a second summary of Jehoshaphat's reign (compare 22 41 ff); 4R 1 18a another summary of Joram's reign (compare 3 1 ff). Conversely in 1 R 17 through 18, Massoretic Text has apparently preserved two contradictory accounts of events in David's early history, while Septuagint presents a shorter and consistent narrative (Swete, Intro, 245 f). An "addition" in Septuagint of the highest interest appears in 3 R 8 53b, where a stanza is put into the mouth of Solomon at the Temple dedication, taken from "the Song-book" (probably the Book of Jashar); the Massoretic Text gives the stanza in an edited form earlier in the chapter (8 12 f); for the reconstruction of the original Hebrew see JTS , X, 439;XI , 518. The last line proves to be a title, "For the Sabbath--On Alamoth" (i.e. for sopranos), showing that the song was set to music for liturgical purposes. In Jeremiah, besides transpositions, the two texts differ widely in the way of excess and defect; the verdict of critics is mainly in favor of the priority of the Septuagint (Streane, Double Text of Jeremiah, 1896). For divergences in the "Writings" see VIII , above; for additional titles to the Psalms see Swete, Introduction, 250 f.
LITERATURE.
The most important works have been mentioned in the body of the article. See, further, the very full lists in Swete's Introduction and the bibliographies by Nestle in PRE3, III, 1-24, and XXIII, 207-10 (1913); HDB, IV, 453-54.
H. St. J. Thackeray
Sepulchre
Sepulchre - sep'-ul-ker (2 Chronicles 21:20; 32:33; John 19:41 f; Acts 2:29, etc.).
Serah
Serah - se'-ra (serach, "abundance"): Daughter of Asher (Genesis 46:17; Numbers 26:46, the King James Version "Sarah"; 1 Chronicles 7:30).
Seraiah
Seraiah - se-ra'-ya, se-ri'-a (serayahu, "Yah hath prevailed"; Septuagint Saraias, or Saraia):
(1) Secretary of David (2 Samuel 8:17); in 2 Samuel 20:25 he is called Sheva; in 1 Kings 4:3 the name appears as Shisha. This last or Shasha would be restored elsewhere by some critics; others prefer the form Shavsha, which is found in 1 Chronicles 18:16.
(2) A high priest in the reign of Zedekiah; executed with other prominent captives at Riblah by order of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 25:18, 21; Jeremiah 52:24, 27). Mentioned in the list of high priests (1 Chronicles 6:14). Ezra claims descent from him (Ezra 7:1 (3)).
(3) The son of Tanhumeth the Netophathite, and one of the heroic band of men who saved themselves from the fury of Nebuchadnezzar when he stormed Jerusalem. They repaired to Gedaliah, the son of Ahikam, but killed him on account of his allegiance to the Chaldeans (2 Kings 25:23, 25).
(4) Son of Kenaz, and younger brother of Othniel, and father of Joab, the chief of Ge-harashim (1 Chronicles 4:13-14).
(5) Grandfather of Jehu, of the tribe of Simeon (1 Chronicles 4:35).
(6) A priest, the third in the list of those who returned from Babylon to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel (Ezra 2:2; Nehemiah 7:7, here called Azariah; Nehemiah 12:1), and third also (if the same person is meant) in the record of those who sealed the covenant binding all Jews not to take foreign wives (Nehemiah 10:2). As the son of Hilkiah, and consequently a direct descendant of the priestly family, he became governor of the temple when it was rebuilt (Nehemiah 11:11). He is mentioned (under the name Azariah) also in 1 Chronicles 9:11. Nehemiah 12:2 adds that "in the days of Joiakim" the head of Seraiah's house was Meraiah.
(7) Son of Azriel, one of those whom Jehoiakim commanded to imprison Jeremiah and Baruch, the son of Neriah (Jeremiah 36:26).
(8) The son of Neriah, who went into exile with Zedekiah. He was also called Sar Menuchah ("prince of repose"). The Targum renders Sar Menuchah by Rabh Tiqrabhta, "prince of battle, and Septuagint by archon doron, "prince of gifts," reading Minchah for Menuchah. At the request of Jeremiah he carried with him in his exile the passages containing the prophet's warning of the fall of Babylon, written in a book which he was bidden to bind to a stone and cast into the Euphrates, to symbolize the fall of Babylon (Jeremiah 51:59-64).
Horace J. Wolf
Seraphim
Seraphim - ser'-a-fim (seraphim): A plural word occurring only in Isaiah 6:2 ff--Isaiah's vision of Yahweh. The origin of the term in Hebrew is uncertain. Saraph in Numbers 21:6; Isaiah 14:29, etc., signifies a fiery serpent. A Babylonian name for the fire-god, Nergal, was Sharrapu. In Egypt there have been found eagle-lion-shaped figures guarding a grave, to which is applied the name seref. The equivalent English term is "griffin."
It is probable enough that popular mythology connected fire with the attendants of the deity in various ways among different peoples, and that burning lies at the base of the idea in all these suggested etymologies. It remains, however, that in Isaiah's use there is nothing of the popular legend or superstition. These seraphim are august beings whose forms are not at all fully described. They had faces, feet, hands and wings. The six wings, in three pairs, covered their faces and feet in humility and reverence, and were used for sustaining them in their positions about the throne of Yahweh. One of them is the agent for burning (with a coal off the altar, not with his own power or person) the sin from the lips of the prophet.
Seraphim are in Jewish theology connected with cherubim and ophanim as the three highest orders of attendants on Yahweh, and are superior to the angels who are messengers sent on various errands. As the cherubim in popular fancy were represented by the storm-clouds, so the seraphim were by the serpentine flashes of the lightning; but none of this appears in Isaiah's vision.
In the New Testament the only possible equivalent is in "the living ones" ("beasts" of the King James Version) in Revelation 4:1-11; Revelation 5:1-14, etc. Here, as in Isaiah, they appear nearest Yahweh's throne, supreme in praise of His holiness.
William Owen Carver
Serar
Serar - se'-rar (Serar; the King James Version Aserer): Name of one of the families which returned with Zerubbabel (1 Esdras 5:32) = "Sisera" of Ezra 2:53; Nehemiah 7:55.
Sered
Sered - se'-red (ceredh): Son of Zebulun (Genesis 46:14; Numbers 26:26).
Sergius Paulus
Sergius Paulus - sur'-ji-us po'-lus.
See PAULUS, SERGIUS.
Serjeants
Serjeants - sar'-jents, -jants (rhabdouchoi): In Acts 16:35, 38 the word (literally, "holders of rods," corresponding to Roman "lictors," thus the Revised Version margin) is used of the officers in attendance on the Philippian magistrates, whose duty it was to execute orders in scourging, etc., in this case in setting prisoners free. Paul and Silas, however, as Romans, refused thus to be "privily" dismissed.
Sermon on the Mount
Sermon on the Mount - sur'-num,
I. PARALLEL ACCOUNTS
II. HISTORICITY OF THE DISCOURSE
III. TIME AND OCCASION
IV. SCENE
V. THE HEARERS
VI. THE MESSAGE: SUMMARY
1. Analysis
2. Argument: The Kingdom of God (Heaven)
(1) Characteristics of the Subjects (Matthew 5:3-12)
(2) Vocation of the Subjects (Matthew 5:13-16)
(3) Relation of New Righteousness to Mosaic Law (Matthew 5:17-48)
(a) The Relation Defined (Matthew 5:17-20)
(b) The Relation Illustrated (Matthew 5:21-48)
(4) Motives and Principles of Conduct (Matthew 6:1 through 7:12)
(a) In Worship (Matthew 6:1-18)
(b) In Life's Purpose (Matthew 6:19-34)
(c) In Social Relations (Matthew 7:1-12)
(5) Hortatory Conclusion (Matthew 7:13-27)
(a) The Narrow Way (Matthew 7:13-14)
(b) The Tests of Character (Matthew 7:15-27)
VII. PRINCIPLES
LITERATURE
The Sermon on the Mount is the title commonly given to the collection of sayings recorded in Matthew 5:1-48 through 7 and in Luke 6:20-49. The latter is sometimes called the Sermon on the Plain from the fact that it is said to have been delivered on a level space somewhere on the descent of the mountain. The Sermon appears to be an epitome of the teachings of Jesus concerning the kingdom of heaven, its subjects and their life. For this reason it has always held the first place of attention and esteem among the sayings of Jesus.
See SERMON ON THE PLAIN.
I. Parallel Accounts. As indicated above, the Sermon is reported by both Matthew and Luke. A comparison of the two accounts reveals certain striking differences. A total of 47 verses of the account in Matthew have no parallel in Luke, while but 4 1/2 verses of the latter are wanting in the former. On the other hand, many of the sayings in Matthew that are lacking in the Sermon of Luke, amounting in all to 34 verses, appear elsewhere distributed throughout the Lukan narrative and in some instances connected with different incidents and circumstances.
These facts give rise to some interesting literary and historical questions: Do the two accounts represent two distinct discourses dealing with the same general theme but spoken on different occasions, or are they simply different reports of the same discourse? If it be held that the Sermon was delivered but once, which of the accounts represents more closely the original address? Is the discourse in Matthew homogeneous or does it include sayings originally spoken on other occasions and early incorporated in the Sermon in the gospel tradition?
II. Historicity of the Discourse. There have been and are today scholars who regard the sermons recorded in Matthew and Luke as collections of sayings spoken on different occasions, and maintain that they do not represent any connected discourse ever delivered by Jesus. In their view the Sermon is either a free compilation by the evangelists or a product of apostolic teaching and oral tradition.
The prevailing opinion among New Testament scholars is, however, that the gospel accounts represent a genuine historical discourse. The Sermon as recorded in Matthew bears such marks of inner unity of theme and exposition as to give the appearance of genuineness. That Jesus should deliver a discourse of this kind accords with all the circumstances and with the purpose of His ministry. Besides, we know that in His teaching He was accustomed to speak to the multitudes at length, and we should expect Him to give early in His ministry some formal exposition of the kingdom, the burden of His first preaching. That such a summary of one of His most important discourses should have been preserved is altogether probable.
On the other hand, it may be conceded that the accounts need not necessarily be regarded as full or exact reports of the discourse but possibly and probably rather summaries of its theme and substance. our Lord was accustomed to teach at length, but this discourse could easily be delivered in a few minutes. Again, while His popular teaching was marked by a unique wealth of illustration the Sermon is largely gnomic in form. This gnomic style and the paucity of the usual concrete and illustrative elements suggest the probability of condensation in transmission. Moreover, it is hardly probable that such an address of Jesus would be recorded at the time of its delivery or would be remembered in detail.
There is evidence that the account in Matthew 5:1-48 through 7 contains some sayings not included in the original discourse. This view is confirmed by the fact that a number of the sayings are given in Luke's Gospel in settings that appear more original. It is easy to believe that related sayings spoken on other occasions may have become associated with the Sermon in apostolic teaching and thus handed down with it, but if the discourse were well known in a specific form, such as that recorded in Matthew, it is hardly conceivable that Luke or anyone else would break it up and distribute the fragments or associate them with other incidents, as some of the sayings recorded in both Gospels are found associated in Luke.
III. Time and Occasion. Both Matthew and Luke agree in assigning the delivery of the Sermon to the first half of the Galilean ministry. The former apparently places it a little earlier than the latter, in whose account it follows immediately after the appointment of the twelve apostles. While the time cannot be accurately determined, the position assigned by the Gospels is approximately correct and is supported by the internal evidence. Portions of the Sermon imply that the opposition of the religious teachers was already in evidence, but it clearly belongs to the first year of our Lord's ministry before that opposition had become serious. On the other hand, the occasion was sufficiently late for the popularity of the new Teacher to have reached its climax. In the early Galilean ministry Jesus confined His teaching to the synagogues, but later, when the great crowds pressed about Him, He resorted to open-air preaching after the manner of the Sermon. Along with the growth in His popularity there is observed a change in the character of His teaching. His earlier message may be summed up in the formula, "Repent ye; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matthew 4:17). Later, both in His public discourses and in His more intimate conferences with His disciples, He was occupied with the principles of the kingdom. The Sermon on the Mount belongs to this later type of teaching and fits naturally into the circumstances to which it has been assigned. Luke probably gives the true historical occasion, i.e. the appointment of the Twelve.
IV. Scene. According to the evangelists, the scene of the delivery of the Sermon was one of the mountains or foothills surrounding the Galilean plain. Probably one of the hills lying Northwest of Capernaum is meant, for shortly after the Sermon we find Jesus and His disciples entering that city. There are no data justifying a closer identification of the place. There is a tradition dating from the time of the Crusades that identifies the mount of the Sermon with Karn Chattin], a two-peaked hill on the road from Tiberias to Nazareth, but there are no means of confirming this late tradition and the identification is rather improbable.
V. The Hearers. The Sermon was evidently addressed, primarily, to the disciples of Jesus. This is the apparent meaning of the account of both evangelists. According to Matthew, Jesus, "seeing the multitudes, .... went up into the mountain: and when he had sat down, his disciples came unto him: and he opened his mouth and taught them." The separation from the multitudes and the direction of His words to the disciples seem clear, and the distinction appears intentional on the part of the writer. However, it must be observed that in the closing comments on the Sermon the presence of the multitudes is implied. In Luke's account the distinction is less marked. Here the order of events is: the night of prayer in the mountain, the choice of the twelve apostles, the descent with them into the presence of the multitude of His disciples and a great number of people from Judea, Jerusalem and the coast country, the healing of great numbers, and, finally, the address. While the continued presence of the multitudes is implied, the plain meaning of the words, "And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said," is that his address was intended especially for the latter. This view is borne out by the address itself as recorded in both accounts. Observe the use of the second person in the reference to suffering, poverty and persecution for the sake of the Son of Man. Further the sayings concerning the "salt of the earth" and "the light of the world" could hardly have been addressed to any but His disciples. The term disciple, however, was doubtless employed in the broader sense by both evangelists. This is clearly the case in Matthew's account, according to which the Twelve had not yet been appointed.
VI. The Message: Summary. It is hardly proper to speak of the Sermon on the Mount as a digest of the teaching of Jesus, for it does not include any reference to some very important subjects discussed by our Lord on other occasions in the course of His ministry. It is, however, the most comprehensive and important collection or summary of His sayings that is preserved to us in the gospel record. For this reason the Sermon properly holds in Christian thought the first place of esteem among all the New Testament messages. As an exposition of the ideal life and the program of the new society which Jesus proposed to create, its interpretation is of the deepest interest and the profoundest concern.
1. Analysis: It may assist the student of the Sermon in arriving at a clear appreciation of the argument and the salient features of the discourse if the whole is first viewed in outline. There is some difference of opinion among scholars as to certain features of the analysis, and consequently various outlines have been presented by different writers. Those of C. W. Votaw in HDB, Canon Gore in The Sermon on the Mount, and H. C. King in The Ethics of Jesus are worthy of special mention. The following analysis of the Sermon as recorded by Matthew is given as the basis of the present discussion.
It is not implied that there was any such formal plan before the mind of Jesus as He spoke, but it is believed that the outline presents a faithful syllabus of the argument of the Sermon as preserved to us.
THEME: THE KINGDOM OF GOD (HEAVEN), ITS SUBJECTS AND ITS RIGHTEOUSNESS (Matthew 5:3 through 7:27)
I. The subjects of the kingdom (Matthew 5:3-16). 1. The qualities of character essential to happiness and influence (Matthew 5:3-12).
2. The vocation of the subjects (Matthew 5:13-16). II. The relation of the new righteousness to the Mosaic Law (Matthew 5:17-48).
1. The relation defined as that of continuance in a higher fulfillment (Matthew 5:17-20).
2. The higher fulfillment of the new righteousness illustrated by a comparison of its principles with the Mosaic Law as currently taught and practiced (Matthew 5:21-48)
(1) The higher law of brotherhood judges ill-will as murder (Matthew 5:21-26).
(2) The higher law of purity condemns lust as adultery (Matthew 5:27-32).
(3) The higher law of truth forbids oaths as unnecessary and evil (Matthew 5:33-37).
(4) The higher law of rights substitutes self-restraint and generosity for retaliation and resistance (Matthew 5:38-42).
(5) The higher law of love demands universal good will of a supernatural quality like that of the Father (Matthew 5:43-48).
III. The new righteousness. Its motives as applied to religious, practical and social duties, or the principles of conduct (Matthew 6:1 through Matthew 7:12).
1. Reverence toward the Father essential in all acts of worship (Matthew 6:1-18).
(1) In all duties (Matthew 6:1). (2) In almsgiving (Matthew 6:2-4). (3) In prayer (Matthew 6:5-15). (4) In fasting (Matthew 6:16-18). 2. Loyalty toward the Father fundamental in all activities (Matthew 6:19-34).
(1) In treasure-seeking (Matthew 6:19-24). (2) In trustful devotion to the kingdom and the Father's righteousness (Matthew 6:25-34).
3. Love toward the Father dynamic in all social relations (Matthew 7:1-12).
(1) Critical estimate of self instead of censorious judgment of others (Matthew 7:1-5).
(2) Discrimination in the communication of spiritual values (Matthew 7:6).
(3) Kindness toward others in all things like the Father's kindness toward all His children (Matthew 7:7-12).
IV. Hortatory conclusion (Matthew 7:13-27). 1. The two gates and the two ways (Matthew 7:13-14). 2. The tests of character (Matthew 7:15-27). 2. Argument: The Kingdom of God (Heaven): (1) Characteristics of the Subjects (Matthew 5:3-12).
The Sermon opens with the familiar Beatitudes. Unlike many reformers, Jesus begins the exposition of His program with a promise of happiness, with a blessing rather than a curse. He thus connects His program directly with the hopes of His hearers, for the central features in the current Messianic conception were deliverance and happiness. But the conditions of happiness proposed were in strong contrast with those in the popular thought. Happiness does not consist, says Jesus, in what one possesses, in lands and houses, in social position, in intellectual attainments, but in the wealth of the inner life, in moral strength, in self-control, in spiritual insight, in the character one is able to form within himself and in the service he is able to render to his fellowmen. Happiness, then, like character, is a by-product of right living. It is presented as the fruit, not as the object of endeavor.
It is interesting to note that character is the secret of happiness both for the individual and for society. There are two groups of Beatitudes. The first four deal with personal qualities: humility, penitence, self-control, desire for righteousness. These are the sources of inner peace. The second group deals with social qualities; mercifulness toward others, purity of heart or reverence for personality, peacemaking or solicitude for others, self-sacrificing loyalty to righteousness. These are the sources of social rest. The blessings of the kingdom are social as well as individual.
(2) Vocation of the Subjects (Matthew 5:13-16). Men of the qualities described in the Beatitudes are called "the salt of the earth," "the light of the world." Their happiness is not, then, in themselves or for themselves alone. Their mission is the hope of the kingdom. Salt is a preservative element; light is a life-giving one; but the world is not eager to be preserved or willing to receive life. Therefore such men must expect opposition and persecution, but they are not on that account to withdraw from the world. On the contrary, by the leaven of character and the light of example they are to help others in the appreciation and the attainment of the ideal life. By their character and deeds they are to make their influence a force for good in the lives of men. In this sense the men of the kingdom are the salt of the earth, the light of the world.
See BEATITUDES.
(3) Relation of the New Righteousness to Mosaic Law (Matthew 5:17-48).
(a) The Relation Defined (Matthew 5:17-20): The qualities of character thus set before the citizens of the kingdom were so surprising and revolutionary as to suggest the inquiry: What is the relation of the new teaching to the Mosaic Law? This Jesus defines as continuance and fulfillment. His hearers are not to think that He has come to destroy the law. On the contrary, He has come to conserve and fulfil. The old law is imperfect, but God does not despair of what is imperfect. Men and institutions are judged, not by the level of present attainment, but by character and direction. The law moves in the right direction and is so valuable that those who violate even its least precepts have a very low place in the kingdom.
The new righteousness then does not set aside the law or offer an easier religion, but one that is more exacting. The kingdom is concerned, not so much with ceremonies and external rules, as with motives and with social virtues, with self-control, purity, honesty and generosity. So much higher are the new standards of righteousness that Jesus is constrained to warn His hearers that to secure even a place in the kingdom, their righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees.
(b) The Relation Illustrated (Matthew 5:21-48): In illustration of the deeper meaning of the new righteousness and its relation to the Mosaic Law, Jesus proceeds to deal in detail with the precepts of the old moral law, deepening it as He proceeds into the higher law of the kingdom. In each instance the standard of judgment is raised and the individual precepts are deepened into spiritual principles that call for perfect fulfillment. In considering specific precepts no account is taken of overt acts, for in the new righteousness they are impossible. All acts are treated as expressions of the inner life. The law is carried back to the impulse and the will to sin, and these are judged as in the old law the completed acts were judged. Therefore, all anger and lust in the heart are strictly enjoined. Likewise every word is raised to a sacredness equal with that of the most solemn religious vow or oath. Finally, the instinct to avenge is entirely forbidden, and universal love like that of the Father is made the fundamental law of the new social life. Thus Jesus does not abrogate any law but interprets its precepts in terms that call for a deeper and more perfect fulfillment.
(4) Motives and Principles of Conduct (Matthew 6:1 through Matthew 7:12).
The relation of His teaching to the law defined, Jesus proceeds to explain the motives and principles of conduct as applied to religious and social duties.
(a) In Worship (Matthew 6:1-18): In the section Matthew 6:1 through Matthew 7:12 there is one central thought. All righteousness looks toward God. He is at once the source and the aim of life. Therefore worship aims alone at divine praise. If acts of worship are performed before men to be seen of them there is no reward for them before the Father. In this Jesus is passing no slight on public worship. He Himself instituted the Lord's Supper and authorized the continuance of the rite of baptism. Such acts have their proper value. His censure is aimed at the love of ostentation so often associated with them. The root of ostentation is selfishness, and selfishness has no part in the new righteousness. Any selfish desire for the approval of men thwarts the purpose of all worship. The object of almsgiving, of prayer or of fasting is the expression of brotherly love, communion with God or spiritual enrichment. The possibility of any of these is excluded by the presence of the desire for the approval of men. It is not merely a divine fiat but one of the deeper laws of life which decrees that the only possible reward for acts of worship performed from such false motives is the cheap approval of men as well as the impoverishment of the inner life.
(b) In Life's Purpose (Matthew 6:19-34): The same principle holds, says Jesus, in the matter of life's purpose. There is only one treasure worthy of man's search only one object worthy of his highest endeavor, and that is the kingdom of God and His righteousness. Besides, there can be no division of aim. God will be first and only. Material blessings must not be set before duty to Him or to men. With any lower aim the new righteousness would be no better than that of the Gentiles. And such a demand is reasonable, for God's gracious providence is ample guaranty that He will supply all things needful for the accomplishment of the purposes He has planned for our lives. So in our vocations as in our worship, God is the supreme and effectual motive.
(c) In Social Relations (Matthew 7:1-12): Then again because God is our Father and the supreme object of desire for all men, great reverence is due toward others. Considerate helpfulness must replace the censorious spirit. For the same reason men will have too great reverence for spiritual values to cast them carelessly before the unworthy. Moreover, because God is so gracious and ready to bestow the best gifts freely upon His children, the men of the kingdom are under profound obligation to observe the higher law of brotherhood expressed in the Golden Rule: "All things .... whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, even so do ye also unto them." Thus in the perfect law of the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of men the new righteousness makes perfect the Law and the Prophets.
(5) Hortatory Conclusion (Matthew 7:13-27). (a) The Narrow Way (Matthew 7:13-14): In the hortatory conclusion (Matthew 7:13-27), Jesus first of all warns His hearers that the way into the kingdom is a narrow one. It might seem that it ought to be different; that the way to destruction should be narrow and difficult, and the way to life broad and easy, but it is not so. The way to all worthy achievement is the narrow way of self-control, self-sacrifice and infinite pains. Such is the way to the righteousness of the kingdom, the supreme object of human endeavor. "Narrow is the gate, and straitened the way, that leadeth unto life."
(b) The Tests of Character (Matthew 7:15-27): The test of the higher fulfillment is fruit. By their fruits alone the subjects of the kingdom will be known. In the presence of the Father there is no room for those who bring nothing but the leaves of empty professions. The kingdom is for those alone who do His will. The test of righteousness is illustrated in conclusion by the beautiful parable of the Two Builders. The difference between the two is essentially one of character. It is largely a question of fundamental honesty. The one is superficial and thinks only of that which is visible to the eye and builds only for himself and for the present. The other is honest enough to build well where only God can see, to build for others and for all time. Thus he builds also for himself. The character of the builder is revealed by the building.
VII. Principles. The Sermon on the Mount is neither an impractical ideal nor a set of fixed legal regulations. It is, instead, a statement of the principles of life essential in a normal society. Such a society is possible in so far as men attain the character and live the life expressed in these principles. Their correct interpretation is therefore important.
Many of the sayings of the Sermon are metaphorical or proverbial statements, and are not to be understood in a literal or legal sense. In them Jesus was illustrating principles in concrete terms. Their interpretation literally as legal enactments is contrary to the intention and spirit of Jesus. So interpreted, the Sermon becomes in part a visionary and impractical ideal. But rather the principles behind the concrete instances are to be sought and applied anew to the life of the present as Jesus applied them to the life of His own time.
The following are some of the leading ideas and principles underlying and expressed in the Sermon:
(1) Character Is the Secret of Happiness and Strength.
Men of the qualities described in the Beatitudes are called "blessed." Happiness consists, not in external blessings, but in the inner poise of a normal life. The virtues of the Beatitudes are also the elements of strength. Humility, self-control, purity and loyalty are the genuine qualities of real strength. Men of such qualities are to inherit the earth because they are the only ones strong enough to possess and use it.
(2) Righteousness Is Grounded in the Inner Life.
Character is not something imposed from without but a life that unfolds from within. The hope of a perfect morality and a genuine fulfillment of the law lies in the creation of a sound inner life. Therefore, the worth of all religious acts and all personal and social conduct is judged by the quality of the inner motives.
(3) The Inner Life Is a Unity.
The spiritual nature is all of a piece, so that a moral slump at one point imperils the whole life. Consequently, a rigid and exacting spiritual asceticism, even to the extent of extreme major surgery, is sometimes expedient and necessary. "If thy right eye causeth thee to stumble, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not thy whole body be cast into Gehenna" (Matthew 5:29 margin).
(4) Universal Love Is the Fundamental Social Law.
It is the dynamic principle of true character and right conduct. In this respect, at least, the perfection of the Father is set as the standard for men. Kindliness in disposition, in word and in act is an obligation binding on all. We may not feel alike toward all, but our wills must be set to do good even to our enemies. In this the supernatural quality of the Christian life may be known.
(5) The Sermon Sets the Fact of God the Father at the Center of Life.
Character and life exist in and for fellowship with the Father. All worship and conduct look toward God. His service is the supreme duty, His perfection the standard of character, His goodness the ground of universal love. Given this fact, all the essentials of religion and life follow as a matter of course. God is Father, all men are brothers. God is Father, all duties are sacred. God is Father, infinite love is at the heart of the world and life is of infinite worth.
(6) Fulfillment Is the Final Test of Life.
The blossoms of promises must ripen into the fruit of abiding character. The leaves of empty professions have no value in the eyes of the Father. Deeds and character are the only things that abide, and endurance is the final test. The life of perfect fulfillment is the life anchored on the rock of ages.
See further ETHICS; ETHICS OF JESUS; KINGDOM OF GOD.
LITERATURE.
The standard commentaries and Lives of Christ. Among the most important encyclopaedic articles are those of C. W. Votaw in HDB, James Moffatt in Encyclopedia Biblica and W. F. Adeney in DCG. The following are a few of the most helpful separate volumes on the subject: A. Tholuck, Exposition of Christ's Sermon on the Mount; Canon Gore, The Sermon on the Mount; B. W. Bacon, The Sermon on the Mount; W. B. Carpenter, The Great Charter of Christ; Hubert Foston, The Beatitudes and the Contrasts; compare H. C. King, The Ethics of Jesus, and Stalker, The Ethic of Jesus. The following periodical articles are worthy of notice: Franklin Johnson, "The Plan of the Sermon on the Mount," Homiletic Review, XXIV, 360; A. H. Hall, "The Gospel in the Sermon on the Mount," Biblical Sac., XLVIII, 322; The Bishop of Peterborough (W. C. Magee), "The State and the Sermon on the Mount," Fortnightly Review, LIII, 32; J. G. Pyle, "The Sermon on the Mount," Putnam's Magazine, VII, 285.
Russell Benjamin Miller
Sermon on the Plain, The
Sermon on the Plain, The - This title is sometimes given to the discourse recorded in Luke 6:20-49, because according to the Gospel (Luke 6:17) it was delivered on a plain at the foot of the mountain. In many respects this address resembles the one recorded in Matthew 5:1-48 through Matthew 7:1-29, but in general the two are so different as to make it uncertain whether they are different reports of the same discourse or reports of different addresses given on different occasions.
See SERMON ON THE MOUNT.
1. The Occasion: In contrast with the Sermon on the Mount which is assigned a place early in the Galilean ministry, and prior to the appointment of the Twelve, that event is represented as the occasion of this discourse. If the two accounts are reports of the same address the setting of Luke is probably the historical one.
2. Contents: The Sermon of Luke includes a little less than one-third of the matter recorded in the Sermon on the Mount. The Lukan discourse includes only a portion of the Beatitudes, with a set of four "woes," a rather brief section on the social duties, and the concluding parable of the Two Houses.
3. Message: The Gospel of Luke has been called the social Gospel because of its sympathy with the poor and its emphasis on the duty of kindliness of spirit. This social interest is especially prominent in the Sermon. Here the Beatitudes deal with social differences. In Matthew they refer to spiritual conditions. Here Jesus speaks of those who hunger now, probably meaning bodily hunger. In Matthew the reference is to hunger and thirst after righteousness. In Matthew the invectives are addressed against the self-satisfied religious teachers and their religious formalism. Here the rich and their unsocial spirit are the subject of the woes. This social interest is further emphasized by the fact that in addition to this social bearing of the Beatitudes, Luke's discourse omits the remainder of the Sermon on the Mount, except those portions that deal with social relations, such as those on the Golden Rule, the duty of universal love, the equality of servant and master, and the obligation of a charitable spirit.
Russell Benjamin Miller
Seron
Seron - se'-ron (Seron): "The commander of the host of Syria" of Antiochus Epiphanes, who was defeated at Beth-horon by Judas in 166 BC (1 Maccabees 3:13 ff). Not a Greek name; "perhaps it represents the Phoenician Hiram" (Rawlinson, at the place).
Serpent
Serpent - sur'-pent:
1. General: Serpents are not particularly abundant in Palestine, but they are often mentioned in the Bible. In the Hebrew there are 11 names. The New Testament has four Greek names and the Septuagint employs two of these and three others as well as several compound expressions, such as ophis petamenos, "flying serpent," ophis thanaton, "deadly serpent," and ophis daknon, "biting" or "stinging serpent." Notwithstanding this large vocabulary, it is impossible to identify satisfactorily a single species. Nearly every reference states or implies poisonous qualities, and in no case is there so much as a hint that a snake may be harmless, except in several expressions referring to the millennium, where their harmlessness is not natural but miraculous. In Arabic there is a score or more of names of serpents, but very few of them are employed at all definitely. It may be too much to say that the inhabitants of Syria and Palestine consider all snakes to be poisonous, but they do not clearly distinguish the non-poisonous ones, and there are several common and well-known species which are universally believed to be poisonous, though actually harmless. Of nearly 25 species which are certainly known to be found in Syria and Palestine, four are deadly poisonous, five are somewhat poisonous, and the rest are absolutely harmless. With the exception of qippoz, "dart-snake" (Isaiah 34:15) which is probably the name of a bird and not of a snake, every one of the Hebrew and Greek names occurs in passages where poisonous character is expressed or implied. The deadly poisonous snakes have large perforated poison fangs situated in the front of the upper jaw, an efficient apparatus like a hypodermic syringe for conveying the poison into the depths of the wound. In the somewhat poisonous snakes, the poison fangs are less favorably situated, being farther back, nearly under the eye. Moreover, they are smaller and are merely grooved on the anterior aspect instead of being perforated. All snakes, except a few which are nearly or quite toothless, have numerous small recurved teeth for holding and helping to swallow the prey, which is usually taken into the stomach while living, the peculiar structure of the jaws and the absence of a breast-bone enabling snakes to swallow animals which exceed the ordinary size of their own bodies.
2. Serpents of Palestine and Syria: The following list includes all the serpents which are certainly known to exist in Palestine and Syria, omitting the names of several which have been reported but whose occurrence does not seem to be sufficiently confirmed. The range of each species is given.
(1) Harmless Serpents. Typhlops vermicularis Merr., Greece and Southwestern Asia; T. simoni Bttgr., Palestine; Eryx jaculus L., Greece, North Africa, Central and Southwestern Asia; Tropidonotus tessellatus Laur., CentraI and Southeastern Europe, Central and Southwestern Asia; Zamenis gemonensis Laur., Central and Southeastern Europe, Greek islands, Southwestern Asia; Z. dahlii Fitz., Southeastern Europe, Southwestern Asia, Lower Egypt; Z. rhodorhachis Jan., Egypt, Southwestern Asia, India; Z. ravergieri Menatr., Southwestern Asia: Z. nummifer Renss., Egypt, Syria, Palestine, Cyprus, Asia Minor; Oligodon melanocephalus Jan., Syria, Palestine, Sinai, Lower Egypt; Contia decemlineata D. and B., Syria, Palestine; C. collaris Menerr., Greek islands, Cyprus, Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine; C. rothi Jan., Syria, Palestine; C. coronella Schleg., Syria, Palestine
(2) Somewhat Poisonous Serpents. Tarbophis savignyi Blgr., Syria, Palestine, Egypt; T. fallax Fleischm., Balkan Peninsula, Greek islands, Cyprus, Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine; Coelopeltis monspessulana Herre., Mediterranean countries, Caucasus, Persia; Psammophis schokari Forsk., North Africa, Southwestern Asia; Micrelaps muelleri Bttgr., Syria, Palestine
(3) Deadly Poisonous Serpents. Vipera ammodytes L., Southeastern Europe, Asia Minor, Syria; Vipera lebetina L., North Africa, Greek islands, Southwestern Asia; Cerastes cornutus Forsk., Egypt, Sinai, Arabia; Echis coloratus Gthr., Southern Palestine, Arabia, Socotra.
To this list should be added the scheltopusik, a large snake-like, limbless lizard, Ophiosaurus apus, inhabiting Southeastern Europe, Asia Minor, Persia, Syria and Palestine, which while perfectly harmless is commonly classed with vipers.
Of all these the commonest is Zamenis nummifer, Arabic `aqd-ul-jauz, "string of walnuts," a fierce but non-poisonous snake which attains the length of a meter. Its ground color is pale yellow and it has a dorsal series of distinct diamond-shaped dark spots. Alternating with spots of the dorsal row are on each side two lateral rows of less distinct dark spots. It is everywhere considered to be fatal. Another common snake is Zamenis gemonensis, Arabic chanash, which attains the length of two meters. It is usually black and much resembles the American black snake, Zamenis constrictor. Like all species of Zamenis, these ire harmless. Other common harmless snakes are Zamenis dahlii, Tropidonotus tessellatus which is often found in pools and streams, Contia collaris, Oligodon melanocephalus, a small, nearly toothless snake with the crown of the head coal black.
Among the somewhat poisonous snakes, a very common one is Coelopeltis monspessulana, Arabic al-chaiyat ul-barshat, which is about two meters long, as larke as the black snake. It is uniformly reddish brown above, paler below. Another is Psammophis schokari. Arabic an-nashshab, "the arrow." It is about a meter long, slender, and white with dark stripes. Many marvelous and utterly improbable tales are told of its jumping powers, as for instance that it can shoot through the air for more than a hundred feet and penetrate a tree like a rifle bullet.
The commonest of the deadly poisonous snakes is Vipera lebetina, which attains the length of a meter, has a thick body, a short tail, a broad head and a narrow neck. It is spotted somewhat as Zamenis nummifer, but the spots are less regular and distinct and the ground color is gray rather than yellow. It does not seem to have a distinct name. Cerastes cornutus, having two small horns, which are modified scales, over the eyes, is a small but dangerous viper, and is found in the south. Not only are the species of poisonous serpents fewer than the non-poisonous species, but the individuals also appear to be less numerous. The vast majority of the snakes which are encountered are harmless.
3. Names: As stated above, all of the Hebrew and Greek names except qippoz, which occurs only in Isaiah 34:15, are used of snakes actually or supposedly poisonous. This absence of discrimination between poisonous and non-poisonous kinds makes determination of the species difficult. Further, but few of the Hebrew names are from roots whose meanings are clear, and there is little evident relation to Arabic names.
(1) The commonest Hebrew word is nachash, which occurs 31 times and seems to be a generic word for serpent. While not always clearly indicating a venomous serpent, it frequently does: e.g. Psalms 58:4; 140:3; Proverbs 23:32; Ecclesiastes 10:8, 11; Isaiah 14:29; Jeremiah 8:17; Amos 5:19. According to BDB it is perhaps from an onomatopoetic nachash, "to hiss." It may be akin to the Arabic chanash, which means "snake" in general, or especially the black snake. Compare Ir-nahash (1 Chronicles 4:12); Nahash (a) (1 Samuel 11:1; 2 Samuel 10:2), (b) (2 Samuel 17:27), (c) (2 Samuel 17:25); also nechosheth, "copper" or "brass"; and nechushtan, "Nehushtan," the brazen serpent (2 Kings 18:4). But BDB derives the last two words from a different root.
(2) saraph, apparently from saraph, "to burn," is used of the fiery serpents of the wilderness. In Numbers 21:8, it occurs in the singular: "Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a standard." In 21:6 we have ha-nechashim ha-seraphim, "fiery serpents"; in Deuteronomy 8:15 the same in the singular: nachash saraph, also translated "fiery serpents"; in Isaiah 14:29; 30:6 we have saraph me`opheph, "fiery flying serpent." The same word in the plural seraphim, is translated "seraphim" in Isaiah 6:2, 6.
(3) tannin, elsewhere "dragon" or "seamonster" (which see), is used of the serpents into which the rods of Aaron and the magicians were transformed (Exodus 7:9-10, 12), these serpents being designated by nachash in Exodus 4:3; 7:15. Tannin is rendered "serpent" (the King James Version "dragon") in Deuteronomy 32:33, "Their wine is the poison of serpents," and Psalms 91:13, "The young lion and the serpent shalt thou trample under foot." On the other hand, nachash seems in three passages to refer to a mythical creature or dragon: "His hand hath pierced the swift serpent" (Job 26:13); "In that day Yahweh .... will punish leviathan the swift serpent and leviathan the crooked serpent" (Isaiah 27:1); ".... though they be hid from my sight in the bottom of the sea, thence will I command the serpent, and it shall bite them" (Amos 9:3).
(4) zochale is translated "crawling things" in Deuteronomy 32:24 (the King James Version "serpents") and in Micah 7:17 (the King James Version "worms").
(5) `akhshubh, occurs only in Psalms 140:3, where it is translated "adder" Septuagint aspis, Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) aspis), "adders' poison is under their lips." It has been suggested (BDB) that the reading should be `akkabhish, "spider" (which see). The parallel word in the previous line is nachash.
(6) pethen, like most of the other names a word of uncertain etymology, occurs 6 times and it is translated "asp," except in Psalms 91:13, "Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder." According to Liddell and Scott, aspis is the name of the Egyptian cobra, Naia haje L., which is not included in (2) above, because it does not certainly appear to have been found in Palestine The name "adder" is applied to various snakes all of which may perhaps be supposed to be poisonous but some of which are actually harmless. Aspis occurs in Romans 3:13 in a paraphrase of Psalms 140:3 (see (5) above); it occurs frequently, though not uniformly, in Septuagint for (2), (5), (6), (7), (8) and (10).
(7) tsepha`, occurs only in Isaiah 14:29 where it is translated "adder" (the King James Version "cockatrice," the English Revised Version "basilisk," Septuagint ekgona aspidon, Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) regulus). The root tsapha`, of (7) and (8) may be an onomatopoetic word meaning "to hiss" (BDB).
(8) ..., or tsiph`oni, occurs in Proverbs 23:32, "At the last it biteth like a serpent (nachash), and stingeth like an adder" (tsiph`oni). In Isaiah 11:8; 59:5, and Jeremiah 8:17, the American Standard Revised Version has "adder," while the King James Version has cockatrice" and the English Revised Version has "basilisk."
(9) shephiphon, occurs only in Genesis 49:17: "Dan shall be a serpent (nachash) in the way,
An adder (shephiphon) in the path,
That biteth the horse's heels,
So that his rider falleth backward."
This has been thought to be Cerastes cornulus, on the authority of Tristram (NHB), who says that lying in the path it will attack the passer-by, while most snakes will glide away at the approach of a person or large animal. He adds that his horse was much frightened at seeing one of these serpents coiled up in a camel's footprint. The word is perhaps akin to the Arabic siff, or suff, which denotes a spotted and deadly snake.
(10) 'eph'eh, is found in Job 20:16; Isaiah 30:6; 59:5, and in English Versions of the Bible is uniformly translated "viper." It is the same as the Arabic 'af`a, which is usually translated "viper," though the writer has never found anyone who could tell to what snake the name belongs. In Arabic as in Hebrew a poisonous snake is always understood.
(11) qippoz, the American Standard Revised Version "dart-snake," the English Revised Version "arrowsnake," the King James Version "great owl," only in Isaiah 34:15, "There shall the dart-snake make her nest, and lay, and hatch, and gather under her shade; yea, there shall the kites be gathered, every one with her mate." "This is the concluding verse in a vivid picture of the desolation of Edom. The renderings "dart-snake" and "arrowsnake" rest on the authority of Bochert, but Septuagint has echinos, "hedgehog," and Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) ericeus, "hedgehog." The rendering of the King James Version "great owl" seems preferable to the others, because the words "make her nest, and lay, and hatch, and gather under her shade" are as a whole quite inapplicable to a mammal or to a reptile. The derivation from qaphaz (compare Arabic qafaz), "to spring," "to dart," suits, it is true, a snake, and not a hedgehog, but may also suit an owl. Finally, the next word in Isaiah 34:15 is "kites," dayyoth; compare Arabic chida'at.
(12) ophis, a general term for "serpent," occurs in numerous passages of the New Testament and Septuagint, and is fairly equivalent to nachash.
(13) aspis, occurs in the New Testament only in Romans 3:13 parallel to Psalms 140:3. See under (5) `akhshubh and (6) pethen. It is found in Septuagint for these words, and also for 'eph`eh (Isaiah 30:6).
(14) echidna, occurs in Acts 28:3, "A viper came out .... and fastened on his (Paul's) hand," and 4 times in the expression "offspring (the King James Version "generation") of vipers," gennemata echidnon (Matthew 3:7; 12:34; 23:33; Luke 3:7). The allied (masculine?) form echis, occurs in Sirach 39:30, the Revised Version (British and American) "adder."
(15) herpeton, "creeping thing," the King James Version "serpent," is found in James 3:7.
That the different Hebrew and Greek names are used without clear distinction is seen from several examples of the employment of two different names in parallel expressions:
"Their poison is like the poison of a serpent (nachash);
They are like the deaf adder (pethen) that stoppeth her ear" (Psalms 58:4).
"They have sharpened their tongue like a serpent (nachash); Adders' (`akhshubh) poison is under their lips" (Psalms 140:3).
"For, behold, I will send serpents (nechashim), adders (tsiph`onim), among you, which will not be charmed; and they shall bite you, saith Yahweh" (Jeremiah 8:17).
"They shall lick the dust like a serpent (nachash): like crawling things of the earth (zohale 'erets) they shall come trembling out of their close places" (Micah 7:17).
"He shall suck the poison of asps (pethen): The viper's ('eph`eh) tongue shall slay him" (Job 20:16).
"Their wine is the poison of serpents (tanninim), and the cruel venom of asps (pethanim)" (Deuteronomy 32:33).
"And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp (pethen), and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder's (tsiph`oni) den" (Isaiah 11:8).
See also (8) and (9) above.
4. Figurative: Most of the Biblical references to serpents are of a figurative nature, and they usually imply poisonous qualities. The wicked (Psalms 58:4), the persecutor (Psalms 140:3), and the enemy (Jeremiah 8:17) are likened to venomous serpents. The effects of wine are compared to the bites of serpents (Proverbs 23:32). Satan is a serpent (Genesis 3:1-24; Revelation 12:9; 20:2). The term "offspring of vipers" is applied by John the Baptist to the Pharisees and Sadducees (Matthew 3:7) or to the multitudes (Luke 3:7) who came to hear him; and by Jesus to the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 12:34; 23:33). Dan is a "serpent in the way .... that biteth the horse's heels" (Genesis 49:17). Serpents are among the terrors of the wilderness (Deuteronomy 8:15; Isaiah 30:6). Among the signs accompanying believers is that "they shall take up serpents" (Mark 16:18; compare Acts 28:5). It is said of him that trusts in Yahweh:
"Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder:
The young lion and the serpent shalt thou trample under foot" (Psalms 91:13).
In the millennium, "the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder's den" (Isaiah 11:8). The serpent is subtle (Genesis 3:1; 2 Corinthians 11:3); wise (Matthew 10:16); accursed (Genesis 3:14); eats dust (Genesis 3:14; Isaiah 65:25; Micah 7:17). The adder is deaf (Psalms 58:4). The serpent lurks in unexpected places (Genesis 49:17; Ecclesiastes 10:8; Amos 5:19). Serpents may be charmed (Psalms 58:5; Ecclesiastes 10:11; Jeremiah 8:17). Among four wonderful things is "the way of a serpent upon a rock" (Proverbs 30:19).
Alfred Ely Day
Serpent Worship
Serpent Worship - wur'-ship: Traces of this superstition are thought by certain critics to be discoverable in the religion of Israel. Stade mentions that W. R. Smith supposed the serpent to be the totem of the house of David (Geschichte, I, 465). H. P. Smith says: "We know of a Serpent's Stone near Jerusalem, which was the site of a sanctuary (1 Kings 1:9), and this sanctuary was dedicated to Yahweh" (Hist of Old Testament, 239, 240). Special reliance is placed on the narrative of the brazen serpent, which Hezekiah is recorded to have destroyed as leading to idolatry, (2 Kings 18:4). "In that case," says H. P. Smith, "we must treat the Nehushtan as a veritable idol of the house of Israel, which had been worshipped in the temple from the time of its erection. Serpent worship is so widespread that we should be surprised not to find traces of it in Israel" (ut supra). In the same line, see G. B. Gray, Nu, 275-76. The fancifulness of these deductions is obvious.
See NEHUSHTAN.
James Orr
Serpent, Brazen
Serpent, Brazen - bra'-z'-n.
See NEHUSHTAN.
Serpent, Crooked
Serpent, Crooked - krook'-ed: With reference to the constellation round the North Pole, in Job 26:13, the Revised Version (British and American) "the swift serpent," margin "fleeing"; and Isaiah 27:1, the Revised Version margin "winding." In the first part of the latter passage, the King James Version "piercing serpent" is changed in the Revised Version (British and American) to "swift serpent," margin "gliding" or "fleeing."
See ASTRONOMY, sec. II, 1.
Serpent, Fiery
Serpent, Fiery - See SERPENT, 3, (2).
Serpent-charming
Serpent-charming - -charm'-ing: Allusion to this art, widely practiced by the ancients (see references inDB , under the word; especially Bothart, Hieron., III, 161, 164, etc.), as by modern Orientals, is found in Psalms 58:5; Ecclesiastes 10:11; Jeremiah 8:17; Sirach 12:13, perhaps in James 3:7. The skill displayed in taming snakes, often without removing the poison fangs, is very surprising. Bruce, Davy, and other travelers give striking illustrations. See especially the interesting account of serpent-charming in Hengstenberg's Egypt and the Books of Moses, English Translation, 100-104.
Serug
Serug - se'-rug (serugh; Serouch): Son of Reu and great-grandfather of Abraham (Genesis 11:20 ff; 1 Chronicles 1:26; Luke 3:35).
Servant
Servant - sur'-vant ('ebhedh; doulos): A very common word with a variety of meanings, all implying a greater or less degree of inferiority and want of freedom: (1) The most frequent usage is as the equivalent of "slave" (which see), with its various shades in position (Genesis 9:25; 24:9; Exodus 21:5; Matthew 10:24; Luke 17:7, and often); but also a hired workman where "hired servant" translates Hebrew and Greek expressions which differ from the above. (2) An attendant in the service of someone, as Joshua was the "servant" the Revised Version (British and American) "minister" of Moses (Numbers 11:28). (3) As a 'term of respectful self-depreciation referring to one's self, "thy servant." or "your servant" is used in place of the personal pronoun of the first person: (a) in the presence of superiors (Genesis 19:2; 32:18, and often); (b) in addressing the Supreme Being (1 Samuel 3:9; Psalms 19:11; 27:9; Luke 2:29, and often). (4) Officials of every grade are called the "servants" of kings, princes, etc. (1 Samuel 29:3; 2 Samuel 16:1; 1 Kings 11:26; Proverbs 14:35, and often). (5) The position of a king in relation to his people (1 Kings 12:7). (6) One who is distinguished as obedient and faithful to God or Christ (Joshua 1:2; 2 Kings 8:19; Daniel 6:20; Colossians 4:12; 2 Timothy 2:24). (7) One who is enslaved by sin (John 8:34).
William Joseph Mcglothlin
Servant of Jehovah; Servant of the Lord; Servant of Yahweh
Servant of Jehovah; Servant of the Lord; Servant of Yahweh - 1. Historical Situation
2. The Authorship of Isaiah, Chapters 40 through 66
3. The Prophet of the Exile
4. The Unity of Isaiah 40 through 66
5. Principal Ideas of Isaiah 40 through 66
6. The Servant-Passages
(1) Date of the Servant-Passages
(2) Discussion of the Passages
(3) Whom Did the Prophet Mean by the Servant?
(4) The Psychology of the Prophecy
7. Place of the Servant-Passages in Old Testament Prophecy
8. Large Messianic Significance of the Servant-Passages
1. Historical Situation: A century and a half had passed since the great days of Isaiah in Jerusalem. The world had vastly changed during those long decades when politicians had planned, armies surged back and forth, and tribes and nations had lost or won in the struggle for existence, place and power. The center of the world had changed--for Assyria had gone to its long home, and the city claiming preeminence was not Nineveh but Babylon.
Nowhere perhaps had time laid a heavier hand than on the city of Jerusalem and the country of Judah. For city and land had come to desolation, and the inhabitants of the country had become familiar with the strange sights and sounds of Babylonia, whither they had been carried by their conquerors. Many had found graves in the land of the exile, and new generations had arisen who had no memory of the hill country of their fathers. It is the situation of these captive Jews in Babylonia which is reflected and they who are addressed at the waning of the long night of captivity by the stirring message recorded in Isaiah 40:1-31 through Isaiah 66:1-24 (leaving out of account here disputed passages in Isaiah 40:1-31 through Isaiah 66:1-24).
2. The Authorship of Isaiah, Chapters 40 through 66:
The more one studies the problem of the authorship of these chapters, the more unlikely does it seem that their author penned them 150 years before the time with which they are vitally connected. It is obviously impossible to treat that problem in a detailed way here, but one may sum up the arguments by saying that in theological ideas, in style, and use of words they show such differences from the assured productions of Isaiah's pen as to point to a different authorship. And the great argument, the argument which carries the most weight to the author of this article, is that these late chapters are written from the standpoint of the exile. The exile is assumed in what is said. These chapters do not prophesy the exile, do not say it is to come; they all the time speak as though it had come. The message is not that an exile is to be, but beginning with the fact that the exile already is, it foretells deliverance. Now of course it is conceivable that God might inspire a man to put himself forward 150 years, and with a message to people who were to live then, assuming their circumstances as a background of what he said, but it is improbable to the last degree. To put it in plain, almost gruff, English, it is not the way God did things. The prophet's message was always primarily a message to his own age. Then there is no claim in the chapters themselves that Isaiah was their author. And having once been placed so that it was supposed they were by Isaiah--placed so through causes we do not know--the fact that in speaking of passages from these chapters New Testament authors referred to them by a name the people would recognize, is not a valid argument that they meant to teach anything as to their authorship. The problem had not arisen in New Testament times. Isaiah 40:1-31 through Isaiah 66:1-24, as Professor Davidson has suggested, has a parallel in the Book of Job, each the production of a great mind, each from an author we do not know.
Compare ISAIAH.
3. The Prophet of the Exile: Out of the deep gloom of the exile--when the Jew was a man without a country, when it seemed as if the nation's sins had murdered hope--out of this time comes the voice most full of gladness and abounding hope of all the voices from the Old Testament life. In the midst of the proud, confident civilization of Babylonia, with its teeming wealth and exhaustless splendor, came a man who dared to speak for Yahweh--a man of such power to see reality that to him Babylonia was already doomed, and he could summon the people to prepare for God's deliverance.
4. The Unity of Isaiah 40 through 66: In recent criticism, especially in Germany, there has been a strong tendency to assign the last chapters of this section to a different author from the first. The background it is claimed is not Babylonian; the sins rebuked are the sins of the people when at home in Judea, and in at least one passage the temple at Jerusalem seems to be standing. That these chapters present difficulties need not be disputed, but it seems to me that again and again in them one can find the hand of Second Isaiah. Then undoubtedly the author quotes from previous prophecies which we can recognize, and the suggestion that some of the difficult passages may be quotations from other older prophecies which are not preserved to us, I think an exceedingly good one. The quotation of such passages in view of the prospect of return, and the prophet's feeling of the need of the people, would seem to me not at all unnatural. If a later hand is responsible for some utterances in the latter part of the section, it seems to me fairly clear that most of it is from the hand of the great unknown prophet of the exile.
The questions regarding the Servant-passages as affecting the unity of the book will be treated later.
5. Principal Ideas of Isaiah 40 through 66: The first part of this section vividly contrasts Yahweh and the idols worshipped with such splendor and ceremony. All the resources of irony and satire are used to give point and effect to the contrast. Cyrus the Median conqueror is already on the horizon, and he is declared to be God's instrument in the deliverance. The idols are described in process of manufacture; they are addressed in scornful apostrophe, they are seen carried away helpless. On the other side Yahweh, with illimitable foresight and indomitable strength, knows and reveals the future. They know and reveal nothing. He brings to pass what He has planned. They do nothing. Not only the idols but Babylonia itself is made the victim of satire--and the prophet hurls a taunt song at the proud but impotent city.
Israel--the people of Yahweh--the elect of God--is given the prophet's message. The past is called up as a witness to Yahweh's dealings. His righteousness--His faithfulness to His people--shall not fail. They are unworthy, but out of His own bounty salvation is provided. And with joy of this salvation from exile and from sin the book rings and rings. The Zion of the restored Israel is pictured with all the play of color and richness of imagery at the prophet's command. And this restored Israel is to have a world-mission. Its light is to fall upon all lands. It is to minister salvation to all races of men.
But back of and under these pictures of great hope is the prophet's sense of his people's sin and their struggle with it. In the latter part of the book, especially Isaiah 59:1-21 and Isaiah 64:1-12 this comes out clearly. And the mood of these chapters expresses the feeling out of which some of the deep things of the Servant-passages came. There is no need to insist that the chapters as they stand are in the order in which they were written. We know from other prophecies that this was not always true. But even if a man were convinced that the chapters now occurring after the Servant-passages were all written after them, he could still hold, and I think would be justified in holding, that in places in those chapters the reader finds the record of a state of the prophet's mind before the writing of those passages. The former view would be, I think, the preferable one. At any rate the point of view is logically that out of which some of the deep things in the Servant-passages came.
In profoundness of meaning the climax of the book is reached in these passages where the deliverance from exile and the deliverance from sin are connected with one great figure--the Servant of Yahweh.
6. The Servant-Passages: The word "servant," as applied to servants of God, is not an unfamiliar one to readers of the Old Testament. It is applied to different individuals and by Jeremiah to the nation (compare Jeremiah 30:10; 46:27); but its message is on the whole so distinct and complete in Second Isa that we can study it without any further reference to previous usage.
The "servant" first appears in Isaiah 41:8. Here the reference is undoubtedly to Israel, chosen and called of God and to be upheld by Him. Here Israel is promised victory over its enemies. In vivid picture their destruction and Isracl's future trust and glory in God are portrayed.
There are several incidental references to Israel as Yahweh's servant: created by Yahweh and not to be forgotten (Isaiah 41:8); Cyrus is said to be called for the sake of His servant Jacob (Isaiah 45:4); Yahweh is said to have redeemed His servant Jacob (Isaiah 48:20).
In Isaiah 44:26 "servant" seems to be used with the meaning of prophet. It is said of Yahweh that He "confirmeth the word of his servant, and performeth the counsel of his messengers."
In Isaiah 42:19 we find the failure and inadequacy of Israel presented in the words, "Who is blind, but my servant? or deaf, as my messenger that I send?" This passage is an explanation of the exile. Israel proved unworthy and sinned, hence, its punishment, but even in the exile the lesson had not been taken to heart.
In Isaiah 43:8 ff Yahweh summons Israel the servant, who in spite of blindness and deafness yet is His witness. It has at least seen enough to be able to witness for Him in the presence of the heathen.
In Isaiah 44:1-5, leaving the unworthiness of the actual Israel, there comes what seems to me a summons in the name of the possible, the ideal. The underlying thought is a call to the high future which God has ready to give.
This covers the reference to the servant outside the great Servant-passages to which we now come. There are four of these: Isaiah 42:1-9; 49:11-9a; Isaiah 50:4-11; 52:13 through Isaiah 53:12; Isaiah 61:1-4 perhaps represents words of the Servant, but may refer to words of the prophet, and, as at any rate it adds no new features to the picture of the Servant already given in the passages undoubtedly referring to him, we will not discuss it.
(1) Date of the Servant-Passages. Ewald long ago suggested that the last of the Servant-passages must have been borrowed from an earlier composition, which he assigned to the age of Manasseh. "If we find in the study of the passage reason for its vividness, we shall not need to seek its origin in the description of some past martyrdom."
Duhm quoted by Cheyne thinks the Servant-passages post-exilic. The gentleness and quiet activity of the Servant for one thing, according to Duhm, suggest the age of the scribes, rather than that of the exile. But might not an age of suffering be a time to learn the lesson of gentleness? According to Skinner, Duhm thinks the passages were inserted almost haphazard, but Skinner also refers to Kosters, showing that the passages cannot be lifted without carrying some of the succeeding verses with them. This is particularly significant in view of the recent popularity of other theories which deny the Servant-passages to the hand and time of Second Isa. The theory that these passages form by themselves a poem or a set of poems which have been inserted here can boast of distinguished names.
There does not seem much to commend it, however. As to the argument from difference as to rhythm, there is disagreement, and the data are probably not of a sort to warrant much significance being applied to it either way. The fact that the passages are not always a part of connected movement of thought would play great havoc if made a universal principle of discrimination as to authorship in the prophecies of the Old Testament. If we succeed in giving the fundamental ideas of the passages a place in relation to the thought of Deutero-Isaiah, an argument for which cogency might be claimed will be dissipated. But even at its best this argument would not be conclusive. To deny certain ideas to an author simply because he has not expressed them in a certain bit of writing acknowledged to him is perilous business. A message of hope surely does not preclude an appreciation of the dark things.
The truth of the matter is that even by great scholars the temptation to a criticism of knight-errantry is not always resisted. And I think we shall not make any mistake in believing that this is the case with the attempt to throw doubt upon the Deutero-Isaianic authorship of the Servant-passages.
(2) Discussion of the Passages. Isaiah 42:1-9: In these verses Yahweh Himself is the speaker, describing the Servant as His chosen, in whom His soul delights, upon whom He has put His spirit. He is to bring justice to the Gentiles. His methods are to be quiet and gentle, and the very forlorn hope of goodness He will not quench. He is to set justice in the earth, and remote countries are described as waiting for His law. Then comes a declaration by the prophet that Yahweh, the Creator of all, is the speaker of words declaring the Servant's call in righteousness to be a covenant for the people, a light to the Gentiles, a helper to those in need--the blind and imprisoned. Yahweh's glory is not to be given to other, nor His praise to graven images. Former prophecies have come to pass. New things He now declares. One's attention needs to be called to the distinction of the Servant from Israel in this passage. He is to be a covenant of the people: according to Delitzsch, "he in whom and through whom Yahweh makes a new covenant with His people in place of the old one that has been broken."
Isaiah 49:1-Isaiah 9:11-21a; Here the Servant himself spoaks, telling of his calling from the beginning of his life, of the might of his word, of his shelter in God, of a time of discouragement in which he thought his labor in vain, followed by insistence on his trust in God. Then Yahweh promises him a larger mission than the restoration of Israel, namely, to be a light to the Gentiles. Yahweh speaks of the Servant as one despised, yet to be triumphant so that he will be honored by kings and princes. He is to lead his people forth at their restoration, "to make them inherit the desolate heritages; saying to them that are bound, Go forth; to them that are in darkness, Show yourselves."
Clearly the Servant is distinct from the people Israel in this passage. Yet in Isaiah 49:3 he is addressed as Israel. The word Israel here may be a gloss, which would solve the difficulty, or the Servant may be addressed as Israel because he gathers up in himself the meaning of the ideal Israel. If it is true that the prophet gradually passed from the conception of Israel as a nation to a person through whom its true destiny would be realized, this last suggestion would gain in probability.
One notices here the emphasis on the might of the Servant, and in this passage we come to understand that he is to pass through a time of ignominy. The phrase "a servant of rulers" is a difficult one, which would be clear if the prophet conceived of him as one of the exiles, and typically representing them. The Servant's mission in this passage seems quite bound up with the restoration.
Isaiah 50:4-11: In the first part of this passage the Servant is not mentioned directly, but it seems clear that he is speaking. He is taught of God continually, that he may bring a message to the weary. He has opened his ear so that he may fully understand Yahweh's message. The Servant now describes his sufferings as coming to him because of his obedience. He was not rebellious and did not turn back from his mission. Flint-like he set his face and with confidence in God met the shame which came upon him. After language vivid with a sense of ignominy his assured consciousness of victory and faith in God are expressed, .
In Isaiah 50:10-11, according to Delitzsch, Yahweh speaks, first encouraging those who listen to the Servant, then addressing those who despise his word. Cheyne thinks the Servant mentioned in Isaiah 50:10 may be the prophet, but I prefer Delitzsch's view.
Isaiah 52:13 through Isaiah 53:12: The present division of Isaiah 52:13 through Isaiah 53:12 is unfortunate, for obviously it is all of a piece and ought to stand together in one chapter.
In Isaiah 52:13-15 Yahweh speaks of the humiliation and later of the exaltation of the Servant. He shall deal wisely--the idea here including the success resulting from wisdom--and shall be exalted. Words are piled upon each other here to express his exaltation. But the appearance of the Servant is such as to suggest the very opposite of his dignity, which will astonish nations and kings when they come, to understand it.
Entering upon Isaiah 53:1-12 we find the people of Israel speaking confessing their former unbelief, and giving as a reason the repulsive aspect of the Servant--despised, sad, sick with a visage to make men turn from him. He is described as though he had been a leper. They thought all this had come upon him as a stroke from God, but they now see how he went even to death, not for his own transgression but for theirs. Their peace and healing came through his suffering and death. They have been sinful and erring; the result of it all God has caused to light upon him.
They look back in wonder at the way he bore his sufferings--like a lamb led to the slaughter; with a false judicial procedure he was led away, no one considering his death, or its relation to them. His grave even was an evidence of ignominy.
Beginning at Isaiah 53:10 the people cease speaking, according to Delitzsch, and the prophecy becomes the organ of God who acknowledges His Servant. The reference to a trespass offering in Isaiah 53:10 is remarkable. Nowhere else is prophecy so connected with the sacrificial system (A. B. Davidson). It pleased God to bruise the Servant--his soul having been made a trespass offering; the time of humiliation over, the time of exaltation will come.
By his knowledge we are told--here a momentary reversion to the time of humiliation taking place--by his knowledge he shall justify many and bear their iniquities. Then comes the exaltation--dividing of spoils and greatness--the phrases suggesting kingly glory: all this is to be his because of his suffering. The great fact of Isaiah 53:1-12 is vicarious suffering.
(3) Whom Did the Prophet Mean by the Servant?
(a) Obviously not all of Israel always, for the Servant is distinguished from Israel. (b) Not the godly remnant, for he is distinguished from them. Then the godly remnant does not attain to any such proportions as to fit the description of Isaiah 53:1-12. (c) And one cannot accept theory that the prophetic order is intended. The whole order is not great enough to exhaust the meaning of one of a half-dozen of the greatest lines in chapter 53.
Professor A. B. Davidson's Old Testament Prophecy contains a brilliant and exceedingly able discussion of the question which he approaches from the stand-point of Biblical rather than simply exegetical theology. His fundamental position is that in the prophet's outlook the restoration is the consummation. In his mind the Servant and his work cannot come after the restoration. The Servant, if a real person, must be one whose work lies in the past or the present, as there is not room in the future for him, for the restoration which is at the door brings felicity, and after that no sufferings of the Servant are conceivable. But there is no actual person in the past and none in the present who could be the Servant. Hence, the Servant cannot be to the prophet's mind a real person.
See CONIAH.
Of course Davidson relates the result to his larger conception of prophecy in such a way as to secure the Messianic significance of the passages in relation to their fulfillment in our Lord. The ideas they contain are realized in Him.
But coming back to the prophet's mind--if the Servant was not a person to him, what significance did he have? The answer according to Davidson is, He is a great personification of the ideal Israel. "He is Israel according to its idea." To quote more fully, "The prophet has created out of the divine determinations imposed on Israel, election, creation and forming, endowment with the word or spirit of Yahweh, and the divine purpose in these operations, an ideal Being, an inner Israel in the heart of the phenomenal or actual Israel, an indestructible Being having these divine attributes or endowments, present in the outward Israel in all ages, powerful and effectual because really composed, if I can say so, of divine forces, who cannot fail in God's purpose, and who as an inner power within Israel by his operation causes all Israel to become a true servant" (compare Davidson, Old Testament Prophecy, 435-36).
Now it seems to me that Davidson is more effective in his destructive than in his constructive work. One must confess that he presents real difficulties in the way of holding to a personal Servant as the prophet's conception. But on the other hand when he tries to replace that by a more adequate conception, I do not think he conspicuously succeeds.
The greatest of the Servant-passages (it seems to me) presents more than can be successfully dealt with under the conception of the Servant as the ideal Israel. The very great emphasis on vicarious suffering in Isaiah 53:1-12 simply is not answered by theory. Words would not leap with such a flame of reality in describing the suffering of a personification. The sense of sin back of the passage is not a thing whose problem could be solved by a glittering figure of speech. There it surges--the movement of an aroused conscience--and the answer to it could never be anything less than a real deed by a real person. My own feeling is that if language can express anything it expresses the fact that the prophet had a real personal Servant in view.
But what of the difficulties Davidson suggests? Even if the answer were not easy to find, one could rest on the total impression the passages make. One cannot vaporize a passage for the sake of placing it in an environment in which one believes it belongs. As Cheyne in other days said, "In the sublimest descriptions of the Servant I am unable to resist the impression that we have the presentment of an individual, and venture to think that our general view of the Servant ought to be ruled by those passages in which the enthusiasm of the author is at its height."
The first thing we need to remember in dealing with the difficulties Davidson has brought forth is the timelessness of prophecy, and the resulting fact that every prophet saw the future as if lying just on the horizon of his own time. As prophets saw the day of Yahweh as if at hand, so it seems to me Deutero-Isaiah saw the Servant: each really afar off, yet each really seen in the colors of the present. Then we must remember that the prophets did not relate all their conceptions. They stated truths whose meaning and articulation they did not understand. They were not philosophers with a Hegelian hunger for a total view of life, and when we try to read them from this standpoint we misjudge them. Then we must remember that the prophet may here have been lifted to a height of prophetic receptivehess where he received and uttered what went beyond the limits of his own understanding. To be sure there was a point of contact, but I see no objection to the thought that in a place of unique significance and importance like this, God might use a man to utter words which reached far beyond the limits of his own understanding. In this connection some words of Professor Hermann Schultz are worth quoting: "If it is true anywhere in the history of poetry and prophecy, it is true here that the writer being full of the spirit has said more than he himself meant to say and more than he himself understood."
(4) The Psychology of the Prophecy. This does not mean that something may. not be said about the connection of the Servant-passages with the prophet's own thought. Using Delitzsch's illustration, we can see how from regarding all Israel as the servant the prophet could narrow down to the godly part of Israel as experience taught him the faithlessness of many, and it ought not to be impossible for us to see how all that Israel really meant at its best could have focused itself in his thought upon one person. Despite Davidson's objection, I can see nothing artificial about this movement in the prophet's mind. There was probably more progression in his thought than Professor Davidson is willing to allow. If it is asked, Where was the person to whom the prophet could ascribe such greatness, conceiving as he did that he was to come at once? surely a similar question would be fair in relation to Isaiah's Messiah. The truth is that even on the threshold of the restoration there was time for a great one suddenly to arise. As John the Baptist on the Jordan watched for the coming One whom he knew not, yet who was alive, so the great prophet of the exile may have watched even day by day for the coming Servant whose work had been revealed to him.
But deep in the psychology of the prophecy is the sense of sin out of which these passages came and indications of which I think are found in the latter part of the book. The great guilt-laden past lay terribly behind the prophet, and as he mused over the sufferings of the righteous, perhaps especially drawn to tim heart-rent Jeremiah, the thought of redemptive suffering may have dawned upon him. And if in its light, and with a personal sense of sin drawn from what experiences we know not, he grapples with the problem, can we not understand, can we not see that God might flash upon him the great conception of a sin-bearer?
7. Place of the Servant-Passages in Old Testament Prophecy:
At last the idea of vicarious suffering had been connected with the deep things of the nation's life, and henceforward was a part of its heritage. To the profoundest souls it would be a part of the nation's forward look. The priestly idea had been deepened and filled with new moral meaning. The Servant was a prophet too--so priest and prophet met in one. And I think Cheyne was right when he suggested that in the Servant's exaltation in Isaiah 53:1-12, the idea of the Servant is brought nearer to that of king than we sometimes think. So in suggestion, at least, prophet, priest and king meet in the great figure of the suffering Servant.
A new rich stream had entered into prophecy, full of power to fertilize whatever shores of thought it touched. In the thoughts of these passages prophecy seemed pressing with impatient eagerness to its goal, and though centuries were to pass before that goal was reached, its promise is seen here, full of assurance and of knowledge of the kind of goal it is to be.
8. Larger Messianic Significance of the Servant-Passages:
But whatever our view of the meaning of the prophet, we must agree (compare Matthew 8:17; Matthew 12:18-21; 26:67; John 12:41, et al.) that the conception he so boldly and powerfully put upon his canvas had its realization, its fulfillment in the One who spoke to the world from the cross on Calvary. And in its darkly glorious shadow the Christian, with all the sadness and joy and wonder of it, with a sense of its solving all his problems and meeting the deepest needs and outreaches of his life, can feel a strange companionship with the exilic prophet whose yearning for a sin-bearer and belief in His coming call across the long and slowly moving years. In the light and penetration of that hour he may be trusted to know what the prophet meant. Professor Delitzsch well said of that passage, "Every word is as it were written under the cross at Golgotha."
Lynn Harold Hough
Servants, Solomon's
Servants, Solomon's - See SOLOMON'S SERVANTS.
Service
Service - sur'-vis: Six Hebrew, two Aramaic and four Greek words are so rendered.
1. In the Old Testament: In the Old Testament the word most used for "service" is (1) `abhodhah, from `abhadh, which is the general word, meaning "to work" and so "to serve," "to till," also "to enslave." The noun means "bondage," "labor," "ministering," "service," "tillage," "work," "use." The word is used in describing work in the fields (Exodus 1:14, et al.), work in the tabernacle (Exodus 27:19, et al.), sanctuary service (Numbers 7:9), service of Yahweh (Numbers 8:11), Levitical or priestly service (Numbers 8:22), kingly service (1 Chronicles 26:30), etc. Reference is made to instruments, wood vessels, cattle, herbs, shekels for the service in the house of Yahweh. (2) `Abhadh itself is translated "service" in Numbers 8:15; 18:23; Jeremiah 22:13. (3) Seradh means "stitching," i.e. piercing with a needle; it occurs only 4 times, and in each case in the Revised Version (British and American) instead of "service" is translated "finely wrought garments" (Exodus 31:10; 35:19; 1, 41). (4) Sharath means primarily "to attend" as a servant or worshipper, and to contribute to or render service, wait on, and thence service; occurs only 3 times (Exodus 35:19; 1, 41 the King James Version) and in the American Standard Revised Version is rendered "for ministering." (5) Tsabha' is found 7 times, used in the same connection each time, and refers to those numbered for service in the tent of meeting. Its primary root meaning refers to service for war, campaign, hardship (Numbers 4:30, 35, 39, 43; 8:24). (6) Yadh means literally, an "open hand, indicating direction, power, and so ministry as in 1 Chronicles 6:31, where David appoints certain ones to have direction of the music, translated in 1 Chronicles 29:5, the Revised Version (British and American) not service, but "himself." (7) `Abhidhah means "business," "labor," "affairs"; Ezra 6:18 is the only place where it is found. (8) Polchan, from root meaning "to worship," "minister to," and so in Ezra 7:19 vessels given for service.
2. In the New Testament: The following are the uses in the New Testament: (1) Diakonia, from root meaning "to run on errands," and so attendance, aid as a servant, ministry, relief, and hence, service; compare English word "deacon"; Paul: "thatI might minister unto you" (2 Corinthians 11:8); also found in Romans 15:31 ("ministration") and Revelation 2:19 ("ministry"). (2) Douleuo, literally, "to be a slave," in bondage, service (Galatians 4:8, "bondage"; Ephesians 6:7, "service"; 1 Timothy 6:2, "serve"). (3) Latreia, from root meaning "to render religious homage," menial service to God, and so worship (John 16:2, "service"; Romans 9:4, "service"; Romans 12:1, "spiritual service"; Hebrews 9:1, "service"; Hebrews 9:6, "services"). (4) Leitourgia, from root "to perform religious or charitable functions," worship, relieve, obey, minister, and hence, a public function, priestly or charitable (liturgy) (2 Corinthians 9:12, "service"; also in Philippians 2:17, 30).
See SERVANT.
William Edward Raffety
Servitude
Servitude - sur'-vi-tud.
See SERVANT; SLAVE.
Sesis
Sesis - se'-sis (Codex Vaticanus Seseis; Codex Alexandrinus Sesseis): One who put away his foreign wife (1 Esdras 9:34) = "Shashai" in Ezra 10:40.
Sesthel
Sesthel - ses'-thel (Sesthel): One of the sons of Addi who put away their foreign wives (1 Esdras 9:31)= "Bezalel" in Ezra 10:30.
Set
Set - Few words in the English language have such a rich variety of meaning and are used in so rich a variety of idiomatic expression as the word "set." A glance at any of the great dictionaries will convince anyone of the truth of this statement. The Standard Dictionary devotes three and a half columns to the word. In its primary meaning it there denotes 22 distinct things, in its secondary meaning 17 more, while 18 distinct phrases are given in which it is used, in some cases again in a variety of meanings. It is indeed a word calculated to drive a foreigner to despair. Some 70 Hebrew and about 30 Greek words in the original tongues of the Holy Scriptures have been rendered by the word "set," in the King James Version and also in the Revised Version (British and American). A careful comparative study of the original and of translations in other tongues will at once indicate that a lack of discrimination is evident on the part of the English translators in the frequent use of the word "set."
Thus in Song of Solomon 5:14, "hands are as rings of gold set with beryl," the Hebrew word is male', "to be filled," "full." Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) translates plenae, the Dutch gevuld, the German voll; Proverbs 8:27, "when he set a circle," Hebrew chaqaq, "to describe," "decree," Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) vallabat, Dutch beschreef; Ezra 4:10, "set in the city of Samaria," Aramaic yethibh, "to cause to sit down," "to cause to dwell," Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) habitare eas fecit, Dutch doen wonen; Psalms 2:6, "Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill," Hebrew nacakh, "to pour out," "to anoint," Dutch gezalfd; Isaiah 19:2, the King James Version "I will set the Egyptians against the Egyptians," Hebrew cakhakh, "to disturb," "to confuse," Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) concurrere faciam,, Dutch verwarren, German an einander setzen; Revelation 3:8, "I have, set before thee a door," Greek didomi, "to give," Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) dedi coram te, Dutch gegeven, German gegeben; Acts 19:27, the King James Version "Our craft is in danger to be set at nought," Greek erchomai, "to come," Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) periclitabitur, Dutch in verachting komen; Luke 4:18, "to set at liberty them," Greek apostello, "to send away," Dutch heen te zenden in vrijheid; Acts 13:9, the King James Version "Saul .... set his eyes on him," Greek atenizo, "to stare fixedly," Vulgate: intuens in eum, Dutch de oogen op hem houdende. These are but a few examples chosen at random where our English translators have rendered Hebrew and Greek words by "set," where a more literal translation, in equally good idiomatic language, was possible. The word "set" is the causative of "sit," and indicates primarily a power of self-support, in opposition to the idea of the word "lay."
(1) In its primary meaning the word "set" is used in our English Bible in many senses: (a) Foundation: Song of Solomon 5:15, "His legs are as pillars of marble set upon." (b) Direction: Ezekiel 21:16, "whithersoever thy face is set." (c) Appointed time: Acts 12:21, "upon a set day." (d) Fixed place: 2 Chronicles 20:17, "Set yourselves, stand ye still, and see"; 2 Samuel 6:17; Matthew 4:5. (e) Cause to sit: 1 Samuel 2:8, the King James Version "to set them among princes"; 2 Chronicles 23:20; Psalms 68:6. (f) Appointment: Ezra 7:25, the King James Version "set magistrates and judges"; Genesis 41:41; 1 Samuel 12:13; Psalms 2:6; Daniel 1:11. (g) To lift up: Genesis 31:17, "set his sons and his wives upon." (h) Appointed place: Genesis 1:17, "God set them in the firmament." (i) Cause to stand: Genesis 47:7, "Joseph brought in Jacob .... and set him before Pharaoh"; Numbers 8:13; 2 Chronicles 29:25. (j) Sitting: Matthew 5:1, the King James Version "when he was set"; Hebrews 8:1 the King James Version. (k) Location: Matthew 5:14, "a city set on a hill." These by no means exhaust the meaning which the word, in its primary sense, has in our English Bible.
(2) In a secondary or tropical sense it is used with equal frequency, usually with various prepositions. Thus, (a) To attack: Judges 9:33, the King James Version "and set upon the city." (b) To imprint: Genesis 4:15, the King James Version "The Lord set a mark upon Cain." (c) To direct to: 1 Kings 2:15, "And that all Israel set their faces on me." (d) To place: 1 Kings 20:12, Ben-hadad shouted one word to his allies: "Set," i.e. set the armies in array, the battering-rams and engines of attack in their place. (e) To incline toward: Ezekiel 40:4, "Set thy heart upon all that I shall show." (f) To trust in: Psalms 62:10, "If riches increase, set not your heart thereon." (g) To place before: Psalms 90:8, "Thou hast set our iniquities before"; Psalms 141:3, "Set a watch, O Yahweh, before my mouth." (h) To go down: of the setting of the sun (Mark 1:32; Luke 4:40). (i) To be proud: Malachi 3:15, the King James Version "They that work wickedness are set up." (j) To fill in: Exodus 35:9, "stones to be set, for the ephod." (k) To plant: Mark 12:1, "set a hedge about it." (l) To mock: Luke 23:11, "Herod .... set him at nought." (m) To honor: 1 Samuel 18:30, "so that his name was much set by." (n) To start: Acts 21:2, "We went aboard, and set sail." As may be seen the word is used in an endless variety of meanings.
Henry E. Dosker
Seth; Sheth
Seth; Sheth - seth, sheth (sheth; Seth):
(1) The son born to Adam and Eve after the death of Abel (Genesis 4:25 f; Genesis 5:3 ff; 1 Chronicles 1:1; Sirach 49:16; Luke 3:38). In Genesis 4:25 the derivation of the name is given. Eve "called his name Seth: For, said she, God hath appointed (shath) me another seed instead of Abel." In 1 Chronicles 1:1 the King James Version, the form is "Sheth"; elsewhere in the King James Version and in the Revised Version (British and American) throughout the form is "Seth."
(2) the King James Version "the children of Sheth," the Revised Version (British and American) "the sons of tumult." According to the King James Version rendering, the name of an unknown race mentioned in Balaam's parable (Numbers 24:17).
S. F. Hunter
Sethur
Sethur - se'-thur (cethur; Sathour): An Asherite spy (Numbers 13:13 (14)).
Setting
Setting - set'-ing (millu'ah, literally, "a filling"): The word is used in the description of the manufacture of the breastplate of judgment (Exodus 28:17). The instruction runs: "Thou shalt set in it settings of stones," namely, four rows of precious stones. The same word is rendered "inclosings" in Exodus 28:20, and in Exodus 39:13 the King James Version.
Settle (1)
Settle (1) - set'-'-l (`azarah): For this word in Ezekiel 43:14, 17, 20; 45:19, the American Standard Revised Version and the English Revised Version margin substitute more correctly "ledge."
See TEMPLE.
Settle (2)
Settle (2) - The Hebrew language has 8 words which are thus translated: yashabh, nachath, `amadh, shaqat, tabha`, natsabh, maqom, qapha'. Now the meaning is to settle down, to cause to occur (Ezekiel 36:11 the King James Version; 1 Chronicles 17:14); then it denotes fixedness (2 Kings 8:11; Psalms 119:89; Proverbs 8:25); again it points to a condition of absolute quiescence, as the settlings on the lees (Jeremiah 48:11); and in still another place it means packing solidly together (Psalms 65:10). In the New Testament the words hedraios, themelioo, and tithemi, have been translated "settle." the Revised Version (British and American) in 1 Peter 5:10 has translated "establish," and the context unquestionably points to the idea of a fixed establishment in the faith. In Luke 21:14 the word translated "settle" evidently points to a fixed determination.
Henry E. Dosker
Seven
Seven - sev'-'-n (shebha`; hepta).
See NUMBER.
Seven Churches
Seven Churches - See CHURCHES, SEVEN.
Seven Stars
Seven Stars - See ASTRONOMY.
Seveneh
Seveneh - se-ven'-e, se-ve'-ne (ceweneh): For the King James Version "the tower of Syene," in Ezekiel 29:10; 30:6, the Revised Version (British and American) reads, "the tower of Seveneh," with a marginal note, "or, from Migdol to Syene." Seveneh is the town at the First Cataract in Egypt, now known as Assuan. Fresh interest has recently been given to it by the Elephantine discoveries bearing on the ancient Jewish colony and temple of Yahweh in that place in the 5th century BC.
See ARAMAIC; EGYPT; PAPYRUS; SANCTUARY, 4, etc.
Seventh, Day
Seventh, Day - sev'-'-nth.
See SABBATH.
Seventy
Seventy - sev'-n-ti (shibh`im; hebdomekonta).
See NUMBER.
Seventy Disciples
Seventy Disciples - The account of the designation and mission of these is found only in Luke 10:1-42. Some have therefore sought to maintain that we have here only a confused variant of the appointment of the Twelve; but this is impossible in the light of Luke's account of the Twelve in chapter 9.
The documents vary as between the numbers seventy and seventy-two, so that it is impossible to determine which is the correct reading; and internal evidence does not help at all in this case. There is nothing in the function or circumstances to indicate any reason for the specific number.
Commentators have sought parallels in the seventy elders chosen to assist Moses (Numbers 11:1-35) and suppose that Jesus was incidentally indicating Himself as the "prophet like unto Moses" whom God would raise up.
Again, the Jews popularly reckoned the "number of the nations of the earth" at seventy (compare Genesis 10:1-32), and some have supposed Jesus to be thus indicating that His gospel is universal. Attention is called to the fact that the Seventy are not forbidden to go to Gentiles and that their commission probably included Peraea, where many Gentiles were to be found. Some, again, have supposed that Jesus had in mind the Jewish Sanhedrin, composed of seventy (or seventy-two), and that the appointment of a like number to extend the work of His kingdom was a parabolic recognition that as the Jews were officially rejecting Him, so He was rejecting them as agents for the work of the kingdom. It is impossible to speak with any certainty as to any of these suggestions. It is to be noted that there is the same confusion between the numbers seventy and seventy-two in all four instances, as also in the tradition as to the number of translators of the Septuagint.
Inasmuch as no further mention is made of these workers, it is to be understood that they were appointed for a temporary ministry. Tradition names several of them and identifies them with disciples active after Pentecost. While it is probable that some of these were witnesses later, the tradition is worthless in details. The mission of these and the reason assigned for their appointment are essentially the same as in the case of the Twelve. Jesus is now completing His last popular campaign in preaching and introducing the kingdom of heaven. The employing of these in this service is in line with the permanent ideal of Christianity, which makes no distinction between the "laymen" and the "clergy" in responsibility and service. Jesus was perhaps employing all whose experience and sympathy made them fit for work in the harvest that was so plenteous while the laborers were few. He found seventy such now as He would find a hundred and twenty such after His ascension (Acts 1:15).
William Owen Carver
Seventy Weeks
Seventy Weeks - The "seventy weeks" of the prophecy in Daniel 9:24-27 have long been a subject of controversy in the critical schools. The conflicting views may be seen very fully in Dr. Driver's Daniel, 94 ff, 143 ff, and Dr. Pusey's Daniel the Prophet, lectionaries II, III, IV. On both sides it is agreed that the "weeks" in this prophecy are to be interpreted as "weeks of years," i.e. the 70 weeks represent 490 years. This period, commencing with "the going forth of the commandments to restore and build Jerus" (Daniel 9:25), is divided into three parts, 7 weeks (49 years), 62 weeks (434 years), and one week (7 years). The 69 weeks extend to the appearance of "an anointed one (Hebrew "Messiah"), the prince" (Daniel 9:25), who, after the 62 weeks, shall be "cut off" (Daniel 9:26), apparently in the "midst" of the 70th week (Daniel 9:27). On the traditional view (see Pusey), the 69 weeks (483 years) mark the interval from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem till the appearance of Christ; and if, with Pusey, the decree in question be taken to be that of the 7th year of Artaxerxes (457-56BC ; the mission of Ezra; compare Ezra 7:8 ff), confirmed and extended in the 20th year of the same king (mission of Nehemiah; compare Nehemiah 2:1 ff), the 483 years run out about 27-28 AD, when our Lord's public ministry began. On the other hand, the view which supposes that the Book of Daniel belongs wholly to the Maccabean age, and does not here contain genuine prediction, is under the necessity of making the 490 years terminate with the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes (171-164 BC), and this, it is admitted, cannot be done. To give time the violent expedient is adopted of dating the commencement of the 70 weeks from the prophecy of Jeremiah of the 70 years' captivity, or of the rebuilding of Jerusalem (606 or 587 BC), i.e. before the captivity had begun. Even this, as Dr. Driver admits (p. 146), leaves us in 171 BC, some 67 years short of the duration of the 62 weeks, and a huge blunder of the writer of Daniel has to be assumed. The divergent reckonings are legion, and are mutually contradictory (see table in Pusey, p. 217). To invalidate the older view Dr. Driver avails himself of the altered renderings of Daniel 9:25 and 27 in the English Revised Version. It is to be noted, however, that the American Standard Revised Version does not follow the English Revised Version in these changes. Thus, whereas the English Revised Version reads in Daniel 9:25, "Unto the anointed one; the prince, shall be seven weeks: and threescore and two weeks, it shall be built again," and accordingly takes "the anointed one" of Daniel 9:26 to be a distinct person, the American Standard Revised Version (as also the English Revised Version margin) reads, as in the King James Version, "shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks." Again, where the English Revised Version reads in Daniel 9:27 "For the half of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease," the American Standard Revised Version (and the English Revised Version margin) has as formerly, "In the midst of the week he shall cause" etc. (conversely, in Daniel 9:25 the American Revised Version margin gives the English Revised Version rendering). The question cannot be discussed here, but it is believed that the traditional interpretation may yet claim acceptance from those who do not accept the postulates of the newer critical writers.
See DANIEL; JUBILEES, BOOK OF.
James Orr
Seventy Years
Seventy Years - The period assigned by Jeremiah for the duration of the Jewish exile in Babylon (Jeremiah 25:11-12; 29:10; compare 2 Chronicles 36:21 f; Ezra 1:1; Daniel 9:2). If the period be reckoned from the date of the first deportation in the 4th year of Jehoiakim (2 Kings 24:1; 2 Chronicles 36:6 ff; Daniel 1:1 by another reckoning calls it the Daniel 3:11-30rd year), i.e. 606 BC, till the decree of Cyrus, 536 BC, the prediction was fulfilled to a year.
See CAPTIVITY.
Sever
Sever - sev'-er: The three Hebrew words badhal, palah and paradh are thus translated. The idea conveyed is that of setting apart (Leviticus 20:26 the King James Version) or of setting someone or something apart in a miraculous way (Exodus 8:22; 9:4 the King James Version, the English Revised Version), or, again, of simple separation on one's own volition (Judges 4:11 the King James Version, the English Revised Version). The Greek word aphorizo (Matthew 13:49) stands for final judicial segregation.
Several; Severally
Several; Severally - sev'-er-al, sev'-er-al-i: The Hebrew words chophshuth and chophshith, translated "several" in the King James Version, the English Revised Version, 2 Kings 15:5; 2 Chronicles 26:21, are in both cases translated "separate" in the American Standard Revised Version, and indicate ceremonial uncleanness and consequent severance on account of leprosy. In the parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:15) and also in 1 Corinthians 12:11 the word idios, is translated "several," "severally." In both cases it points to the individuality of the recipients of the gift bestowed.
Shaalabbin
Shaalabbin - sha-a-lab'-in (sha`alabbin; Codex Vaticanus Salabein; Codex Alexandrinus Salamein): A town in the territory of Dan named between Irshemesh and Aijalon (Joshua 19:42). It seems to be identical with SHAALBIM.
Shaalbim
Shaalbim - sha-al'-bim (sha`albim; Codex Vaticanus Bethalamei; Codex Alexandrinus Salabeim, in Joshua, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus Thalabeim): When the Amorites had forced the children of Dan into the mountain they came and dwelt in Mt. Heres, Aijalon and Shaalbim, where, it appears, they were made tributary to the house of Joseph (Judges 1:35). In the time of Solomon it was included in the administrative district presided over by Ben-deker, along with Makaz, Beth-shemesh and Elon-beth-hanan (1 Kings 4:9). Beth-shemesh is the same as Ir-shemesh (Joshua 19:42). Shaalbim is probably only another name of Shaalabbin. One of David's mighty men is called Eliahba the Shaalbonite. This presumes the existence of a town called Shaalbon (2 Samuel 23:32; 1 Chronicles 11:33), which again is probably identical with Shaalbim. Eusebius (in Onomasticon) identifies it with Salaba, a large village in the district of Sebaste (Samaria), which apparently Eusebius and Jerome thought to be in the territory of Dan. It seems, however, too far to the North. Jerome in his commentary on Ezekiel 48:1-35 speaks of the towers of Aijalon and Selebi and Emmaus. Conder would identify Selebi with Selbit, 3 miles Northwest of Aijalon (Yalo), and 8 miles North of Bethshemesh. This would suit for Shaalbim, as far as position is concerned; but it is difficult to account for the heavy "T" (Hebrew letter Tet) in the name, if derived from Shaalbim.
W. Ewing
Shaalbonite
Shaalbonite - sha-al-bo'-nit, sha-al'-bo-nit (ha-sha`alboni; ho Salaboneites (2 Samuel 23:32) Codex Vaticanus ho Homei; Codex Alexandrinus ho Salaboni): Eliahba, one of David's heroes, a native of Shaalbon.
See SHAALBIM.
Shaalim, Land of
Shaalim, Land of - sha'-a-lim ('erets sha`alim; Codex Vaticanus tes ges Easakem; Codex Alexandrinus tes ges Saaleim; the King James Version Shalim): Saul in search of his father's asses passed through Mt. Ephraim and the land of Shalishah, then through the land of Shaalim and the land of yemini. This last name English Versions of the Bible renders "Benjamin" (1 Samuel 9:4). The whole passage is so obscure that no certain conclusions can be reached. The search party may have proceeded northward from Gibeah, through the uplands of Ephraim, turning then westward, then southward, and finally eastward. We should thus look for the land of Shalishah and the land of Shaalim on the west side of the mountain range: and the latter may have been on the slopes to the East of Lydda. Possibly we ought here to read "Shaalbim," instead of "Shaalim."
W. Ewing
Shaaph
Shaaph - shy'-af (sha`aph):
(1) A son of Jahdai (1 Chronicles 2:47).
(2) The son of Maachah, a concubine of Caleb, the brother of Jerahmeel. Shaaph is called the "father," or founder, of the city Madmannah (1 Chronicles 2:48 f).
Shaaraim
Shaaraim - sha-a-ra'-im (sha`arayim, "two gates"; Sakareim; the King James Version Sharaim):
(1) A city in the Shephelah or "lowland" of Judah mentioned (Joshua 15:36) in close association with Socoh and Azekah; the vanquished army of the Philistines passed a Shaaraim in their flight from Socoh toward Gath and Ekron (1 Samuel 17:52). It is possible that in this latter reference the "two gates" may refer--as Septuagint implies--to the two Philistine strongholds themselves. Shaaraim has been identified with Tell Zakariya (see however AZEKAH) and with Kh. Sa`ireh (PEF, III, 124, Sh XVII), an old site West of Beit `Atab. Both proposals are hazardous.
(2) One of the towns of Simeon (1 Chronicles 4:31), called (Joshua 19:6) "Sharuhen" and, as one of the uttermost cities of Judah, called (Joshua 15:32) "Shilhim." This town was in Southwestern Palestine and is very probably identical with the fortress Sharhana, a place of some importance on the road from Gaza to Egypt. Aahmes (XVIIIth Dynasty) besieged and captured this city in the 5th year of his reign in his pursuit of the flying Hyksos (Petrie, Hist, II, 22, 35), and a century later Tahutmes III, in the 23rd year of his reign, took the city of Sharuhen on his way to the siege and capture of Megiddo (Petrie, Hist, II, 104). On philological grounds Tell esh-Sheri`ah, 12 miles Northwest of Beersheba, large ruin, has been proposed, but it does not suit at all the Egyptian data (PEF, III, 399, Sh XXIV).
E. W. G. Masterman
Shaashgaz
Shaashgaz - sha-ash'-gaz (sha`ashgaz; Septuagint reads Gai, the same name it gives to the official referred to in Esther 2:8, 15; the name may go back to the Old Bactrian word Sasakshant, "one anxious to learn" (Scheft); most commentators suggest no explanation): A chamberlain of Ahasuerus, king of Persia; as keeper of "the second house of women," he had Esther under his charge (Esther 2:14).
Shabbethai
Shabbethai - shab'-e-thi (shabbethay, "one born on the Sabbath"; Codex Vaticanus Sabathai; Codex Alexandrinus Kabbathai = "Sabbateus" of 1 Esdras 9:14): A Levite who opposed (?) Ezra's suggestion that the men who had married foreign wives put them aside (Ezra 10:15). Kuenen, however, renders the phrase `amedhu `al zo'th, of which Asahiel and Jahaziah are the subjects, to mean "stand over," "have charge of," rather than "stand against," "oppose" (Gesammelte Abhandlungen, 247 f); this would make Shabbethai, who was in accord with the two men mentioned above, an ally rather than an opponent of Ezra. We incline toward Kuenen's interpretation in view of the position attained by Shabbethai under Nehemiah--one he would have been unlikely to attain had he been hostile to Ezra. He is mentioned among those appointed to explain the Law (Nehemiah 8:7), and as one of the chiefs of the Levites who had the oversight of "the outward business of the house of God" (Nehemiah 11:16).
Horace J. Wolf
Shachia
Shachia - sha-ki'-a, shak'-i-a (sakheyah (so Baer, Ginsberg); some editions read sakheya', or sakheya'; also shakheyah, and shabheyah. This last reading is favored by the Syrian and the Septuagint (Codex Vaticanus Sabia; Codex Alexandrinus Sebia, but Lucian, Sechia); the forms in "kh" instead of "bh" have the support of the Vulgate, Sechia, "Yahweh has forgotten" (?)): A name in genealogy of Benjamin (1 Chronicles 8:10).
Shaddai
Shaddai - shad'-a-i, shad'-i.
Shade; Shadow; Shadowing
Shade; Shadow; Shadowing - shad, shad'-o, shad'-o-ing (tsel; skia): A shadow is any obscuration of the light and heat with the form of the intervening object, obscurely projected, constantly changing and passing away. "Shadow" is used literally of a roof (Genesis 19:8), of mountains (Judges 9:36), of trees (Judges 9:15, etc.), of wings (Psalms 17:8, etc.), of a cloud (Isaiah 25:5), of a great rock (Isaiah 32:2), of a man (Peter, Acts 5:15), of the shadow on the dial (2 Kings 20:9, etc.), of Jonah's gourd (Jonah 4:5 f). It is used also figuratively (1) of shelter and protection (of man, Genesis 19:8; Song of Solomon 2:3; Isaiah 16:3, etc.; of God, Psalms 36:7; 91:1; Isaiah 4:6, etc.); (2) of anything fleeting or transient, as of the days of man's life on earth (1 Chronicles 29:15; Job 8:9; Psalms 109:23); (3) with the idea of obscurity or imperfection (in Hebrews 8:5; 10:1, of the Law; compare Colossians 2:17); (4) of darkness, gloom; see SHADOW OF DEATH. In James 1:17, we have in the King James Version, "the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning" (aposkiasma); the Revised Version (British and American) "shadow that is cast by turning"; the reference is to the unchangeableness of God as contrasted with the changes of the heavenly bodies. the Revised Version (British and American) has "of the rustling of wings" for "shadowing with wings" in Isaiah 18:1; the American Standard Revised Version has "shade" for "shadow" in various places (Judges 9:15; Job 40:22; Isaiah 4:6, etc.). In Job 40:21-22, for "shady trees" the Revised Version (British and American) has "lotus-trees."
W. L. Walker
Shadow of Death
Shadow of Death - (tsalmaweth): The Hebrew word translated "shadow of death" is used poetically for thick darkness (Job 3:5), as descriptive of Sheol (Job 10:21 f; Job 12:22; 38:17); figuratively of deep distress (Job 12:22; 16:16; 24:17 twice; Job 28:3; 34:22 (in the last three passages the American Standard Revised Version has "thick darkness" and "thick gloom"); Psalms 23:4, the Revised Version margin "deep darkness (and so elsewhere)"; Psalms 44:19; 10, 14; Isaiah 9:2; Jeremiah 2:6; 13:16; Amos 5:8; Matthew 4:16; Luke 1:79, skia thanatou). The Hebrew word is perhaps composed of tsel, "shadow," and maweth, "death," and the idea of "the valley of the shadow of death" was most probably derived from the deep ravines, darkened by over-hanging briars, etc., through which the shepherd had sometimes to lead or drive his sheep to new and better pastures.
W. L. Walker
Shadrach
Shadrach - sha'-drak: The Babylonian name of one of the so-called Hebrew children. Shadrach is probably the Sumerian form of the Bah Kudurru-Aki, "servant of Sin." It has been suggested by Meinhold that we should read Merodach instead of Shadrach. Since there were no vowels in the original Hebrew or Aramaic, and since "sh" and "m" as well as "r" and "d" are much alike in the old alphabet in which Daniel was written, this change is quite possible.
Shadrach and his two companions were trained along with Daniel at the court of Nebuchadnezzar, who had carried all four captive in the expedition against Jerusalem in the 3rd year of Jehoiakim (Daniel 1:1). They all refused to eat of the food provided by Ashpenaz, the master who had been set over them by the king, but preferred to eat pulse (Daniel 1:12). The effect was much to their advantage, as they appeared fairer and fatter in flesh than those who ate of the king's meat. At the end of the appointed time they passed satisfactory examinations, both as to their physical appearance and their intellectual acquirements, so that none were found like them among all with whom the king communed, and they stood before the king (see Daniel 1:1-21).
When Daniel heard that the wise men of Babylon were to be slain because they could not tell the dream of Nebuchadnezzar, after he had gained a respite from the king, he made the thing known to his three companions that they might unite with him in prayer to the God of heaven that they all might not perish with the rest of the wise men of Babylon. After God had heard their prayer and the dream was made known to the king by Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar, at Daniel's request, set Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego over the affairs of the province of Babylon (Daniel 2:1-49). With Meshach and Abed-nego, Shadrach was cast into a fiery furnace, but escaped unhurt (Daniel 3:1-30).
See ABED-NEGO; HANANIAH; SONG OF THE THREE CHILDREN.
R. Dick Wilson
Shady, Trees
Shady, Trees - shad'-i (Job 40:21 f).
See LOTUS TREES.
Shaft
Shaft - shaft: Isaiah 49:2 for chets, "an arrow"; also Exodus 25:31; 37:17; Numbers 8:4 the King James Version for a part of the candlestick of the tabernacle somewhat vaguely designated by the word yarekh, "thigh." The context in the first 2 verses shows that the upright stem or "shaft" is intended, but in Numbers 8:4 a different context has caused the Revised Version (British and American) to substitute "base."
See also ARCHERY; ARMOR,ARMS .
Shagee
Shagee - sha'-ge (shaghe'; Codex Vaticanus Sola; Codex Alexandrinus Sage; the King James Version Shage): The father of Jonathan, one of David's heroes (1 Chronicles 11:34).
Shahapaim
Shahapaim - sha-ha-ra'-im (shacharayim; Codex Vaticanus Saarel; Codex Alexandrinus Saarem): A Benjamite name (1 Chronicles 8:8). The passage is corrupt beyond only the most tentative emendation. "Sharaim" has no connection with the foregoing text. One of the suggested restorations of 1 Chronicles 8:8-9 reads: "And Shaharaim begat in the field of Moab, after he had driven them (i.e. the Moabites) out, from Hodesh his wife, Jobab," etc. (Curtis, International Critical Commentary).
Shahazumah
Shahazumah - sha-ha-zoo'-ma, sha-haz'-oo-ma (shachatsumah; Codex Vaticanus Saleim kata thalassan; Codex Alexandrinus Saseimath; the King James Version Shahazimah, sha-haz'i-mah): A town in the territory of Issachar on the boundary which ran from Tabor to the Jordan (Joshua 19:22). The site, which has not yet been recovered, must be sought, probably, to the Southeast of the mountain.
Shalem
Shalem - sha'-lem (shalem; eis Salem): The word as a place-name occurs only in Genesis 33:18. With Luther, following Septuagint, Peshitta and Vulgate, the King James Version reads "And Jacob came to Shalem, a city of Shechem." the Revised Version (British and American) with the Targums Onqelos and pseudo-Jonathan, the Samaritan codex and the Arabic, reads "came in peace to the city of Shechem." There is a heavy balance of opinion among scholars in favor of the latter reading. It is certainly a remarkable fact, supporting the King James Version, that about 4 miles East of Shechem (Nablus), there is a village bearing the name Salem. If the King James Version is right, this must represent the city referred to; and East of Salem would transpire the events recorded in Genesis 44:1-34. Against this is the old tradition locating Jacob's well and Joseph's tomb near to Shechem. Eusebius (in Onomasticon) gets over the difficulty by identifying Shalem with Shechem.
W. Ewing
Shalim
Shalim - sha'-lim.
See SHAALIM.
Shalishah, Land of
Shalishah, Land of - sha-li'-sha, shal'-i-sha ('erets shalishah; Codex Vaticanus he ge Selcha; Codex Alexandrinus he ge Salissa): If the general indication of the route followed by Saul, given under SHAALIM, is correct, the land of Shalishah (1 Samuel 9:4) will lie to the Northeast of Lydda on the western slope of the range. Baal-shalishah would most likely be in the district, and may indeed have given its name to it. If Conder is right in identifying this city with Khirbet Kefr Thilth, about 19 miles Northeast of Jaffa, it meets well enough the general indication given above. Eusebius, Onomasticon knows the name, but gives no guidance as to where the district is. Baal-shalishah it places in the Thamnite region, 15 miles North of Diospolis (Lydda). No boundaries can be laid down, but probability points to this neighborhood.
W. Ewing
Shallecheth, the Gate
Shallecheth, the Gate - shal'-e-keth, sha-le'-keth (sha`ar shallekheth, i.e. as in margin, "Casting forth"): A gate of the temple "at the causeway that goeth up" (1 Chronicles 26:16)--probably an ascent from the Tyropoeon Valley to the West of the temple. It has been supposed on account of the meaning of the name that the ashes and offal of the temple were cast forth there, but this is very unlikely--they were thrown into the Kidron valley to the East or Southeast. The Septuagint has pastophorion, which seems to point to a building with chambers; in consonance with this Cheyne reads in the Hebrew lishkoth, "(of) the chambers."
E. W. G. Masterman
Shallum (1)
Shallum (1) - shal'-um (shallum, shallum; various forms in the Septuagint): This is the name of not less than 12 Hebrew persons:
(1) The youngest son of Naphtali (1 Chronicles 7:13). He is also called "Shillem" in Genesis 46:24; Numbers 26:49.
(2) A descendant of Simeon, the son of Shaul and the father of Mibsam (1 Chronicles 4:25). He lived in 1618 BC.
(3) The son of Sismai "son" of Shesham of the tribe of Judah (1 Chronicles 2:40-41). He lived in 1300 BC.
(4) A son of Kore, a porter of the sanctuary during the reign of David (1 Chronicles 9:17, 19, 31; Ezra 2:42; Nehemiah 7:45). The name is also written "Meshullam" in Nehemiah 12:25, "Salum" in 1 Esdras 5:28, "Meshelemiah" in 1 Chronicles 26:1-2, 9, and "Shelemiah" in 1 Chronicles 26:14. He lived about 1050 BC.
(5) A son of Zadok and father of Hilkiah, a high priest and ancestor of Ezra the scribe (1 Chronicles 6:12-13; Ezra 7:2). In the works of Josephus he is called "Sallumus"; in 1 Esdras 8:1, "Salem," and in 2 Esdras 1:1, "Salemas."
(6) The 15th king of Israel. See following article.
(7) A son of Bani, a priest who had taken a heathen wife and was compelled by Ezra the scribe to put her away (Ezra 10:42; omitted in 1 Esdras 9:34).
(8) The father of Jehizkiah, an Ephraimite in the time of Ahaz king of Israel (2 Chronicles 28:12).
(9) The husband of the prophetess Huldah (2 Kings 22:14; 2 Chronicles 34:22). He was the keeper of the sacred wardrobe and was probably the uncle of Jeremiah the prophet (Jeremiah 32:7; compare Jeremiah 35:4).
(10) King of Judah and son of Josiah (Jeremiah 22:11; 1 Chronicles 3:15), better known by the name Jehoahaz II. This name he received when he ascended the throne of the kingdom of Judah (2 Chronicles 36:1).
(11) A Levite who was a porter at the time of Ezra (Ezra 10:24; "Sallumus" in 1 Esdras 9:25).
(12) A ruler over a part of Jerusalem and a son of Hallohesh. He with his daughters aided in building the walls of Jerusalem in the time of Nehemiah (Nehemiah 3:12).
S. L. Umbach
Shallum (2)
Shallum (2) - (shallum, shallum, "the requited one" (2 Kings 15:10-15)): The 15th king of Israel, and successor of Zechariah, whom he publicly assassinated in the 7th month of his reign. Nothing more is known of Shallum than that he was a son of Jabesh, which may indicate that he was a Gileadite from beyond Jordan. He is said to have made "a conspiracy" against Zechariah, so was not alone in his crime. The conspirators, however, had but a short-lived success, as, when Shallum had "reigned for the space of a month in Samaria," Menahem, then at Tirzah, one of the minor capitals of the kingdom, went up to Samaria, slew him and took his place.
It was probably at this time that Syria threw off the yoke of tribute to Israel (see JEROBOAM,II ), as when next we meet with that kingdom, it is under its own king and in alliance with Samaria (2 Kings 16:5).
The 10 years of rule given to Menahem (2 Kings 15:17) may be taken to include the few months of military violence under Zechariah and Shallum, and cover the full years 758-750, with portions of years before and after counted as whole ones. The unsuccessful usurpation of Shallum may therefore be put in 758 BC (some date lower).
W. Shaw Caldecott
Shallun
Shallun - shal'-un (shallun, not in the Septuagint): Another form of Shallum, the son of Col-hozeh. He was the ruler of the district of Mizpah. He assisted Nehemiah in building the wall of Jerusalem and in repairing the gate by the Pool of Siloah at the King's Gardens (Nehemiah 3:15).
Shalmai
Shalmai - shal'-mi, shal'-ma-i: the King James Version form in Ezra 2:46 for "Shamlai"; Nehemiah 7:48 "Salmai" (which see).
Shalman
Shalman - shal'-man (shalman): A name of uncertain meaning, found only once in the Old Testament (Hosea 10:14), in connection with a place-name, equally obscure, "as Shalman destroyed Betharbel." Shalman is most commonly interpreted as a contracted form of Shalmaneser, the name of several Assyrian kings. If this explanation is correct, the king referred to cannot be identified. Some have thought of Shalmaneser IV, who is said to have undertaken expeditions against the West in 775 and in 773-772. Others have proposed Shalmaneser V, who attacked Samaria in 725. This, however, is improbable, because the activity of Hosea ceased before Shalmaneser V became king. Shalman has also been identified with Salamanu, a king of Moab in the days of Hosea, who paid tribute to Tiglath-pileser V of Assyria; and with Shalmah, a North Arabian tribe that invaded the Negeb. The identification of BETH-ARBEL (which see) is equally uncertain. From the reference it would seem that the event in question was well known and, therefore, probably one of recent date and considerable importance, but our present historical knowledge does not enable us to connect any of the persons named with the destruction of any of the localities suggested for Beth-arbel. The ancient translations offer no solution; they too seem to have been in the dark.
F. C. Eiselen
Shalmaneser
Shalmaneser - shal-ma-ne'-zer (shalman'ecer; Septuagint Samennasar, Salmandsar): The name of several Assyrian kings. See ASSYRIA; CAPTIVITY. It is Shalmaneser IV who is mentioned in the Biblical history (2 Kings 17:3; 18:9). He succeeded Tiglathpileser on the throne in 727 BC, but whether he was a son of his predecessor, or a usurper, is not apparent. His reign was short, and, as no annals of it have come to light, we have only the accounts contained in 2 Kings for his history. In the passages referred to above, we learn that Hoshea, king of Israel, who had become his vassal, refused to continue the payment of tribute, relying upon help from So, king of Egypt. No help, however, came from Egypt, and Hoshea had to face the chastising forces of his suzerain with his own unaided resources, the result being that he was taken prisoner outside Samaria and most likely carried away to Nineveh. The Biblical narrative goes on to say that the king of Assyria came up throughout all the land, and went up to Samaria and besieged it 3 years. There is reason to believe that, as the siege of Samaria was proceeding, Shalmaneser retired to Nineveh and died, for, when the city was taken in 722 BC, it is Sargon who claims, in his copious annals, to have captured it and carried its inhabitants into captivity. It is just possible that Shalman (Hosea 10:14) is a contraction for Shalmaneser, but the identity of Shalman and of Beth-arbel named in the same passage is not sufficiently made out.
LITERATURE.
Schrader, COT, I, 258 ff; McCurdy, HPM, I, 387 ff.
T. Nicol
Shama
Shama - sha'-ma (shama`): One of David's heroes (1 Chronicles 11:44).
Shamai
Shamai - sham'-a-i.
See SALMAI.
Shamariah
Shamariah - sham-a-ri'-a, sha-mar'-ya.
See SHEMARIAH.
Shambles
Shambles - sham'-b'-lz (makellon): A slaughter-house; then a butcher's stall, meat-market. The word is once used in the New Testament in 1 Corinthians 10:25.
Shame
Shame - sham (bosh, "to be ashamed," bosheth, "shame," qalon; aischune, "ignominy," atimia, "dishonor," and other words): An oft-recurring word in Scripture almost uniformly bound up with a sense of sin and guilt. It is figuratively set forth as a wild beast (Jeremiah 3:24), a Nessus-garment (Jeremiah 3:25), a blight (Jeremiah 20:18), a sin against one's own soul (Habakkuk 2:10), and twice as the condensed symbol of Hebrew abomination--Baal (Jeremiah 11:13 margin; Hosea 9:10 margin; see ISH-BOSHETH). It is bracketed with defeat (Isaiah 30:3), reproach (Psalms 69:7; Isaiah 54:4; Micah 2:6), confusion (Isaiah 6:7), nakedness (Isaiah 47:3; Micah 1:11), everlasting contempt (Daniel 12:2), folly (Proverbs 18:13), cruelty (Isaiah 50:6; Hebrews 12:2), poverty (Proverbs 13:18), nothingness (Proverbs 9:7 the King James Version), unseemliness (1 Corinthians 11:6; 14:35 the King James Version; Ephesians 5:12), and "them that go down to the pit" (Ezekiel 32:25). In the first Biblical reference to this emotion, "shame" appears as "the correlative of sin and guilt" (Delitzsch, New Commentary on Genesis and Biblical Psychology). Shamelessness is characteristic of abandoned wickedness (Philippians 3:19; Jude 1:13, margin "Greek: `shames'"). Manifestly, then, shame is a concomitant of the divine judgment upon sin; the very worst that a Hebrew could wish for an enemy was that he might be clothed with shame (Psalms 109:29), that the judgment of God might rest upon him visibly.
Naturally, to the Hebrew, shame was the portion of those who were idolaters, who were faithless to Yahweh or who were unfriendly to themselves--the elect people of Yahweh. Shame is to come upon Moab because Moab held Israel in derision (Jeremiah 48:39, 27), and upon Edom "for violence against his brother Jacob" (Obadiah 1:10). But also, and impartially, shame is the portion of faithless Israelites who deny Yahweh and follow after strange gods (Ezekiel 7:18; Micah 7:10; Hosea 10:6, and often). But shame, too, comes upon those who exalt themselves against God, who trust in earthly power and the show of material strength (2 Chronicles 32:21; Isaiah 30:3); and upon those who make a mock of righteousness (Job 8:22; Psalms 35:26; 132:18). With a fine sense of ethical distinctions the Biblical writers recognize that in confessing to a sense of shame there is hope for better things. Only in the most desperate cases is there no sense of shame (Hosea 4:18; Zephaniah 3:5; Philippians 3:19; Jude 1:13); in pardon God is said to remove shame (Isaiah 54:4 twice; Isaiah 61:7).
On conditions beyond the grave the Biblical revelation is exceedingly reticent, but here and there are hints that shame waits upon the wicked here and hereafter. Such an expression as that in Daniel (12:2) cannot be ignored, and though the writing itself may belong to a late period and a somewhat sophisticated theological development, the idea is but a reflection of the earlier and more elementary period, when the voice of crime and cruelty went up from earth to be heard in the audience chamber of God (Genesis 4:11; 6:13). In the New Testament there is similar reticence but also similar implications. It cannot be much amiss to say that in the mind of the Biblical writers sin was a shameful thing; that part of the punishment for sin was a consciousness of guilt in the sense of shame; and that from this consciousness of guilt there was no deliverance while the sin was unconfessed and unforgiven. "Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting contempt." From one's own past there is no deliverance, save through contrition of spirit and the grace and forgiveness of God. While the sense of shame persists, or, in other words, while the moral constitution of man's nature remains as it is, there will never be wanting an avenger of sin.
Charles M. Stuart
Shamed
Shamed - sha'-med.
See SHEMED.
Shamefacedness
Shamefacedness - sham'-fast-nes, sham-fas'-ed-nes.
See SHAMEFASTNESS.
Shamefastness
Shamefastness - sham'-fast-nes: The original the King James Version translation of aidos, in Sirach 41:16 and 1 Timothy 2:9. Perhaps half a century later the spelling "shamefacedness" supplanted the better form, and continues in the ordinary editions of the King James Version. The Revised Version (British and American), however, rightly restores "shamefastness."
Shamer
Shamer - sha'-mer.
See SHEMER.
Shamgar
Shamgar - sham'-gar (shamgar):
1. Biblical Account: One of the judges, son of Anath (`anath), in whose days, which preceded the time of Deborah (Judges 5:6-7) and followed those of Ehud, Israel's subjugation was so complete that "the highways were unoccupied, and the travelers walked through byways." The government had become thoroughly disorganized, and apparently, as in the days of Deborah, the people were entirely unprepared for war. Shamgar's improvised weapon with which he helped to "save Israel" is spoken of as an oxgoad. With this he smote of the Philistines 600 men. This is the first mention of the Philistines as troublesome neighbors of the Israelites (Judges 3:31). According to a tradition represented in Josephus (Ant., V, iv, 3), Shamgar died in the year he became judge.
2. Critical Hypotheses: Several writers have challenged the Biblical account on the following grounds: that in Judges 5:1-31 no mention is made of any deliverance; that the name "Shamgar" resembles the name of a Hittite king and the name "Anath" that of a Syrian goddess; that the deed recorded in Judges 3:31 is analogous to that of Samson (Judges 15:15), and that of Shammah, son of Agee (2 Samuel 23:11 f); and lastly, that in a group of Greek manuscripts and other versions this verse is inserted after the account of Samson's exploits. None of these is necessarily inconsistent with the traditional account. Neverthelesss, they have been used as a basis not only for overthrowing the tradition, but also for constructive theories such as that which makes Shamgar a foreign oppressor and not a judge, and even the father of Sisera. There is, of course, no limit to which this kind of interesting speculation cannot lead.
(For a complete account of these views see Moore, "Judges," inICC , 1895, 104 f, and same author in Journal of the American Oriental Society,XIX , 2, 159-60.)
Ella Davis Isaacs
Shamhuth
Shamhuth - sham'-huth.
See SHAMMUAH ,IV .
Shamir (1)
Shamir (1) - sha'-mer (shamir; Sameir):
(1) Mentioned along with Jattir and Socoh (Joshua 15:48) as one of the cities of Judah in the hill country. Possibly it is Khirbet (or Umm) Somerah, 2,000 ft. above sea-level, a site with ancient walls, caves, cisterns and tombs not far West of Debir (edh Dhatheriyeh) and 2 miles North of Anab (`Anab) (Palestine Exploration Fund, III, 262, 286, Sh XX).
(2) A place in the hill country of Ephraim (Judges 10:1) from which came "Tola, the son of Pual, a man of Issachar," who judged Israel 23 years; he died and was buried there. It is an attractive theory (Schwartz) which would identify the place with the semi-fortified and strongly-placed town of Sanur on the road from Nablus to Jenin. A local chieftain in the early part of the last century fortified Sanur and from there dominated the whole district. That Sanur could hardly have been within the bounds of Issachar is an objection, but not necessarily a fatal one. It is noticeable that the Septuagint's Codex Alexandrinus has Samareia, for Shamir (Palestine Exploration Fund, II, Sh XI).
E. W. G. Masterman
Shamir (2)
Shamir (2) - (shamir; Samer): A Kohathite, son of Micah (1 Chronicles 24:24).
Shamlai
Shamlai - sham'-la-i, sham'-li.
See SALMAI.
Shamma
Shamma - sham'-a (shamma'; Codex Vaticanus Sema; Codex Alexandrinus Samma): An Asherite (1 Chronicles 7:37).
Shammah
Shammah - sham'-a (shammah):
(1) The son of Reuel, the son of Esau, a tribal chief of Edom (Genesis 36:13, 17; 1 Chronicles 1:37, Some).
(2) The third son of Jesse and brother of David. Together with his two other brothers he fought under Saul in the campaign against the Philistines and was with the army in the valley of Elah when David slew Goliath (1 Samuel 17:13 ff). One redactor states that he was a witness of the anointing of David by Samuel (1 Samuel 16:1-13). He was the father of Jonadab, the friend of Amnon (2 Samuel 13:3 ff), and that Jonathan whose victory over a Philistine giant is narrated in 2 Samuel 21:20 ff was also his son. His name is rendered as "Shammah" (1 Samuel 16:9; 17:13), "Shimeah" (2 Samuel 13:3, 12), "Shimei" (2 Samuel 21:21), and "Shimea" (1 Chronicles 2:13; 20:7).
(3) The son of Agee, a Hararite, one of the "three mighty men" of David (2 Samuel 23:11, Septuagint Samaia), who held the field against the Philistines. The parallel passage (1 Chronicles 11:10 ff) ascribes this deed to Eleazar, the son of Dodo. The succeeding incident (2 Samuel 23:13 ff), namely, the famous act of three of David's heroes who risked their lives to bring their leader water from the well of Bethlehem, has frequently been credited to Shammah and two other members of "the three"; but the three warriors are plainly said (2 Samuel 23:13) to belong to "the thirty"; 2 Samuel 23:33 should read "Jonathan, son of Shammah, the Hararite." Jonathan, one of David's "thirty," was a son of Shammah; the word "son" has been accidentally omitted (Driver, Budde, Kittel, etc.). The parallel passage (1 Chronicles 11:34) has "son of Shagee," which is probably, a misreading for "son of Agee." Lucian's version, "son of Shammah," is most plausible. "Shimei the son of Ela" (1 Kings 4:18) should also appear in this passage if Lucian's reading of "Ela" for "Agee" (2 Samuel 23:11) be correct.
(4) A Harodite (2 Samuel 23:25, 33), i.e. probably a native of `Ain-charod (`Ain Jalud, Judges 7:1; see HAROD). One of "the thirty" and captain of Solomon's 5th monthly course. In the parallel lists (1 Chronicles 11:27) he is called "the Harorite" (this last being a scribal error for Harodite) and "Shamhuth the Izrahate" (1 Chronicles 27:8).
Horace J. Wolf
Shammai
Shammai - sham'a-i, sham'-i (shammay):
(1) A Jerahmeelite (1 Chronicles 2:28, 32).
(2) The son of Rekem and father of Maon (1 Chronicles 2:44 ff).
(3) A Judahite (1 Chronicles 4:17).
Shammoth
Shammoth - sham'-oth, sham'-oth.
See SHAMMAH, (4).
Shammua; Shammuah
Shammua; Shammuah - sha-mu'-a, sham'-u-a (shammua`):
(1) The Reubenite spy (Numbers 13:4, Samouel, and other forms).
(2) One of David's sons (2 Samuel 5:14; 1 Chronicles 14:4, Sammous). In 1 Chronicles 3:5 he is called "Shimea."
(3) A Levite (Nehemiah 11:17); he is called "Shemaiah" in 1 Chronicles 9:16.
(4) The head of a priestly family (Nehemiah 12:18); a contemporary of Joiakim.
Shamsherai
Shamsherai - sham'-she-ri, sham-she-ra'-i (shamsheray): A Benjamite (1 Chronicles 8:26).
Shape
Shape - shap: In the King James Version the translation of eidos, "form," "appearance" (Luke 3:22; John 5:37), and of homoioma, "likeness," "resemblance" (Revelation 9:7). The meaning of these words is not so much "tangible shape," in which sense we use the word in modern English, but rather "aspect," "appearance," the looks of a thing or a person. This is even the case where the word is joined with the adjective somatikos, "bodily" as in the passage Luke 3:22, "The Holy Spirit descended in a bodily form (i.e. "in a corporeal appearance," the King James Version "in a bodily shape"), as a dove, upon him." The second passage also refers to the "appearance" of God, and cannot therefore be regarded as material shape: "Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his form" (the King James Version "shape") (John 5:37). As has been seen from the above quotations, the Revised Version (British and American) which retains the translation "shape" for homoioma, has translated eidos with "form," which also serves to render several other Greek synonyms, such as morphe (Mark 16:12; Philippians 2:6 f), morphosis (Romans 2:20; 2 Timothy 3:5), tupos (the Revised Version margin "pattern" Romans 6:17), and hupotuposis (the Revised Version (British and American) "pattern," 2 Timothy 1:13). In the King James Version Wisdom of Solomon 18:1 "shape" translates morphe, the Revised Version (British and American) "form."
H. L. E. Luering
Shapham
Shapham - sha'-fam (shapham; Sapham, Sabat): Name of a Gadite chief, who had the second place in command of his tribe (1 Chronicles 5:12). So far as the fragmentary genealogies are intelligible, they seem to indicate that Shapham and his chief, Joel, lived in the time of Saul and shared in the war against the Hagrites (1 Chronicles 5:7-10, 18-22), but it is to be noted that these lists were first recorded between the years 750 and 740 BC, just before the eastern tribes were carried into captivity.
Shaphan
Shaphan - sha'-fan (shaphan, "rockbadger," English Versions of the Bible "coney"; Saphphan): An old totem clan name (so W.R. Smith; compare, however, the article TOTEMISM; Gray, Gray, Studies in Hebrew Proper Names, 103 ff, and Jacob's Studies in Biblical Archaeology, 84 ff).
(1) Son of Azaliah and scribe of King Josiah. He received from Hilkiah the Book of the Law which had been found in the Temple (2 Kings 22:3 ff; 2 Chronicles 34:8-28). It was from Shaphan's lips that Josiah heard the Law read. Shaphan was also one of those sent by the king to the prophetess Huldah (2 Kings 22:1-20; 2 Chronicles 34:1-33). He was undoubtedly one of the staunchest supporters of Josiah in his work of reform. He was the father of Ahikam (2 Kings 22:12; 2 Chronicles 34:20; Jeremiah 26:24), who befriended and protected the prophet Jeremiah. Another son, Elasah, was one of the two men entrusted by Jeremiah with his letter to the captives in Babylon (Jeremiah 29:3). A third son, Gemariah, vainly tried to prevent King Jehoiakim from burning "the roll" (Jeremiah 36:10-11, 12, 25). The Micaiah of Jeremiah 36:11-12, and Gedaliah, the governor of Judea after the captivity of 586 BC, were his grandsons (Jeremiah 39:14).
(2) Perhaps the father of Jaazaniah, one of the 70 men whom Ezekiel saw, in his vision of the Temple, sacrificing to idols (Ezekiel 8:11).
Horace J. Wolf
Shaphat
Shaphat - sha'-fat (shaphat):iah, one of the 70 men whom Ezekiel saw, in his vision of the Temple, sacrificing to idols (Ezekiel 8:11).
(1) The Simeonite spy (Numbers 13:5, Saphat).
(2) The father of the prophet Elisha (1 Kings 19:16; 2 Kings 3:11, Septuagint Saphath).
(3) A name in the royal genealogy of Judah (1 Chronicles 3:22).
(4) A Gadite (1 Chronicles 5:12).
(5) One of David's herdsmen (1 Chronicles 27:29).