International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Shuni; Shunites — Skin
Shuni; Shunites
Shuni; Shunites - shoo'-ni, shoo'-nits. (shuni): One of the sons of Gad and his descendants (Genesis 46:16; Numbers 26:15).
Shupham; Shuphamites
Shupham; Shuphamites - shoo'-fam, shoo'-fam-its.
See SHEPHUPHAM.
Shuppim
Shuppim - shup'-im (shuppim):
(1) One of the descendants of Benjamin (1 Chronicles 7:12, 15).
(2) One of the porters in the temple (1 Chronicles 26:16).
See MUPPIM; SHEPHUPHAM.
Shur
Shur - shur, shoor (shur; Sour): The name of a desert East of the Gulf of Suez. The word means a "wall," and may probably refer to the mountain wall of the Tih plateau as visible from the shore plains. In Genesis 16:7 Hagar at Kadesh (`Ain Qadis) (see Genesis 16:14) is said to have been "in the way to Shur." Abraham also lived "between Kadesh and Shur" (Genesis 20:1). The position of Shur is defined (Genesis 25:18) as being "opposite Egypt on the way to Assyria." After crossing the Red Sea (Exodus 15:4) the Hebrews entered the desert of Shur (Exodus 15:22), which extended southward a distance of three days' journey. It is again noticed (1 Samuel 15:7) as being opposite Egypt, and (1 Samuel 27:8) as near Egypt. There is thus no doubt of its situation, on the East of the Red Sea, and of the Bitter Lakes.
Brugsch, however, proposed to regard Shur ("the wall") as equivalent to the Egyptian anbu ("wall"), the name of a fortification of some kind apparently near Kantarah] (see MIGDOL (2)), probably barring the entrance to Egypt on the road from Pelusium to Zoan. The extent of this "wall" is unknown, but Brugsch connects it with the wall mentioned by Diodorus Siculus (i.4) who wrote about 8 BC, and who attributed it to Sesostris (probably Rameses II) who defended "the east side of Egypt against the irruptions of the Syrians and Arabians, by a wall drawn from Pelusium through the deserts as far as to Heliopolis, for a space of 1,500 furlongs." Heliopolis lies 90 miles (not 188) Southwest of Pelusium: this wall, if it existed at all, would have run on the edge of the desert which extends North of Wady Tumeilat from Kantarah] to Tell el-Kebir; but this line, on the borders of Goshen, is evidently much too far West to have any connection with the desert of Shur East of the Gulf of Suez. See Budge, Hist. Egypt, 90; Brugsch, Egypt under the Pharaohs, abridged edition, 320.
C. R. Conder
Shushan
Shushan - shoo'-shan (shushan; Sousan, Sousa):
1. Position, Eytmology and Forms of Its Name: This city, the Susu or Susan of the Babylonians, and the native (Elamite) Susun, is the modern Shush (Sus) in Southwestern Persia, a series of ruin-mounds on the banks of the river Kerkha. The ancient etymologies ("city of lilies" or "of horses") are probably worthless, as an etymology in the language of the place would rather be expected. Sayce therefore connects the name with sassa, meaning "former," and pointing to some such meaning as "the old" city. It is frequently mentioned in the Babylonian inscriptions of the 3rd millennium BC, and is expressed by the characters for the goddess Ishtar and for "cedar," implying that it was regarded as the place of the "divine grove" (see 5, below). In later days, the Assyrians substituted for the second character, that having the value of ses, possibly indicating its pronunciation. Radau (Early Babylonian History, 236) identifies Shushan (Susa) with the Sasa of the Babylonian king Kuri-galzu (14th century BC, if the first of the name), who dedicates to the Babylonian goddess Ninlil an inscription of a certain Siatu, who had, at an earlier date, dedicated it to Ishtar for the life of the Babylonian king Dungi (circa 2500 BC).
2. The Ruins: The surface still covered with ruins is about 2,000 hectares (4,940 acres), though this is but a fraction compared with the ancient extent of the city, which is estimated to have been between 12,000 and 15,000 hectares (29,640-37,000 acres). Though considerable, the extent of Susa was small compared with Nineveh and Babylon. The ruins are divided by the French explorers into four tracts: (1) The Citadel-mound (West), of the Achemenian period (5th century BC), circa 1,476 by 820 ft., dominating the plain (height circa 124 ft.). (2) The Royal City on the East of the Citadel, composed of two parts: the Apadana (Northeast), and a nearly triangular tract extending to the East and the South. This contains the remains of the palace of Darius and his successors, and occupies rather more than 123 acres. The palace proper and the throne-room were separated from the rest of the official buildings. (3) The City, occupied by artisans, merchants, etc. (4) The district on the right bank, similarly inhabited. This in ancient times extended into all the lower plain, between the Shaour and the Kerkha. Besides these, there were many isolated ruins, and the suburbs contained a number of villages and separate constructions.
3. The "Royal City," "The Citadel," and the Ruins Therein:
Most of the constructions at Susa are of the Persian period. In the northern part of the Royal City lie the remains of the Apadana, the only great monument of which remains were found on the level. The principal portion consisted of a great hall of columns, known as the throne-room of Artaxeres Mnemon. It replaced an earlier structure by Darius, which was destroyed by fire in the time of Artaxerxes I. The columns apparently had capitals of the style common in Persia--the foreparts of two bulls kneeling back to back. In the Citadel a palace built by Xerxes seems to have existed, the base of one of his columns having been found there. Bricks bearing the inscriptions of early Elamite kings, and the foundations of older walls, testify to the antiquity of the occupation of this part. According to the explorers, this was the portion of the city reserved for the temples.
4. The Monuments Discovered: The number of important antiquities found on the site is considerable. Among the finds may be mentioned the triumphal stele of Naram-Sin, king of Agade (3rd-4th millennium BC); the statuettes of the Babylonian king Dungi (circa 2360 BC); the reliefs and inscriptions of the Elamite king Ba(?)-sa-Susinak (circa 2340 BC); the obelisk inscribed with the laws of Hammurabi of Babylon; the bronze bas-relief of the Elamite king Sutruk-Nahhunte (circa 1120 BC), who carried off from Babylonia the stelae of Naram-Sin and Hammurabi above mentioned, together with numerous other Babylonian monuments; the stele of Adda-hamiti-In-Susnak, of a much later date, together with numerous other objects of art and inscriptions--a most precious archaeological find.
5. Assur-bani-apli's Description of the City: Shushan passed through many serious crises, one of the severest being its capture and destruction by the armies of the Assyrian king Assur-bani-apli about 640 BC. According to his account, the ziqqurat or temple-tower of Susa was built of enameled brick imitating lapis-lazuli, and was adorned with pinnacles of bright bronze. The god of the city was Susinak, who dwelt in a secret place, and none ever saw the form of his divinity. Lagamaru (Laomer) and five other of the city's deities were adored only by kings, and their images, with those of 12 more (worshipped by the people), were carried off as spoil to Assyria. Winged bulls and genii adorned Susa's temples, and figures of wild bulls protected the entrances to their shrines. Other noteworthy things were the sacred groves into which no stranger was allowed to enter, and the burial-places of the Elamite kings. After recovering from the blow inflicted by the Assyrians, Shushan ultimately regained its old importance, and, as the summer residence of the Persian kings, became
the home of Ahasuerus and Queen Esther (Nehemiah 1:1; Esther 1:2, 5; 2:3; 3:15; 9:11 ff; Daniel 8:2; Additions to Esther 11:3).
LITERATURE.
See Perrot et Chipiez, Histoire de l'art dans l'antiquite, volume V, Perse, 1890; de Morgan, Delegation en Perse (Memoires), 1900, etc.; Histoire et travaux de la delegation en Perse, 1905; article "Elamites" in Hastings ERE; article ELAM in this work.
T. G. Pinches
Shushan Eduth
Shushan Eduth - shoo'-shan e'-duth.
See SONG; PSALMS.
Shushanchites
Shushanchites - shoo-shan'-kits (shushanekhaye' (Aramaic); Codex Vaticanus Sousunachaioi; the King James Version Susanchites): Colonists in Samaria whose original home was in Shushan (Ezra 4:9).
Shuthalhites
Shuthalhites - shoo-thal'-hits, sho'-thal-hits.
See SHUTHELAH.
Shuthelah; Shuthelahites
Shuthelah; Shuthelahites - shoo-the'-la, shoo'-the-la, shoo-the'-la-hits, shoo'-the-la-hits (shuthalchi): A son of Ephraim (Numbers 26:35-36; compare 1 Chronicles 7:20-21), and his descendants.
See GENEALOGY.
Shuttle
Shuttle - shut'-'l.
See WEAVING.
Sia; Siaha
Sia; Siaha - si'-a, si'-a-ha (ci'a'): One of the remnant which returned from captivity (Nehemiah 7:47; Ezra 2:44).T+>shuthalchi): A son of Ephraim (Numbers 26:35-36; compare 1 Chronicles 7:20-21), and his descendants.
Sibbecai, Sibbechai
Sibbecai, Sibbechai - sib'-e-ki, sib-e-ka'-i (cibbekhay): One of the valiant men in David's army (2 Samuel 21:18; 1 Chronicles 11:29; 20:4; 27:11).
Sibboleth
Sibboleth - sib'o-leth (cibboleth).
See SHIBBOLETH.
Sibmah
Sibmah - sib'-ma.
See SEBAM.
Sibraim
Sibraim - sib-ra'-im, sib'-ra-im (cibhrayim; Codex Vaticanus Sebram; Codex Alexandrinus Sephram): A place named as on the boundary of Palestine in Ezekiel's ideal delineation, "between the border of Damascus and the border of Hamath" (Ezekiel 47:16). It may possibly be represented by the modern Khirbet Sanbariyeh on the west bank of Nahr el-Chasbany, about 3 miles Southeast of `Abil.
Sibylline Oracles
Sibylline Oracles - sib'-i-lin, -lin or'-a-k'-lz.
See APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE, sec. B, V.
Sicarii
Sicarii - si-ka'-ri-i.
See ASSASSINS.
Sichem
Sichem - si'-kem (shekhem). the King James Version in Genesis 12:6.
See SHECHEM.
Sick; Sickness
Sick; Sickness - sik, sik'-nes (chalah (Genesis 48:1, etc.), choli (Deuteronomy 28:61, etc.), tachalu' (Deuteronomy 29:21, etc.), machalah (Exodus 23:25, etc.), daweh (Leviticus 15:33, etc.), 'anash (2 Samuel 12:15, etc.); astheneo (Matthew 10:8, etc.;. compare 2 Maccabees 9:22), [@kakos echon (Luke 7:2), kakos echontas (Matthew 4:24, etc.), arrhostos (Sirach 7:35; Matthew 14:14, etc.), arrhostema (Sirach 10:10, etc.), with various cognates, kamno (James 5:15); Latin morbus (2 Esdras 8:31)): Compared with the number of deaths recorded in the historical books of the Bible the instances in which diseases are mentioned are few. "Sick" and "sickness" (including "disease," etc.) are the translations of 6 Hebrew and 9 Greek words and occur 56 times in the Old Testament and 57 times in the New Testament. The number of references in the latter is significant as showing how much the healing of the sick was characteristic of the Lord's ministry. The diseases specified are varied. Of infantile sickness there is an instance in Bath-sheba's child (2 Samuel 12:15), whose disease is termed 'anash, not improbably trismus nascentium, a common disease in Palestine. Among adolescents there are recorded the unspecified sickness of Abijah (1 Kings 14:1), of the widow's son at Zarephath (1 Kings 17:17), the sunstroke of the Shunammite's son (2 Kings 4:19), the epileptic boy (Matthew 17:15), Jairus' daughter (Matthew 9:18), and the nobleman's son (John 4:46). At the other extreme of life Jacob's death was preceded by sickness (Genesis 48:1). Sickness resulted from accident (Ahaziah, 2 Kings 1:2), wounds (Joram, 2 Kings 8:29), from the violence of passion (Amnon, 2 Samuel 13:2), or mental emotion (Daniel 8:27); see also in this connection Song of Solomon 2:5; 5:8. Sickness the result of drunkenness is mentioned (Hosea 7:5), and as a consequence of famine (Jeremiah 14:18) or violence (Micah 6:13). Daweh or periodic sickness is referred to (Leviticus 15:33; 20:18), and an extreme case is that of Luke 8:43.
In some examples the nature of the disease is specified, as Asa's disease in his feet (1 Kings 15:23), for which he sought the aid of physicians in vain (2 Chronicles 16:12). Hezekiah and Job suffered from sore boils, Jehoram from some severe dysenteric attack (2 Chronicles 21:19), as did Antiochus Epiphanes (2 Maccabees 9:5). Probably the sudden and fatal disease of Herod was similar, as in both cases there is reference to the presence of worms (compare Acts 12:23 and 2 Maccabees 9:9). The disease of Publius' father was also dysentery (Acts 28:8). Other diseases specified are paralysis (Matthew 8:6; 9:2), and fever (Matthew 8:14). Not improbably the sudden illness of the young Egyptian at Ziklag (1 Samuel 30:11), and the illness of Ben-hadad which weakened him so that he could not resist the violence of Hazael, were also the common Palestine fever (2 Kings 8:15) of whose symptoms and effects there is a graphic description in Psalms 38:1-22. Unspecified fatal illnesses were those of Elisha (2 Kings 13:14), Lazarus (John 11:1), Tabitha (Acts 9:37). In the language of the Bible, leprosy is spoken of as a defilement to be cleansed, rather than as a disease to be cured.
The proverb concerning the sick quoted by the Lord at Capernaum (Mark 2:17) has come down to us in several forms in apocryphal and rabbinical writings (Babha' Qamma' 26:13; Sanhedhrin 176), but is nowhere so terse as in the form in which He expresses it. The Lord performed His healing of the sick by His word or touch, and one of the most emphatic charges which He gave to His disciples when sending them out was to heal the sick. One of the methods used by them, the anointing with oil, is mentioned in Mark 6:13 and enjoined by James (5:15). In later times the anointing which was at first used as a remedial agent became a ceremonial in preparation for death, one of the seven sacraments of the Roman church (Aquinas, Summa Theologia suppl. ad Piii. 29).
The duty of visiting the sick is referred to in Ezekiel 34:4, 16, and by the Lord in the description of the Judgment scene (Matthew 25:36, 43). It is inculcated in several of the rabbinical tracts. "He that visits the sick lengthens his life, he who refrains shortens it," says Rabbi Ischanan in Nedharim 29. In Shulchan `Arukh, Yoreh De`ah there is a chapter devoted to this duty, which is regarded as incumbent on the Jew, even though the sick person be a Gentile (Gittin 61a). The church's duty to the sick, so long neglected, has, within the last century, been recognized in the mission field, and has proved, in heathen lands, to be the most important of all pioneer agressive methods.
While we find that the apostles freely exercised their gifts of healing, it is noteworthy that we read of the sickness of two of Paul's companions, Epaphroditus (Philippians 2:26) and Trophimus (2 Timothy 4:20), for whose recovery he seems to have used no other means than prayer.
See also DISEASE.
Alexander Macalister
Sickle
Sickle - sik'-'l (chermesh (Deuteronomy 16:9; 23:25), maggal; compare Arabic minjal (Jeremiah 50:16; Joel 3:13); drepanon (Mark 4:29; Revelation 14:14-19)): Although the ancients pulled much of their grain by hand, we know that they also used sickles. The form of this instrument varied, as is evidenced by the Egyptian sculptures. The earliest sickle was probably of wood, shaped like the modern scythe, although much smaller, with the cutting edge made of sharp flints set into the wood. Sickle flints were found at Tel el-Chesy. Crescent-shaped iron sickles were found in the same mound. In Palestine and Syria the sickle varies in size. It is usually made wholly of iron or steel and shaped much like the instrument used in western lands. The smaller-sized sickles are used both for pruning and for reaping.
James A. Patch
Sicyon
Sicyon - sish'-i-on (Sikuon, Sukuon, Sukion): Mentioned in 1 Maccabees 15:23 in the list of countries and cities to which Lucius the Roman consul (probably Lucius Calpurnius Piso, 139 BC) wrote, asking them to be friendly to the Jews. The Jewish dispersion had already taken place, and Jews were living in most of the seaports and cities of Asia Minor, Greece and Egypt (compare Sib Or 3:271, circa 140BC , and Philo).
Sicyon was situated 18 miles West of Corinth on the south side of the Gulf of Corinth. Its antiquity and ancient importance are seen by its coins still extant, dating from the 5th century. Though not as important as Corinth in its sea trade, the burning of that city in 143 BC, and the favor shown to Sicyon by the Roman authorities in adding to its territory and assigning to it the direction of the Isthmian games, increased its wealth and influence for a time.
S. F. Hunter
Siddim, Vale of
Siddim, Vale of - sid'-im, (`emeq ha-siddim; Septuagint he pharangx (or koilas) he haluke): The place mentioned in Genesis 14:3-8 as being the scene of encounter between Chedorlaomer and his allies with the kings of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim and Zoar. In 14:3 it is identified with the Salt Sea, and in 14:10 it is said to have been full of slime pits ("bitumen").
According to the traditional view, the Vale of Siddim was at the southern end of the Dead Sea. But in recent years a number of eminent authorities have maintained that it was at the northern end of the Dead Sea, in the vicinity of Jericho. Their argument has mainly been drawn from incidental references in the scene (Genesis 13:1-13) describing the parting of Lot and Abram, and again in the account of Moses' vision from Pisgah (Deuteronomy 34:3).
In the account of Abram and Lot, it is said that from Bethel they saw "all the Plain of the Jordan, that it was well watered everywhere, before Yahweh destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah." The word here translated "plain" means "circle," and well describes the view which one has of the plain about Jericho from Bethel as he looks down the valley past Ai. But it seems to go beyond the text to assume that the Vale of Siddim was within that circle of vision, for it is said in Genesis 13:12 simply that Lot dwelt "in the cities of the Plain, and moved his tent as far as Sodom." In the vision of Moses, likewise, we have a very general and condensed description, in which it is said that he was shown "the Plain of the valley of Jericho, the city of palm-trees, unto Zoar," which, as we learn from Genesis 19:22, was not far from the Vale of Siddim. It is true that from the traditional site of Pisgah the south end of the Dead Sea could not be seen. But we are by no means sure that the traditional site of Pisgah is the true one, or that the import of this language should be restricted to the points which are actually within range of vision.
The tendency at the present time is to return to the traditional view that the Vale of Siddim was at the south end of the Dead Sea. This is supported by the fact that Jebel Usdum, the salt mountain at the southwest corner of the Dead Sea, still bears the name of Sodom, Usdum being simply another form of the word. A still stronger argument, however, is drawn from the general topographical and geological conditions. In the first place, Zoar, to which Lot is said to have fled, was not far away. The most natural site for it is near the mouth of the Wady Kerak, which comes down from Moab into the southern end of the Dead Sea (see ZOAR); and this city was ever afterward spoken of as a Moabite city, which would not have been the case if it had been at the north end of the sea. It is notable in Joshua 13:15-21, where the cities given to Reuben are enumerated, that, though the slopes of Pisgah are mentioned, Zoar is not mentioned.
In Genesis 14:1-24, where the battle between Amraphel and his allies with Sodom and the other cities of the plain is described, the south end of the Dead Sea comes in logical order in the progress of their campaign, and special mention is made of the slime or bitumen pits which occurred in the valley, and evidently played an important part in the outcome of the battle.
At the south end of the Dead Sea there is an extensive circle or plain which is better supplied with water for irrigation than is the region about Jericho, and which, on the supposition of slight geological changes, may have been extremely fertile in ancient times; while there are many indications of such fertility in the ruins that have been described by travelers about the mouth of the Kerak and other localities nearby. The description, therefore, of the fertility of the region in the Vale of Siddim may well have applied to this region at the time of Lot's entrance into it.
There are very persistent traditions that great topographical changes took place around the south end of the Dead Sea in connection with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, while the opinion has been universally prevalent among the earlier historical writers that the site of Sodom and Gomorrah is beneath the waters of the Dead Sea.
Geological investigations, so far from disproving these traditions, render them altogether possible and credible. There is a remarkable contrast between the depths of the north end of the Dead Sea and of the south end. Near the north end the depth descends to 1,300 ft., whereas for many miles out from the south end it is very shallow, so that at low water a ford exists, and is occasionally used, from the north end of the salt mountain across to el-Lisan.
The precipitous salt cliffs of Jebel Usdum which border the southwest corner of the Dead Sea would indicate that, in comparatively recent times, there had been abrupt subsidence of a good many feet in the bottom of the Dead Sea at that end.
Such subsidences of limited areas and in connection with earthquakes are by no means uncommon. In 1819 an area of 2,000 square miles about the delta of the Indus sank beneath the level of the sea, so that the tops of the houses were barely seen above the water. A smaller area in the delta of the Selenga River sank during the last century beneath the waters of Lake Baikal. Professor R.S. Tarr of Cornell University has recently described the effect of an earthquake on the shores of Alaska, in which there was a change of level of 47 ft.
More probably (see ARABAH; DEAD SEA) there has been a rise in the waters of the Dead Sea since Abraham's time, caused by the encroachment upon the original area of evaporation by the deltas which have been pushed into the main part of the depression by the Jordan, and various smaller streams descending from the highlands on either side. In consequence of these encroachments, the equilibrium between precipitation and evaporation could be maintained only by a rise in the water causing it to spread over the shallow shelf at the south end, thus covering a large part of the Vale of Siddim with the shoal water now found between el-Lisan and Jebel Usdum.
George Frederick Wright
Side
Side - si'-de (Side): An ancient town of Pamphylia, occupying a triangular promontory on the coast. It was one of the towns to which a letter favorable to the Jews was sent by the Roman consul Lucius (1 Maccabees 15:23). The town seems to have been of considerable antiquity, for it had existed long before it fell into the possession of Alexander the Great, and for a time it was the metropolis of Pamphylia. Off the coast the fleet of Antiochus was defeated by the Rhodians. During the 1st century, Side was noted as one of the chief ports of pirates who disposed of much of their booty there. The ruins of the city, which are now very extensive, bear the name Eski Adalia, but among them there are no occupied houses. The two harbors protected by a sea wall may still be traced, but they are now filled with sand. The wall on the land side of the city was provided with a gate which was protected with round towers; the walls themselves are of Greek-Roman type. Within the walls the more important of the remains are three theaters near the harbors, and streets with covered porticoes leading from the city gate to the harbors. Without the walls, the street leading to the city gate is lined with sarcophagi, and among the shrubbery of the neighboring fields are traces of many buildings and of an aqueduct.
E. J. Banks
Sides
Sides - sidz (yarekhah, "thigh," "flank"): the Revised Version (British and American) substitutes "innermost parts" for the King James Version "sides" in Jonah 1:5; compare 1 Samuel 24:3.
Sidon (1)
Sidon (1) - si'-don (tsidhon): The oldest son of Canaan (Genesis 10:15).
Sidon (2)
Sidon (2) - si'-don (tsidhon; Sidon; the King James Version, Sidon and Zidon; the Revised Version (British and American) SIDON only):
1. Location and Distinction: One of the oldest Phoenician cities, situated on a narrow plain between the range of Lebanon and the sea, in latitude 33 degrees 34 minutes nearly. The plain is well watered and fertile, about 10 miles long, extending from a little North of Sarepta to the Bostrenus (Nahr el-'Auly). The ancient city was situated near the northern end of the plain, surrounded with a strong wall. It possessed two harbors, the northern one about 500 yds. long by 200 wide, well protected by little islets and a breakwater, and a southern about 600 by 400 yards, surrounded on three sides by land, but open to the West, and thus exposed in bad weather. The date of the founding of the city is unknown, but we find it mentioned in the Tell el-Amarna Letters in the 14th century BC, and in Genesis 10:19 it is the chief city of the Canaanites, and Joshua (Joshua 11:8) calls it Great Sidon. It led all the Phoenician cities in its early development of maritime affairs, its sailors being the first to launch out into the open sea out of sight of land and to sail by night, guiding themselves by the stars. They were the first to come into contact with the Greeks and we find the mention of them several times in Homer, while other Phoenician towns are not noticed. Sidon became early distinguished for its manufactures and the skill of its artisans, such as beautiful metal-work in silver and bronze and textile fabrics embroidered and dyed with the famous purple dye which became known as Tyrian, but which was earlier produced at Sidon. Notices of these choice articles are found in Homer, both in the Iliad and the Odyssey. Sidon had a monarchical form of government, as did all the Phoenician towns, but it also held a sort of hegemony over those to the South as far as the limit of Phoenicia. It likewise made one attempt to establish an inland colony at Laish or Dan, near the headwaters of the Jordan, but this ended in disaster (Judges 18:7, 27-28). The attempt was not renewed, but many colonies were established over-sea. Citium, in Cyprus, was one of the earliest.
2. Historical: (1) The independence of Sidon was lost when the kings of the XVIIIth and XIXth Dynasties of Egypt added Palestine and Syria to their dominions (1580-1205 BC). The kings of Sidon were allowed to remain on the throne as long as they paid tribute, and perhaps still exercised authority over the towns that had before been subject to them. When the power of Egypt declined under Amenhotep IV (1375-1358), the king of Sidon seems to have thrown off the yoke, as appears from the Tell el-Amarna Letters. Rib-addi of Gebal writes to the king of Egypt that Zimrida, king of Sidon, had joined the enemy, but Zimrida himself claims, in the letters he wrote, to be loyal, declaring that the town belonging to him had been taken by the Khabiri (Tab. 147). Sidon, with the other towns, eventually became independent of Egypt, and she retained the hegemony of the southern towns and perhaps added Dor, claimed by the Philistines, to her dominion. This may have been the reason for the war that took place about the middle of the 12th century BC, in which the Philistines took and plundered Sidon, whose inhabitants fled to Tyre and gave the latter a great impetus. Sidon, however, recovered from the disaster and became powerful again. The Book of Judges claims that Israel was oppressed by Sidon (10:12), but it is probable Sidon stands here for Phoenicia in general, as being the chief town.
(2) Sidon submitted to the Assyrian kings as did the Phoenician cities generally, but revolted against Sennacherib and again under Esar-haddon. The latter destroyed a large part of the city and carried off most of the inhabitants, replacing them by captives from Babylon and Elam, and renamed it Ir-Esar-had-don ("City of Esar-haddon"). The settlers readily mingled with the Phoenicians, and Sidon rose to power again when Assyria fell, was besieged by Nebuchadnezzar at the time of his siege of Jerusalem and Tyre, and was taken, having lost about half of its inhabitants by plague. The fall of Babylon gave another short period of independence, but the Persians gained control without difficulty, and Sidon was prominent in the Persian period as the leading naval power among the Phoenicians who aided their suzerain in his attacks upon Greece. In 351 BC, Sidon rebelled under Tabnit II (Tennes), and called in the aid of Greek mercenaries to the number of 10,000; but Ochus, the Persian king, marched against him with a force of 300,000 infantry and 30,000 horse, which so frightened Tabnit that he betrayed the city to save his own life. But the citizens, learning of the treachery, first burned their fleet and then their houses, perishing with their wives and children rather than fall into the hands of Ochus, who butchered all whom he seized, Tabnit among them. It is said that 40,000 perished in the flames. A list of the kings of Sidon in the Persian period has been recovered from the inscriptions and the coins, but the dates of their reigns are not accurately known. The dynasty of the known kings begins with Esmunazar I, followed by Tabnit I, Amastoreth; Esmunazar II, Strato I (Bodastart), Tabnit II (Tennes) and Strato II. Inscriptions from the temple of Esmun recently discovered give the name of a Bodastart and a son Yatonmelik, but whether the first is one of the Stratos above mentioned or a third is uncertain; also whether the son ever reigned or not. As Bodastart calls himself the grandson of Esmunazar, he is probably Strato I who reigned about 374-363 BC, and hence, his grandfather, Esmunazar I, must have reigned in 400 BC or earlier. Strato II was on the throne when Alexander took possession of Phoenicia and made no resistance to him, and even aided him in the siege of Tyre, which shows that Sidon had recovered after the terrible disaster it suffered in the time of Ochus. It perhaps looked upon the advance of Alexander with content as its avenger. The destruction of Tyre increased the importance of Sidon, and after the death of Alexander it became attached to the kingdom of the Ptolemies and remained so until the victory of Antiochus III over Scopas (198 BC), when it passed to the Seleucids and from them to the Romans, who granted it a degree of autonomy with native magistrates and a council, and it was allowed to coin money in bronze.
3. New Testament Mention: Sidon comes into view several times in the New Testament; first when Christ passed into the borders of Tyre and Sidon and healed the daughter of the Syro-phoenician woman (Mark 7:24-30); also when Herod Agrippa I received a delegation from Tyre and Sidon at Caesarea (Acts 12:20), where it appears to have been outside his jurisdiction. Paul, on his way to Rome, was permitted to visit some friends at Sidon (Acts 27:3). See also Matthew 11:21 f and Mark 3:8.
It was noted for its school of philosophy under Augustus and Tiberius, its inhabitants being largely Greek; and when Berytus was destroyed by an earthquake in 551, its great law school was removed to Sidon. It was not of great importance during the Crusades, being far surpassed by Acre, and in modern times it is a small town of some 15,000.
LITERATURE.
See PHOENICIA.
H. Porter
Sidonians
Sidonians - si-do'-ni-anz: Natives or inhabitants of Sidon (Deuteronomy 3:9; Joshua 13:4, 6; Judges 3:3; 1 Kings 5:6).
Siege
Siege - sej (matsor (Deuteronomy 28:52-53; 1 Kings 15:27; 2 Kings 25:2; Isaiah 29:3; Ezekiel 4:2); "to be besieged," "to suffer siege," ba-matsor bo' (Deuteronomy 20:19; 2 Kings 24:10; 25:2)):
1. In Early Hebrew History
2. In the Monarchy
3. Preliminaries to Siege
4. Siege Operations: Attack
(1) Investment of City
(2) Line of Circumvallation
(3) Mound, or Earthworks
(4) Battering-Rams
(5) Storming of Walls and Rushing of Breach
5. Siege Operations: Defense
6. Raising of Siege
7. Horrors of Siege and Capture
8. Siege in the New Testament
LITERATURE
1. In Early Hebrew History: In early Hebrew history, siege operations are not described and can have been little known. Although the Israelites had acquired a certain degree of military discipline in the wilderness, when they entered Canaan they had no experience of the operations of a siege and were without the engines of war necessary for the purpose. Jericho, with its strongly fortified wall, was indeed formally invested--it "was straitly shut up because of the children of Israel: none went out, and none came in" (Joshua 6:1)--but it fell into their hands without a siege. Other cities seem to have yielded after pitched battles, or to have been taken by assault. Many of the Canaanite fortresses, like Gezer (2 Samuel 5:25; Joshua 16:10), Taanach and Megiddo (Judges 1:27), remained unreduced. Jerusalem was captured by the men of Judah (Judges 1:8), but the fort of Jebus remained unconquered till the time of David (2 Samuel 5:6).
2. In the Monarchy: In the days of the monarchy more is heard of siege operations. At the siege of Rabbath-Ammon Joab seems to have deprived the city of its water-supply and rendered it untenable (2 Samuel 11:1; 12:27). At Abel of Beth-maacah siege operations are described in which Joab distinguished himself (2 Samuel 20:15). David and Solomon, and, after the disruption of the kingdom, Rehoboam and Jeroboam built fortresses which ere long became the scene of siege operations. The war between Judah and Israel in the days of Nadab, Baasha, and Elah was, for the most part, a war of sieges. It was while besieging Gibbethon that Nadab, the son of Jeroboam, was slain by Baasha (1 Kings 15:27), and, 27 years after, while the army of Israel was still investing the same place, the soldiery chose their commander Omri to be king over Israel (1 Kings 16:16). From the Egyptians, the Syrians, the Assyrians, and the Chaldeans, with whom they came into relations in later times as allies or as enemies, the people of the Southern and of the Northern Kingdoms learned much regarding the art, both of attack and of defense of fortified places.
3. Preliminaries to Siege: It was an instruction of the Deuteronomic Law that before a city was invested for a long siege, it should be summoned to capitulate (Deuteronomy 20:10; compare 2 Samuel 20:18; 2 Kings 18:17 ff). If the offer of peace be declined, then the siege is to be proceeded with, and if the city be captured, all the male population is to be put to death, and the women and children reserved as a prey for the captors. To this humane reservation the cities of the Canaanites were to be an exception: their inhabitants were to be wholly exterminated (Deuteronomy 20:16-18).
The same law prescribed that there should be no unnecessary destruction of fruit trees in the prosecution of a long siege. Trees not yielding fruit for human sustenance might be cut down: "And thou shalt build bulwarks (matsor, "siegeworks") against the city that maketh war with thee, until it fall" (Deuteronomy 20:19-20). This instruction to have regard to the fruit trees around a hostile city seems to have been more honored in the breach than in the observance, even in Israel. When the allied kings of Israel, Judah, and Edom were invading Moab and had instruction to "smite every fortified city," the prophet Elisha bade them also "fell every good tree, and stop all fountains of water, and mar every good piece of land with stones" (2 Kings 3:19, 25). When the assault of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans was imminent, Yahweh commanded the cutting down of the trees (Jeremiah 6:6). In Arabian warfare, we are told, the destruction of the enemy's palm groves was a favorite exploit (Robertson Smith, OTJC2, 369), and the Assyrians when they captured a city had no compunction in destroying its plantations (Inscription of Shalmaneser II on Black Obelisk).
4. Siege Operations: Attack: From passages in the Prophets, upon which much light has been thrown by the ancient monuments of Assyria and Chaldea, we gain a very clear idea of the siege works directed against a city by Assyrian or Chaldean invaders. The siege of Lachish (2 Kings 18:13-14; Isaiah 36:1-2) by Sennacherib is the subject of a series of magnificent reliefs from the mound of Koyunjik (Layard, Monuments of Nineveh, lI, plates 20, 21, 22). The downfall of Nineveh as predicted in Nahum s prophecy lets us see the siege operations proceeding with striking realism (see Der Untergang Ninivehs by A. Jeremias and Colonel Billerbeck). Nowhere, however, are the incidents of a siege--the gathering of hostile forces, the slaughter of peaceful inhabitants in the country around, the raising of siegeworks, the setting of engines of war against the walls, the demolition of the towers, the breach in the principal wall, the rush of men and the clatter of horses' hoofs through the streets, the slaughter, the pillage, the destruction of walls and houses--more fully and faithfully recorded than by Ezekiel when predicting the capture of Tyre by Nebuchadrezzar (Ezekiel 26:7-12). The siege of Tyre lasted 13 years, and Ezekiel tells how every head was made bald and every shoulder worn by the hard service of the besiegers (Ezekiel 29:18). There were various ways in which an invading army might deal with a fortified city so as to secure its possession. Terms might be offered to secure a capitulation (1 Kings 20:1 ff; 2 Kings 18:14 ff). An attempt might be made to reduce the city by starvation (2 Kings 6:24 ff; 2 Kings 17:5 ff). The city might be invested and captured by assault and storm, as Lachish was by Sennacherib (2 Kings 18:13; 19:8; see Layard, op cit., II, plates 20-24). The chief operations of the besiegers were as follows:
(1) Investment of City: There was the investment of the city by the besieging army. It was sometimes necessary to establish a fortified camp, like that of Sennacherib at Lachish to guard against sorties by the defenders. Of the siege of Jerusalem we read that Nebuchadrezzar came, "he and all his army, against Jerusalem, and encamped against it" (Jeremiah 52:4; compare 2 Kings 25:1). From the commencement of the siege, slingers and archers were posted where they could keep the defenders engaged; and it is to this that reference is made when Jeremiah says: "Call together the archers against Babylon, all them that bend the bow; encamp against her round about; let none thereof escape" (Jeremiah 50:29).
(2) Line of Circumvallation: There was next the drawing of a line of circumvallation (day'eq) with detached forts round about the walls. These forts were towers manned by archers, or they were used as stations from which to discharge missiles (Jeremiah 52:4; Ezekiel 17:17). In this connection the word "munition" in the King James Version and the English Revised Version (matsor) in Nahum 1:1 disappears in the American Standard Revised Version and is replaced by "fortress."
(3) Mound or Earthworks: Following upon this was the mound (colelah), or earthworks, built up to the height of the walls, so as to command the streets of the city, and strike terror into the besieged. From the mound thus erected the besiegers were able to batter the upper and weaker part of the city wall (2 Samuel 20:15; Isaiah 37:33; Jeremiah 6:6; Ezekiel 4:2; Daniel 11:15; Lamentations 4:18). If, however, the town, or fortress, was built upon an eminence, an inclined plane reaching to the height of the eminence might be formed of earth or stones, or trees, and the besiegers would be able to bring their engines to the foot of the walls. This road was even covered with bricks, forming a kind of paved way, up which the ponderous machines could be drawn without difficulty. To such roads there are references in Scripture (Job 19:12; Isaiah 29:3, "siege works"; compare Layard, Nineveh and Its Remains,II , 366 f). In the case of Tyre this mound, or way of approach, was a dam thrown across the narrow strait to obtain access to the walls (Ezekiel 26:8). Very often, too, there was a trench, sometimes filled with water, at the foot of the wall, which had to be dealt with previous to an assault.
(4) Battering-Rams: The earthworks having been thrown up, and approaches to the walls secured, it was possible to set and to work the battering-rams (karim) which were to be employed in breaching the walls (Ezekiel 4:2), or in bursting open the gates (Ezekiel 21:22). The battering-rams were of different kinds. On Assyrian monuments they are found joined to movable towers holding warriors and armed men, or, in other cases, joined to a stationary tower constructed on the spot. When the men who are detailed to work the ram get it into play, with its heavy beams of planks fastened together and the great mass of metal forming its head, they can hardly fail to make an impression, and gradually, by the constantly repeated shocks, a breach is opened and the besiegers are able to rush in and bear down the defenders. It is to the shelter furnished by these towers that the prophet Nahum refers (Ezekiel 2:5) when he says,"The mantelet is prepared," and that Isaiah points when he declares that the king of Assyria "shall not come unto this city, nor shoot an arrow there, neither shall he come before it with shield (maghen), nor cast up a mound against it" (Isaiah 37:33). Ezekiel has the same figure when, describing the siege of Tyre by Nebuchadrezzar, he declares that he shall "cast up a mound" against her, and "raise up the buckler," the buckler (qinnah) being like the Roman testudo, or roof of shields, under cover of which the besiegers carried on operations (Ezekiel 26:8; Colonel Billerbeck (op. cit., 178) is doubtful whether this device was known to the Assyrians). Under the shelter of their movable towers the besiegers could push forward mines, an operation known as part of siegecraft from a high antiquity (see 2 Samuel 20:15, where the American Revised Version margin and the English Revised Version margin give "undermined" as an alternative to "battered"; tunneling was well known in antiquity, as the Siloam tunnel shows).
(5) Storming of Walls and Rushing of Breach: The culminating operation would be the storming of the walls, the rushing of the breach. Scaling-ladders were employed to cross the encircling trench or ditch (Proverbs 21:22); and Joel in his powerful description of the army of locusts which had devastated the land says that they "climb the wall like men of war" (Joel 2:7). Attempts were made to set fire to the gates and to break them open with axes (Judges 9:52; compare Nehemiah 1:3; 2:3; Ezekiel 26:9). Jeremiah tells of the breach that was made in the city when Jerusalem was captured (Jeremiah 39:2). The breaches in the wall of Samaria are referred to by Amos (Jeremiah 4:3), who pictures the women rushing forth headlong like a herd of kine with hooks and fishhooks in their nostrils.
5. Siege Operations: Defense: While the besiegers employed this variety of means of attack, the besieged were equally ingenious and active in maintaining the defense. All sorts of obstructions were placed in the way of the besieging army. Springs and cisterns likely to afford supplies of water to the invaders were carefully covered up, or drained off into the city. Where possible, trenches were filled with water to make them impassable. As the siege-works of the enemy approached the main wall, it was usual to build inner fortifications, and for this purpose houses were pulled down to provide the needful space and also to supply building materials (Isaiah 22:10). Slingers placed upon the walls hurled stones upon the advancing enemy, and archers from loopholes and protected battlements discharged arrows against the warriors in their movable towers. Sorties were made to damage the siege-works of the enemy and to prevent the battering-rams from being placed in position. To counteract the assaults of the battering-rams, sacks of chaff were let down like a ship's fender in front of the place where the engine operated--a contrivance countered again by poles with scythes upon them which cut off the sacks (Josephus, BJ, III, vii, 20). So, too, the defenders, by dropping a doubled chain or rope from the battlements, caught the ram and broke the force of its blows. Attempts were made to destroy the ram also by fire. In the great bas-relief of the siege of Lachish an inhabitant is seen hurling a lighted torch from the wall; and it was a common device to pour boiling water or oil from the wall upon the assailants. Missiles, too, were thrown with deadly effect from the battlements by the defenders, and it was by a piece of a millstone thrown by a woman that Abimelech met his death at Thebez (Judges 9:53). While Uzziah of Judah furnished his soldiers with shields and spears and helmets and coats of mail and bows and slingstones, he also "made in Jerusalem engines, invented by skillful men, to be on the towers and upon the battlements, wherewith to shoot arrows and great stones" (2 Chronicles 26:15). The Jews had, for the defense of Jerusalem against the army of Titus, engines which they had taken from the Twelfth Legion at Beth-horon which seem to have had a range of 1,200 ft. Many ingenious devices are described by Josephus as employed by himself when conducting the defense of Jotapata in Galilee against Vespasian and the forces of Rome (BJ, III, vii).
6. Raising of Siege: When Nahash king of the Ammonites laid siege to Jabesh-gilead in the opening days of the reign of Saul, the terms of peace offered to the inhabitants were so humiliating and cruel that they sought a respite of seven days and appealed to Saul in their distress. When the newly chosen king heard of their desperate condition he assembled a great army, scattered the Ammonites, and raised the siege of Jabesh-gilead, thus earning the lasting gratitude of the inhabitants (1 Samuel 11:1-15; compare 1 Samuel 31:12-13). When Zedekiah of Judah found himself besieged in Jerusalem by the Chaldean army under Nebuzaradan, he sent intelligence to Pharaoh Hophra who crossed the frontier with his army to attack the Chaldeans and obliged them to desist from the siege. The Chaldeans withdrew for the moment from the walls of Jerusalem and offered battle to Pharaoh Hophra and his host, but the courage of the Egyptian king failed him and he retired in haste without encountering the Chaldeans in a pitched battle. The siege was prosecuted to the bitter end, and Jerusalem was captured and completely overthrown (2 Kings 25:1; Jeremiah 37:3-10; Ezekiel 17:17).
7. Horrors of Siege and Capture: In the ancient law of Israel "siege" is classed with drought and pestilence and exile as punishments with which Yahweh would visit His people for their disobedience (Deuteronomy 28:49-57). Of the horrors there described they had again and again bitter experience. At the siege of Samaria by Ben-hadad II, so terrible were the straits to which the besieged were reduced that they cooked and ate their own children (2 Kings 6:28). In the siege of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans, which ended in the overthrow of the city and the destruction of the Temple, the sufferings of the inhabitants from hunger and disease were incredible (2 Kings 25:3; Jeremiah 32:24; Lamentations 2:20; Lamentations 4:8-10). The horrors of siege have, perhaps, reached their climax in the account given by Josephus of the tragedy of Masada. To escape capture by the Romans, ten men were chosen by lot from among the occupants of the fortress, 960 in number, including combatants and non-combatants, men, women and children, to slay the rest. From these ten one was similarly chosen to slay the survivors, and he, having accomplished his awful task, ran his sword into his own body (Josephus, BJ, VII, ix, 1). While all the inhabitants of a city under siege suffered the famine of bread and the thirst for water, the combatants ran the risk of impalement and other forms of torture to which prisoners in Assyrian and Chaldean and Roman warfare were subjected.
The horrors attending the siege of a city were only surpassed by the barbarities perpetrated at its capture. The emptying of a city by its capture is likened to the hurling of a stone from a sling (Jeremiah 10:17-18). Deportation of the whole of the inhabitants often followed (2 Kings 17:6; 24:14). Not only were the inhabitants of the captured city deported, but their gods were carried off with them and the idols broken in pieces. This is predicted or recorded of Babylon (Isaiah 21:9; 46:1; Jeremiah 50:2), of Egypt (Jeremiah 43:12), of Samaria (Hosea 10:6). Indiscriminate slaughter followed the entrance of the assailants, and the city was usually given over to the flames (Jeremiah 39:8-9; Lamentations 4:18). "Cities without number," says Shalmaneser II in one of his inscriptions, "I wrecked, razed, burned with fire." Houses were destroyed and women dishonored (Zechariah 14:2). When Darius took Babylon, he impaled three thousand prisoners (Herodotus iii.159). The Scythians scalped and flayed their enemies and used their skins for horse trappings (ibid., iv.64). The Assyrian sculptures show prisoners subjected to horrible tortures, or carried away into slavery. The captured Zedekiah had his eyes put out after he had seen his own sons cruelly put to death (2 Kings 25:7). It is only employing the imagery familiar to Assyrian warfare when Isaiah represents Yahweh as saying to Sennacherib: "Therefore will I put my hook in thy nose, and my bridle in thy lips, and I will turn thee back by the way by which thou camest" (Isaiah 37:29). Anticipating the savage barbarities that would follow the capture of Samaria by the Assyrians, Hosea foresees the infants being dashed to pieces and the women with child being ripped up (Hosea 10:14; 13:16; compare Amos 1:13). The prophet Nahum predicting the overthrow of Nineveh recalls how at the capture of No-amon (Egyptian Thebes) by the Assyrian conqueror, Ashurbanipal, "her young children also were dashed in pieces at the head of all the streets; and they cast lots for her honorable men, and all her great men were bound in chains" (Nahum 3:10).
8. Siege in the New Testament: The only. explicit reference to siege operations in the New Testament is our Lord's prediction of the complete destruction of Jerusalem when He wept over its coming doom: "For the days shall come upon thee, when thine enemies shall cast up a bank (charax, the King James Version, quite incorrectly, "trench") about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, and shall dash thee to the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another" (Luke 19:43-44). The order and particulars of the siege are in accordance with the accounts of siege operations in the Old Testament. How completely the prediction was fulfilled we see from Josephus (BJ , V, vi, 10).
Figurative:
In Paul's Epistles there are figures taken from siege operations. In 2 Corinthians 10:4 we have "the casting down of strongholds," where the Greek word kathairesis, from kathairein, is the regular word used in Septuagint for the reduction of a fortress (Proverbs 21:22; Lamentations 2:2; 1 Maccabees 5:65). In Ephesians 6:16 there is allusion to siege-works, for the subtle temptations of Satan are set forth as the flaming darts hurled by the besiegers of a fortress which the Christian soldier is to quench with the shield of faith.
LITERATURE.
Nowack, Hebraische Archaeologie, 71; Benzinger, "Kriegswesen" in Herzog3; Billerbeck and A. Jeremias, Der Untergang Ninivehs; Billerbeck, Der Festungsbau im alten Orient.
T. Nicol
Sieve; Sift
Sieve; Sift - siv.
See AGRICULTURE; THRESHING.
Siglos
Siglos - sig'-los (siglos): A Persian silver coin, twenty of which went to the gold DARIC (which see).
Sign
Sign - sin ('oth "a sign" "mark" mopheth, "wonder"' semeion, "a sign," "signal," "mark"): A mark by which persons or things are distinguished and made known. In Scripture used generally of an address to the senses to attest the existence of supersensible and therefore divine power. Thus the plagues of Egypt were "signs" of divine displeasure against the Egyptians (Exodus 4:8 ff; Joshua 24:17, and often); and the miracles of Jesus were "signs" to attest His unique relationship with God (Matthew 12:38; John 2:18; Acts 2:22). Naturally, therefore, both in the Old Testament and the New Testament, "signs" are assimilated to the miraculous, and prevailingly associated with immediate divine interference. The popular belief in this manner of communication between the visible and the invisible worlds has always been, and is now, widespread. So-called "natural" explanations, however ingenious or cogent, fail with the great majority of people to explain anything. Wesley and Spurgeon were as firm believers in the validity of such methods of intercourse between man and God as were Moses and Gideon, Peter and John.
The faith that walks by signs is not by any means to be lightly esteemed. It has been allied with the highest nobility of character and with the most signal achievement. Moses accepted the leadership of his people in response to a succession of signs: e.g. the burning bush, the rod which became a serpent, the leprous hand, etc. (Exodus 3:1-22 and Exodus 4:1-31); so, too, did Gideon, who was not above making proof of God in the sign of the fleece of wool (Judges 6:36-40). In the training of the Twelve, Jesus did not disdain the use of signs (Luke 5:1-11, and often); and the visions by which Peter and Paul were led to the evangelization of the Gentiles were interpreted by them as signs of the divine purpose (Acts 10:1-48 and Acts 16:1-40).
The sacramental use of the sign dates from the earliest period, and the character of the sign is as diverse as the occasion. The rainbow furnishes radiant suggestion of God's overarching love and assurance that the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy the earth (Genesis 9:13; compare Genesis 4:15); the Feast of Unleavened Bread is a reminder of God's care in bringing His people out of bondage (Exodus 13:3); the Sabbath is an oft-recurring proclamation of God's gracious thought for the well-being of man (Exodus 31:13; Ezekiel 20:12); the brazen serpent, an early foreshadowing of the cross, perpetuates the imperishable promise of forgiveness and redemption (Numbers 21:9); circumcision is made the seal of the special covenant under which Israel became a people set apart (Genesis 17:11); baptism, the Christian equivalent of circumcision, becomes the sign and seal of the dedicated life and the mark of those avowedly seeking to share in the blessedness of the Kingdom of God (Luke 3:12-14; Acts 2:41, and often); bread and wine, a symbol of the spiritual manna by which soul and body are preserved unto everlasting life, is the hallowed memorial of the Lord's death until His coming again (Luke 22:14-20; 1 Corinthians 11:23-28). Most common of all were the local altars and mounds consecrated in simple and sincere fashion to a belief in God's ruling and overruling providence (Joshua 4:1-10).
Signs were offered in proof of the divine commission of prophet (Isaiah 20:3) and apostle (2 Corinthians 12:12), and of the Messiah Himself (John 20:30; Acts 2:22); and they were submitted in demonstration of the divine character of their message (2 Kings 20:9; Isaiah 38:1; Acts 3:1-16). By anticipation the child to be born of a young woman (Isaiah 7:10-16; compare Luke 2:12) is to certify the prophet's pledge of a deliverer for a captive people.
See IMMANUEL.
With increase of faith the necessity for signs will gradually decrease. Jesus hints at this (John 4:48), as does also Paul (1 Corinthians 1:22). Nevertheless "signs," in the sense of displays of miraculous powers, are to accompany the faith of believers (Mark 16:17 f), usher in and forthwith characterize the dispensation of the Holy Spirit, and mark the consummation of the ages (Revelation 15:1).
See also MIRACLE.
For "sign" of a ship (parasemos, "ensign," Acts 28:11).
See DIOSCURI; SHIPS AND BOATS,III , 2.
Charles M. Stuart
Signet
Signet - sig'-net.
See SEAL.
Signs of the Heavens
Signs of the Heavens - See ASTRONOMY, sec. I, 4.
Signs, Numerical
Signs, Numerical - nu-mer'-i-kal.
See NUMBER.
Sihon
Sihon - si'-hon (cichon): King of the Amorites, who vainly opposed Israel on their journey from Egypt to Palestine, and who is frequently mentioned in the historical books and in the Psalms because of his prominence and as a warning for those who rise against Yahweh and His people (Numbers 21:21, and often; Deuteronomy 1:4; 31:4; Joshua 2:10; Judges 11:19-20, 21; 1 Kings 4:19; Nehemiah 9:22; Psalms 135:11; 136:19; Jeremiah 48:45).
Sihor
Sihor - si'-hor.
See SHIHOR.
Sihor-libnath
Sihor-libnath - si'-hor-lib'-nath.
See SHIHOR-LIBNATH.
Silas
Silas - si'-las (Silas, probably contraction for Silouanos; the Hebrew equivalents suggested are shalish, "Tertius," or shelach (Genesis 10:24) (Knowling), or sha'ul = "asked" (Zahn)): The Silas of Acts is generally identified with the Silvaus of the Epistles. His identification with Titus has also been suggested, based on 2 Corinthians 1:19; 8:23, but this is very improbable (compare Knowling, Expositor's Greek Test., II, 326). Silas, who was probably a Roman citizen (compare Acts 16:37), accompanied Paul during the greater part of his 2nd missionary journey (Acts 15:1-41 through Acts 18:1-28). At the meeting of the Christian community under James at Jerusalem, which decided that circumcision should not be obligatory in the case of Gentile believers, Silas and Judas Barsabas were appointed along with Paul and Barnabas to convey to the churches in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia the epistle informing them of this decision. As "leading men among the brethren" at Jerusalem, and therefore more officially representative of the Jerusalem church than Paul and Barnabas, Silas and Judas were further commissioned to confirm the contents of the letter by "word of mouth." On arrival at Antioch, the epistle was delivered, and Judas and Silas, "being themselves also prophets, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them." Their mission being thus completed, the four were "dismissed in peace from the brethren unto those that had sent them forth" (Revised Version), or "unto the apostles" (the King James Version) (Acts 15:22-33).
Different readings now render the immediate movements of Silas somewhat obscure; Acts 15:33 would imply that he returned to Jerusalem. But some texts proceed in Acts 15:34, "Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still," and others add "and Judas alone proceeded." Of this, the first half is accepted by the King James Version. The principal texts however reject the whole verse and are followed in this by the Revised Version (British and American). It is held by some that he remained in Antioch till chosen by Paul (Acts 15:40). Others maintain that he returned to Jerusalem where John Mark then was (compare Acts 13:13); and that either during the interval of "some days" (Acts 15:36), when the events described in Galatians 2:11 ff took place (Wendt), he returned to Antioch along with Peter, or that he and John Mark were summoned thither by Paul and Barnabas, subsequent to their dispute regarding Mark. (For fuller discussion, see Knowling, Expositor's Greek Test., II, 330, 332-35.)
Upon Barnabas' separation from Paul, Silas was chosen by Paul in his place, and the two missionaries, "after being commended by the brethren (at Antioch) to the grace of the Lord," proceeded on their journey (Acts 15:33 margin through 40). Passing through Syria, Cilicia, Galatia, Phrygia and Mysia, where they delivered the decree of the Jerusalem council and strengthened the churches, and were joined by Timothy, they eventually reached Troas (Acts 15:41 through Acts 16:8). Indications are given that at this city Luke also became one of their party (compare also the apocryphal "Acts of Paul," where this is definitely stated; Budge, Contendings of the Apostles,II , 544).
Upon the call of the Macedonian, the missionary band set sail for Greece, and after touching at Samothrace, they landed at Neapolis (Acts 16:9-11). At Philippi, Lydia, a seller of purple, was converted, and with her they made their abode; but the exorcism of an evil spirit from a sorceress brought upon Silas and Paul the enmity of her masters, whose source of gain was thus destroyed. On being charged before the magistrates with causing a breach of the peace and preaching false doctrine, their garments were rent off them and they were scourged and imprisoned. In no way dismayed, they prayed and sang hymns to God, and an earthquake in the middle of the night secured them a miraculous release. The magistrates, on learning that the two prisoners whom they had so maltreated were Roman citizens, came in person and besought them to depart out of the city (Acts 16:12-39). After a short visit to the house of Lydia, where they held an interview with the brethren, they departed for Thessalonica, leaving Luke behind (compare Knowling, op. cit., 354-55). There they made many converts, especially among the Greeks, but upon the house of Jason, their host, being attacked by hostile Jews, they were compelled to escape by night to Berea (Acts 16:40 through Acts 17:10). There they received a better hearing from the Jews, but the enmity of the Thessalonian Jews still pursued them, and Paul was conducted for safety to Athens, Silas and Timothy being left behind. On his arrival, he dispatched an urgent message back to Bercea for Silas and Timothy to rejoin him at that city (Acts 17:11-15). The narrative of Acts implies, however, that Paul had left Athens and had reached Corinth before he was overtaken by his two followers (Acts 18:5). Knowling (op. cit., 363-64) suggests that they may have actually met at Athens, and that Timothy was then sent to Thessalonica (compare 1 Thessalonians 3:1-2), and Silas to Philippi (compare Philippians 4:15), and that the three came together again at Corinth. The arrival of Silas and Timothy at that city is probably referred to in 2 Corinthians 11:9. It is implied in Acts 18:18 that Silas did not leave Corinth at the same time as Paul, but no further definite reference is made to him in the narrative of the Acts 2:11-47nd missionary journey.
Assuming his identity with Silvanus, he is mentioned along with Paul and Timothy in 2 Corinthians 1:19 as having preached Christ among the Corinthians (compare Acts 18:5). In 1 Thessalonians 1:1, and 2 Thessalonians 1:1, the same three send greetings to the church at Thessalonica (compare Acts 17:1-9). In 1 Peter 5:12 he is mentioned as a "faithful brother" and the bearer of that letter to the churches of the Dispersion (compare on this last Knowling, op. cit., 331-32). The theory which assigns He to the authorship of Silas is untenable.
C. M. Kerr
Silence
Silence - si'-lens: Five Hebrew roots, with various derivatives, and two Greek words are thus translated. The word is used literally for dumbness, interrupted speech, as in Lamentations 2:10; Psalms 32:3; Ecclesiastes 3:7; Amos 5:13; Acts 15:12; 1 Corinthians 14:28; 1 Timothy 2:11-12 the King James Version (the American Standard Revised Version "quietness"); Revelation 8:1, or figuratively of the unanswered prayers of the believer (Psalms 83:1; 35:22; Jeremiah 8:14); of awe in the presence of the Divine Majesty (Isaiah 41:1; Zechariah 2:13), or of death (1 Samuel 2:9; Psalms 94:17; 115:17).
Silk; Silkworm
Silk; Silkworm - silk'-wurm ((1) meshi (Ezekiel 16:10, 13), perhaps from mashah, "to draw" "to extract" compare Arabic masa' of same meaning; Septuagint trichapton, "woven of hair"; (2) serikon (Revelation 18:12); (31 shesh; compare Arabic shash, a thin cotton material; (4) buts; compare Arabic 'abyad, "white," from bad; (5) bussos, "fine linen," later used of cotton and silk): The only undoubted reference to silk in the Bible is the passage cited from Revelation, where it is mentioned among the merchandise of Babylon. Serikon, "silk," is from Ser, the Greek name of China, whence silk was first obtained. The equivalent Latin sericum occurs frequently in classical authors, and is found in the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) (Esther 8:15) for buts, "fine linen." For buts, bussos, and shesh English Versions of the Bible has nearly always "fine linen," but for shesh in Proverbs 31:22, the King James Version has "silk," and in Genesis 41:42 and Exodus 25:4, the King James Version margin has "silk" and the Revised Version margin has "cotton."
There can be little doubt of the correctness of English Versions of the Bible "silk" for meshi in Ezekiel 16:10, "I girded thee about with fine linen (shesh), and' covered thee with silk (meshi)," and in the similar passage, Ezekiel 16:13.
Silk is produced by all Lepidoptera, butterflies and moths, but it is of great economic importance only in the Chinese silkworm, Bombyx mori, whose larva, a yellowish-white caterpillar from 2 to 3 in. long, feeds on the leaves of the mulberry (Morus). A pair of large glands on the two sides of the stomach secrete a viscous fluid, which is conveyed by ducts to an orifice under the mouth. On issuing into the air, the fine stream is hardened into the silk fiber, which the caterpillar spins into a cocoon. Within the cocoon the caterpillar is presently transformed into the chrysalis or pupa. The cocoons from which silk is to be spun are subjected to heat which kills the pupae and prevents them from being transformed into the perfect insects or moths, which would otherwise damage the cocoons as they made their exit.
The raising of silkworms, and the spinning and weaving of silk are now important industries in Syria, though the insect was unknown in Bible times. It was introduced to the Mediterranean region from China a few centuries after Christ. Coarse silk is produced from the Chinese oak silk-moth, Saturnia pernyi, and from the Japanese oak silk-moth, Saturnia yama-mai. The largest moth of Syria and Palestine is Saturnia pyri, from which silk has also been spun, but not commercially.
See, further, WEAVING.
Alfred Ely Day
Silla
Silla - sil'-a (cilla'; Codex Vaticanus Galla; Codex Alexandrinus Gaallad): Joash was assassinated by his servants "at the house of Millo, on the way that goeth down to Silla" (2 Kings 12:20). Wherever Beth-millo stood, Silla was evidently in the valley below it; but nothing is known of what it was or where it stood.
Siloam, Towerin
Siloam, Towerin - See JERUSALEM; SILOAM.
Siloam; Siloah; Shelah; Shiloah
Siloam; Siloah; Shelah; Shiloah - si-lo'-am, si-lo'-am, si-lo'-a, she'-la, shi-lo'-a: (1) me ha-shiloach (shiloach or shilloach is a passive form and means "sent" or "conducted") "the waters of (the) Shiloah" (Isaiah 8:6). (2) berekhath ha-shelach, "the pool of (the) Shelah" (the King James Version "Siloah") (Nehemiah 3:15). (3) ten kolumbethran tou (or ton) Siloam, "the pool of Siloam" (John 9:7). (4) ho purgos en to Siloam, "the tower in Siloam" (Luke 13:4).
1. The Modern Silwan: Although the name is chiefly used in the Old Testament and Josephus as the name of certain "waters," the surviving name today, Silwan, is that of a fairly prosperous village which extends along the steep east side of the Kidron valley from a little North of the "Virgin's Fountain" as far as Bir Eyyub. The greater part of the village, the older and better built section, belongs to Moslem fellahin who cultivate the well-watered gardens in the valley and on the hill slopes opposite, but a southern part has recently been built in an extremely primitive manner by Yemen Jews, immigrants from South Arabia, and still farther South, in the commencement of the Wady en Nar, is the wretched settlement of the lepers. How long the site of Silwan has been occupied it is impossible to say. The village is mentioned in the 10th century by the Arab writer Muqaddasi. The numerous rock cuttings, steps, houses, caves, etc., some of which have at times served as chapels, show that the site has been much inhabited in the past, and at one period at least by hermits. The mention of "those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and killed them" (Luke 13:4) certainly suggests that there was a settlement there in New Testament times, although some writers consider that this may have reference to some tower on the city walls near the Pool of Siloam.
2. The Siloam Aqueduct: Opposite to the main part of Silwan is the "Virgin's Fount," ancient GIHON (which see), whose waters are practically monopolized by the villagers. It is the waters of this spring which are referred to in Isaiah 8:5-6: "Forasmuch as this people have refused the waters of Shiloah that go softly, .... now therefore, behold, the Lord bringeth up upon them the waters of the River."
The contrast between the little stream flowing from the Gihon and the great Euphrates is used as a figure of the vast difference between the apparent strength of the little kingdom of Judah and the House of David on the one hand, and the might of "Rezin and Remaliah's son" and "all his glory." Although it is quite probable that in those days there was an open streamlet in the valley, yet the meaning of Shiloah, "sent" or "conducted," rather implies some kind of artificial channel, and there is also archaeological evidence that some at least of the waters of Gihon were even at that time conducted by a rock-cut aqueduct along the side of the Kidron valley (see JERUSALEM,VII , 5). It was not, however, till the days of Hezekiah that the great tunnel aqueduct, Siloam's most famous work, was made (2 Kings 20:20): "Hezekiah also stopped the upper spring of the waters of Gihon, and brought them, straight down on the west side of the City of David" (2 Chronicles 32:30); "They stopped all the fountains, and the brook (nachal) that flowed through the midst of the land, saying, Why should the kings of Assyria come, and find much water?" (2 Chronicles 32:4; Ecclesiasticus 48:17). Probably the exit of the water at Gihon was entirely covered up and the water flowed through the 1,700 ft. of tunnel and merged in the pool made for it (now known as the Birket Silwan) near the mouth of the Tyropceon valley. This extraordinary winding aqueduct along which the waters of the "Virgin's Fount" still flow is described in JERUSALEM, VII, 4 (which see). The lower end of this tunnel which now emerges under a modern arch has long been known as `Ain Silwan, the "Fountain of Siloam," and indeed, until the rediscovery of the tunnel connecting this with the Virgin's Fount (a fact known to some in the 13th century, but by no means generally known until the last century), it was thought this was simply a spring. So many springs all over Palestine issue from artificial tunnels--it is indeed the rule in Judea--that the mistake is natural. Josephus gives no hint that he knew of so great a work as this of Hezekiah's, and in the 5th century a church was erected, probably by the empress Eudoxia, at this spot, with the high altar over the sacred "spring." The only pilgrim who mentions this church is Antonius Martyr (circa 570), and after its destruction, probably by the Persians in 614, it was entirely lost sight of until excavated by Messrs. Bliss and Dickie. It is a church of extraordinary architectural features; the floor of the center aisle is still visible.
3. The "Pool of Siloam": The water from the Siloam aqueduct, emerging at `Ain Silwan, flows today into a narrow shallow pool, approached by a steep flight of modern steps; from the southern extremity of this pool the water crosses under the modern road by means of an aqueduct, and after traversing a deeply cut rock channel below the scarped cliffs on the north side of el-Wad, it crosses under the main road up the Kidron and enters a number of channels of irrigation distributed among the gardens of the people of Silwan. The water here, as at its origin, is brackish and impregnated with sewage.
The modern Birket es-Silwan is but a poor survivor of the fine pool which once was here. Bliss showed by his excavations at the site that once there was a great rock-cut pool, 71 ft. North and South, by 75 ft. East and West, which may, in part at least, have been the work of Hezekiah (2 Kings 20:20), approached by a splendid flight of steps along its west side. The pool was surrounded by an arcade 12 ft. wide and 22 1/2 ft. high, and was divided by a central arcade, to make in all probability a pool for men and another for women. These buildings were probably Herodian, if not earlier, and therefore this, we may reasonably picture, was the condition of the pool at the time of the incident in John 9:7, when Jesus sent the blind man to "wash in the pool of Siloam."
This pool is also probably the Pool of Shelah described in Nehemiah 3:15 as lying between the Fountain Gate and the King's Garden. It may also be the "king's pool" of Nehemiah 2:14. If we were in any doubt regarding the position of the pool of Siloam, the explicit statement of Josephus (BJ, V, iv, 1) that the fountain of Siloam, which he says was a plentiful spring of sweet water, was at the mouth of the Tyropoeon would make us sure.
4. The Birket el Chamra: A little below this pool, at the very mouth of el-Wad, is a dry pool, now a vegetable garden, known as Birket el Chamra ("the red pool"). For many years the sewage of Jerusalem found its way to this spot, but when in 1904 an ancient city sewer was rediscovered (see PEFS , 1904, 392-94), the sewage was diverted and the site was sold to the Greek convent which surrounded it with a wall. Although this is no longer a pool, there is no doubt but that hereabouts there existed a pool because the great and massive dam which Bliss excavated here (see JERUSALEM,VI , 5) had clearly been made originally to support a large body of water. It is commonly supposed that the original pool here was older than the Birket Silwan, having been fed by an aqueduct which was constructed from Gihon along the side of the Kidron valley before Hezekiah's great tunnel. If this is correct (and excavations are needed here to confirm this theory), then this may be the "lower pool" referred to in Isaiah 22:9, the waters of which Hezekiah "stopped," and perhaps, too, that described in the same passage as the "old pool."
5. The Siloam Aqueduct: The earliest known Hebrew inscription of any length was accidentally discovered near the lower end of the Siloam aqueduct in 1880, and reported by Dr. Schick. It was inscribed upon a rock-smoothed surface about 27 in. square, some 15 ft. from the mouth of the aqueduct; it was about 3 ft. above the bottom of the channel on the east side. The inscription consisted of six lines in archaic Hebrew, and has been translated by Professor Sayce as follows:
(1) Behold the excavation. Now this (is) the history of the tunnel: while the excavators were still lifting up
(2) The pick toward each other, and while there were yet three cubits (to be broken through) .... the voice of the one called
(3) To his neighbor, for there was an (?) excess in the rock on the right. They rose up .... they struck on the west of the
(4) Excavation; the excavators struck, each to meet the other, pick to pick. And there flowed
(5) The waters from their outlet to the pool for a thousand, two hundred cubits; and (?)
(6) Of a cubit, was the height of the rock over the head of the excavators ....
It is only a roughly scratched inscription of the nature of a graffito; the flowing nature of the writing is fully explained by Dr. Reissner's recent discovery of ostraca at Samaria written with pen and ink. It is not an official inscription, and consequently there is no kingly name and no date, but the prevalent view that it was made by the work people who carried out Hezekiah's great work (2 Kings 20:20) is now further confirmed by the character of the Hebrew in the ostraca which Reissner dates as of the time of Ahab.
Unfortunately this priceless monument of antiquity was violently removed from its place by some miscreants. The fragments have been collected and are now pieced together in the Constantinople museum. Fortunately several excellent "squeezes" as well as transcriptions were made before the inscription was broken up, so that the damage done is to be regretted rather on sentimental than on literary grounds.
E. W. G. Masterman
Silvanus
Silvanus - sil-va'-nus (Silouanos (2 Corinthians 1:19)).
See SILAS.
Silver
Silver - sil'-ver (keceph; argurion, arguros): Silver was known in the earliest historic times. Specimens of early Egyptian and Babylonian silver work testify to the skill of the ancient silversmiths. In Palestine, silver objects have been found antedating the occupation of the land by the Hebrews. This metal was used for making all kinds of ornamental objects. In the mound of Gezer were found bowls, vases, ladles, hairpins, rings and bracelets of silver. The rings and settings for scarabs or seals were commonly of this metal. The first mention of silver in the Bible is in Genesis 13:2, where it says that Abraham was rich in cattle, in silver and gold. At that time it was commonly used in exchange in the form of bars or other shapes. Coins of that metal were of a much later date (Genesis 20:16; 23:15; 24:53; 37:28, etc.). Booty was collected in silver (Joshua 6:19); tribute was paid in the same (1 Kings 15:19). It was also used for jewelry (Genesis 44:2). The Children of Israel systematically despoiled the Egyptians of their silver before the exodus (Exodus 3:22; 11:2; 12:35, etc.). Exodus 20:23 implies that idols were made of it. It was largely used in the fittings of the tabernacle (Exodus 26:1-37 ff) and later of the temple (2 Chronicles 2:1-18 ff).
It is likely that the ancient supply of silver came from the mountains of Asia Minor where it is still found in abundance associated with lead as argentiferous galena, and with copper sulfide. The Turkish government mines this silver on shares with the natives. The Sinaitic peninsula probably also furnished some silver. Later Phoenician ships brought quantities of it from Greece and Spain. The Arabian sources are doubtful (2 Chronicles 9:14). Although silver does not tarnish readily in the air, it does corrode badly in the limestone soil of Palestine and Syria. This probably partly accounts for the small number of objects of this metal found. On the site of the ancient jewelers' shops of Tyre the writer found objects of gold, bronze, lead, iron, but none of silver.
Figurative:
Silver to be as stones in Jerusalem (1 Kings 10:27) typified great abundance (compare Job 3:15; 22:25; 27:16; also Isaiah 60:17; Zechariah 9:3). The trying of men's hearts was compared to the refining of silver (Psalms 66:10; Isaiah 48:10). Yahweh's words were as pure as silver refined seven times (Psalms 12:6). The gaining of understanding is better than the gaining of silver (Proverbs 3:14; compare Proverbs 8:19; 10:20; 16:16; 22:1; 25:11). Silver become dross denoted deterioration (Isaiah 1:22; Jeremiah 6:30). Breast and arms of silver was interpreted by Daniel to mean the inferior kingdom to follow Nebuchadnezzar's (Daniel 2:32, 39).
In the New Testament, reference should be made especially to Acts 19:24; James 5:3; Revelation 18:12.
James A. Patch
Silverling
Silverling - sil'-ver-ling ('eleph kecheph (Isaiah 7:23)): `A thousand of silver' means a thousand shekels.
See PIECE OF SILVER.
Silversmith
Silversmith - sil'-ver-smith (argurokopos): Mentioned only once (Acts 19:24), where reference is made to Demetrius, a leading member of the silversmiths' guild of Ephesus.
Simalcue
Simalcue - si-mal-ku'-e: the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and American) IMALCUE (which see).
Simeon (1)
Simeon (1) - sim'-e-on (shim`on; Sumeon; the Hebrew root is from shama`, "to hear" (Genesis 29:33); some modern scholars (Hitzig, W. R. Smith, Stade, etc.) derive it from Arabic sima`, "the offspring of the hyena and female wolf"): In Genesis 29:33; Genesis 30:18-21; 35:23, Simeon is given as full brother to Reuben, Levi, Judah, Issachar and Zebulun, the son of Leah; and in Genesis 34:25; 49:5 as the brother of Levi and Dinah. He was left as a hostage in Egypt by orders of Joseph (Genesis 42:24; 43:23).
1. The Patriarch: Biblical Data: In the "blessing" of the dying Jacob, Simeon and Levi are linked together:
"Simeon and Levi are brethren;
Weapons of violence are their swords.
O my soul, come not thou into their council;
Unto their assembly, my glory, be not thou united;
For in their anger they slew a man,
And in their self-will they hocked an ox.
Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce;
And their wrath, for it was cruel:
I will divide them in Jacob,
And scatter them in Israel" (Genesis 49:5-7).
Whatever view may be taken of the events of Genesis 34:25 (and some would see in it "a tradition of the settlement of Jacob which belongs to a cycle quite independent of the descent into Egypt and the Exodus" (see S. A. Cook, Encyclopedia Brit, article "Simeon")), it is clear that we have here a reference to it and the suggestion that the subsequent history of the tribe, and its eventual absorption in Judah, was the result of violence. In the same way the priestly Levites became distributed throughout the other tribes without any tribal inheritance of their own (Deuteronomy 18:1; Joshua 13:14). From the mention (Genesis 46:10; Exodus 6:15) of Shaul as being the son of a Canaanite woman, it may be supposed that the tribe was a mixed one.
In the "blessing of Moses" (Deuteronomy 33:1-29) Simeon is not mentioned at all in the Hebrew text, although in some manuscripts of the Septuagint the latter half of Deuteronomy 33:6 is made to apply to him: "Let Simeon be a small company." The history of the tribe is scanty and raises many problems. Of the many theories advanced to meet them it cannot be said that any one answers all difficulties.
2. The Tribe in Scripture: In the wilderness of Sinai the Simeonites camped beside the Reubenites (Numbers 2:12; 10:19); it was Zimri, a member of one of the leading families of this tribe, who was slain by Phinehas in the affair of Baal-peor (Numbers 25:14). The statistics in Numbers 1:22 f, where the Simeonites are given as 59,300, compared with the Numbers 2:11-34nd census (Numbers 26:14), where the numbers are 22,200, indicate a diminishing tribe. Some have connected this with the sin of Zimri.
At the recital of the law at Mt. Gerizim, Simeon is mentioned first among those that were to respond to the blessings (Deuteronomy 27:12). In the conquest of Canaan "Judah said unto Simeon his brother, Come up with me into my lot, that we may fight against the Canaanites; and I likewise will go with thee into thy lot. So Simeon went with him" (Judges 1:3; compare Judges 1:17). (Many scholars find in Genesis 34:1-31 a tribal attempt on the part of the Simeonites to gain possession of Shechem; if this is so, Judah did not assist, and the utter failure may have been a cause of Simeon's subsequent dependence upon, and final absorption in, Judah.) In Judges 4:1-24 and 5 Simeon is never mentioned. In the settlement of the land there is no account of how Simeon established himself in his territory (except the scanty reference in Judges 1:3), but "their inheritance was in the midst of the inheritance of the children of Judah" (Joshua 19:1); this is accounted for (Joshua 19:9), "for the portion of the children of Judah was too much for them." Nevertheless we find there the very cities which are apportioned to Simeon, allotted to Judah (Joshua 15:21-32; compare Nehemiah 11:26-29). It is suggested (in 1 Chronicles 4:31) that the independent possession of these cities ceased in the time of David. David sent spoil to several Simeonite towns (1 Samuel 30:26 f), and in 1 Chronicles 12:25 it is recorded that 7,100 Simeonite warriors came to David in Hebron. In 1 Chronicles 27:16 we have mention of a ruler of the Simeonites, Shephatiah, son of Maacah.
In 1 Chronicles 4:39 f mention is made of certain isolated exploits of Simeonites at GEDOR (which see), against the MEUNIM (which see), and at Mt. SEIR (which see). Later references associate certain Simeonites with the Northern Kingdom (2 Chronicles 15:9; 34:6), and tradition has come to view them as one of the ten tribes (compare Ezekiel 48:24-25, 33; Revelation 7:7), although all the history of them we have is bound up with Judah and the Southern Kingdom. There is no mention of the return of any Simeonites after the captivity; their cities fall to Judah (Nehemiah 11:26 f).
3. References in Egyptian and Assyrian Inscriptions:
It has been supposed by many authorities that the name Shim`an occurs in the list of places plundered by Thothmes III (see Petrie, Hist,II , 104; also Hommel, Ancient Hebrew Tradition, 268; Sayce, Early Hebrew Traditions, 392). In the 7th century we have a doubtful reference in an inscription of Esar-haddon relating his Egyptian campaign when a city Ap-ku is mentioned as in the country of Sa-me-n(a), which may possibly be a reference to Simeon. The survival of the name so late, if true, is strange, in the light of what we gather from the Bible about the tribe. (For discussion of both of these inscriptions, with references to the lit., see EB , coll. 4528-30.)
4. The Territory of Simeon: The cities of Simeon as given in Joshua 19:2-6 and 1 Chronicles 4:28, 31 are (the names in parentheses are variations in the latter reference): Beer-sheba, Moladah, Hazar-shual, Balah (Bilhah), Azem (the King James Version) (Ezem), Eltolad (Tolad), Bethuel, Hormah, Ziklag, Beth-marcaboth, Hazar-susah (Hazar Susim), Beth-lebaoth (Beth-biri), Sharuhen (Shaaraim) (Etam), Ain Rimmon, Ether (Tochen), Ashan--in all, 16 cities in Joshua and 17 cities in 1 Chronicles. Ashan (1 Chronicles 6:59) is the only one assigned to the priests. It is written wrongly as "Ain" in Joshua 21:16. All the above cities, with certain variations in form, and with the exception of Etam in 1 Chronicles 4:32, which is probably a mistake, occur in the list of the cities of Judah (Joshua 15:26-32, 42). Ziklag is mentioned (1 Samuel 27:6) as being the private property of the kings of Judah from the days of David, who received it from Achish, king of Gath.
For the situation of these cities, so far as is known, see separate articles under their names. It is clear that they were all situated in the southwestern part of Palestine, and that Simeon had no definite territorial boundaries, but isolated cities, with their villages, among those of the people of Judah.
E. W. G. Masterman
Simeon (2)
Simeon (2) - (shim`on; Sumeon):
(1) The 2nd son of Jacob by Leah (see separate article).
(2) Great-grandfather of Judas Maccabeus (1 Maccabees 2:1).
(3) A man in Jerusalem described as "righteous and devout, looking for the consolation of Israel." When the infant Jesus was brought into the Temple, he took Him into his arms and blessed God in words which are famous as the Nunc dimittis. Simeon bestowed his blessing on the wondering father and mother (Luke 2:25, 34). Legend has made him the son of Hillel and father of Gamaliel I, but this has no historical basis.
(4) An ancestor of Jesus (Luke 3:30); the Revised Version (British and American) "Symeon."
(5) The Revised Version (British and American) "Symeon": one of the prophets and teachers in the Christian community at Antioch. He is also called Niger, which was the Gentile name he had assumed, Symeon being Hebrew. He was among those who set apart Paul and Barnabas for their missionary work (Acts 13:1-2). Nothing more is known of him.
(6) The Revised Version (British and American) "Symeon": the Hebrew name of Simon Peter (Acts 15:14).
S. F. Hunter
Simeon (Niger)
Simeon (Niger) - ni'-jer): The King James Version in Acts 13:1, the Revised Version (British and American) "Symeon" (which see).
Simeonites
Simeonites - sim'-e-on-its.
See SIMEON.
Similitude
Similitude - si-mil'-i-tud: In the King James Version means either "an exact facsimile" (Psalms 106:20 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) "likeness"; Romans 5:14, etc.), or else "the form itself" (Numbers 12:8; Deuteronomy 4:12, 15-16 for temunah, "form" (so the Revised Version (British and American))); compare LIKENESS . the English Revised Version has retained the word in 2 Chronicles 4:3; Daniel 10:16 (the American Standard Revised Version "likeness"), while the English Revised Version and the American Standard Revised Version have used "similitudes" in Hosea 12:10 (damah, "be like"). The meaning is "I have inspired the prophets to speak parables."
Simon (1)
Simon (1) - (Simon, Greek form of SIMEON (which see)): The persons of the name of Simon mentioned in the Apocrypha are:
(1) Simon the Maccabean (Hasmonean), surnamed THASSI (which see), the 2nd son of Mattathias and elder brother of Judas Maccabeus. On his deathbed, Mattathias commended Simon as a "man of counsel" to be a "father" to his brethren (1 Maccabees 2:65), and a "man of counsel" he proved himself. But it was not till after the death of Judas and the capture of Jonathan that he played the chief role. Dispatched by Judas with a force to the relief of the Jews in Galilee he fought with great success (1 Maccabees 5:17 ff; Josephus, Ant, XII, viii, 1 f). We find him next taking revenge along with Jonathan on the "children of Jambri" (1 Maccabees 9:33 ff), and cooperating in the successful campaign around Bethbasi against Bacchides (circa 156 BC) (1 Maccabees 9:62 ff), and in the campaign against Apollonius (1 Maccabees 10:74 ff). In the conflict between Tryphon and Demetrius II, Simon was appointed by Antiochus VI "captain from the Ladder of Tyre unto the borders of Egypt" (1 Maccabees 11:59). After the capture of Jonathan at Ptolemais by Tryphon, Simon became acknowledged leader of his party. He thwarted Tryphon in his attempts upon Jerusalem, in revenge for which the latter murdered Jonathan (1 Maccabees 13:23). Simon then took the side of Demetrius on condition of immunity for Judea, and so `in the 170th year' (143-142 BC) `the yoke of the heathen was taken away from Israel' (1 Maccabees 13:41). Simon applied himself to rebuild the strongholds of Judea, reduced Gazara, captured the Acra (citadel) and made Joppa a seaport. He showed his wisdom most of all in his internal administration: "He sought the good of his country"; commerce and agriculture revived; lawlessness was suppressed and "the land had rest all the days of Simon (1 Maccabees 14:4 ff). His power was acknowledged by Sparta and Rome (1 Maccabees 14:16 ff). In 141 BC he was appointed by the nation leader, high priest and captain "for ever, until there should arise a faithful prophet" (1 Maccabees 14:41 ff), and thus the Hasmonean dynasty was founded. A new chronological era began with the first year of his administration, and he minted his own coins. A few years later Simon again meddled in Syrian politics (139 BC), this time at the entreaty of Antiochus VII (Sidetes) in his contest against Tryphon; when, however, Antiochus was assured of success, he refused the help of Simon and sent Cendebaeus against Judea. Judas and John, sons of Simon, defeated the invaders near Modin (137-136 BC). In 135 BC Simon met his death by treachery. Ptolemy the son of Abubus, Simon's own son-in-law, determined to secure supreme power for himself and, in order to accomplish this, to assassinate the whole family of Simon. He accordingly invited Simon and his sons to a banquet in the stronghold of Dok near Jericho, where he treacherously murdered Simon with his two sons Mattathias and Judas. The other son, John Hyrcanus, governor of Gazara, received intimation of the plot and saved himself to become the head of the Hasmonean dynasty. "The significance of Simon's administration consists in this, that he completed the work of Jonathan and left the Jewish people absolutely independent of Syria" (Schurer).
See MACCABAEUS,II , 4.
(2) Simon I, the high priest, son of Onias I, whom he succeeded circa 300 BC. He was one of the last of the Great Synagogue, and to him is attributed the saying, "On three things the world depends--the Law, Worship and the showing of kindness." According to Josephus (Ant., XII, ii, 5) this Simon was called "the Just" (ho dikaios), "on account of his piety and his benevolent disposition toward his countrymen."
Many authorities (Herzfeld, Derenbourg, Stanley, Cheyne) assert that Josephus is wrong in attaching this epithet to Simon I instead of Simon II, and Schurer is not certain on this question. But the Talmud passage which Derenbourg cites means the opposite of what he takes it, namely, it is intended to show how splendid and holy were the days of Simeon (ha-tsaddiq) compared with the later days. Besides, Josephus is more likely to have known the truth on this matter than these later authorities. The same uncertainty obtains as to whether the eulogium in Sirach 50:1 ff of "the great priest" refers to Simon I or Simon II. Schurer and others refer it to Simon II. It is more likely to refer to the Simon who was famous as "the Just," and consequently to Simon I. Besides we know of no achievements of Simon II to entitle him to such praise. The building operations mentioned would suit the time of Simon I better, as Ptolemy captured Jerusalem and probably caused considerable destruction. The Talmud states that this Simon (and not Jaddua) met Alexander the Great.
(3) Simon II, high priest, son of Onias II and grandson of Simon I and father of Onias III, flourished about the end of the 3rd century BC, and was succeeded by his son Onias III circa 198 BC. Josephus says that this Simon in the conflict of the sons of Joseph sided with the elder sons against Hyrcanus the younger. Schurer (probably incorrectly) thinks he is the Simon praised in Sirach 50:1 ff. See (2) above (3 Maccabees 2:1; Josephus, Ant,XII , iv, 10).
(4) Simon, a Benjamite, guardian of the temple, who, having quarreled with the high priest Onias III, informed Apollonius of the untold sums of money in the temple treasury. Apollonius laid the matter before the king Seleucus IV, who sent Heliodorus to remove the money. An apparition prevented Heliodorus from accomplishing his task (2 Maccabees 3:4 ff). It is further recorded, that Simon continued his opposition to Onias. He is spoken of as brother of the renegade Menelaus (2 Maccabees 4:23). Of his end we know nothing.
(5) Simon Chosameus (Codex Vaticanus (and Swete) Chosamaos; Codex Alexandrinus Chosomaios), one of the sons of Annas who had married "strange wives" (1 Esdras 9:32). Simon apparently = "Shimeon" (shim`on) of the sons of Harim (Ezra 10:31); Chosameus is probably a corruption standing in the place of, but not resembling, any of the three names: Benjamin, Malluch, Shemaraiah, which Esdras omits from the Ezra list.
S. Angus
Simon (2)
Simon (2) - si'-mon (Simon):
(1) Simon Peter.
See PETER ( SIMON).
(2) Another of the Twelve, Simon "the Cananean" (Matthew 10:4; Mark 3:18), "the Zealot" (Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13).
See CANANAEAN.
(3) One of the brethren of Jesus (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3).
See BRETHREN OF THE LORD.
(4) "The leper" in Bethany, in whose house a woman poured a cruse of precious ointment over the head of Jesus (Matthew 26:6; Mark 14:3). He had perhaps been healed by Jesus; in that case his ungracious behavior was not consistent with due gratitude. However he was healed, the title referred to his condition in the past, as lepers were ostracized by law.
(5) A Pharisee in whose house a woman, "a sinner," wet the feet of Jesus with her tears, and anointed them with ointment (Luke 7:36 ff). By some he is identified with (4), this being regarded as Luke's version of the incident recorded in Matthew 26:1-75 and Mark 14:1-72. Others as strongly deny this view.
For discussion see MARY,IV .
(6) A man of Cyrene, who was compelled to carry the cross of Jesus (Matthew 27:32; Mark 15:21; Luke 23:26). Mark calls him "the father of Alexander and Rufus," well-known members of the church at (probably) Rome (compare Acts 19:33; Romans 16:13).
See CYRENIAN.
The father of Judas Iscariot (John 6:71; 12:4 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) omits; John 13:2, 26).
(8) Simon Magus (Acts 8:9 ff). See separate article.
(9) Simon, the tanner, with whom Peter lodged at Joppa. His house was by the seaside outside the city wall, because of its ceremonial uncleanness to a Jew, and also for reasons of sanitation (Acts 9:43).
S. F. Hunter
Simon Magus
Simon Magus - ma'-gus (Simon, Greek form of Hebrew shim`on; Gesenius gives the meaning of the Hebrew word as "hearing with acceptance"; it is formed from [?] shama`, "to hear"):
1. Simon, a Magician
2. Simon and the Apostles
(1) Simon and Philip
(2) Simon and Peter John
3. The Magicians and the Gospel
4. Testimony of Early Christian Writers
5. Sources of Legendary History
6. Traditions of His Death
7. The Simoniani
8. Was Simon the Originator of Gnosticism?
1. Simon, a Magician: The name or term "Magus" is not given to him in the New Testament, but is justly used to designate or particularize him on account of the incident recorded in Acts 8:9-24, for though the word "Magus" does not occur, yet in Acts 8:9 the present participle mageuon is used, and is translated, both in the King James Version and in the Revised Version (British and American), "used sorcery." Simon accordingly was a sorcerer, he "bewitched the people of Samaria" (the King James Version). In Acts 8:11 it is also said that "of long time he had amazed" them "with his sorceries" (magiais). The claim, given out by himself, was that he "was some great one"; and this claim was acknowledged by the Samaritans, for previous to the introduction of the gospel into Samaria, "they all gave heed (to him), from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is that power of God which is called Great" (Acts 8:10).
2. Simon and the Apostles: (1) Simon and Philip: It so happened, however, that Philip the deacon and evangelist went down from Jerusalem to Samaria, and "proclaimed unto them the Christ" (Acts 8:5); and as the result of the proclamation of the gospel, many were gathered into the Christian church. Many miracles also were performed by Philip, sick persons cured, and demons cast out; and Simon fell under the influence of all these things, both of the preaching and of "the signs." So great was the impression now made upon Simon that he "believed" (Acts 8:13). This means, at least, that he saw that Philip was able in the name of Jesus Christ to display powers greater than anything he himself was acquainted with: Philip's power was greater by far than Simon's. He therefore came forward as one of the new converts, and was baptized. After his baptism he continued with Philip. The signs which accompanied the introduction of the gospel into this city did not cease, and Simon seeing them "was amazed." The word denoting Simon's amazement at the "signs" wrought by Philip is the same as that used to express how the people of Samaria had been amazed at Simon's sorceries. It is an indication of the nature of the faith which he possessed in the gospel--wondering amazement at a new phenomenon not yet understood, not repentance or trust in Christ.
(2) Simon and Peter and John: News having reached Jerusalem of the events which had occurred in Samaria, the apostles sent Peter and John to establish the work there. These two apostles prayed for the converts that they might receive the Holy Ghost, which they had not yet received. And when they had laid their hands upon the converts, the Spirit was given to them. At this early period in the history of the church the Holy Ghost was bestowed in a visible manner which showed itself in such miraculous gifts as are described in Acts 2:1-47. Simon saw what had taken place, and then, instead of joining the company of those who had truly repented and trusted Christ, he came forward with the same amazement as he had previously shown, and offered money to Peter and John, if they would impart to him the power of giving the Holy Spirit to others. Peter instantly rebuked this bold and ungodly request, and did so with such sterness as to cause Simon to ask that the judgment threatened by the apostle might not fall upon him.
Such is the unenviable history of Simon Magus, as it is recorded in the New Testament. Later centuries have shown their estimation of the heinousness of Simon's sin by employing his name to indicate the crime of buying or selling price a spiritual office for a price in money--"simony."
3. The Magicians and the Gospel: It is not strange to find the gospel brought into direct conflict with magicians, for in the 1st and 2nd centuries there were a multitude of such persons who pretended to possess supernatural powers by which they endeavored to deceive men. They flattered the sinful inclinations of the human heart, and fell in with men's current ways of thinking, and required no self-renunciation at all. For these reasons the magicians found a ready belief on the part of many. The emperor Tiberius, in his later years, had a host of magicians in constant attendance upon him. Elymas, with whom Paul came in contact in Cyprus "was with the deputy of the country, Sergius Paulus, a prudent man" (Acts 13:7 the King James Version). Elymas was one of those magicians, and he endeavored to turn away the deputy from the faith. Luke expressly calls this man "magus", Elymas the magus (Acts 13:6, 8 margin).
The influence of such persons presented an obstacle to the progress of the Christian faith, which had to force its way through the delusions with which these sorcerers had surrounded the hearts of those whom they deceived. When the gospel came in contact with these magicians and with their works, it was necessary that there should be striking facts, works of supernatural power strongly appealing to men's outward senses, in order to bring them out of the bewilderment and deception in which they were involved, and to make them able to receive the impression of spiritual truth. Such miracles were wrought both in Cyprus and in Samaria, the spheres of influence of the magicians Elymas and Simon. These divine works first arrested men's attention, and then dispelled the delusive influence of the sorcerers.
4. Testimony of Early Christian Writers: (1) The history of Simon Magus does not close with what is narrated in the Acts, for the early Christian writers have much to say in regard to him.
Justin Martyr, himself a Samaritan, states that Simon Magus was a "Samaritan from the village called Gitton." Justin also relates that, in the time of Claudius Caesar, Simon was worshipped as a god at Rome on account of his magical powers, and that a statue had been erected to him, on the island in the river Tiber, with the inscription Simoni Deo Sancto, that is, "To Simon the sacred god." Curiously enough, in the year 1574, a stone which appears to have served as a pedestal of a statue, was dug up in the Tiber at the spot described by Justin; and on it were inscribed the words Semoni Sanco Deo Fidio Sacrum, that is, the stone then discovered was dedicated to the god Semo Sancus, the Sabine Hercules. This antiquarian find makes it probable that Jstin was mistaken in what he said about a statue having been erected in honor of Simon Magus. "It is incredible that the folly should ever be carried to such an extent as that a statue should be erected, and the senate should pass a decree enrolling Simon Magus among the deos Romanos" (Neander, Church History, II, 123). The inscription found in 1574 shows the source of the error into which Justin had fallen.
There are many stories told by some of the early Christian writers regarding Simon Magus, but they are full of legend and fable: some of them are improbable in the extreme and border on the impossible.
(2) Jerome, who professes to quote from writings of Simon, represents him as employing these words in reference to himself, "I am the Word of God, I am the Comforter, I am Almighty, I am all there is of God" (Mansel, The Gnostic Heresies, 82). Irenaeus (Mansel, ibid., 82) writes regarding him: "Simon, having purchased a certain woman named Helena, who had been a prostitute in the city of Tyre, carried her about with him, and said that she was the first conception of his mind, the mother of all things, by whom, in the beginning, he conceived the thought of making the angels and archangels; for that this conception proceeded forth from him, and knowing her father's wishes, she descended to the lower world, and produced the angels and powers; by whom also he said that this world was made. But after she had produced them, she was detained by them through envy, since they were unwilling to be considered the offspring of any other being; for he himself was entirely unknown by them; but his conception was detained by those powers and angels which were put forth from her, and suffered every insult from them that she might not return upward to her father; and this went so far that she was even confined within a human body, and for ages passed into other female bodies, as if from one vessel into another. He said also that she was that Helen, on whose account the Trojan war was fought .... and that after passing from one body to another, and constantly meeting with insult, at last she became a public prostitute, and that this was the lost sheep. On this account he himself came, that he might first of all reclaim her and free her from her chains, and then give salvation to men through the knowledge of himself. For since the angels ruled the world badly, because one of them desired the chief place, he had come down for the restoration of all things, and had descended, being changed in figure, and made like to principalities and powers and angels, so that he appeared among men as a man, and was thought to have suffered in Judea, though he did not suffer. .... Furthermore he said that the prophets uttered their prophecies under the inspiration of those angels who framed the world; for which reason they who rest their hope on him and his Helena no longer cared for them, but as free men could act as they pleased, for that men are saved by his (i.e. Simon's) grace, and not according to their own just works, for that no acts were just by nature, but by accident, according to the rules established by the angels, who made the world, and who attempt by these precepts to bring men into bondage. For this reason he promised that the world should be released, and those who are his set at liberty from the government of those who made the world."
5. Sources of Legendary History: The chief sources of the legendary history of Simon Magus are the collection of writings known as The Clementines (see LITERATURE, SUB-APOSTOLIC; PETER,THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ; PETER,THE SECOND EPISTLE OF ). What is there said of him is, that he studied at Alexandria, and that he had been, along with the heresiarch Dositheus, a disciple of John the Baptist. He became also a disciple of Dositheus, and afterward his successor. The Clementines comprise (1) The Homilies, (2) The Recognitions, and (3) The Epitome. These three are cognate works, and in part are identical. The date of The Homilies may be placed about 160 AD. The contents comprise a supposed letter from the apostle Peter to the apostle James, along with other matter. Then follow the homilies, of which there are twenty. These record the supposed travels of Clement, a Roman citizen. Clement meets with Barnabas and with Peter. Then there is narrated a discussion between Peter and Simon Magus. This disputation lasts for three days, Simon maintaining that there are two gods, and that the God of the Old Testament is an imperfect being. Simon Magus withdraws to Tyre and then to Sidon. Peter follows Simon from place to place, counteracting his sorceries, and instructing the people. At Laodicea a second disputation takes place between the apostle and Simon on the same subjects.
The Homilies are not a Christian protest against Gnosticism, but merely that of one Gnostic school or sect against another, the Ebionite against the Marcionite. The Deity of Christ is denied, and He is regarded as one of the Jewish prophets.
In the legends Simon is represented as constantly opposing Peter, who ultimately discredits and vanquishes him. These legends occur in more forms than one, the earlier form selecting Antioch as the place where Simon was discomfited by the apostle and where he also died, while the later tradition chooses Rome for these events.
6. Traditions of His Death: One tradition tells how the magician ordered his followers to bury him in a grave, promising that if this were done, he would rise again on the third day. They did as he wished and buried him; but this was the end of him, for he did not rise again.
Simon is said to have met his death at Rome, after an encounter with the apostle Peter. During this his final controversy with the apostle, Simon had raised himself in the air by the help of evil spirits, and in answer to the prayer of Peter and Paul he was dashed to the ground and killed.
According to another form of this tradition, Simon proposed to give the Roman emperor a proof of his power by flying off to God. He succeeded, it is said, in flying for a certain distance over Rome, but in answer to the prayer of Peter he fell and broke one of his legs. This tradition accounts for his end by saying that the people stoned him to death.
7. The Simoniani: The Simoniani, the Simonians or followers of Simon, were an eclectic sect, who seem, at one time, to have adopted tenets and opinions derived from paganism, at another, from Judaism and the beliefs of the Samaritans, and at another still, from Christianity. Sometimes they seem to have been ascetics; at others they are wild scoffers at moral law. They regarded Simon Magus as their Christ, or at least as a form of manifestation of the redeeming Christ, who had manifested Himself also in Jesus. The Simonians were one of the minor Gnostic sects and were carried far away both from the doctrine and from the ethical spirit of the Christian faith.
Origen denies that the followers of Simon were Christians in any sense. The words of Origen are, "It escapes the notice of Celsus that the Simonians do not in any way acknowledge Jesus as the Son of God, but they call Simon the Power of God." In the time of Origen the followers of Simon had dwindled in number to such a degree that he writes, "I do not think it possible to find that all the followers of Simon in the whole world are more than thirty: and perhaps I have said more than there really are" (Contra Celsus, i.57, quoted by Alford, Greek New Testament, Acts 8:9).
8. Was Simon the Originator of Gnosticism?: Irenaeus also has much to say regarding Simon and his followers. He makes the legendary Simon identical with the magician of Acts 8:1-40, makes him also the first in the list which he gives of heretics, and also says that it was from him that Gnosticism sprang. The account which he gives of the Simonians shows that by the time when Irenaeus lived, their system had developed into Gnosticism; but this fact does not justify Irenaeus in the assertion that Simon of Acts 8:1-40 is the originator of the Gnostic system. The early Christian writers took this view, and regarded Simon Magus as the founder of Gnosticism. Perhaps they were right, "but from the very little authentic information we possess, it is impossible to ascertain how far he was identified with their tenets" (Alford, New Testament, II, 86). In the midst of the various legends regarding Simon, it may be that there is a substratum of fact, of such a nature that future investigation and discovery will justify these early Christian writers in their judgment, and will show that Simon Magus is not to be overlooked as one of the sources from which Gnosticism sprang. The exact origin of Gnosticism is certainly difficult to trace, but there is little or no indication that it arose from the incidents narrated in Acts 8:1-40. It cannot be denied that a connection is possible, and may have existed between the two, that is between Simon Magus and some of the Gnostic heresies; but the facts of history show widespread tendencies at work, during and even before the Apostolic age, which amply account for the rise of Gnosticism. These are found e.g. in the Alexandrian philosophy, and in the tenets of the false teachers at Colosse and in other places. These philosophical and theosophical ideas commingled with the influences of Zoroastrianism from Persia, and of Buddhism from India, and these tendencies and influences, taken in conjunction, were the sources of the various heresies known by the name of Gnosticism.
See GNOSTICISM.
John Rutherfurd
Simon Peter
Simon Peter - See PETER, SIMON.
Simon the Canaanite; Simon the Cananaean; Simon the Zealot
Simon the Canaanite; Simon the Cananaean; Simon the Zealot - (Simon Kananaios; kanna'i, "the Jealous (or Zealous) One"): One of the Twelve Apostles. This Simon was also named "the Canaanite" (Matthew 10:4; Mark 3:18 the King James Version) or "the Cananean" (Matthew 10:4; Mark 3:18 the Revised Version (British and American)) or "Zelotes" (Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13 the King James Version) or "the Zealot" (Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13 the Revised Version (British and American)).
According to the "Gospel of the Ebionites" or" Gospel of the Twelve Apostles" (of the 2nd century and mentioned by Origen) Simon received his call to the apostleship along with Andrew and Peter, the sons of Zebedee, Thaddaeus and Judas Iscariot at the Sea of Tiberias (compare Matthew 4:18-22; see also Hennecke, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, Matthew 24:1-51-Matthew 27:1-66).
Although Simon, like the majority of the apostles, was probably a Galilean, the designation "Cananaean" is regarded as of political rather than of geographical significance (compare Luke's rendering). The Zealots were a faction, headed by Judas of Galilee, who "in the days of the enrollment" (compare Acts 5:37; Luke 2:1-2) bitterly opposed the threatened increase of taxation at the census of Quirinius, and would have hastened by the sword the fulfillment of Messianic prophecy.
Simon has been identified with Simon the brother of Jesus (Mark 6:3; Matthew 13:55), but there also are reasons in favor of identifying him with Nathanael.
Thus (1) all the arguments adduced in favor of the Bartholomew-Nathanael identification (see NATHANAEL) can equally be applied to that of Simon-Nathanael, except the second. But the second is of no account, since the Philip-Bartholomew connection in the Synoptists occurs merely in the apostolic lists, while in John it is narrative. Further, in the Synoptists, Philip is connected in the narrative, not with Bartholomew but with Andrew.
(2) The identity is definitely stated in the Genealogies of the Twelve Apostles (see NATHANAEL). Further, the "Preaching of Simon, son of Cleopas" (compare Budge,II , 70 ff) has the heading "The preaching of the blessed Simon, the son of Cleopas, who was surnamed Judas, which is interpreted Nathanael, who became bishop of Jerusalem after James the brother of our Lord." Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, xi, 32; IV, xxii) also refers to a Simon who succeeded James as bishop of Jerusalem and suffered martyrdom under Trajan; and Hegesippus, whom Eusebius professes to quote, calls this Simon a son of Cleopas.
(3) The invitation of Philip to Nathanael (compare John 1:45) was one which would naturally be addressed to a follower of the Zealots, who based their cause on the fulfillment of Messianic prophecy.
(4) As Alpheus, the father of James, is generally regarded as the same as Clopas or Cleopas (see JAMES), this identification of the above Simon Nathanael, son of Cleopas, with Simon Zelotes would shed light on the reason of the juxtaposition of James son of Alpheus and Simon Zelotes in the apostolic lists of Luke and Acts, i.e. they were brothers.
C. M. Kerr
Simple
Simple - sim'-p'l: In the Old Testament the uniform tranlation of the Hebrew word pethi (root pathah, "be open"). Like the English word "simple" (etymologically "of one fold"), the Hebrew pethi is used sometimes in a good sense, i.e. "open-minded" (Psalms 19:7; 116:6; 119:130, possibly in all three cases the sense is neutral rather than positively good), and sometimes in a bad sense (Proverbs 7:7, parallel to "destitute of understanding"; Proverbs 8:5, parallel to "fools" (blockheads); Proverbs 14:15, opposed to prudent). The fundamental idea of pethi seems to be open to influence, i.e. easily influenced. That one open to influence should as a rule be classed with the irreligious is one of many instances in which language is an unwilling witness to the miasmatic moral atmosphere in which we live. The line between moral weakness and moral turpitude, between negative goodness (if indeed such a thing be conceivable) and positive badness, is soon passed.
In the New Testament the word "simple" is found only in Romans 16:18-19 the King James Version. In the first of these passages it is used to translate akakos (the Revised Version (British and American) "innocent"). In Hebrews 7:26 the King James Version the same word is rendered "harmless," the rendering of the Revised Version (British and American) in this instance being "guileless." This would suit Romans 16:18 better than "innocent." Guilelessness is not a synonym for gullibility; but the guileless are frequently the prey of designing men. In Romans 16:19 the word translated "simple" is akeraios, literally, "unmixed," "sincere" (Trench and Godet; Young, erroneously "hornless" and so "harmless"). "Uncontaminated" seems to be the idea of the apostle. He would have those to whom he wrote "wise as regards good" and not ignorant as regards evil--for that would be impossible, even if desirable--but without that kind of knowledge of evil that comes from engaging in it, as we say, mixing themselves up with it, unalloyed with evil.
W. M. McPheeters
Simplicity
Simplicity - sim-plis'-i-ti (pethayyuth; haplotes): The words in the Old Testament commonly translated "simplicity" are pethi, "simple" (Proverbs 1:22), pethayyuth, "simplicity" (Proverbs 9:13 margin), tom, "completeness," "integrity" (2 Samuel 15:11), "They went in their simplicity." In the New Testament, haplotes, "singleness of mind," "simplicity," occurs in Romans 12:8, "He that giveth let him do it with simplicity," the Revised Version (British and American) "liberality," margin "Greek: `singleness'"; 2 Corinthians 1:12, "in simplicit and godly sincerity," the Revised Version (British and American) (with corrected text) "in holiness and sincerity of God"; 2 Corinthians 11:3, "the simplicity that is in Christ," the Revised Version (British and American) (with corrected text) "the simplicity and the purity that is toward Christ"; compare Ephesians 6:5; Colossians 3:22, where the translation is "singleness" In Wisdom of Solomon 1:1 we have, "Think ye of the Lord with a good mind (the King James Version "heart"), and in singleness (the King James Version "simplicity") of heart seek ye him" (haplotes). our Lord also speaks (Matthew 6:22; Luke 11:34) of the "single eye" (haplous), and James (Luke 1:5) applies haplos, "simply," "directly," without after-thought (the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) "liberally") to God, who had been described by Plato (Rep. ii.382 E) as being perfectly simple (haplous) and true, both in word and deed. In such "simplicity"--openness, sincerity, freedom from double-mindedness--man most resembles God and is most open to His visitation and blessing.
W. L. Walker
Simri
Simri - sim'-ri.
See SHIMRI.
Sin (1)
Sin (1) - (chaTTa'th, "a missing," `awon, "perversity]" pesha`, "transgression," ra`, "evil," etc.; hamartano, "miss the mark," parabasis, "transgression" with a suggestion of violence, adikia, "injustice," "unrighteousness"):
1. Sin as Disobedience
2. Affects the Inner Life
3. Involves All Men
4. The Story of the Fall
5. The Freedom of Man
6. A Transgression against Light
7. Inwardness of the Moral Law
(1) Prophets
(2) Paul
(3) Jesus
8. Sin a Positive Force
9. Heredity
10. Environment
11. Redemption
12. Life in Christ
13. Repentance
14. Forgiveness
LITERATURE
1. Sin as Disobedience: A fairly exact definition of sin based on Biblical data would be that sin is the transgression of the law of God (1 John 3:4). Ordinarily, sin is defined simply as "the transgression of the law," but the idea of God is so completely the essential conception of the entire Biblical revelation that we can best define sin as disobedience to the law of God. It will be seen that primarily sin is an act, but from the very beginning it has been known that acts have effects, not only in the outward world of things and persons, but also upon him who commits the act.
2. Affects the Inner Life: Hence, we find throughout the Scriptures a growing emphasis on the idea of the sinful act as not only a fact in itself, but also as a revelation of an evil disposition on the part of him who commits the act (Genesis 6:5).
3. Involves All Men: Then also there is the further idea that deeds which so profoundly affect the inner life of an individual in some way have an effect in transmitting evil tendencies to the descendants of a sinful individual (Psalms 51:5-6; Ephesians 2:3). See HEREDITY; TRADITION. Hence, we reach shortly the conception, not only that sin is profoundly inner in its consequences, but that its effects reach outward also to an extent which practically involves the race. Around these various items of doctrine differing systems of theology have sprung up.
4. The Story of the Fall: Students of all schools are agreed that we have in the Old Testament story of the fall of Adam an eternally true account of the way sin comes into the world (Genesis 3:1-6). The question is not so much as to the literal historic matter-of-factness of the narrative, as to its essentially psychological truthfulness. The essential thought of the narrative is that both Adam and Eve disobeyed an express command of God. The seductiveness of temptation is nowhere more forcefully stated than in this narrative. The fruit of the tree is pleasant to look upon; it is good to eat; it is to be desired to make one wise; moreover, the tempter moves upon the woman by the method of the half truth (see ADAM IN THE OLD TESTAMENT). God had said that disobedience to the command would bring death; the tempter urged that disobedience would not bring death, implying that the command of God had meant that death would immediately follow the eating of the forbidden fruit. In the story the various avenues of approach of sin to the human heart are graphically suggested, but after the seductiveness of evil has thus been set forth, the fact remains that both transgressors knew they were transgressing (Genesis 3:2 f). Of course, the story is told in simple, naive fashion, but its perennial spiritual truth is at once apparent. There has been much progress in religious thinking concerning sin during the Christian ages, but the progress has not been away from this central conception of willful disobedience to the law of God.
5. The Freedom of Man: In this early Biblical account there is implicit the thought of the freedom of man. The idea of transgression has sometimes been interpreted in such wise as to do away with this freedom. An unbiased reading of the Scriptures would, with the possible exception of some passages which designedly lay stress on the power of God (Romans 8:29-30), produce on the mind the impression that freedom is essential to sin. Certainly there is nothing in the account of the Old Testament or New Testament narratives to warrant the conception that men are born into sin by forces over which they have no control. The argument of the tempter with the woman is an argument aimed at her will. By easy steps, indeed, she moves toward the transgression, but the transgression is a transgression and nothing else. Of course, the evil deed is at once followed by attempts on the part of the transgressors to explain themselves, but the futility of the explanations is part of the point of the narrative. In all discussion of the problem of freedom as relating to sin, we must remember that the Biblical revelation is from first to last busy with the thought of the righteousness and justice and love of God (Genesis 6:9 tells us that because of justice or righteousness, Noah walked with God). Unless we accept the doctrine that God is Himself not free, a doctrine which is nowhere implied in the Scripture, we must insist that the condemnation of men as sinful, when they have not had freedom to be otherwise than sinful, is out of harmony with the Biblical revelation of the character of God. Of course this does not mean that a man is free in all things. Freedom is limited in various ways, but we must retain enough of freedom in our thought of the constitution of men to make possible our holding fast to the Biblical idea of sin as transgression. Some who take the Biblical narrative as literal historical fact maintain that all men sinned in Adam (see IMPUTATION,III , 1). Adam may have been free to sin or not to sin, but, "in his fall we sinned all." We shall mention the hereditary influences of sin in a later paragraph; here it is sufficient to say that even if the first man had not sinned, there is nothing in our thought of the nature of man to make it impossible to believe that the sinful course of human history could have been initiated by some descendant of the first man far down the line.
6. A Transgression against Light: The progress of the Biblical teaching concerning sin also would seem to imply that the transgression of the law must be a transgression committed against the light (Acts 17:30; 1 Timothy 1:13). To be sinful in any full sense of the word, a man must know that the course which he is adopting is an evil course. This does not necessarily mean a full realization of the evil of the course. It is a fact, both of Biblical revelation and of revelation of all times, that men who commit sin do not realize the full evil of their deeds until after the sin has been committed (2 Samuel 12:1-13). This is partly because the consequences of sin do not declare themselves until after the deed has been committed; partly also because of the remorse of the conscience; and partly from the humiliation at being discovered; but in some sense there must be a realization of the evil of a course to make the adoption of the course sinful. E.g. in estimating the moral worth of Biblical characters, especially those of earlier times, we must keep in mind the standards of the times in which they lived. These standards were partly set by the customs of the social group, but the customs were, in many cases, made sacred by the claim of divine sanction. Hence, we find Biblical characters giving themselves readily to polygamy and warfare. The Scriptures themselves, however, throw light upon this problem. They refer to early times as times of ignorance, an ignorance which God Himself was willing to overlook (Acts 17:30). Even so ripe a moral consciousness as that of Paul felt that there was ground for forgiveness toward a course which he himself later considered evil, because in that earlier course he had acted ignorantly (Acts 26:9; 1 Timothy 1:13).
7. Inwardness of the Moral Law: The Biblical narratives, too, show us the passage over from sin conceived of as the violation of external commands to sin conceived of as an unwillingness to keep the commandments in the depths of the inner life. The course of Biblical history is one long protest against conceiving of sin in an external fashion.
(1) Prophets. In the sources of light which are to help men discern good from evil, increasing stress is laid upon inner moral insight (compare Isaiah 58:5 f; Hosea 6:1-7). The power of the prophets was in their direct moral insight and the fervor with which they made these insights real to the mass of the people. Of course it was necessary that the spirit of the prophets be given body and form in carefully articulated law. The progress of the Hebrews from the insight of the seer to the statute of the lawmaker was not different from such progress in any other nations. It is easy to see, however, how the hardening of moral precepts into formal codes, absolutely necessary as that task was, led to an externalizing of the thought of sin. The man who did not keep the formal law was a sinner. On such basis there grew up the artificial systems which came to their culmination in the New Testament times in Pharisaism. On the other hand, a fresh insight by a new prophet might be in violation of the Law, considered in its literal aspects. It might be necessary for a prophet to attack outright some additions to the Law. We regard as a high-water mark of Old Testament moral utterances the word of Micah that the Lord requires men to do justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with Him (Hosea 6:8). At the time this word was uttered, the people were giving themselves up to multitudes of sacrifices. Many of these sacrifices called for the heaviest sufferings on the part of the worshippers. It would seem that an obligation to sacrifice the firstborn was beginning to be taught in order that the Hebrews might not be behind the neighboring heathen nations in observances of religious codes. The simple direct word of Micah must have seemed heresy to many of its first hearers. The outcome, however, of this conflict between the inner and the outer in the thought of transgression was finally to deepen the springs of the inner life. The extremes of externalism led to a break with moral realities which tended to become apparent to the most ordinary observer. The invective of Jesus against New Testament Pharisaism took its force largely from the fact that Jesus gave clear utterance to what everyone knew. Those who thought of religion as external gave themselves to formal keeping of the commandments and allowed the inner life to run riot as it would (Matthew 23:23, et al.).
(2) Paul. With the more serious-minded the keeping of the Law became more and more a matter of the inner spirit. There were some who, like Paul, found it impossible to keep the Law and find peace of conscience (Romans 7:1-25). It was this very impossibility which forced some, like Paul, to understand that after all, sin or righteousness must be judged by the inner disposition. It was this which led to the search for a conception of a God who looks chiefly at the heart and judges men by the inner motive.
(3) Jesus. In the teaching of Jesus the emphasis upon the inner spirit as the essential factor in the moral life came to its climax. Jesus honored the Law, but He pushed the keeping of the Law back from the mere performance of externals to the inner stirrings of motives. It is not merely the actual commission of adultery, for example, that is sin: it is the lustful desire which leads to the evil glance; it is not merely the actual killing of the man that is murder; it is the spirit of hatred which makes the thought of murder welcome (Matthew 5:21, 27). Paul caught the spirit of Jesus and carried the thought of Jesus out into more elaborate and formal statements. There is a law of the inner life with which man should bind himself, and this law is the law of Christ's life itself (Romans 8:1-4). While both Jesus and Paul recognized the place of the formal codes in the moral life of individuals and societies, they wrought a great service for righteousness in setting on high the obligations upon the inner spirit. The follower of Christ is to guard the inmost thoughts of his heart. The commandments are not always precepts which can be given articulated statement; they are rather instincts and intuitions and glimpses which must be followed, even when we cannot give them full statement.
8. Sin a Positive Force: From this standpoint we are able to discern something of the force of the Biblical teaching as to whether sin is to be looked upon as negative or positive. Very often sin is defined as the mere absence of goodness. The man who sins is one who does not keep the Law. This, however, is hardly the full Biblical conception. Of course, the man who does not keep the Law is regarded as a sinner, but the idea transgression is very often that of a positive refusal to keep the commandment and a breaking of the commandment. Two courses are set before men, one good, the other evil. The evil course is, in a sense, something positive in itself. The evil man does not stand still; he moves as truly as the good man moves; he becomes a positive force for evil. In all our discussions we must keep clearly in mind the truth that evil is not something existing in and by itself. The Scriptures deal with evil men, and the evil men are as positive as their natures permit them to be. In this sense of the word sin does run a course of positive destruction. In the thought, e.g., of the writer who describes the conditions which, in his belief, made necessary the Flood, we have a positive state of evil contaminating almost the whole world (Genesis 6:11). It would be absurd to characterize the world in the midst of which Noah lived as merely a negative world. The world was positively set toward evil. And so, in later writings, Paul's thought of Roman society is of a world of sinful men moving with increasing velocity toward the destruction of themselves and of all around them through doing evil. It is impossible to believe that Romans 1:1-32 conceives of sin merely in negative terms. We repeat, we do not do full justice to the Biblical conception when we speak of sin merely in negative terms. If we may be permitted to use a present-day illustration, we may say that in the Biblical thought sinful men are like the destructive forces in the world of Nature which must be removed before there can be peace and health for human life. For example, science today has much to say concerning germs of diseases which prove destructive to human life. A large part of modern scientific effort has been to rid the world of these germs, or at least to cleanse human surroundings from their contaminating touch. The man who sterilizes the human environment so that these forces cannot touch men does in one sense a merely negative work; in another sense, however, his work makes possible the positive development of the forces which make for health.
9. Heredity: It is from this thought of the positiveness of sin that we are to approach the problem of the hereditary transmission of evil. The Biblical teaching has often been misinterpreted at this point. Apart from certain passages, especially those of Paul, which set forth the practically universal contamination of sin (e.g. Romans 5:18, etc.), there is nothing in the Scriptures to suggest the idea that men are born into the world under a weight of guilt. We hold fast to the idea of God as a God of justice and love. There is no way of reconciling these attributes with the condemnation of human souls before these souls have themselves transgressed. Of course much theological teaching moves on the assumption that the tendencies to evil are so great that the souls will necessarily trangress, but we must keep clearly in mind the difference between a tendency to evil and the actual commission of evil. Modern scientific research reinforces the conception that the children of sinful parents, whose sins have been such as to impress their lives throughout, will very soon manifest symptoms of evil tendency. Even in this case, however, we must distinguish between the psychological and moral. The child may be given a wrong tendency from birth, not only by hereditary transmission, but by the imitation of sinful parents; yet the question of the child's own personal responsibility is altogether another matter. Modern society has come to recognize something of the force of this distinction. In dealing with extreme cases of this kind, the question of the personal guilt of the child is not raised. The attempt is to throw round about the child an environment that will correct the abnormal tendency. But there can be little gainsaying the fact that the presence of sin in the life of the parent may go as far as to mark the life of the child with the sinful tendency.
10. Environment: The positive force of sinful life also appears in the effect of sin upon the environment of men. It is not necessary for us to believe that all the physical universe was cursed by the Almighty because of man's sin, in order to hold that there is a curse upon the world because of the presence of sinful men. Men have sinfully despoiled the world for their own selfish purposes. They have wasted its resources. They have turned forces which ought to have made for good into the channels of evil. In their contacts with one another also, evil men furnish an evil environment. If the employer of 100 men be himself evil, he is to a great extent the evil environment of those 100 men. The curse of his evil is upon them. So with the relations of men in larger social groups: the forces of state-life which are intended to work for good can be made to work for evil. So far has this gone that some earnest minds have thought of the material and social realms as necessarily and inherently evil. In other days this led to retreats from the world in monasteries and in solitary cells. In our present time the same thought is back of much of the pessimist idea that the world itself is like a sinking ship, absolutely doomed. The most we can hope for is to save individuals here and there from imminent destruction. Yet a more Biblical conception keeps clear of all this. The material forces of the world--apart from certain massive physical necessities (e.g. earthquakes, storms, floods, whirlwinds, fires, etc.), whose presence does more to furnish the conditions of moral growth than to discourage that growth--are what men cause them to be. Social forces are nothing apart from the men who are themselves the forces. No one can deny that evil men can use physical forces for evil purposes, and that evil men can make bad social forces, but both these forces can be used for good as well as for evil. "The whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain" waiting for the redemption at the hands of the sons of God (Romans 8:19-23).
11. Redemption: In the thought of Jesus, righteousness is life. Jesus came that men might have life (John 10:10). It must follow therefore that in His thought sin is death, or rather it is the positive course of transgression which makes toward death (John 5:24). But man is to cease to do evil and to learn to do well. He is to face about and walk in a different direction; he is to be born from above (John 3:3), and surrender himself to the forces which beat upon him from above rather than to those which surge upon him from below (Romans 12:2). From the realization of the positiveness both of sin and of righteousness, we see the need of a positive force which is to bring men from sin to righteousness (John 3:3-8).
Of course, in what we have said of the positive nature of sin we would not deny that there are multitudes of men whose evil consists in their passive acquiescence in a low moral state. Multitudes of men may not be lost, in the sense that they are breaking the more obvious of the commandments. They are lost, in the sense that they are drifting about, or that they are existing in a condition of inertness with no great interest in high spiritual ideals. But the problem even here is to find a force strong enough and positive enough to bring such persons to themselves and to God. In any case the Scriptures lay stress upon the seriousness of the problem constituted by sin. The Bible is centered on redemption. Redemption from sin is thought of as carrying with it redemption from all other calamities. If the kingdom of God and of His righteousness can be seized, all other things will follow with the seizure (Matthew 6:33). The work of Christ is set before us as chiefly a work of redemption from sin. A keen student once observed that almost all failures to take an adequate view of the person of Christ can be traced to a failure to realize adequately the seriousness of sin. The problem of changing the course of something so positive as a life set toward sin is a problem which may well tax the resources of the Almighty. Lives cannot be transformed merely by precept. The only effective force is the force of a divine life which will reach and save human lives.
See REDEMPTION .
12. Life in Christ: We are thus in a position to see something of the positiveness of the life that must be in Christ if He is to be a Saviour from sin. That positiveness must be powerful enough to make men feel that in some real sense God Himself has come to their rescue (Romans 8:32-39). For the problem of salvation from sin is manifold. Sin long persisted in begets evil habits, and the habits must be broken. Sin lays the conscience under a load of distress, for which the only relief is a sense of forgiveness. Sin blights and paralyzes the faculties to such a degree that only the mightiest of tonic forces can bring back health and strength. And the problem is often more serious than this. The presence of evil in the world is so serious in the sight of a Holy God that He Himself, because of His very holiness, must be under stupendous obligation to aid us to the utmost for the redemption of men. Out of the thought of the disturbance which sin makes even in the heart of God, we see something of the reason for the doctrine that in the cross of Christ God was discharging a debt to Himself and to the whole world; for the insistence also that in the cross there is opened up a fountain of life, which, if accepted by sinful men, will heal and restore them.
13. Repentance: It is with this seriousness of sin before us that we must think of forgiveness from sin. We can understand very readily that sin can be forgiven only on condition that men seek forgiveness in the name of the highest manifestation of holiness which they have known. For those who have heard the preaching of the cross and have seen something of the real meaning of that preaching, the way to forgiveness is in the name of the cross. In the name of a holiness which men would make their own, if they could; in the name of an ideal of holy love which men of themselves cannot reach, but which they forever strive after, they seek forgiveness. But the forgiveness is to be taken seriously. In both the Old Testament and New Testament repentance is not merely a changed attitude of mind. It is an attitude which shows its sincerity by willingness to do everything possible to undo the evil which the sinner has wrought (Luke 19:8). If there is any consequence of the sinner's own sin which the sinner can himself make right, the sinner must in himself genuinely repent and make that consequence right. In one sense repentance is not altogether something done once for all. The seductiveness of sin is so great that there is need of humble and continuous watching. While anything like a morbid introspection is unscriptural, constant alertness to keep to the straight and narrow path is everywhere enjoined as an obligation (Galatians 6:1).
14. Forgiveness: There is nothing in the Scriptures which will warrant the idea that forgiveness is to be conceived of in such fashion as would teach that the consequences of sin can be easily and quickly eliminated. Change in the attitude of a sinner necessarily means change in the attitude of God. The sinner and God, however, are persons, and the Scriptures always speak of the problem of sin after a completely personal fashion. The changed attitude affects the personal standing of the sinner in the sight of God. But God is the person who creates and carries on a moral universe. In carrying on that universe He must keep moral considerations in their proper place as the constitutional principles of the universe. While the father welcomes back the prodigal to the restored personal relations with himself, he cannot, in the full sense, blot out the fact that the prodigal has been a prodigal. The personal forgiveness may be complete, but the elimination of the consequences of the evil life is possible only through the long lines of healing set at work. The man who has sinned against his body can find restoration from the consequences of the sin only in the forces which make for bodily healing. So also with the mind and will. The mind which has thought evil must be cured of its tendency to think evil. To be sure the curative processes may come almost instantly through the upheaval of a great experience, but on the other hand, the curative processes may have to work through long years (see SANCTIFICATION). The will which has been given to sin may feel the stirrings of sin after the life of forgiveness has begun. All this is a manifestation, not only of the power of sin, but of the constitutional morality of the universe. Forgiveness must not be interpreted in such terms as to make the transgression of the Law of God in any sense a light or trivial offense. But, on the other hand, we must not set limits to the curative powers of the cross of God. With the removal of the power which makes for evil the possibility of development in real human experience is before the life (see FORGIVENESS). The word of the Master is that He "came that they may have life, and may have it abundantly" (John 10:10). Sin is serious, because it thwarts life. Sin is given so large a place in the thought of the Biblical writers simply because it blocks the channel of that movement toward the fullest life which the Scriptures teach is the aim of God in placing men in the world. God is conceived of as the Father in Heaven. Sin has a deeply disturbing effect in restraining the relations between the Father and the sons and of preventing the proper development of the life of the sons.
See further ETHICS, I, 3, (2); ETHICS OF JESUS, I, 2; GUILT; JOHANNINE THEOLOGY, V, 1; PAUL,THE APOSTLE ; PAULINE THEOLOGY;REDEMPTION , etc.
LITERATURE.
Tennant, Origin and Propagation of Sin; Hyde, Sin and Its Forgiveness; chapter on "Incarnation and Atonement" in Bowne's Studies in Christianity; Stevens, Christian Doctrine of Salvation; Clarke, Christian Doctrine of God; various treatises on Systematic Theology.
Francis J. McConnell
Sin (2)
Sin (2) - sin (cin, "clay or mud"; Suene, Codex Alexandrinus Tanis): A city of Egypt mentioned only in Ezekiel 30:15-16. This seems to be a pure Semitic name. The ancient Egyptian name, if the place ever had one such, is unknown. Pelusium (Greek Pelousion) also meant "the clayey or muddy town." The Pelusiac mouth of the Nile was "the muddy mouth," and the modern Arabic name of this mouth has the same significance. These facts make it practically certain that the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) is correct in identifying Sin with Pelusium. But although Pelusium appears very frequently in ancient history, its exact location is still not entirely certain. The list of cities mentioned in Ezek in connection with Sin furnishes no clue to its location. From other historical notices it seems to have been a frontier city. Rameses II built a wall from Sin to Heliopolis, probably by the aid of Hebrew slaves (Diodorus Siculus; compare Budge, History of Egypt, V, 90), to protect the eastern frontier. Sin was a meeting-place of Egypt with her enemies who came to attack her, many great battles being fought at or near this place. Sennacherib and Cambyses both fought Egypt near Pelusium (Herodotus ii.141; iii.10-13). Antiochus IV defeated the Egyptians here (Budge, VIII, 25), and the Romans under Gabinius defeated the Egyptians in the same neighborhood. Pelusium was also accessible from the sea, or was very near a seaport, for Pompey after the disaster at Pharsalia fled into Egypt, sailing for Pelusium. These historical notices of Pelusium make its usual identification with the ruins near el-Kantara, a station on the Suez Canal 29 miles South of Port Said, most probable. "Sin, the stronghold of Egypt," in the words of Ezekiel (30:15), would thus refer to its inaccessibility because of swamps which served as impassable moats. The wall on the South and the sea on the North also protected it on either flank.
M. G. Kyle
Sin Against the Holy Ghost (Spirit)
Sin Against the Holy Ghost (Spirit) - See BLASPHEMY.
Sin Money
Sin Money - See SACRIFICE.
Sin Offering
Sin Offering - See SACRIFICE.
Sin, Man of
Sin, Man of - See MAN OF SIN.
Sin, Wilderness of
Sin, Wilderness of - See WANDERINGS OF ISRAEL.
Sina
Sina - si'-na: In Acts 7:38 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) "Sinai" (which see).
Sinai
Sinai - si'-ni, si'-na-i (cinay; Codex Alexandrinus Sina, Codex Vaticanus Seina):
1. The Name: The name comes probably from a root meaning "to shine," which occurs in Syriac, and which in Babylonian is found in the name sinu for "the moon." The old explanation, "clayey," is inappropriate to any place in the Sinaitic desert, though it might apply to Sin (Ezekiel 30:15-16) or Pelusium; even there, however, the applicability is doubtful. The desert of Sin (Exodus 16:1; 17:1; Numbers 33:11 f) lay between Sinai and the Gulf of Suez, and may have been named from the "glare" of its white chalk. But at Sinai "the glory of Yahweh was like devouring fire on the top of the mount in the eyes of the children of Israel" (Exodus 24:17); and, indeed, the glory of the Lord still dyes the crags of Jebel Musa (the "mountain of Moses") with fiery red, reflected from its red granite and pink gneiss rocks, long after the shadows have fallen on the plain beneath. Sinai is mentioned, as a desert and a mountain, in 35 passages of the Old Testament. In 17 passages the same desert and mountain are called "Horeb," or "the waste." This term is chiefly used in Deuteronomy, though Sinai also occurs (Deuteronomy 33:2). In the other books of the Pentateuch, Sinai is the usual name, though Horeb also occurs (Exodus 3:1; 17:6; 33:6), applying both to the "Mount of God" and to the desert of Rephidim, some 20 miles to the Northwest.
2. Traditional Site: The indications of position, in various passages of the Pentateuch, favor the identification with the traditional site, which has become generally accepted by all those explorers who have carefully considered the subject, though two other theories may need notice. Moses fled to the land of Midian (or "empty land"), which lay East of the Sinaitic peninsula (Numbers 22:4, 7; Numbers 25:1-18; Numbers 31:1-54), and when he wandered with his flocks to Horeb (Exodus 3:1) he is said to have reached the west side of the desert. In another note (Deuteronomy 1:2) we read that the distance was "eleven days' journey from Horeb by the way of Mount Seir unto Kadesh-barnea" or Petra (see WANDERINGS OF ISRAEL), the distance being about 145 miles, or 14 miles of daily march, though Israel--with its flocks, women and children--made 16 marches between these points. Sinai again is described as being distant from Egypt "three days' journey into the wilderness" (Exodus 5:3), the actual route being 117 miles, which Israel accomplished in 10 journeys. But, for Arabs not encumbered with families and herds, this distance could still be covered by an average march of 39 miles daily, on riding camels, or even, if necessary, on foot.
3. Identification with Jebel Musa: These distances will not, however, allow of our placing Sinai farther East than Jebel Musa. Lofty mountains, in all parts of the world, have always been sacred and regarded as the mysterious abode of God; and Josephus says that Sinai is "the highest of all the mountains thereabout," and again is "the highest of all the mountains that are in that country, and is not only very difficult to be ascended by men, on account of its vast. altitude but because of the sharpness of its precipices: nay, indeed, it cannot be looked at without pain of the eyes, and besides this it was terrible and inaccessible, on account of the rumor that passed about, that God dwelt there" (Ant., II, xii, 1; III, v, 1). Evidently in his time Sinai was supposed to be one of the peaks of the great granitic block called et Tur--a term applying to any lofty mountain. This block has its highest peak in Jebel Katarin (so named from a legend of Catherine of Egypt), rising 8,550 ft. above the sea. Northeast of this is Jebel Musa (7,370 ft.), which, though less high, is more conspicuous because of the open plain called er Rachah ("the wide") to its Northwest. This plain is about 4 miles long and has a width of over a mile, so that it forms, as Dr. E. Robinson (Biblical Researches, 1838, I, 89) seems to have been the first to note, a natural camp at the foot of the mountain, large enough for the probable numbers (see EXODUS, 3) of Israel.
4. Description of Jebel Musu: Jebel Musa has two main tops, that to the Southeast being crowned by a chapel. The other, divided by gorges into three precipitous crags, has the Convent to its North, and is called Ras-es-Cafcafeh, or "the willow top." North of the Convent is the lower top of Jebel edition Deir ("mountain of the monastery"). These heights were accurately determined by Royal Engineer surveyors in 1868 (Sir C. Wilson, Ordnance Survey of Sinai); and, though it is impossible to say which of the peaks Moses ascended, yet they are all much higher than any mountains in the Sinaitic desert, or in Midian. The highest tops in the Tih desert to the North are not much over 4,000 ft. Those in Midian, East of Elath, rise only to 4,200 ft. Even Jebel Serbal, 20 miles West of Sinai--a ridge with many crags, running 3 miles in length--is at its highest only 6,730 ft. above the sea. Horeb is not recorded to have been visited by any of the Hebrews after Moses, except by Elijah (1 Kings 19:8) in a time of storm. In favor of the traditional site it may also be observed that clouds suddenly formed, or lasting for days (Exodus 24:15 f), are apt to cap very lofty mountains. The Hebrews reached Sinai about the end of May (Exodus 19:1) and, on the 3rd day, "there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount" (Exodus 19:16). Such storms occur as a rule in the Sinaitic desert only in December and January, but thunderstorms are not unknown in Palestine even in May.
5. Patristic Evidence: A constant tradition fixing the site is traceable back to the 4th century AD. Eusebius and Jerome (Onomasticon, under the word "Choreb") place Horeb near Paran, which in their time was placed (Onomasticon, under the word "Raphidim") in Wady Feiran. Anchorites lived at Paran, and at Sinai at least as early as 365 AD, and are noticed in 373 AD, and often later (Robinson, Biblical Res., 1838, I, 122-28); the monastery was first built for them by Justinian in 527 AD and his chapel still exists. Cosmas (Topogr. Christ.), in the same reign, says that Rephidim was then called Pharan, and (distinguishing Horeb from Sinai, as Eusebius also does) he places it "about 6 miles from Pharan," and "near Sinai." These various considerations may suffice to show that the tradition as to Horeb is at least as old as the time of Josephus, and that it agrees with all the indications given in the Old Testament.
6. Lepsius' Theory: Lepsius, it is true (Letters from Egypt, 1842-44), denying the existence of any unbroken tradition, and relying on his understanding of Cosmas, supposed Sinai to be the Jebel Serbal above mentioned, which lies immediately South of Wady Feiran. His main argument was that, visiting Sinai in March, he considered that the vicinity did not present sufficient water for Israel (Appendix B, 303-18). But, on this point, it is sufficient to give the opinion of the late F. W. Holland, based on the experience of four visits, in 1861, 1865, 1867-68.
He says (Recovery of Jerusalem, 524):
"With regard to water-supply there is no other spot in the whole Peninsula which is nearly so well supplied as the neighborhood of Jebel Musa. Four streams of running water are found there: one in Wady Leja; a second in Wady et Tl'ah which waters a succession of gardens extending more than 3 miles in length, and forms pools in which I have often had a swim; a third stream rises to the North of the watershed of the plain of er Rachah and runs West into Wady et Tl'ah; and a fourth, is formed by the drainage from the mountains of Umm Alawy, to the East of Wady Sebaiyeh and finds its way into that valley by a narrow ravine opposite Jebel edition Deir. In addition to these streams there are numerous wells and springs, affording excellent water throughout the whole of the granitie district. I have seldom found it necessary to carry water when making a mountain excursion, and the intermediate neighborhood of Jebel Masa would, I think, bear comparison with many mountain districts in Scotland with regard to its supply of water. There is also no other district in the Peninsula which affords such excellent pasturage."
This is important, as Israel encamped near Sinai from the end of May till April of the next year. There is also a well on the lower slope of Jebel Musa itself, where the ascent begins.
7. Greene's Theory: Another theory, put forward by Mr. Baker Greene (The Hebrew Migration from Egypt), though accepted by Dr. Sayce (Higher Cricitism, 1894, 268), appears likewise to be entirely untenable. Mr. Greene supposed Elim (Exodus 15:27) to be Elath (Deuteronomy 2:8), now `Ailah at the head of the Gulf of `Akabah; and that Sinai therefore was some unknown mountain in Midian. But in this case Israel would in 4 days (see Exodus 15:22-23, 27) have traveled a distance of 200 miles to reach Elim, which cannot but be regarded as quite impossible for the Hebrews when accompanied by women, children, flocks and herds.
C. R. Conder
Sincere; Sincerity
Sincere; Sincerity - sin-ser', sin-ser'-i-ti (tamim; aphtharsia, eilikrineia): "Sincerity" occurs once in the Old Testament as the translation of tamim, "complete," "entire," "sincere," etc. (Joshua 24:14); the same word is translated "sincerity" (Judges 9:16, 19, the Revised Version (British and American) "uprightly"). Four different words are rendered "sincere," "sincerely" "sincerity," in the New Testament: adolos, "without guile," "unadulterated," "desire the sincere milk of the word" (1 Peter 2:2 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) "the spiritual," the American Revised Version margin "Greek, `belonging to the reason'; compare Romans 12:1," the English Revised Version margin reasonable"), "milk which is without guile," with no other purpose but to nourish and benefit the soul (Alford); hagnos, "without blame," "pure," "preach Christ .... not sincerely" (Philippians 1:17); aphtharsia, "without corruption" (Ephesians 6:24, the King James Version "that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity," the American Standard Revised Version "with a love incorruptible," margin " `in incorruption.' See Romans 2:7," the English Revised Version "uncorruptness"; Titus 2:7, the King James Version "shewing uncorruptness .... sincerity," the Revised Version (British and American) "uncorruptness"); gnesios, "not spurious" (2 Corinthians 8:8); eilikrines, literally,, judged of in the sunlight, hence, "clear," "manifest" (Philippians 1:10); eilikrineia, with same meaning, is translated "sincerity" (1 Corinthians 5:8; 2 Corinthians 1:12; 2:17).
The Revised Version (British and American) has "sincere" for "pure" (2 Peter 3:1), "sincerely" for "clearly" (Job 33:3).
In Wisdom of Solomon 7:25 we have eilikrines in the description of Wisdom as a "pure influence," the Revised Version (British and American) "clear effluence."
W. L. Walker
Sinew
Sinew - sin'-u (gidh (Job 10:11, etc.)): The tendons and sinews of the body are uniformly (7 times) thus called. "Therefore the children of Israel eat not the sinew of the hip which is upon the hollow of the thigh, unto this day: because he touched the hollow of Jacob's thigh in the sinew of the hip" (Genesis 32:32). In the poetical description of Behemoth (hippopotamus) it is said: "He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his thighs are knit together" (Job 40:17). The prophet Ezekiel saw in his vision (Job 37:6, 8) that the dry bones were gathered together, that they were covered with sinews, flesh and skin, and that they were revived by the spirit of the Lord. In figurative language the neck of the obstinate is compared to an "iron sinew" (Isaiah 48:4). the King James Version "my sinews take no rest" (we`oreqay lo' yishkabhun, Job 30:17) has been corrected by the Revised Version (British and American) into "the pains that gnaw me take no rest," but the earlier version has been retained in the margin.
H. L. E. Luering
Singers; Singing
Singers; Singing - sing'-erz, sing'-ing: Singing seems to have become a regular profession at quite early date among the Hebrews. David had his troupe of "singing men and singing women" at Jerusalem (2 Samuel 19:35), and no doubt Solomon added to their numbers. Isaiah 23:16 suggests that it was not uncommon for foreign female minstrels of questionable character to be heard making "sweet melody," singing songs along the streets and highways of Judea. Nor was the worship of the temple left to the usually incompetent and inconstant leadership of amateur choristers. The elaborate regulations drawn up for the constitution of the temple orchestra and chorus are referred to under MUSIC (which see). It has been inferred from Ezra 2:65 that women were included among the temple singers, but this is erroneous, as the musicians there mentioned were of the class employed at banquets, festivals, etc. The temple choir consisted exclusively of Levites, one essential qualification of an active member of that order being a good voice.
Of the vocal method of the Hebrews we know nothing. Wellhausen imagines that he can detect one of the singers, in the portrayal of an Assyrian band, compressing his throat in order to produce a vibrato; and it is quite possible that in other respects as well as this, ancient and modern oriental vocalization resembled each other. But that is about all that can be said.
On the other hand, we cannot repeat too often that we are quite unable to identify any intervals, scales, or tunes as having been used in ancient Israel. Even those who hold that the early church took the Gregorian "tones" from the synagogue, confess that it was "certainly not without considerable modifications." And, of course, there was not the slightest affinity between the Hebrew and the Anglican chant.
See MUSIC; PRAISE; SONG; TEMPLE.
James Millar
Single, Eye
Single, Eye - sin'-g'-l : Matthew 6:22 f parallel Luke 11:34: "If therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness." "Single" and "evil" here represent haplouis, and poneros. Poneros elsewhere in the New Testament means "wicked"; haplous occurs only here in the New Testament, but is very common in ordinary Greek and always has the meaning "simple." But in view of the context, most commentators take haplous here as meaning "normal," "healthy," and poneros as "diseased," so rendering "Just as physical enlightenment depends on the condition of the eye, so does spiritual enlightenment depend on the condition of the heart." This is natural enough, but it is not satisfactory, as it gives to haplous a unique sense and to poneros a sense unique in the 73 New Testament examples of the word. Moreover, the same expression, "evil eye," is found also in Matthew 20:15; Mark 7:22, where it means "jealousy" or "covetousness." With poneros = "covetous" haplous would = "generous"; and this rendition gives excellent sense in Matthew, where the further context deals with love of money. Yet in Luke it is meaningless, where the context is of a different sort, a fact perhaps indicating that Luke has placed the saying in a bad context. Or the Greek translation of Christ's words used by Matthew and Luke may have taken the moral terms haplous and poneros to translate physical terms ("healthy" and "diseased"?) employed in the original Aramaic. The Sinaitic Syriac version of Luke 11:36 may perhaps contain a trace of an older rendering. See Julicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu,II , 98-108.
Burton Scott Easton
Singular
Singular - sin'-gu-lar: "Pertaining to the single person," "individual," and so sometimes "unusual," "remarkable." So Wisdom of Solomon 14:18, the King James Version "the singular diligence of the artificer" (philotimia, "love of honor," the Revised Version (British and American) "ambition"). In Leviticus 27:2 by "when a man shall make a singular vow" the King James Version seems to have understood a "personal" or "private" vow. the Revised Version (British and American) has "accomplish a vow," with margin "make a special vow." Compare the same phrase (yaphli' (yephalle') nedher) used of the Nazirite vow in Numbers 6:2.
Sinim, Land of
Sinim, Land of - si'-nim, sin'-im ('erets cinim; ge Person): The name occurs in Isaiah's prophecy of the return of the people from distant lands: "Lo, these shall come from far; and, lo, these from the north and from the west; and these from the land of Sinim" (Isaiah 49:12). The land is clearly far off, and it must be sought either in the South or in the East. Septuagint points to an eastern country. Many scholars have favored identification with China, the classical Sinae. It seems improbable that Jews had already found their way to China; but from very early times trade relations were established with the Far East by way of Arabia and the Persian Gulf; and the name may have been used by the prophet simply as suggesting extreme remoteness. Against, this view are Dillmann (Commentary on Isaiah), Duhm, Cheyne and others. Some have suggested places in the South: e.g. Sin (Pelusium, Ezekiel 30:15) and Syene (Cheyne, Introduction to Isa, 275). But these seem to be too near. In harmony with his reconstruction of Biblical history, Cheyne finally concludes that the reference here is to the return from a captivity in North Arabia (EB, under the word). While no certain decision is possible, probability points to the East, and China cannot be quite ruled out. See article "China," Encyclopedia Brittanica (11th edition), 188b.
W. Ewing
Sinites
Sinites - si'-nits (cini): A Canaanite people mentioned in Genesis 10:17; 1 Chronicles 1:15. The identification is uncertain. Jerome mentions a ruined city, Sin, near Arka, at the foot of Lebanon.
Sinlessness
Sinlessness - sin'-les-nes: The 15th Anglican article ("Of Christ Alone without Sin") may be quoted as a true summary of Scripture teaching on sinlessness: "Christ in the truth of our nature was made like unto us in all things, sin only excepted, from which He was clearly (prorsus) void, both in His flesh and in His spirit ..... Sin, as Saint John saith, was not in Him. But all we the rest, though baptized, and born again in Christ, yet offend in many things; and, if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves."
1. Christ Sinless: Here the sinlessness of the Incarnate Son is affirmed. It needs no elaborate argument to show that this is the affirmation of Scripture. It is not only, as we are reminded above, definitely taught there. Yet more is it implied in the mysterious (and morally miraculous) phenomenon of the Lord's evidently total immunity from the sense of sin, His freedom from inward discord or imperfection, from the slightest discontent with self. It is not too much to say that this representation is self-evidential of its truth to fact. Had it been the invention of worshipping disciples, we may say with confidence that they (supposed thus capable of "flee handling") would have been certain to betray some moral aberrations in their portraiture of their Master. They must have failed to put before us the profound ethical paradox of a person who, on the one hand, enjoins penitence and (with a tenderness infinitely deep) loves the penitent, and, on the other hand, is never for a moment penitent Himself, and who all the while has proved, from the first, a supreme moral and spiritual magnet, "drawing all men to him." Meanwhile the Scripture represents the sinlessness of the Incarnate Lord as no mere automatic or effortless condition. He is sensitive to temptation, to a degree which makes it agony. His sinlessness, as to actual experience (we are not here considering the matter sub specie aeternitatis), lies in the perfect fidelity to the Father of a will, exercised under human conditions, filled absolutely with the Holy Spirit, willingly received.
2. Saints Not Sinless: On the other hand, "we the rest," contemplated as true believers, are warned by the general teaching of Scripture never to affirm sinlessness as our condition. There are passages (e.g. 1 John 3:9; 5:1 f) which affirm of the regenerate man that he "sinneth not." But it seems obvious to remark that such words, taken without context and balance, would prove too much; they would make the smallest sense of sin a tremendous evidence against the person's regeneration at all. It would seem that such words practically mean that sin and the regenerate character are diametrical opposites, so that sinning is out of character, not in the man as such, but in the Christian as such. And the practical result is an unconquerable aversion and opposition in the regenerate will toward all known sin, and a readiness as sensitive as possible for confession of failure. Meanwhile such passages as 1 John are, to the unbiased reader, an urgent warning of the peril of affirming our perfect purity of will and character. But then, on the other hand, Scripture abounds in both precepts and promises bearing on the fact that in Christ and by the power of His Spirit, received by faith into a watchful soul, our weakness can be so lifted and transformed that a moral purification and emancipation is possible for the weakest Christian which, compared with the best efforts of unregenerate nature, is a "more than conquest" over evil (see e.g. 2 Corinthians 12:9-10; Galatians 2:20; Ephesians 6:16; Jude 1:24).
Handley Dunelm
Sinner
Sinner - sin'-er (chaTTa; hamartolos, "devoted to sin," "erring one"): In the New Testament, in addition to its ordinary significance of one that sins (Luke 5:8; 13:2; Romans 5:8, 19; 1 Timothy 1:15; Hebrews 7:26), the term is applied to those who lived in disregard of ceremonial prescription (Matthew 9:10-11; Mark 2:15 ff; Luke 5:30; Galatians 2:15); to those stained with certain definite vices or crimes, as the publicans (Luke 15:2; 18:13; 19:7); to the heathen (Matthew 26:45; Galatians 2:15; compare Tobit 13:6; 1 Maccabees 1:34; 2 Maccabees 2:48, 62); to the preeminently sinful (Mark 8:38; John 9:24, 31; Galatians 2:17; 1 Timothy 1:9; Jude 1:15). It was the Jewish term for a woman of ill-fame (Luke 7:37; compare Matthew 21:32, where it is stated that such had come even to John's baptism also). For the general Biblical conception of the term, see SIN.
M. O. Evans
Sion
Sion - si'-un (si'on; Seon):
(1) A name given to Mt. Hermon in Deuteronomy 4:48. The name may mean "protuberance" or "peak," and may have denoted the lofty snow-covered horn of the mountain as seen from the South. It may, however, be a scribal error for Sirion, the name by which the mountain was known to the Zidonians. Syriac takes it in this sense, which, however, may be a correction of the Hebrew. It is possible that this name, like Senir, may have applied to some distinct part of the Hermon Range.
(2) Mt. Sion.
See ZION.
Siphmoth
Siphmoth - sif'-moth, sif'-moth (siphmoth (Ginsburg), shiphamoth (Baer); Saphei): One of the cities to which David sent presents from Ziklag (1 Samuel 30:28). It occurs between Aroer and Eshtemoa, so it must have been somewhere in Southern Judah. The site has not been recovered. Zabdi the Shiphmite (1 Chronicles 27:27) may quite probably have been a native of this place.
Sippai
Sippai - sip'-i, si-pa'-i.
See SAPH.
Sir
Sir - sur: In the Old Testament this word in Genesis 43:20 the King James Version ('adhon) is changed in the Revised Version (British and American) into "my lord." In the New Testament the word sometimes represents aner, as in Acts 7:26; 14:15; 19:25, etc.; more frequently kurios, "lord," as in Matthew 13:27; 21:30; 27:36; John 4:11, 15, 19, 49 (the Revised Version margin "lord"); John 20:15. In Revelation 7:14, the Revised Version (British and American) renders "my lord."
Sirach, Book of
Sirach, Book of - si'-rak, or The Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach:
I. NAME
II. CANONICITY
III. CONTENTS
IV. TEACHING
1. Religion
2. Morals
3. Manners
4. Counsels of Prudence
V. LITERARY FORM
VI. AUTHOR
1. Jesus, Son of Sirach
2. Other Views
VII. UNITY AND INTEGRITY
VIII. DATE
1. Most Probable Views
2. Brief Statement of Other Views
IX. ORIGINAL LANGUAGES
1. Composed in Hebrew
2. Margoliouth's View
X. VERSIONS
1. Greek
2. Syriac
3. Latin
4. English
LITERATURE
Sirach is the largest and most comprehensive example of Wisdom Literature (see WISDOM LITERATURE), and it has also the distinction of being the oldest book in the Apocrypha, being indeed older than at least two books (Daniel, Esther) which have found a place in the Canon alike of the Eastern and Western churches.
I. Name. The Hebrew copy of the book which Jerome knew bore, according to his explicit testimony (see his preface to his version of Libri Sol.), the same title as the canonical Proverbs, i.e. meshalim, "Proverbs" (Parabolae is Jerome's word). It is quoted in rabbinical literally, by the sing. of this name, mashal = Aramaic mathla', but in the Talmud it is cited by the author's name, "Ben Sira" (ben cira'). The Hebrew fragments found in recent years have no title attached to them. In the Greek manuscripts the heading is Sophia Iesou huiou Sirach (or Seirach), "The Wisdom of Jesus, son of Sirach" (so "A"); or simply Sophia Seirach (B), "The Wisdom of Sirach." The Fathers called it either (as Euseb., etc.) he panaretos sophia, "the all virtuous wisdom," or simply he panaretos, "the all virtuous (one)," or (Clement of Alexandria) paidagogos, "teacher." The first Hebrew and the several Greek titles describe the subject-matter, one Hebrew title (ben cira') the author. But the Latin name Ecclesiasticus was given the book because it was one of the books allowed to be read in the Ecclesia, or church, for edification (libri ecclesiastici), though not one of the books of the Canon (libra canonici) which could be quoted in proof or disproof of doctrine. The present book is called Ecclesiasticus by way of preeminence since the time of Cyprian (Testimon. 2, etc.). The Syriac (Peshitta) title as given in the London Polyglot is "The Book of Jesus the son of Simon 'Acira', called also the Book of the Wisdom of Baruch (= Hebrew ben, "son of") 'Acira'." There can be no doubt that Asira (sometimes translated "bound") is but a corrupted form of Sira. For other explanations see Ryssel in Kautzsch, AT Apocrypha, 234.
Lagarde in his corrected text prefixes the title, "The Wisdom of Baruch = Hebrew ben, "son of") Sira." How is that the Hebrew cira', has in the Greek become Sirach (or Seirach)? How are we to explain the final chapter in the Greek? The present writer thinks it is due to an attempt to represent in writing the guttural sound of the final letter 'aleph (') in the Hebrew name as in the Greek Akeldamach, for the Aramaic chaqal dema' (Acts 1:19). Dalman, however (Aramaic Grammar, 161, note 6), followed by Ryssel, holds that the final chapter is simply a sign that the word is indeclinable; compare Iosech (Luke 3:26), for Hebrew yoce.
II. Canonicity. Though older than both Dan and Esther, this book was never admitted into the Jewish Canon. There are numerous quotations from it, however, in Talmudic and rabbinic literature, (see a list in Zunz, Die Gottesdiensilichen Vortrage(2), 101 f; Delitzsch, Zur Geschichte der jud. Poesie, 204 f; Schechter, JQR, III, 682-706; Cowley and Neubauer, The Original Hebrew of a Portion of Ecclesiasticus, xix-xxx). It is not referred to explicitly in Scripture, yet it is always cited by Jewish and Christian writers with respect and perhaps sometimes as Scripture. It forms a part of the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) of the Tridentine Council and therefore of the Romanist Canon, but the Protestant churches have never recognized it as canonical, though the bulk of modern Protestant scholars set a much higher value upon it than they do upon many books in the Protestant Canon (Chronicles, Esther, etc.). It was accepted as of canonical rank by Augustine and by the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419), yet it is omitted from the lists of accepted books given by Melito (circa 180 AD), Origen, in the Apostolic Canons and in the list of the Councils of Laodicea (341 and 381). Jerome writes in Libri Sol.: "Let the church read these two books (Wisdom and Sirach) for the instruction of the people, not for establishing the authority of the dogmas of the church." It suffered in the respect of many because it was not usually connected with a great name; compare the so-called "Proverbs of Solomon." Sirach is cited or referred to frequently in the Epistle of James (James 1:2-4--compare Sirach 2:1-5; James 1:5--compare Sirach 1:26; 41:22; 51:13 f; James 1:8 ("double minded")--compare Sirach 1:28, etc.). The book is often cited in the works of the Fathers (Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Augustine, etc.) and also in the Apostolical Constitutions with the formula that introduces Scripture passages: "The Scripture says," etc. The Reformers valued Sirach highly, and parts of it have been incorporated into the Anglican Prayer-book.
III. Contents. It is quite impossible in the book as it stands to trace any one scheme of thought, for the author's mind moves lightly from topic to topic, recurring frequently to the same theme and repeating not seldom the same idea. It is, however, too much to say with Sonntag (De Jesu Siracidae, etc.) that the book is a farrago of sayings with no connection, or with Berthold that the "work is but a rhapsody," for the whole is informed and controlled by one master thought, the supreme value to everyone of Wisdom. By this last the writer means the Jewish religion as conceived by enlightened Jews toward the beginning of the 2nd century BC, and as reflected in the Law of Moses (see Sirach 24:23-34), and in a less degree in the books of the Prophets and in the other writings (see Prologue). The book follows the lines of the canonical Book of Proverbs, and is made up of short pithy sayings with occasional longer discussions, largely collected but in part composed, and all informed and governed by the dominant note of the book: true Wisdom, the chief end of man. Most of the book is poetical in form, and even in the prose parts the parallelism of Hebrew poetry is found. Many unsuccessful attempts have been made to trace a definite continuous line of reasoning in the book, but the vital differences in the schemes propounded suggest what an examination of the book itself confirms, that the compiler and author put his materials together with little or no regard to logical connection, though he never loses sight of his main theme--Wisdom, the chief thing.
Eichhorn (Einleitung, 50 ff) divides the book into three parts (Sirach 1 through 23; 24 through 42:14; 42:15 through 50:24), and maintains that at first each of these was a separate work, united subsequently by the author. Julian divides the work into three, Scholz into twelve, Fritzsche (Einleitung, xxxii) and Ryssel (op. cit., 240) into seven, Edershelm (op. cit., 19 f) and R.G. Moulton (Modern Reader's Bible: Ecclus, xvi ff) into five portions, and many other arrangements have been proposed and defended as by Ewald, Holzmann, Bissell, Zockler, etc. That there are small independent sections, essayettes, poems, etc., was seen by the early scribes to whom the Septuagint in its present form was largely due, for they have prefixed headings to the sections beginning with the following verses: Sirach 18:30 ("Temperance of Soul"); 20:27 ("Proverbs"); 23:7 ("Discipline of the Mouth"); 24:1 ("The Praise of Wisdom"); 30:1 ("Concerning Children"); 30:14 ("Concerning Health"); 30:16 ("Concerning Foods "; this is absent from many manuscripts, though retained by Swete who, however, omits the preceding heading); 30:24 (English Versions of the Bible 33:24, "Concerning Servants"); Sirach 35 (English Versions of the Bible 32:1, "Concerning Rulers"); 44:1 ("Praise of the Fathers"); 51:1 ("The Prayer of Jesus, Son of Sirach"). Probably the whole book possessed such headings at one time, and it is quite possible that they originated in the need to guide readers after the book had become one of the chief church reading-books (so W. J. Deane ii The Expositor, II, vi, 327). These headings are given in English in the King James Version proper (in the margin), though in modern reprints, as also in the Revised Version (British and American), they are unfortunately omitted. The whole book has been arranged in headed sections by H. J. Holzmann (Bunsen's Bibelwerk, IX, 392 ff) and by R. G. Moulton (op. cit.).
IV. Teaching. In general it may be said that the principles enunciated in this book agree with those of the Wisdom school of Palestinian Judaism about 200 BC, though there is not a word in the book about a Messianic hope or the setting up of a Messianic kingdom. None of the views characteristic of Alexandrian Judaism and absent from the teaching of Palestinian Judaism are to be found in this book, though some of them at least are represented in Wisdom (see WISDOM OF SOLOMON,VI ;TEACHING ). Girorer (Milo und die jud.-alex. Philo., II, 18 ff) and Dahne (Gesch. der jud.-alex. rel. Phil., II, 141 ff) hold that the book contains many Alexandrian expressions and numerous statements peculiar to the Alexandrian philosophy. But apart from some late interpolations, mostly Christian, what these German scholars say is untrue, as Drummond (Philo Judaeus, I, 144 ff), Deane (Expos, II, v, 334 ff) and others have shown. The outstanding features of Alexandrianism are the allegorical interpretation of the Scriptures, its conception of the ecstatic vision of God, its doctrine of mediating powers between man and God and its adoption of purely Greek ideas. None of these can be traced in Sir. The Hebrews never developed a theoretical or speculative theology or philosophy: all their thinking gathered about life and conduct; the duties that men owed to God and to one another; the hopes that they cherished and the fears by which they were animated. This is the only philosophy which the Bible and the so-called Apocrypha teach, and it is seen at its highest point in the so-called WISDOM LITERATURE (which see). The main lines of the teaching of Sirach may be set out as follows, under the three heads of religion, morals, and manners.
1. Religion: (1) God. The view of God given in this book agrees generally with that put forth by the later writers of the Old Testament from the exile (Second Isaiah, Job, etc.) onward, though the God of this book lacks the love and tenderness of the Yahweh of the Old Testament prophets. God is present everywhere (Sirach 16:17-23); He created the world as an ordered whole (Sirach 16:26-30) and made man intelligent and supreme over all flesh. The expressions used are no doubt modeled on Genesis 1:1-31, and it may fairly be inferred that creation out of nothing is meant. Wisdom, on the other hand, teaches the Alexandrian doctrine that matter (hule) is eternal and that the Creator's work consisted of fashioning, adapting and beautifying. The world is a creature of God, not (as in Philo, etc.) an emanation from Him. Yet is He compassionate and forgiving (Sirach 17:24 ff). His works are past finding out (Sirach 18:2 ff); but His compassion is upon all flesh (Sirach 18:13), i.e. upon all that accept His chastening and seek to do His will (Sirach 18:14). In Sirach 43:27 God is said to be "the all" (to pan), which simply means that He pervades and is the ground of everything. It is not Alexandrian pantheism that is taught. Gfrorer and others take a contrary view.
(2) Revelation. In harmony with other products of the "Wise Men," Sirach sets chief value upon natural religion, that revealed in the instincts, reason and conscience of man as well as by the sun, moon, stars, etc. Yet Sirach gives far more prominence than Proverbs to the idea that the Divine Will is specially made known in the Law of Moses (Sirach 24:23; Sirach 45:1-4). We do not meet once with the word "law" in Ecclesiastes, nor law in the technical sense (Law of Moses) in either Job, Wisdom or Proverbs. In the last-named it is simply one of many synonyms denoting "Wisdom." In Sirach the word occurs over 20 times, not, however, always, even when the expression "Law of Moses" is used, in the sense of the "five books" (Pentateuch). It generally includes in its connotation also "the prophecies and the rest of the books" (Prologue); see Sirach 32 (Septuagint 35):24; 33 (Septuagint 36):1-3.
(3) Sin. Sin is due to the wrong exercise of man's free will. Men can, if they like, keep the commandments, and when they break from them they are themselves alone to be blamed (Sirach 15:14-17). Yet it was through a woman (Eve) that sin entered the world and death by sin (Sirach 25:24; compare 1 Timothy 2:14). See Romans 5:12 where "one man," strictly "human being" (Romans 5:14, "Adam"), is made the first cause of sin. But nowhere in Sirach is the doctrine of original sin taught.
(4) Predestination. Notwithstanding the prominence given to "free will" (see (3), above), Sirach teaches the doctrine of predestination, for God has determined that some men should be high and some low, some blessed and others cursed (33:10 ft).
(5) Satan. The word "Satan" (Satanas) in Sirach 21:27 (it occurs nowhere else in the Apocrypha) denotes one's own wicked heart, as the parallelism shows.
(6) Salvation. There is no salvation except by way of good works on man's part (Sirach 14:16 f) and forgiveness on God's (Sirach 17:24-32). The only atonement is through one's own good works (Sirach 5:5 f), honoring parents (Sirach 32:14 f), almsgiving, etc. (Sirach 3:30; 17:19 ff). There is no objective atonement ("expiation," literally, "propitiation"; the Greek verb exilaskomai, is the great Septuagint word for the Hebrew kipper, "to atone").
(7) Sacrifice. The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to God (Sirach 34:18 ff), though He Himself appointed sacrifices and first-fruits (Sirach 45:20 f), and when the righteous offer sacrifices to God they are accepted and remembered in the time to come (Sirach 35:1-12).
(8) Feasts. Festivals as well as seasons are ordained by God to be observed by man (Sirach 33 (Septuagint 36):8 f; compare Genesis 1:14).
(9) Prayer. The duty of prayer is often pointed out (Sirach 37:15, etc.), the necessary preparation defined (Sirach 17:25; 20, 23), and its successful issue promised (Sirach 35:17). There must be no vain repetitions (Sirach 7:14; compare Matthew 6:7), nor should there be any faint-heartedness in the matter (Sirach 5:10; compare James 1:6). Men are to pray in sickness (Sirach 38:9), but all the same the physician should be consulted and his advice followed (Sirach 38:1 f,12 ff).
(10) Angelology. Sirach nowhere clearly expresses his belief in angels or uses language which implies such a belief. For "an angel (ho aggelos) destroyed them" the Hebrew of the original passage (2 Kings 19:35) has maggephah, "plague," and so the Syriac, though the Septuagint (followed by the Vulgate) has "angel."
(11) Eschatology. Nowhere in this book is the doctrine of a future life taught, and the whole teaching of the book leaves no place for such a doctrine. Men will be indeed rewarded or punished according to their conduct, but in this world (see Sirach 2:10 f; 9:12; 11:26 f). The retribution is, however, not confined to the individuals in their lifetime; it extends to their children and involves their own glorious or inglorious name after death (see Sirach 11:28; 40:15; 41:6; Sirach 44:11-13). The passage concerning Gehenna (Sirach 7:17) is undoubtedly spurious and is lacking in the Syriac, Ethiopic, etc. Since the book is silent as to a future life, it is of necessity silent on the question of a resurrection. Nothing is hinted as to a life beyond the grave, even in Sirach 41:1-4, where the author deprecates the fear of death. In these matters Sirach agrees with the Pentateuch and the prophetic and poetical books of the Old Testament (Psalms, Job, etc.), none of which give any intimation of a life beyond the grave. Little or nothing is said of the Messianic hope which must have been entertained largely by Palestinian Jews living in the author's time, though in Sirach 36 (Septuagint 33):1-17 the writer prays for the restoration of Israel and Jerusalem, i.e. R.H. Charles thinks (Eschatology, etc., 65), for the bringing in of the Messianic kingdom.
(12) Sirach's Doctrine of Wisdom. For a general discussion of the rise and development of the conception of Wisdom in the Old Testament and in the Apocrypha see WISDOM LITERATURE. A brief statement as to what the word implies in Sirach is all that can here be attempted. It is in chapters 1 and 24 that Ben Sira's doctrine is chiefly contained.
Wisdom is from God: He created it and it must therefore have a separate existence. Yet it is dependent on Him. It is omnipresent, though it dwells in a peculiar sense with all flesh. The root and beginning of Wisdom, its fullness and crown, are the fear of God (Sirach 1:14, 16, 18, 21); so that only the obedient and pious possess it (Sirach 1:10, 26); indeed Wisdom is identified with the fear of the Lord and the observance of the Law (Sirach 19:20); it is even made one with the Law of Moses (Sirach 24:23), i.e. it consists of practical principles, of precepts regulating the life. In this doctrine we have a combination of universalism, principles of reason and Jewish particularism as the teaching of the revealed Law. We have the first in Sirach 24:3-21; the second in 24:23-34. Have we in this chapter, as in Proverbs, nothing outside the teaching of Palestinian Judaism? Gfrorer (op. cit., II, 18 ff) denies this, maintaining that the whole of Sirach 24 was written by an Alexandrian Jew and adopted unchanged by Ben Sira. But what is there in this chapter which an orthodox, well-informed Palestinian Jew of Ben Sira's time might not well have written? It is quite another question whether this whole conception of Wisdom in the so-called Wisdom books is not due, in some measure, to Greek, though not Alexandrian, influence, unless indeed the Greek influence came by way of Alexandria. In the philosophy of Socrates, and in a less exclusive sense in that of Plato and Aristotle, the good man is the wise one. Cheyne (Job and Solomon, 190) goes probably too far when he says, "By Greek philosophy Sirach, as far as we can see, was wholly uninfluenced."
2. Morals: The ethical principle of Sirach is Hedonism or individual utilitarianism, as is that of Proverbs and the Old Testament generally, though in the Psalms and in the prophetical writings gratitude to God for the love He has shown and the kind acts He has performed is the basis of endless appeals and vows. Moreover, the individual point of view is reached only in the late parts of the Old Testament. In the older Old Testament books, as in Plato, etc., it is the state that constitutes the unit, not the individual human being. The rewards and penalties of conduct, good and bad, belong to this present world. See what is said in (11) "Eschatology," above; see also Sirach 2:7 f; 11:17; 16:6 f; 40:13 f, etc.
The hedonistic principle is carried so far that we are urged to help the good because they are most likely to prove serviceable to us (Sirach 12:2); to aid our fellow-man in distress, so that in his days of prosperity he may be our friend (Sirach 22:23); contrast the teaching of Jesus Christ (Luke 6:30-36). Friends are to be bemoaned for appearance' sake (Sirach 38:17). Yet many of the precepts are lofty. We are exhorted to show kindness and forbearance to the poor and to give help to our fellow-man (Sirach 29:8, 20); to give alms (Sirach 12:3); speak kindly (Sirach 18:15-18); masters should treat servants as brethren, nay as they would themselves be treated (Sirach 7:20-22; 33:30 f); parents should give heed to the proper training of their children (Sirach 3:2; 7:23; Sirach 30:1-13); and children ought to respect and obey their parents (Sirach 3:1-16). It is men's duty to defend the truth and to fight for it. So shall the Lord fight for them (Sirach 4:25, 28). Pride is denounced (Sirach 10:2 ff), and humility (Sirach 3:18), as well as forgiveness (Sirach 28:2), commended.
3. Manners: Sirach is as much a code of etiquette as one of ethics, the motive being almost invariably the individual's own good. Far more attention is given to "manners" in Sirach than in Proverbs, owing to the fact that a more complex and artificial state of society had arisen in Palestine. When one is invited to a banquet he is not to show greed or to be too forward in helping himself to the good things provided. He is to be the first to leave and not to be insatiable (Sirach 31:12-18). Moderation in eating is necessary for health as well as for appearance' sake (Sirach 31:19-22). Mourning for the dead is a social propriety, and it should on that account be carefully carried out, since failure to do this brings bad repute (Sirach 38:16 f). It is quite wrong to stand in front of people's doors, peeping and listening: only fools do this (Sirach 21:23 f). Music and wine are praised: nay even a "concert of music" and a "banquet of wine" are good in their season and in moderation (Sirach 32 (Septuagint 35):5 f). The author has not a high opinion of woman (Sirach 25:13). A man is to be on his strict guard against singing and dancing girls and harlots, and adultery is an evil to be feared and avoided (Sirach 36:18-26). From a woman sin began, and it is through her that we all die (Sirach 25:4). Yet no one has used more eulogistic terms in praising the good wife than Ben Sira (Sirach 26:1 ff), or in extolling the happiness of the home when the husband and wife "walk together in agreement" (Sirach 25:1).
4. Counsels of Prudence: Never lend money to a man more powerful than thyself or thou wilt probably lose it (Sirach 8:12). It is unwise to become surety for another (Sirach 29:18; 8:13), yet for a good man one would become surety (Sirach 29:14) and he would even lend to him (Sirach 29:1 ff). It should be remembered that in those times lending and becoming financially liable were acts of kindness, pure and simple: the Jewish Law forbade the taking of interest in any form (see Century Bible, "Ezra," etc., 198). "A slip on, a pavement is better than a slip with the tongue," so guard thy mouth (Sirach 20:18); "He that is wise in words shall advance himself; and one that is prudent will please great men" (Sirach 20:27). The writer has the pride of his class, for he thinks the common untrained mind, that of the plowman, carpenter and the like, has little capacity for dealing with problems of the intellect (Sirach 38:24-34).
V. Literary Form. The bulk of the book is poetical in form, abounding in that parallelism which characterizes Hebrew poetry, though it is less antithetic and regular than in Prov. No definite meter has been discovered, though Bickell, Margoliouth and others maintain the contrary (see POETRY, HEBREW). Even in the prose parts parallelism is found. The only strophic arrangement is that suggested by similarity of subject-matter.
Bickell (Zeitschr. far katholische Theol., 1882) translated Sirach 51:1-20 back into Hebrew and tried to prove that it is an alphabetic acrostic psalm, and Taylor supports this view by an examination of the lately discovered fragments of the Hebrew text (see The Wisdom of Ben Sira, etc., by S. Schechter and C. Taylor, lxxix ff). After Sirach 51:12 of the Greek and other versions the Hebrew has a psalm of 15 verses closely resembling Psalms 136:1-26; but the Hebrew version of Sirach 51:1-20 does not favor Bickell's view, nor does the ps, found only in the Hebrew, lend much support to what either Bickell or Taylor says. Space precludes detailed proofs.
VI. Author. 1. Jesus, Son of Sirach: The proper name of the author was Jesus (Jeshua, Greek Iesous(?)), the family name being "Ben Sira." The full name would be therefore "Jesus Ben Sirs." In the Talmud and other Jewish writings he is known as "Ben Sira," literally, "son (or descendant?) of Sira." Who Sira was is unknown. No other book in the Apocrypha gives the name of its author as the Prologue to Sirach does. In the best Greek manuscripts (Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus) of Sirach 50:27, the author's name appears as 'Iesous huios Seirach Eleazar ho Hierosolumeites, "Jesus the son of Sirach (son of) Eleazar the Jerusalemite." For the last two words Codex Sinaiticus has by a copyist's error, ho hiereus ho Solumeites, "the Solomon-like priest." The Hebrew text of Sirach 50:27 and 51:30 gives the following genealogy: Simeon son of Jesus, son of Eleazar, son of Sira, making the author the grandson and not the son of Sira, and so he is called by Saadia; see HDB (Nestle) andEB ,II , 1165 (Toy). We know nothing of Ben Sira beyond what can be gathered from the book itself. He was a resident in Palestine (24:10 f), an orthodox Jew, well read in at least Jewish literature, a shrewd observer of life, with a philosophical bent, though true to the national faith. He had traveled far and seen much (34:11 f). His interests were too general and his outlook too wide to allow of his being either a priest or a scribe.
2. Other Views: Many suppositions have been put forward as to the author's identity.
(1) That the Author Was a Priest: So in Codex Sinaiticus (Sirach 50:27). In Sirach 7:29-31 he speaks much of the priesthood, and there are numerous references to sacrifices in the book. In 45:6-26 he has a long poem in praise of Aaron and his high-priesthood. Yet on the whole Ben Sira does not write as a priest.
(2) That He Was a High Priest: So Syncellus (Chronicles, edition Dindf., 1 525) through a misunderstanding of a passage in Eusebius. But the teaching and temper of the book make this supposition more improbable than the last.
(3) That He Was a Physician: An inference drawn from Sirach 38:1 f,12 ff and other references to the professional healer of the body (10:10). But this is a very small foundation on which to build so great an edifice.
(4) That He Was One of the 72 Translators (Septuagint):
So Lapide (Comm.), Calmer, Goldhager, a wholly unsupported hypothesis.
(5) No One of Course Believes that Solomon Wrote the Book:
Though many of the early Fathers held that he was the author of the five Wisdom Books--Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Sirach and Wisdom.
VII. Unity and Intergrity. There is, on the whole, such a uniformity in the style and teaching of the book that most scholars agree in ascribing the whole book (except, the Prologue, which is the work of the translator) to Ben Sira. This does not mean that he composed every line; he must have adopted current sayings, written and oral, and this will account for the apparent contradictions, as about becoming surety (Sirach 29:14), and refusing to become surety (Sirach 8:13; 29:18); words in praise (Sirach 25:1; 26:1 ff) and condemnation of women (Sirach 25:4, 13; Sirach 36:18-26); the varying estimates of life (Sirach 36:16-35; Sirach 40:1-11), etc. But in these seeming opposites we have probably no more than complementary principles, the whole making up the complete truth. Nothing is more manifest in the book than the all-pervading thought of one dominant mind. Some have denied the genuineness of Sirach 51, but the evidence is at least indecisive. There is nothing in this chapter inconsistent with the rest of the book.
In the recently discovered fragments of Hebrew text there is a psalm between Sirach 51:12 and 13 of the Greek and English Versions of the Bible which seems a copy of Psalms 136:1-26. It is absent from the versions and its genuineness is doubtful. But in both the Hebrew and Greek texts there are undoubted additions and omissions. There are, in the Greek, frequent glosses by Christian editors or copyists and other changes (by the translators?) in the direction of Alexandrian Judaism; see Speaker's Apocrypha and other commentaries for details.
VIII. Date. In the book itself there is one mark of definite date (Sirach 50:1), and in the Prologue there is another. Unfortunately both are ambiguous. In the Prologue the translator, whose grandfather or ancestor (Greek pappos) wrote the book (the younger Siracides, as he is called), says that he reached Egypt, where he found and translated this book in the reign of Euergetes, king of Egypt. But there were two Egyptian kings called Euergetes, namely, Ptolemy Euergetes, or Euergetes I (247-222 BC), and Ptolemy VII Physcon, or Euergetes II (218-198 BC). Sirach 50:1 mentions, among the great men whom he praises, Simon the high priest, son of Onias, who is named last in the list and lived probably near the time of the elder Siracidess. But there were two high priests called Simon and each of them was a son of Onias, namely, Simon I, son of Onias I (circa 310-290 BC), and Simon II, son of Onias II (circa 218-198 BC). Scholars differ as to which Euergetes is meant in the Prologue and which Simon in 50:1.
1. Most Probable Views: The conclusions to which the evidence has brought the present writer are these: (1) that Simon I (died 290 BC) is the high priest meant; (2) that Ptolemy VII Physcon (218-198 BC) is the Euergetes meant.
(1) In Favor of the First Proposition Are the Following:
(a) The book must have been written some time after the death of Simon, for in the meantime an artificial fame had gathered around the name, and the very allusion to him as a hero of the past makes it clear that he had been long dead. Assuming that Simon had died in 290 BC, as seems likely, it is a reasonable conclusion that the original Hebrew work was composed somewhat later than 250 BC. If Simon II is the man intended, the book could hardly have been composed before 150 BC, an impossible date; see below.
(b) In the list of great men in Sirach 44 through 50 the praises of Simon (50:1 ff) are sung after those of Nehemiah (Sirach 49:13), suggesting that the space of time between them was not very great.
(c) The "Simon the Just" of Josephus was certainly Simon I, he being so called, this Jewish historian says (Ant., XII, ii, 5), on account of his piety and kindness.
(d) It is probable that the "Simon the Just" of the Mishna ('Abhoth i.2) is also Simon I, though this is not certain. It is said of him that he was one of the last members of the great synagogue and in the Talmud he is the hero of many glorifying legends. The so-called great synagogue never really existed, but the date assigned to it in Jewish tradition shows that it is Simon I that is thought of.
(e) In the Syriac version (Pesh) Sirach 50:23 reads thus: "Let it (peace) be established with Simon the Just," etc. Some manuscripts have "Simon the Kind." This text may of course be wrong, but Graetz and Edersheim support it. This is the exact title given to Simon I by Josephus (op. cit.), the Mishna and by Jewish tradition generally.
(f) The only references to Simon II in Jewish history and tradition depict him in an unfavorable light. In 2 Maccabees 3 he is the betrayer of the temple to the Syrians. Even if the incident of the above chapter were unhistorical, there must have been some basis for the legend. Josephus (Ant., XII, iv, 10 f) makes him side with the sons of Tobias against Hyrcanus, son of Joseph, the wrong side from the orthodox Jewish point of view.
(g) The high priest Simon is said (Sirach 50:1-13) to have repaired the temple and fortified the city. Edersheim says that the temple and city stood in need of what is here described in the time of Simon I, but not in the time of Simon II, for Ptolemy I (247-222 BC) in his wars with Demetrius destroyed many fortifications in Palestine to prevent their falling into the hands of the enemy, among which Acco, Joppa, Gaza are named, and it is natural to think that the capital and its sanctuary were included. This is, however, but a priori reasoning, and Derenbourg argues that Simon II must be meant, since according to Josephus (Ant., XII, iii, 3) Antiochus the Great (223-187 BC) wrote a letter in which he undertakes that the city and temple of Jerusalem shall be fully restored. This is not, however, to say that Simon II or anyone else did, at that time, restore either.
(h) Of the numerous errors in the Greek text some at least seem due to the fact that the version in that language was made so long after the composition of the original Hebrew that the sense of several Hebrew words had become lost among the Alexandrian Jews. If we assume that the Simon of chapter 50 was Simon I (died 290 BC), so that the Hebrew work was composed about 250 BC; if we further assume that the Euergetes of the Prologue was Ptolemy VII (died 198 BC), there is a reasonable space of time to allow the sense of the Hebrew to be lost in many instances (see Halevy, Revue semitique, July, 1899). It must be admitted that there is no decisive evidence on one side or the other, but the balance weighs in favor of Simon I in the opinion of the present writer.
(2) Euergetes of the Prologue: That the Euergetes of the Prologue in whose reign the translation was made must have been Ptolemy VII Physcon, Euergetes II, seems proved by the translator's statement that he came to Egypt in the 38th year, epi tou Euergetou basileos, i.e. almost certainly of the reign of Euergetes, for what reason could the younger Siracides have for giving his own age? Now Euergetes I reigned but 25 years, but Euergetes II (Physcon) reigned in all 54 years, from 170 to 145 BC as regent with his father, and from 145 to 116 BC as sole monarch. If we accept this interpretation of the above words, the question is settled. Westcott, however (DB, 1863, I, 479, note c), says "the words can only mean that the translator in his 38th year came to Egypt during the reign of Euergetes." The other rendering adopted by Eichhorn is, he adds, "absolutely set at variance with the grammatical structure of the sentence." In the second edition of DB (1893) this note has become expunged, and the article as edited by D.S. Margoliouth (I, 841) teaches the contrary view, which is now accepted by nearly all scholars (Schurer, etc.). We may therefore assume that the original Hebrew book was composed about 240-200 BC, or some 50 or more years after the death of Simon I, and that the translation was made about 130 BC, for the younger Siracides came to Egypt in 132 BC, and he gives us to understand in the Prologue that he translated the Hebrew work of his grandfather almost immediately after reaching that country. If Simon II (died 198 BC) is meant in Sirach 50, we are compelled to assume a date for the original work of about 150 BC in order to allow time for the growth of the halo of legend which had gathered about Simon. The translation must, in that case, have been completed some 20 years after the composition of the Hebrew, a conclusion which the evidence opposes. The teaching of the book belongs to 200 BC, or slightly earlier. The doctrine of the resurrection taught in Daniel (165 BC) is ignored in Sirach, as it has not yet become Jewish doctrine.
2. Brief Statement of Other Views: (1) That the Euergetes of the Prologue and the Simon of chapter 50 are in both cases the first so called. So Hug, Scholz, Welt, Keil, Edersheim (Speaker's Apocrypha) and many others. The book was accordingly written after 290 BC, perhaps in 250 BC, or later, and the translation was made some time after 220 BC, say 200 BC.
(2) That Euergetes II (died 116 BC) and Simon II (died 198 BC) are the two persons referred to. So Eichhorn, De Wette, Ewald, Franz Delitzsch, Hitzig, Schurer.
(3) Hitzig (Psalms, 1836, II, 118) made the original work a product of the Maccabean period--an impossible supposition, for the book says nothing at all about the Maccabees. Moreover, the priestly house of Zadok is praised in this book (Sirach 50, etc.); it was held in little respect during the time of the Maccabean wars, owing to the sympathy it showed toward the Hellenizing party.
IX. Original Languages. 1. Composed in Hebrew: Even before the discovery of the substantial fragments of what is probably the original Hebrew text of this book, nearly all scholars had reached the conclusion that Sirach was composed in Hebrew. (1) The fact of a Hebrew original is definitely stated in the Prologue. (2) Jerome (Praef. in vers. libri Sol.) says that he had seen the Hebrew original--the same text probably that underlies the fragments recently published, though we cannot be sure of this. (3) Citations apparently from the same Hebrew text are made not seldom in Talmudic and rabbinical literature. (4) There are some word-plays in the book which in the Greek are lost, but which reappear in the discovered Hebrew text, e.g. (Sirach 43:8) ho men kata to onoma autes estin auxanomene (read ananeomene), "the month is called after her name," chodhesh kishemo hu' mitchadhes, "the moon according to its name renews itself"; the Hebrew words for "moon" and "renews itself" come from one root, as if we said in English--what of course is not English--"the moon moons itself." There are other cases where mistakes and omissions in the Greek are explained by a reference to the newly found Hebrew text.C, or some 50 or more years after the death of Simon I, and that the translation was made about 130 BC, for the younger Siracides came to Egypt in 132 BC, and he gives us to understand in the Prologue that he translated the Hebrew work of his grandfather almost immediately after reaching that country. If Simon II (died 198 BC) is meant in Sirach 50, we are compelled to assume a date for the original work of about 150 BC in order to allow time for the growth of the halo of legend which had gathered about Simon. The translation must, in that case, have been completed some 20 years after the composition of the Hebrew, a conclusion which the evidence opposes. The teaching of the book belongs to 200 BC, or slightly earlier. The doctrine of the resurrection taught in Daniel (165 BC) is ignored in Sirach, as it has not yet become Jewish doctrine.
The strongly supported conjecture of former years that the book was composed in Hebrew was turned into a practical certainty through the discovery, by Dr. S. Schechter and others in 1896 and after, of the fragments of a (probably the) Hebrew text called now A B C and D. These contain much over half the whole book, and that the text in them, nearly always identical when the same passages are given in more than one, is the original one, is exceedingly likely, to say the least.
2. Margoliouth's View: D. S. Margoliouth (Origin of the Original Hebrew of Ecclesiasticus, 1899) has tried to prove that the Hebrew text of the fragments is a translation of a Persian version which is itself derived from Greek and Syriac. The proofs he offers have not convinced scholars.
(1) He refers to words in Hebrew which in that language are senseless, and he endeavors to show that they are disguised Persian words. As a matter of fact, in such cases the copyist has gone wholly wrong or the word is undecipherable.
(2) There do appear to be Persian glosses, but they are no part of the original text, and there can be no reasonable doubt that they are due to a Persian reader or copyist.
(3) There are many cases in which the Hebrew can be proved to be a better and older text than the Greek or Syriac (see Konig, The Expository Times,XI , 170 ff).
(4) As regards the character of the language, it may be said that in syntax it agrees in the main with the classical Hebrew of the Old Testament, but its vocabulary links it with the latest Old Testament books. Thus we have the use of the "waw-consecutive" with the imperfect (Sirach 43:23; 9, 23; 45:2 f, etc.) and with the perfect (Sirach 42:1, 8, 11), though the use of the simple waw with both tenses occurs also. This mixed usage is exactly what meets us in the latest part of the Old Testament (Ecclesiastes, Esther, etc.). As regards vocabulary, the word chephets, has the sense of "thing," "matter," in Sirach 20:9, as in Ecclesiastes 3:1; 5:7; 8:6. In general it may be said that the Hebrew is that of early post-Biblical times. Margoliouth holds that the extant Hebrew version is no older than the 11th century, which is impossible. His mistake is due to confounding the age of the manuscripts with that of the version they contain.
(5) It is nevertheless admitted that in some cases the Syriac or the Greek or both together preserve an older and correcter text than the Hebrew, but this because the latter has sometimes been miscopied and intentionally changed.
(6) The numerous Hebraisms in the Greek version which in the Hebrew have their original expression point to the same conclusion--that this Hebrew text is the original form of the book.
Margoliouth has been answered by Smend (TLZ, 1889, Colossians 506), Konig (Expository Times, X, XI, 1899-1900), Noldeke (ZATW, XX, 81-94), and by many others. Bickell (Zeitschrift fur katholische Theol., III, 387 ff) holds also that the Hebrew Sirach extant is a translation from the Greek or Syriac or both.
X. Versions. 1. Greek: The Septuagint translation was made from the Hebrew direct; it is fairly correct, though in all the extant manuscripts the text is very corrupt in several places. (1) The book occurs in the uncials Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Ephraemi, and part of Alexandrinus fairly free from glosses, though abounding in obvious errors. (2) The text is found in a much purer form in Codex Venetus and also in Codex Sinaiticus (ca) and part of Codex Alexandrinus. All extant Greek manuscripts except the late cursive 248 seem to go back to one original MS, since in all of them the two sections Sirach 30:25 through 33:15 and 33:16 through 36:11 have changed places, so that 33:16 through 36:11 follows 30:24 and 30:25 through 33:15 comes after 36:11. Most scholars accept the explanation of Fritzsche (Exeg. Handbuch zu den Apok, V, 21 f) that the two leaves on which these two parts (of similar size) were written got mixed, the wrong one being put first. On the other hand, the cursive 248 (14th century) has these sections in their proper order, and the same is true of the Syriac (Peshitta), Latin and Armenian versions and of the Greek version of the Complutensian Polyglot (which follows throughout 248 and not the uncials) and English Versions of the Bible which is made from this Polyglot. The superiority of 248 to the older manuscript (B S A C V) is seen in other parts of the Greek text. In the other Greek manuscripts, Sirach 3:25 is omitted, as it is by Edersheim and most commentators before the discovery of the Hebrew text. But this last supports 248 in retaining the verse, and it is now generally kept. In 43:23 "islands" is properly read by 248, Vulgate, Syriac, 23 and the Hebrew, but older Greek manuscripts read "Jesus," making nonsense ("And Jesus planted her" [auten] for "he planted islands therein"). The other manuscripts have a text which yields no sense in 43:26: English Versions of the Bible "By reason of him his end hath success." The Greek of 248 and the Hebrew give this sense: "The angel is equipped for his task," etc.
2. Syriac: The Syriac (Peshitta) version is now almost universally acknowledged to have been made from the Hebrew, of which, on the whole, it is a faithful rendering. In some places, however, it agrees with the Septuagint against the Hebrew, probably under the influence of the inaccurate idea that the Greek text is the original one. In this version the two sections Sirach 30:25 through 33:5 and 33:16 through 36:11 are in proper order, as in the Hebrew, a fresh proof that the Syriac is not translated from the Greek
3. Latin: The Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) agrees with the Old Latin which follows the Septuagint closely. Lapide, Sabatier and Bengel tried to prove that the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) was based on the lost original Hebrew, but the evidence they supply falls far short of proof, and recently discovered Hebrew fragments show that they were wrong. The two sections transposed in the Septuagint (except 248) are also transposed in the Latin, showing that the latter is based on the Greek text. The Latin text of both Sirach and Wisdom according to the codex Amiant is given by Lagarde in his Mittheilungen, I, 243-84. This closely follows the Greek text.
4. English: The King James Version follows the cursives and often repeats their errors. the Revised Version (British and American) is based, for the most part, on the uncials and thus often departs from the Hebrew. Sirach 3:19 is retained by the King James Version but omitted by the Revised Version (British and American). For the latter clause of the verse ("mysteries are revealed unto the meek"), the King James Version is supported by codex 248, the Syriac and the Hebrew. Both English Versions of the Bible should be corrected by the Hebrew in Sirach 7:26 and 38:1,15.
For fuller details concerning versions see Speaker's Apocrypha,II , 23-32 (Edersheim); Kautzsch, Die Apok. des Altes Testament, I, 242 ff (Ryssel), and the article by Nestle in HDB, IV, 544 ff.
LITERATURE.
In addition to books mentioned under Apocrypha and in the course of the present article, note the following:
(1) The Text of the Hebrew Fragments: For accounts of the discovery and decipherments of these see HDB ,IV , 546 f (Nestle); Bible Polyglotte (F. Vigoureux), V, 4 ff; Schurer GJ V4, III, 221 ff. The text of the Hebrew as yet known is conveniently printed in the following: H. L. Strack, Die Spruche Jesus, etc. (with notes and glossary), Leipzig, 1903; Isaac Levi, The Hebrew Text of Ecclesiasticus (with notes and glossary), Leiden, 1906; Rudolf Smend, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, Hebrew und Deutsch (with notes and glossary), Berlin, 1906. The Hebrew appears also in the Bible Polyglotte, edition F. Vigoureux, with the Septuagint, Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) and a French translation in parallel columns. (No other Polyglot has appeared since the discovery of the Hebrew.) There are parallel texts in Hebrew, Syriac, Greek and English, and also useful notes and tables in The Original Hebrew of Sirach 39:1549:11, by Cowles and Neubauer, Oxford, 1897. Still later and fuller is The Wisdom of Ben Sira in Hebrew and English, with notes on the Hebrew by Schechter and Taylor, Cambridge, 1899.
(2) Commentaries: The works of Fritzsche (1859), who neglects the evidence of the Syriac and ignores the Hebrew idioms in the book, and of Bissell (1880) and Edersheim (1888) appeared before the discovery of the Hebrew fragments. The last-named shows both learning and ingenuity in tracking the Hebrew idioms and in explaining difficulties by means of Hebrew. The following commentaries take full note of the Hebrew text as far as discovered: Israel Levi, L'Ecclesiastique ou la sagesse de Jesus fils de Sira: traduit et commente, Paris, 1898, 1901; Ryssel in Kautzsch's Apok. des Altes Testament, I, 280-475, exceedingly valuable, especially for the text and introduction, but he takes account of the Hebrew fragments published by Cowley and Neubauer only in this book. To complete his treatment of the Hebrew parts published after he wrote, see further articles by him in Stud. u. Krit., 1900-1-2; Knabenbaur, Commentarius in Ecclesiasticum, Paris, 1902; Peters, Der jungst wieder aufgefundene hebraische Text des Buches Ecclesiasticus, 1902 (compare the notice by Smend, Theologische Literaturzeitung, 1903, 72-77); Smend, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklart, 1906 (full discussion of the book in the newest light; compare notice by Julicher inTLZ , 1908, 323-29). The New Oxford Apocrypha (Introduction and Notes), edition by R. H. Charles (1913), contains a full Introduction and Commentary. J. H. A. Hart has published separately a critical edition of codex 248, in which he collates the principal authorities, manuscript and printed.
(3) Dictionaries: Of the Dict. articles those in HDB (Nestle, strong in the critical, but weak and defective on the historical and exegetical side); Encyclopedia Biblica (C. H. Toy, sound and well balanced); see also Jewish Encyclopedia (Israel Levi) and Encyclopedia Britannica (11th edition) (W. Baxendale). For detailed register of the literature see HDB (Nestle); Jew Encyclopedia, "Sirach" (Israel Levi); and especially Schurer,GJ V 4,III , 219 ff.
T. Witton Davies
Sirach, the Alphabet of
Sirach, the Alphabet of - Usually called The Alphabet of Ben Sira. The compilation so designated consists of two lists of proverbs, 22 in Aramaic and 22 in Hebrew, arranged in each case as alphabet acrostics. Each of these proverbs is followed by a haggadic comm., with legends and tales, many of them indecent. Some of the proverbs in the Alphabets are probably genuine compositions by Ben Sira and are quoted as such in the Talmud, but in their present form the Alphabets are at least as late as the 11th century AD.
LITERATURE.
The only complete copy of the text known is in the British Museum, the copy in the Bodleian being defective. Steinschneider has published a reprint of this last with critical notes (Alphabeticum Syracidis, Berlin, 1854). Cowley and Neubauer (The Original Hebrew of a Portion of Ecclesiasticus), besides giving a general account of this work, add a translation into English of the Aramaic proverbs. In his brief but excellent articles in the Jewish Encyclopedia (Ben Sira, The Alphabet of), Dr. Louis Ginzberg (New York) also gives a translation of the 22 Aramaic proverbs with useful remarks after each. The work has been translated into Latin, Yiddish (often), Judeo-Spanish, French and German, but never, so far, completely into English.
T. Witton Davies
Sirah, Well of
Sirah, Well of - si'-ra (bor hacirah, "the pit," "well" or "cistern of Sarah"): The spot from which Abner was enticed back to Hebron to his death (2 Samuel 3:26). Josephus (Ant., VII, i, 5) calls it Be(r)sira, implying that it was a "well." It is possible that this spot is now `Ain Sarah, a spring which flows into a little tank near the west side of the road about a mile out of ancient Hebron, on the way to Jerusalem. There is, however, a curious cistern with steps known as Chamam Sarah ("Sarah's bath") near Ramet el-Khalil, which is also possibly the site (PEF, 314, Sh XXI).
Sirion
Sirion - sir'-i-on (siryon; Sanior): The name of Mt. Hermon among the Phoenicians (Deuteronomy 3:9). It is given as "Shirion" in Psalms 29:6 (Hebrew "breastplate" or "body armor"). Here it is named with Lebanon. Sirion therefore probably did not denote a particular part of the Hermon Range, as did Senir, but may have been suggested by the conformation of the range itself, as seen from the heights above the Phoenician coast.
Sisamai
Sisamai - sis'-a-mi.
See SISMAI.
Sisera
Sisera - sis'-er-a (cicera', of doubtful meaning; S(e)isara):
(1) Given in Judges 4:1-24 as the captain of the army of Jabin, king of Hazor. The accounts given of the battle of Sisera with Barak, as found in Judges 4:1-24 and Judges 5:1-31, have important points of difference. The first is a prose, the second a poetic narrative. In the first only Naphtali and Zebulun are mentioned as being under the command of Barak; in the second 6 tribes are given as being under his command. In Judges 4:1-24 Sisera is known as the captain of Jabin's forces, while in Judges 5:1-31 he seems to have been an independent leader. There is also a difference as to the scene of the battle and as to the manner in which Sisera met his death at the hand of Jael. Because of these points of difference, added to the fact that this is the only account, in these early times, where a king did not lead his own forces, it is thought by many that there is here the combination of two traditions dealing with different and distinct events.
Sisera resided in Harosheth of the Gentiles, a place identified with el-Charithiyeh, on the right bank of the Kishon and commanding the way from the Central Plain to the sea. Taking the versions in the two chapters of Judges as being the account of a single campaign, we find Deborah urging Barak to combine the forces of Israel to wage war with Sisera as the representative of Jabin, the king of Hazor. The scene of the battle was on the plain at the foot of the slopes of Mt. Tabor (Judges 4:12-14), or at the foot of the Carmel heights (Judges 5:19). The attack of Barak and Deborah was so furious, animated as it was by the hatred of Sisera and the Canaanites, that the hosts of Sisera were put to rout, and Sisera,
deserting his troops, fled on foot to the Northeast. He took refuge in the tent of Heber, near Kedesh, and here met death at the hands of Jael, the wife of Heber (see JAEL). Sisera's name had long produced fear in Israel because of his oppression of the people, his vast army and his 900 chariots of iron. His overthrow was the cause of much rejoicing and was celebrated by the song in which Deborah led the people.
See DEBORAH.
It is interesting to note that the great rabbi Aqiba, who fought so valiantly in the Jewish war for independence as standard bearer to Bar-cocheba, was descended from the ancient warlike Sisera of Harosheth.
(2) In Ezra 2:53 and Nehemiah 7:55 the name Sisera, after a long interval, reappears in a family of the Nethinim. There is no evidence that the latter Sisera is connected by family descent with the former.
C. E. Schenk
Sisinnes
Sisinnes - si-sin'-ez (Sisinnes): "The eparch (governor) of Syria and Phoenicia" under Darius Hystaspis (1 Esdras 6:3, 7, 27; 7:1) circa 520 BC = "Tattenai the governor beyond the river" in Ezra 5:3, 6; 6, 13. He took a prominent part in the efforts to prevent the rebuilding of the temple.
Sismai
Sismai - sis'-mi (tsitsmay; the King James Version Sisamai): A Judahite, of the descendants of the daughter of Sheshan and Jarha, his Egyptian servant (1 Chronicles 2:40). Commentators have compared the name to tstsm, a Phoenician god (compare Rudolph Kittel, Commentary at the place;BDB , under the word).
Sister
Sister - sis'-ter ('achoth): Used repeatedly in the Old Testament of a female (1) having the same parents as another; or (2) having one parent in common, with another, half-sister (Genesis 20:12; Leviticus 18:9), and also (3) of a female belonging to the same family or clan as another, so a kinswoman (Genesis 24:60; Job 42:11); (4) also of a woman of the same country (Numbers 25:18). (5) Figuratively, the two kingdoms, Israel and Judah, are sisters (Ezekiel 23:7 ff). (6) Confederate cities are conceived of as sisters (Ezekiel 16:45 ff). (7) 'Achoth is used of objects which go in pairs, as curtains, each `coupled to its sister' (Exodus 26:3, 6), and of wings in pairs (Ezekiel 1:9; 3:13); (8) of virtues or conditions, with which one is closely related: "Say unto wisdom, thou art my sister" (Proverbs 7:4; compare Job 17:14); (9) of a lover concerning his spouse, as a term of endearment (Song of Solomon 4:9 f; Song of Solomon 5:1 f; Song of Solomon 8:8).
In the New Testament, adelphe, used (1) in sense of physical or blood kinship (Matthew 12:50; 13:56; 19:29; Luke 10:39 f; Luke 14:26; John 11:1 ff; John 19:25; Acts 23:16); (2) of fellow-members in Christ: "Phoebe, our sister" (Romans 16:1; see also 1 Corinthians 7:15; 1 Timothy 5:1; James 2:15); (3) possibly, of a church, "thy elect sister" (2 John 1:13).
See RELATIONSHIPS, FAMILY.
Edward Bagby Pollard
Sister's Son
Sister's Son - The King James Version translates rightly (1) ben-'achotho (Genesis 29:13); and (2) huios tes adelphes (Acts 23:16), and wrongly, (3) anepsios (Colossians 4:10), where, without doubt, the real meaning is "cousin," as in the Revised Version (British and American).
See RELATIONSHIPS, FAMILY.
Sith
Sith - sith: An Anglo-Saxon word meaning "afterward," "since" (Ezekiel 35:6 the King James Version and the English Revised Version, the American Standard Revised Version "since").
Sithri
Sithri - sith'-ri (cithri): A grandson of Kohath (Exodus 6:22).
Sitnah
Sitnah - sit'-na (siTnah, "hatred," "hostility"; echthria): The name of the second of the two wells dug by the herdsmen of Isaac, the cause of further "enmity" with the herdsmen of Gerer (Genesis 26:21, margin "That is, Enmity"). The site is unknown, but Palmer (PEFS, 1871) finds an echo of the name in Shutnet er Rucheibeh, the name of a small valley near Rucheibeh.
See REHOBOTH.
Sitting
Sitting - sit'-ing (yashabh, "to sit down or still," daghar, "to brood," "hatch"; kathezomai, "to sit down," anakeimai, "to lie back," "recline"): The favorite position of the Orientals (Malachi 3:3; Matthew 9:9; 26:55 (compare Matthew 5:1; Luke 4:20; 5:3); Mark 14:18; Luke 18:35; John 2:14, etc.).
"In Palestine people sit at all kinds of work; the carpenter saws, planes, and hews with his hand-adze, sitting upon the ground or upon the plank he is planing. The washerwoman sits by the tub, and, in a word, no one stands where it is possible to sit. .... On the low shopcounters the turbaned salesmen squat in the midst of the gay wares" (LB, II, 144, 275; III, 72, 75).
Figurative:
(1) To sit with denotes intimate fellowship (Psalms 1:1; 26:5; Luke 13:29; Revelation 3:21); (2) to sit in the dust indicates poverty and contempt (Isaiah 47:1), in darkness, ignorance (Matthew 4:16) and trouble (Micah 7:8); (3) to sit on thrones denotes authority, judgment, and glory (Matthew 19:28).
M. O. Evans
Sivan
Sivan - se-van', si'-van (ciwan): The third month of the Jewish year, corresponding to June (Esther 8:9).
See CALENDAR.
Sixty
Sixty - siks'-ti (shishshim; hexekonta).
See NUMBER.
Skill; Skilful
Skill; Skilful - skil, skil'-fool (forms of yadha` (2 Chronicles 2:14, etc.), bin (1 Chronicles 15:22), sakhal (Daniel 1:4, etc.), lamadh (1 Chronicles 5:18), chakham (1 Chronicles 28:21), charash (Ezekiel 21:31), yaTabh (Psalms 33:3); in Apocrypha empeiria (Wisdom of Solomon 13:13), episteme (Sirach 1:19; 3, 6); adverb eumathos (Wisdom of Solomon 13:11)): As a verb "to skill," meaning to have understanding or to be dexterous, common in Elizabethan English and in the King James Version and the English Revised Version (1 Kings 5:6; 2 Chronicles 2:7 f; 2 Chronicles 34:12), is obsolete. The American Standard Revised Version substitutes such expressions as "knoweth how" (1 Kings 5:6) and "were skillful with" (2 Chronicles 34:12). As a noun the word is used in the sense of "knowledge" (Ecclesiastes 9:11), "insight" (Daniel 1:17), and "wisdom" (1 Chronicles 28:21). The adjective skillful is used in corresponding senses, especially in the American Standard Revised Version, where it takes the place of "cunning" (Exodus 26:31; 31:4; 33, 35; 38:23; 2 Chronicles 2:7, 13-14; Song of Solomon 7:1; Isaiah 40:20; Jeremiah 10:9) and of "curious" (Exodus 35:32), where the Hebrew chashabh suggests planning or devising, and thus what we should call "original" work. Both the English Revised Version and the American Standard Revised Version use the word in place of "eloquent" (Isaiah 3:3), "right" (Ecclesiastes 4:4) and "cunning" (1 Chronicles 25:7). In the first of these instances the Hebrew word means "understanding"; in the second, it refers to the manner of doing a thing, and in the third, to the training that makes one "skilled." the Revised Version (British and American) uses the word "skilled" of those that "took the war upon them" (Numbers 31:27 the King James Version). Skillfulness (Psalms 78:72) is used with reference to the hands, not only in their work, but also in guiding (as, e.g., a pilot). To play well (Hebrew heTibhu naggen), is rendered "play skillfully" (Psalms 33:3). "Unskillful" is used with reference to the uninitiated in the sense of "inexperienced" (Hebrews 5:13, apeiros).
Nathan Isaacs
Skin
Skin - (`or, geledh, "human skin" (Job 16:15), basar, "flesh," in the sense of "nakedness" (Psalms 102:5 the King James Version); derma):
Literal:
The word `or designates the skin of both men and animals, the latter both raw and in tanned condition: "Yahweh God made for Adam and for his wife coats of skins (`or), and clothed them" (Genesis 3:21); "She put the skins (`or) of the kids of the goats upon his hands, and upon the smooth of his neck" (Genesis 27:16); "Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots?" (Jeremiah 13:23). The Hebrew geledh is found in the sense of human skin: "I have sewed sackcloth upon my skin, and have laid my horn in the dust" (Job 16:15).
Figurative:
`To escape by the skin of the teeth' is equivalent to a narrow escape (Job 19:20). Satan says in his calumny of Job: "Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life" (Job 2:4). The idea here is, that a man will endure or do the worst, even as it were the flaying of his body, to save his life. The Revised Version (British and American) has replaced "skin" as the translation of Hebrew basar by "flesh": "My bones cleave to my flesh" (Psalms 102:5). "The bars of his skin" is a poetical expression for "the members of his body" in Job 18:13 margin, where the text interprets rather than translates the original.
Skins served for purposes of clothing from an early date (Genesis 3:21). In later days they were the raiment of prophets and hermits (Zechariah 13:4; Hebrews 11:37). Septuagint translates 'addereth, "the mantle" of Elijah (1 Kings 19:13, 19; 2 Kings 2:8, 13 f), with melote, i.e. "sheepskin," the word in He being derived from these passages. It is not unlikely that the raiment of John the Baptist made "of camel's hair" and the "leathern girdle about his loins" are identical with the rough garb of Old Testament prophets. The skins of cattle were largely employed for technical uses; "rams' skins and badgers' skins" are especially mentioned in the construction of the tabernacle as material for the waterproof covering of the roof (Exodus 25:5; Numbers 4:8, 10 ff).
The Revised Version, rejecting the translation "badgers' skins," substitutes "sealskins" and adds "porpoise skins" in the margin. There is little doubt that the rendering of the King James Version is indeed incorrect. The Hebrew name of the animal (tachash) is the same as the Arabic tuchas, which means the dolphin and the "sea-cow" or halicore of the Red Sea, of which genus there are two species even now extant (H. tabernaculi Russ, and H. Helprichii Ehr.). It is probable that the Jews included various marine animals, seals, porpoises, dolphins and halicores, under the same expression.
See SEALSKIN.
In Ezekiel 16:10 we find these skins mentioned as material for elegant shoes, and the Arabs of the Red Sea littoral use the same material in the manufacture of sandals. A quaint use was made of skins in the making of skin bottles, the qurbeh or qirbeh of modern Arabia. We find a great variety of Hebrew expressions, which possibly designated special varieties, all of which were rendered askos, in Septuagint and the New Testament (chemeth, no'dh, no'dhah, nebhel, nebhel, baqbuq, 'obh). the Revised Version (British and American) has rendered the Greek askos in the New Testament by "wineskin" (Matthew 9:17; Mark 2:22; Luke 5:37) with the marginal addition "that is, skins used as bottles." These skin bottles were made of the skins of goats, sheep, oxen or buffaloes; the former had more or less the shape of the animals, the holes of the extremities being closed by tying or sewing, and the neck of the skin being closed by a tap or a plug, while the larger ones were sewn together in various shapes. As a rule only the inside of the skin was tanned, the skin turned inside out, and the fluid or semi-fluid filled in, e.g. water, milk, butter, cheese. The hairy inside was not considered as in any way injurious to the contents. Only in the case of wine-and oil-skins was it thought advantageous to tan the skins inside and out.
H. L. E. Luering