International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Tema — Thought
Tema
Tema - te'-ma (tema', "south country"; Thaiman): The name of a son of Ishmael (Genesis 25:15; 1 Chronicles 1:30), of the tribe descended from him (Jeremiah 25:23), and of the place where they dwelt (Job 6:19; Isaiah 21:14). This last was a locality in Arabia which probably corresponds to the modern Teima' (or Tayma' (see Doughty, Arabia Deserta, I, 285)), an oasis which lies about 200 miles North of el-Medina, and some 40 miles South of Dumat el-Jandal (Dumah), now known as el-Jauf. It is on the ancient caravan road connecting the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Aqaba; and doubtless the people took a share in the carrying trade (Job 6:19). The wells of the oasis still attract the wanderers from the parched wastes (Isaiah 21:14). Doughty (loc. cit.) describes the ruins of the old city wall, some 3 miles in circuit. An Aramaic stele recently discovered, belonging to the 6th century BC, shows the influence of Assyrian article The place is mentioned in the cuneiform inscriptions (Schrader, KAT2, 149).
W. Ewing
Temah
Temah - te'-ma (temach, Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Vaticanus Thema; Lucian, Themaa; Nehemiah 7:55; Codex Vaticanus Hemath; Codex Alexandrinus Thema; Lucian, Themaa; the King James Version, Thamah): The family name of a company of Nethinim (Ezra 2:53).
Teman
Teman - te'-man (teman, "on the right," i.e. "south"; Thaiman): The name of a district and town in the land of Edom, named after Teman the grandson of Esau, the son of his firstborn, Eliphaz (Genesis 36:11; 1 Chronicles 1:36). A duke Teman is named among the chiefs or clans of Edom (Genesis 36:42; 1 Chronicles 1:53). He does not however appear first, in the place of the firstborn. Husham of the land of the Temanites was one of the ancient kings of Edom (Genesis 36:34; 1 Chronicles 1:45). From Obadiah 1:9 we gather that Teman was in the land of Esau (Edom). In Amos 1:12 it is named along with Bozrah, the capital of Edom. In Ezekiel 25:13 desolation is denounced upon Edom: "From Teman even unto Dedan shall they fall by the sword." Dedan being in the South, Teman must be sought in the North Eusebius, Onomasticon knows a district in the Gebalene region called Theman, and also a town with the same name, occupied by a Roman garrison, 15 miles from Petra. Unfortunately no indication of direction is given. No trace of the name has yet been found. It may have been on the road from Elath to Bozrah.
The inhabitants of Teman seem to have been famous for their wisdom (Jeremiah 49:7; Obadiah 1:8 f). Eliphaz the Temanite was chief of the comforters of Job (2:11, etc.). The manner in which the city is mentioned by the prophets, now by itself, and again as standing for Edom, shows how important it must have been in their time.
W. Ewing
Temeni
Temeni - tem'-e-ni, te'-me-ni (temeni, Baer, timeni; Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus Thaiman; Lucian, Thaimanei): The word temeni means a southerner, i.e. of Southern Judah; compare TEMAN (patronymic temani), the name of Edom (Genesis 36:11, ete), the "son" of Ashhur (1 Chronicles 4:6).
Temper
Temper - tem'-per: The word is used in the King James Version to render different Hebrew words. In Ezekiel 46:14 for "temper" (racac) the Revised Version (British and American) substitutes "moisten." In Song (Ezekiel 5:2) a noun from the same stem means "dew-drops." In Exodus 29:2 the King James Version we read "cakes unleavened, tempered (balal, literally, "mixed") with oil," the Revised Version (British and American) "mingled." The word denotes "rough-and-ready mixing." In the recipe for the making of incense given in Ex (30:35) occur the words "tempered together," malach (literally, "salted"; hence, the Revised Version (British and American) "seasoned with salt"). The word occurs in two interesting connections in Wisdom of Solomon 15:7 (the Revised Version (British and American) "knead") and 16:21. In 1 Corinthians 12:24 it occurs in English Versions of the Bible as a rendering of the Greek word sugqerannumi, which meant to "mix together." Paul is arguing in favor of the unity of the church and of cooperation on the part of individual members, and uses as an illustration the human body which consists of various organs with various functions. It is God, argues the apostle, who has "tempered," "compounded" or "blended," the body. Each member has its place and function and must contribute to the welfare of the whole frame. The same Greek word occurs in Hebrews 4:2. The author urges the necessity of faith in regard to the gospel. The unbelieving Israelites had derived no benefit from their hearing of the gospel because their hearing of it was not "mixed" with faith.
T. Lewis
Temperance; Temperate
Temperance; Temperate - tem'-per-ans; tem'-per-at (egkrateia), (egkrates, nephalios, sophron): the American Standard Revised Version departs from the King James Version and the English Revised Version by translating egkrateia "self-control" (Acts 24:25; Galatians 5:23; 2 Peter 1:6; 1 Corinthians 9:25), following the English Revised Version margin in several of these passages. This meaning is in accordance with classical usage, Plato applying it to "mastery" not only of self, but of any object denoted by a genitive following. Septuagint applies it to the possession "of strongholds" (2 Maccabees 8:30; 10:15), "of a position" (2 Maccabees 10:17), "of the city" (2 Maccabees 13:13), "of wisdom" (Sirach 6:27). The reflexive meaning of "self-mastery," "self-restraint," is equally well established in the classics and Septuagint. Thus, in the verbal form, it is found in Genesis 43:31, for the self-restraint exercised by Joseph in the presence of his brethren, when they appeared before him as suppliants, and in 1 Samuel 13:12, where Saul professes that he "forced" himself to do what was contrary to his desire. For patristic use of the term, see illustrations in Suicer's Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus, I, 1000 ff. Clement of Alexandria: "Not abstaining from all things, but using continently such things as one has judged should be used"; "such things as do not seem beyond right reason." Basil: "To avoid excess on both sides, so as neither by luxury to be confused, nor, by becoming sickly, to be disabled from doing what has been commanded." Chrysostom (on 1 Timothy 1:8) applies it to "one mastering passion of tongue, hand and unbridled eyes." Ellicott and Eadie (on Galatians 5:23) quote Diogenes Laertius to the effect that the word refers to "control over the stronger passions." In 1 Corinthians 9:25, Paul illustrates it by the training of an athlete, whose regimen is not only described in the Ars Poetica of Horace (412 ff), and in Epictetus (quoted in Alford on this passage), but can be learned of the many devotees and admirers of similar pursuits today.
The principle involved is that of the concentration of all man's powers and capabilities upon the one end of doing God's will, in and through whatever calling God appoints, and the renunciation of everything either wholly or to whatever degree necessary, however innocent or useful it may be in its proper place, that interferes with one's highest efficiency in this calling (1 Corinthians 10:31). Not limited to abstinence, it is rather the power and decision to abstain with reference to some fixed end, and the use of the impulses of physical, as servants for the moral, life. It does not refer to any one class of objects that meets us, but to all; to what concerns speech and judgment, as well as to what appeals to sense. It is properly an inner spiritual virtue, working into the outward life, incapable of being counterfeited or replaced by any abstinence limited to that which is external (Augsburg Confession, Articles XXVI, XXVII). When its absence, however, is referred to as sin, the negative is generally more prominent than the positive side of temperance. The reference in Acts 24:25 is to chastity, and in 1 Corinthians 7:9, as the context shows, to the inner side of chastity. In 1 Timothy 3:2, 11; Titus 2:2, the word nephalios has its original meaning as the opposite to "drunken" (see SOBRIETY ; DRINK, STRONG). See also the treatises on ethics by Luthardt (both the Compendium and the History), Martensen, Koestlin and Haring on temperance, asceticism, continence.
H. E. Jacobs
Tempest
Tempest - tem'-pest (ce`-arah, or se`-arah, "a whirlwind," zerem, "overflowing rain"; cheimon, thuella): Heavy storms of wind and rain are common in Palestine and the Mediterranean. The storms particularly mentioned in the Bible are: (1) the 40 days' rain of ~the great flood of Noah (Genesis 7:4); (2) hail and rain as a plague in Egypt (Exodus 9:18); (3) the great rain after the drought and the contest of Elijah on Carmel (1 Kings 18:45); (4) the tempest on the sea in the story of Jonah (1:4); (5) the storm on the Lake of Galilee when Jesus was awakened to calm the waves (Matthew 8:24; Mark 4:37; Luke 8:23); (6) the storm causing the shipwreck of Paul at Melita (Acts 27:18). Frequent references are found to God's power over storm and use of the tempest in His anger: "He maketh the storm a calm" (Psalms 107:29); He sends the "tempest of hail, a destroying storm" (Isaiah 28:2). See also Job 9:17; 21:18; Isaiah 30:30. Yahweh overwhelms His enemies as with a storm: "She shall be visited of Yahweh of hosts with thunder, and with earthquake, and great noise, with whirlwind and tempest" (Isaiah 29:6). Yahweh is a "refuge from the storm" (Isaiah 25:4; 4:6).
Alfred H. Joy
Temple Keepers (Servants)
Temple Keepers (Servants) - After the conquest of Midian, "Moses took one drawn out of every fifty, both of man and of beast, and gave them unto the Levites, that kept the charge of the tabernacle of Yahweh" (Numbers 31:47; compare Numbers 31:30). Similarly, after the deception of Joshua by the Gibeonites, "Joshua made them that day hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation, and for the altar of Yahweh, unto this day" (Joshua 9:27). The object of these notices, evidently, is to explain how a non-Israelitish class of sanctuary servants had taken their origin. Their existence at the time of Ezekiel, however, is the object of one of the latter's severest denunciations: "Ye have brought in foreigners, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary, to profane it. .... And ye have not kept the charge of my holy things; but ye have set keepers of my charge in my sanctuary for yourselves" (Ezekiel 44:7 f). In place of these servants or "keepers" Ezekiel directs that such Levites are to be employed as have been degraded from priestly privileges for participating in idolatrous worship. On them shall devolve all the various duties of the temple except the actual offering of sacrifices, which is reserved for "the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok" (Ezekiel 44:10-15). For the use of this deposed class, "the priests, the keepers of the charge of the house," is reserved a special room in the inner court of the temple (Ezekiel 40:44 f).
See, further, NETHINIM.
Burton Scott Easton
Temple, A1
Temple, A1 - tem'-p'l (hekhal, "palace"; sometimes, as in 1 Kings 6:3, 5, etc.; Ezekiel 41:1, 15 ff, used for "the holy place" only; bayith, "house," thus always in the Revised Version (British and American); hieron, naos):
A. STRUCTURE AND HISTORY
I. SOLOMON'S TEMPLE
I. INTRODUCTORY
1. David's Project
2. Plans and Preparations
3. Character of the Building
4. Site of the Temple
5. Phoenician Assistance
II. THE TEMPLE BUILDING
1. In General
2. Dimensions, Divisions and Adornments
3. The Side-Chambers
4. The Porch and Pillars
III. COURTS, GATES ANY ROYAL BUILDINGS
1. The Inner Court
(1) Walls
(2) Gates
2. The Great Court
3. The Royal Buildings
IV. FURNITURE OF THE TEMPLE
1. The Sanctuary
(1) The "Debhir"
(2) The "Hekhal"
2. The Court (Inner)
(1) The Altar
(2) The Molten (Bronze) Sea
(3) The Layers and Their Bases
V. HISTORY OF THE TEMPLE
1. Building and Dedication
2. Repeated Plunderings, etc.
3. Attempts at Reform
4. Final Overthrow
II. EZEKIEL'S PROPHETIC SKETCH
I. INTRODUCTORY
1. Relation to History of Temple
2. The Conception Unique and Ideal
3. Its Symmetrical Measurements
II. PLAN OF THE TEMPLE
1. The Outer Court
2. The Inner Court
3. The Temple Building and Adjuncts
III. THE TEMPLE OF ZERUBBABEL
I. INTRODUCTORY
1. The Decree of Cyrus
2. Founding of the Temple
3. Opposition and Completion of the Work
II. THE TEMPLE STRUCTURE
1. The House
2. Its Divisions and Furniture
3. Its Courts, Altar, etc.
4. Later Fortunes
IV. THE TEMPLE OF HEROD
I. INTRODUCTORY
1. Initiation of the Work
2. Its Grandeur
3. Authorities
4. Measurements
II. THE TEMPLE AND ITS COURTS
1. Temple Area--Court of Gentiles
2. Inner Sanctuary Inclosure
(1) Wall, "Chel," "Coregh," Gates
(2) Court of the Women
(3) Inner Courts: Court of Israel; Court of the Priests
(4) The Altar, etc.
3. The Temple Building
(1) House and Porch
(2) "Hekhal" and "Debhir"
(3) The Side-Chambers
III. NEW TESTAMENT ASSOCIATIONS OF HEROD'S TEMPLE
1. Earlier Incidents
2. Jesus in the Temple
3. The Passion-Week
4. Apostolic Church
5. The Temple in Christian Thought
LITERATURE
A. STRUCTURE AND HISTORY
I. SOLOMON'S TEMPLE
I. Introductory. 1. David's Project: The tabernacle having lasted from the exodus till the commencement of the monarchy, it appeared to David to be no longer fitting that the ark of God should dwell within curtains (it was then in a tent David had made for it on Zion: 2 Samuel 6:17), while he himself dwelt in a cedar-lined house. The unsettled and unorganized state of the nation, which had hitherto necessitated a portable structure, had now given place to an established kingdom. The dwelling of Yahweh should therefore be henceforth a permanent building, situated at the center of the nation's life, and "exceeding magnificent" (1 Chronicles 22:5), as befitted the glory of Yahweh, and the prospects of the state.
2. Plans and Preparations: David, however, while honored for his purpose, was not permitted, because he had been a man of war (2 Samuel 7:1-29; 1 Chronicles 22:8; compare 1 Kings 5:3), to execute the work, and the building of the house was reserved for his son, Solomon. According to the Chronicler, David busied himself in making extensive and costly preparations of wood, stone, gold, silver, etc., for the future sanctuary and its vessels, even leaving behind him full and minute plans of the whole scheme of the building and its contents, divinely communicated (1 Chronicles 22:2 ff; 1 Chronicles 28:11 ff; 1 Chronicles 29:1-30). The general fact of lengthened preparation, and even of designs, for a structure which so deeply occupied his thoughts, is extremely probable (compare 1 Kings 7:51).
3. Character of the Building: The general outline of the structure was based on that of the tabernacle (on the modern critical reversal of this relation, see under B, below). The dimensions are in the main twice those of the tabernacle, though it will be seen below that there are important exceptions to this rule, on which the critics found so much. The old question (see TABERNACLE) as to the shape of the building--flat or gable-roofed--here again arises. Not a few modern writers (Fergusson, Schick, Caldecott, etc.), with some older, favor the tentlike shape, with sloping roof. It does not follow, however, even if this form is, with these writers, admitted for the tabernacle--a "tent"--that it is applicable, or likely, for a stone "house," and the measurements of the Temple, and mention of a "ceiling" (1 Kings 6:15), point in the opposite direction. It must still be granted that, with the scanty data at command, all reconstructions of the Solomonte Temple leave much to be filled in from conjecture. Joseph Hammond has justly said: "It is certain that, were a true restoration of the Temple ever to be placed in our hands, we should find that it differed widely from all attempted `restorations' of the edifice, based on the scanty and imperfect notices of our historian and Ezekiel" (Commentary on 1 Kings 6:1-38, "Pulpit Commentary").
4. Site of the Temple: The site of the Temple was on the eastern of the two hills on which Jerusalem was built--that known in Scripture as Mt. Moriah (2 Chronicles 3:1) or Mt. Zion (the traditional view which locates Zion on the western hill, on the other side of the Tyropoeon, though defended by some, seems untenable; see
"Zion," in HDB; "Jerusalem," in DB, etc.). The place is more precisely defined as that where Araunah (Ornan) had his threshing-floor, and David built his altar after the plague (1 Chronicles 21:22; 2 Chronicles 3:1). This spot, in turn, is now all but universally held to be marked by the sacred rock, es-Sakhra (within what is called the Haram area on the eastern summit; see JERUSALEM), above which the "Dome of the Rock," or so-called "Mosque of Omar," now stands. Here, according to traditional belief, was reared the altar of burnt offering, and to the West of it was built the Temple. This location is indeed challenged by Fergusson, W. R. Smith, and others, who transfer the Temple-site to the southwestern angle of the Haram area, but the great majority of scholars take the above view. To prepare a suitable surface for the Temple and connected buildings (the area may have been some 600 ft. East to West, and 300 to 400 ft. North to South), the summit of the hill had to be leveled, and its lower parts heightened by immense substructures (Josephus, Ant, VIII iii, 9; XV, xi, 3; BJ, V, v, 1), the remains of which modern excavations have brought to light (compare Warren's Underground Jerusalem; G. A. Smith's Jerusalem, etc.).
5. Phoenician Assistance: For aid in his undertaking, Solomon invited the cooperation of Hiram, king of Tyre, who willingly lent his assistance, as he had before helped David, granting Solomon permission to send his servants to cut down timber in Lebanon, aiding in transport, and in the quarrying and hewing of stones, and sending a skillful Tyrian artist, another Hiram, to superintend the designing and graving of objects made of the precious metals, etc. For this assistance Solomon made a suitable recompense (1 Kings 5:1-18; 2 Chronicles 2:1-18). Excavations seem to show that a large part of the limestone of which the temple was built came from quarries in the immediate neighborhood of Jerusalem (Warren, Underground Jerusalem, 60). The stones were cut, hewn and polished at the places whence they were taken, so that "there was neither hammer nor axe nor any tool of iron heard in the house, while it was in building" (1 Kings 5:17-18; 6:7). Opinions differ as to the style of architecture of the building. It was probably unique, but Phoenician art also must have left its impress upon it.
See ARCHITECTURE.
II. The Temple Building. 1. In General: In contrast with the tabernacle, which was a portable "tent," consisting of a framework of acacia wood, with rich coverings hung over it, and standing in a "court" enclosed by curtains (see TABERNACLE), the Temple was a substantial "house" built of stone (probably the hard white limestone of the district), with chambers in three stories, half the height of the building (1 Kings 6:5-6), round the sides and back, and, in front, a stately porch (1 Kings 6:3), before which stood two lofty bronze pillars--Jachin and Boaz (1 Kings 7:21; 2 Chronicles 3:4, 15-17). Within, the house was lined with cedar, overlaid with gold, graven with figures of cherubim, palms, and open flowers (1 Kings 6:15, 18, 21-22, 29), and a partition of cedar or stone divided the interior into two apartments--one the holy place (the hekhal), the other the most holy place, or "oracle" (debhir) (1 Kings 6:16-18). The floor was of stone, covered with fir (or cypress), likewise overlaid with gold (1 Kings 6:15, 30). The platform on which the whole building stood was probably raised above the level of the court in front, and the building may have been approached by steps. Details are not given. The more particular description follows.
2. Dimensions, Divisions and Adornments: The Temple, like the tabernacle, stood facing East, environed by "courts" ("inner" and "greater"), which are dealt with below, Internally, the dimensions of the structure were, in length and width, double those of the tabernacle, namely, length 60 cubits, width 20 cubits. The height, however, was 30 cubits, thrice that of the tabernacle (1 Kings 6:2; compare 1 Kings 6:18, 20). The precise length of the cubit is uncertain (see CUBIT); here, as in the article TABERNACLE, it is taken as approximately 18 inches. In internal measurement, therefore, the Temple was approximately 90 ft. long, 30 ft. broad, and 45 ft. high. This allows nothing for the thickness of the partition between the two chambers. For the external measurement, the thickness of the walls and the width of the surrounding chambers and their walls require to be added. It cannot positively be affirmed that the dimensions of the Temple, including the porch, coincided precisely with those of Ezekiel's temple (compare Keil on 1 Kings 6:9-10); still, the proportions must have closely approximated, and may have been in agreement.
The walls of the building, as stated, were lined within with cedar; the holy place was ceiled with fir or cypress (2 Chronicles 3:5; the "oracle" perhaps with cedar); the flooring likewise was of fir (1 Kings 6:15). All was overlaid with gold, and walls and doors (see below) were adorned with gravings of cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers (1 Kings 6:19-35; 2 Chronicles 3:6 adds "precious stones"). Of the two chambers into which the house was divided, the outermost (or hekhal) was 40 cubits (60 ft.) long, and 20 cubits (30 ft.) wide (1 Kings 6:17); the innermost (or debhir) was 20 cubits in length, breadth and height--a cube (1 Kings 6:20). As the height of the Temple internally was 30 cubits, it is obvious that above the most holy place there was a vacant space 20 cubits long and 10 high. This apparently was utilized as a chamber or chambers for storage or other purposes. It has been held by some (Kurtz, Fergusson, etc.) that the ceiling along the entire Temple was at the height of 20 cubits, with chambers above (compare the allusion to "upper chambers" in 1 Chronicles 28:11; 2 Chronicles 3:9); this, however, seems unwarranted (compare Bahr on 1 Kings 6:14-19; the upper chambers" were "overlaid with gold," 2 Chronicles 3:9, which points to something nobler in character). The inner chamber was a place of "thick darkness" (1 Kings 8:12).
3. The Side-Chambers: The thickness of the Temple walls is not given, but the analogy of Ezekiel's temple (Ezekiel 41:1-26) and what is told of the side-chambers render it probable that the thickness was not less than 6 cubits (9 ft.). Around the Temple, on its two sides and at the back, were built chambers (tsela`oth, literally, "ribs"), the construction of which is summarily described. They were built in three stories, each story 5 cubits in height (allowance must also be made for flooring and roofing), the lowest being 5 cubits in breadth, the next 6 cubits, and the highest 7 cubits. This is explained by the fact that the chambers were not to be built into the wall of the Temple, but were to rest on ledges or rebatements in the wall, each rebate a cubit in breadth, so that the wall became thinner, and the chambers broader, by a cubit, each stage in the ascent. (1 Kings 6:5-10). The door admitting into these chambers was apparently in the middle of the right side of the house, and winding stairs led up to the second and third stories (1 Kings 6:8). It is not stated how many chambers there were; Josephus (Ant., VIII, iii, 2) gives the number as 30, which is the number in Ezekiel's temple (Ezekiel 41:6). The outer wall of the chambers, which in Ezekiel is 5 cubits thick (Ezekiel 41:9), may have been the same here, though some make it less. It is a question whether the rebatements were in the Temple wall only, or were divided between it and the outer wall; the former seems the more probable opinion, as nothing is said of rebatements in the outer wall. Above the chambers on either side were "windows of fixed lattice-work" (Ezekiel 41:4), i.e. openings which could not be closed ("windows broad within and narrow without"). The purposes for which the chambers were constructed are not mentioned. They may have been used partly for storage, partly for the accommodation of those engaged in the service of the Temple (compare 1 Chronicles 9:27).
4. The Porch and Pillars: A conspicuous feature of the Temple was the porch in front of the building, with its twin pillars, Jachin and Boaz. Of the porch itself a very brief description is given. It is stated to have been 20 cubits broad--the width of the house--and 10 cubits deep (1 Kings 6:3). Its height is not given in 1 Kings, but it is said in 2 Chronicles 3:4 to have been 120 cubits, or approximately 180 ft. Some accept this enormous height (Ewald, Stanley, etc.), but the majority more reasonably infer that there has been a corruption of the number. It may have been the same height as the Temple--30 cubits. It was apparently open in front, and, from what is said of its being "overlaid within with pure gold" (2 Chronicles 3:4), it may be concluded that it shared in the splendor of the main building, and had architectural features of its own which are not recorded. Some find here, in the wings, treasury chambers, and above, "upper chambers," but such restorations are wholly conjectural. It is otherwise with the monumental brass (bronze) pillars--Jachin and Boaz--of which a tolerably full description is preserved (1 Kings 7:15-22; 2 Chronicles 3:15-17; 2 Chronicles 4:11-13; compare Jeremiah 52:20-23), still, however, leaving many points doubtful. The pillars which stood in front of the porch, detached from it, were hollow bronze castings, each 18 cubits (27 ft.) in height (35 cubits in 2 Chronicles 3:15 is an error), and 12 cubits (18 ft.) in circumference, and were surmounted by capitals 5 cubits (7 1/2 ft.) high, richly ornamented on their lower, bowl-shaped (1 Kings 7:20, 41-42) parts, with two rows of pomegranates, enclosing festoons of chain-work, and, in their upper parts, rising to the height of 4 cubits (6 ft.) in graceful lily-work.
See JACHIN AND BOAZ.
It was seen that the holy place (hekhal) was divided from the most holy (debhir) by a partition, probably of cedar wood, though some think of a stone wall, one or even two cubits thick. In this partition were folding doors, made of olive wood, with their lintels 4 cubits wide (1 Kings 6:31; some interpret differently, and understand the upper part of the doorway to be a pentagon). The doors, like the walls, had carvings of cherubim, palm trees, and flowers, and the whole was gold-plated (1 Kings 6:32). Behind the partition hung the sanctuary veil (2 Chronicles 3:14). At the entrance of the Temple, similarly, were folding doors, with their lintels 5 cubits in width, only this time the posts only were of olive, while the doors, divided into two leaves, were of fir (or cypress) wood (1 Kings 6:33-35). The carving and gold-plating were as on the inner doors, and all the doors had hinges of gold (1 Kings 7:50).
III. Courts, Gates and Royal Buildings. The Temple was enclosed in "courts"--an "inner" (1 Kings 6:36; 7:12; 2 Chronicles 4:9, "court of the priests"; Jeremiah 36:10, "the upper court"; Ezekiel 8:3, 16; 10:3), and an outer or "greater court" (1 Kings 7:9, 12; 2 Chronicles 4:9)--regarding the situation, dimensions and relations of which, alike to one another and to the royal buildings described in 1 Kings 7:1-51 the scanty notices in the history leave room for great diversity of opinion.
See COURT OF THE SANCTUARY.
1. The Inner Court: The "inner court" (chatser ha-penimith) is repeatedly referred to (see above). Its dimensions are not given, but they may be presumed to be twice those of the tabernacle court, namely, 200 cubits (300 ft.) in length and 100 cubits (150 ft.) in breadth. The name in Jeremiah 36:10, "the upper court," indicates that it was on a higher level than the "great court," and as the Temple was probably on a platform higher still, the whole would present a striking terraced aspect.
(1) Walls: The walls of the court were built of three rows of hewn stone, with a coping of cedar beams (1 Kings 6:36). Their height is not stated; it is doubtful if it would admit of the colonnades which some have supposed; but "chambers" are mentioned (Jeremiah 35:4; 36:10--if, indeed, all belong to the "inner" court), which imply a substantial structure. It was distinctively "the priests' court" (2 Chronicles 4:9); probably, in part, was reserved for them; to a certain degree, however, the laity had evidently free access into it (Jeremiah 36:10; 38:14; Ezekiel 8:16, etc.). The mention of "the new court" (2 Chronicles 20:5, time of Jehoshaphat), and of "the two courts of the house of Yahweh" (2 Kings 21:5; 2 Chronicles 33:5, time of Manasseh), suggests subsequent enlargement and division.
(2) Gates: Though gates are not mentioned in the narratives of the construction, later allusions show that there were several, though not all were of the time of Solomon. The principal entrance would, of course, be that toward the East (see EAST GATE). In Jeremiah 26:10 there is allusion to "the entry of the new gate of Yahweh's house." This doubtless was "the upper gate" built by Jotham (2 Kings 15:35) and may reasonably be identified with the "gate that looketh toward the North" and the "gate of the altar" (i.e. through which the sacrifices were brought) in Ezekiel 8:3, 1, and with "the upper gate of Benjamin" in Jeremiah 20:3. Mention is also made of a "gate of the guard" which descended to the king's house (2 Kings 11:19; see below). Jeremiah speaks of a "third entry that is in the house of Yahweh" (38:14), and of "three keepers of the threshold" (52:24), but it is not clear which court is intended.
2. The Great Court: The outer or "great court" of the Temple (chatser ha-gedholah) opens up more difficult problems. Some regard this court as extending to the East in front of the "inner court"; others, as Keil, think of it as a great enclosure surrounding the "inner court" and stretching perhaps 150 cubits East of the latter (compare his Biblical Archaeology, I, 170-71). These writers remove the court from all connection with the royal buildings of 1 Kings 7:1-51, and distinguish it from "the great court of 1 Kings 7:9, 12." A quite different construction is that advocated by Stade and Benzinger, and adopted by most recent authorities (compare articles on "Temple" inHDB ,IV , inEB ,IV , in one-volHDB , inDB (Dalman); G. A. Smith, Jerusalem, II, 59 ff, etc.). The great court, on this view, not only surrounds the Temple, with its (inner) court, but, extending to the South, encloses the whole complex of the royal buildings of 1 Kings 7:1-51. This has the advantage of bringing together the references to the "great court" in 1 Kings 7:9, 12 and the other references to the outer court. The court, thus conceived, must have been very large. The extensive part occupied by the royal buildings being on a lower level than the "inner court," entrance to it is thought to have been by "the gate of the guard unto the king's house" mentioned in 2 Kings 11:19. Its wall, like that of the inner court, was built in three courses of hewn stone, and one course of cedar (1 Kings 7:12). Its gates overlaid with brass (2 Chronicles 4:9, i.e., "bronze") show that the masonry must have been both high and substantial. On the "other court" of 1 Kings 7:8, see next paragraph.
3. The Royal Buildings: The group of buildings which, on theory now stated, were enclosed by the southern part of the great court, are those described in 1 Kings 7:1-12. They were of hewn stone and cedar wood (1 Kings 7:9-11), and embraced: (1) The king's house, or royal palace (1 Kings 7:8), in close contiguity with the Temple-court (2 Kings 11:19). (2) Behind this to the West, the house of Pharaoh's daughter (2 Kings 11:9)--the apartments of the women. Both of these were enclosed in a "court" of their own, styled in 2 Kings 11:8 "the other court," and in 2 Kings 20:4 margin "the middle court." (3) South of this stood the throne-room, and porch or hall of judgment, paneled in cedar" from floor to floor," i.e. from floor to ceiling (2 Kings 11:7). The throne, we read later (1 Kings 10:18-20), was of ivory, overlaid with gold, and on either side of the throne, as well as of the six steps that led up to it, were lions. The hall served as an audience chamber, and for the administration of justice. (4) Yet farther South stood the porch or hall of pillars, 50 cubits (75 ft.) long and 30 cubits (45 ft.) broad, with a sub-porch of its own (1 Kings 10:6). It is best regarded as a place of promenade and vestibule to the hall of judgment. (5) Lastly, there was the imposing and elaborate building known as "the house of the forest of Lebanon" (1 Kings 10:2-5), which appears to have received this name from its multitude of cedar pillars. The scanty hints as to its internal arrangements have baffled the ingenuity of the commentators. The house was 100 cubits (150 ft.) in length, 50 cubits (75 ft.) in breadth, and 30 cubits (45 ft.) in height. Going round the sides and back there were apparently four rows of pillars. The Septuagint has three rows), on which, supported by cedar beams, rested three tiers or stories of side-chambers (literally, "ribs," as in 1 Kings 6:5; compare the Revised Version margin). In 1 Kings 6:3 it is disputed whether the number "forty and five; fifteen in a row" (as the Hebrew may be read) refers to the pillars or to the chambers; if to the former, the Septuagint reading of "three rows" is preferable. The windows of the tiers faced each other on the opposite sides (1 Kings 6:4-5). But the whole construction is obscure and doubtful. The spacious house was used partly as an armory; here Solomon put his 300 shields of beaten gold (1 Kings 10:17).
IV. Furniture of the Temple. 1. The Sanctuary: We treat here, first, of the sanctuary in its two divisions, then of the (inner) court.
(1) The "Debhir". In the most holy place, or debhir, of the sanctuary stood, as before, the old Mosaic ark of the covenant, with its two golden cherubim above the mercy-seat (see ARK OF THE COVENANT; TABERNACLE). Now, however, the symbolic element was increased by the ark being placed between two other figures of cherubim, made of olive wood, overlaid with gold, 10 cubits (15 ft.) high, their wings, each 5 cubits (7 1/2 ft.) long, outstretched so that they reached from wall to wall of the oracle (20 cubits), the inner wings meeting in the center (1 Kings 6:23-28; 2 Chronicles 3:10-13).
See CHERUBIM.
(2) The "Hekhal". In the holy place, or hekhal, the changes were greater. (a) Before the oracle, mentioned as belonging to it (1 Kings 6:22), stood the altar of incense, covered with cedar, and overlaid with gold (1 Kings 6:20-22; 7:48; 2 Chronicles 4:19; see ALTAR OF INCENSE ). It is an arbitrary procedure of criticism to attempt to identify this altar with the table of shewbread. (b) Instead of one golden candlestick, as in the tabernacle, there were now 10, 5 placed on one side and 5 on the other, in front of the oracle. All, with their utensils, were of pure gold (1 Kings 7:49; 2 Chronicles 4:7). (c) Likewise, for one table of shewbread, there were now 10, 5 on one side, 5 on the other, also with their utensils made of gold (1 Kings 7:48, where, however, only one table is mentioned; 2 Chronicles 4:8, "100 basins of gold"). As these objects, only enlarged in number and dimensions, are fashioned after the model of those of the tabernacle, further particulars regarding them are not given here.
2. The Court (Inner): (1) The Altar. The most prominent object in the Temple-court was the altar of burnt offering, or brazen altar (see BRAZEN ALTAR ). The site of the altar, as already seen, was the rock es Sakhra], where Araunah had his threshing-floor. The notion of some moderns that the rock itself was the altar, and that the brazen (bronze) altar was introduced later, is devoid of plausibility. An altar is always something reared or built (compare 2 Samuel 24:18, 25). The dimensions of the altar, which are not mentioned in 1 K, are given in 2 Chronicles 4:1 as 2 Chronicles 20:1-37 cubits (30 ft.) long, 20 cubits (30 ft.) broad, and 10 cubits (15 ft.) high. As utensils connected with it--an incidental confirmation of its historicity--are pots, shovels, basins and fleshhooks (1 Kings 7:40, 45; 2 Chronicles 4:11, 16). It will be observed that the assumed halving proportions of the tabernacle are here quite departed from (compare Exodus 27:1).
(2) The Molten (Bronze) Sea. A new feature in the sanctuary court--taking the place of the "laver" in the tabernacle--was the "molten sea," the name being given to it for its great size. It was an immense basin of bronze, 5 cubits (7 1/2 ft.) high, 10 cubits (15 ft.) in diameter at the brim, and 30 cubits (45 ft.) in circumference, resting on 12 bronze oxen, and placed between the altar and the Temple-porch, toward the South (1 Kings 7:23-26, 39; 2 Chronicles 4:2-5, 10). The bronze was a handbreadth in thickness. The brim was shaped like the flower of a lily, and encompassing the basin were ornamental knops. Its capacity is given as 2,000 baths (1 Kings 7:26; by error in 2 Chronicles 4:5, 2 Chronicles 3:1-17, 000 baths). The oxen on which it rested faced the four cardinal points--three looking each way. The "sea," like the laver, doubtless supplied the water for the washing of the priests' hands and feet (compare Exodus 30:18; 38:8). The view of certain scholars (Kosters, Gunkel, etc.) that the "sea" is connected with Babylonian mythical ideas of the great deep is quite fanciful; no hint appears of such significance in any part of the narrative. The same applies to the lavers in the next paragraph.
(3) The Lavers and Their Bases. The tabernacle laver had its place taken by the "sea" just described, but the Temple was also provided with 10 lavers or basins, set on "bases" of elaborate design and moving upon wheels--the whole made of bronze (1 Kings 7:27-37). Their use seems to have been for the washing of sacrifices (2 Chronicles 4:6), for which purpose they were placed, 5 on the north side, and 5 on the south side, of the Temple-court. The bases were 4 cubits (6 ft.) long, 4 cubits broad, and 3 cubits (4 1/2 ft.) high. These bases were of the nature of square paneled boxes, their sides being ornamented with figures of lions, oxen and cherubim, with wreathed work beneath. They had four feet, to which wheels were attached. The basin rested on a rounded pedestal, a cubit high, with an opening 1 1/2 cubits in diameter to receive the laver (1 Kings 7:31). Mythological ideas, as just said, are here out of place.
V. History of the Temple. 1. Building and Dedication: The Temple was founded in the 4th year of Solomon's reign (1 Kings 6:1), and occupied 7 1/2 years in building (1 Kings 6:38); the royal buildings occupied 13 years (1 Kings 7:1)--20 years in all (the two periods, however, may in part synchronize). On the completion of the Temple, the ark was brought up, in the presence of a vast assemblage, from Zion, and, with innumerable sacrifices and thanksgiving, was solemnly deposited in the Holy of Holies (1 Kings 8:1-21; 2 Chronicles 5:1-14; 2 Chronicles 6:1-11). The Temple itself was then dedicated by Solomon in the noble prayer recorded in 1 Kings 8:22-61; 2 Chronicles 6:12-42, followed by lavish sacrifices, and a 2 Chronicles 14:1-15 days' feast. At its inauguration the house was filled with the "glory" of Yahweh (1 Kings 8:10-11; 2 Chronicles 5:13-14).
2. Repeated Plunderings, etc.:
The religious declension of the later days of Solomon (1 Kings 11:1-8) brought in its train disasters for the nation and the Temple. On Solomon's death the kingdom was disrupted, and the Temple ceased to be the one national sanctuary. It had its rivals in the calf-shrines set up by Jeroboam at Beth-el and Dan (1 Kings 12:25-33). In the 5th year of Rehoboam an expedition was made against Judah by Shishak, king of Egypt, who, coming to Jerusalem, carried away the treasures of the Temple, together with those of the king's house, including the 300 shields of gold which Solomon had made (1 Kings 14:25-28; 2 Chronicles 12:2-9). Rehoboam's wife, Maacah, was an idolatress, and during the reign of Abijam, her son, introduced many abominations into the worship of the Temple (1 Kings 15:2, 12-13). Asa cleared these away, but himself further depleted the Temple and royal treasuries by sending all that was left of their silver and gold to Ben-hadad, king of Syria, to buy his help against Baasha, king of Israel (1 Kings 15:18-19). Again the Temple was foully desecrated by Athaliah (2 Chronicles 24:7), necessitating the repairs of Jehoash (2 Kings 12:4 ff; Ch 24:4 ff); and a new plundering took place in the reign of Ahaziah, when Jehoash of Israel carried off all the gold and silver in the Temple and palace (2 Kings 14:14). Uzziah was smitten with leprosy for presuming to enter the holy place to offer incense (2 Chronicles 26:16-20). Jehoshaphat, earlier, is thought to have enlarged the court (2 Chronicles 20:5), and Jotham built a new gate (2 Kings 15:35; 2 Chronicles 27:3). The ungodly Ahaz went farther than any of his predecessors in sacrilege, for, besides robbing the Temple and palace of their treasures to secure the aid of the king of Assyria (2 Kings 16:8), he removed the brazen altar from its time-honored site, and set up a heathen altar in its place, removing likewise the bases and ornaments of the lavers, and the oxen from under the brazen (bronze) sea (2 Kings 16:10-17).
3. Attempts at Reform: An earnest attempt at reform of religion was made by Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:1-6; 2 Chronicles 29:31), but even he was driven to take all the gold and silver in the Temple and king's house to meet the tribute imposed on him by Sennacherib, stripping from the doors and pillars the gold with which he himself had overlaid them (2 Kings 18:14-16; 2 Chronicles 32:31). Things became worse than ever under Manasseh, who reared idolatrous altars in the Temple-courts, made an Asherah, introduced the worship of the host of heaven, had horses dedicated to the sun in the Temple-court, and connived at the worst pollutions of heathenism in the sanctuary (2 Kings 21:3-7; 7, 11). Then came the more energetic reforms of the reign of Josiah, when, during the repairs of the Temple, the discovery was made of the Book of the Law, which led to a new covenant with Yahweh, a suppression of the high places, and the thorough cleansing-out of abuses from the Temple (2 Kings 22:1-20; 2 Kings 23:1-25; 2 Chronicles 34:1-33; 2 Chronicles 35:1-27). Still, the heart of the people was not changed, and, as seen in the history, and in the pages of the Prophets, after Josiah's death, the old evils were soon back in full force (compare e.g. Ezekiel 8:7-18).
4. Final Overthrow: The end, however, was now at hand. Nebuchadnezzar made Jehoiakim his tributary; then, on his rebelling, came, in the reign of Jehoiachin, took Jerusalem, carried off the treasures of the Temple and palace, with the gold of the Temple vessels (part had already been taken on his first approach, 2 Chronicles 36:7), and led into captivity the king, his household and the chief part of the population (2 Kings 24:1-17). Eleven years later (586 BC), after a siege of 18 months, consequent on Zedekiah's rebellion (2 Kings 25:1), the Babylonian army completed the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. Only a few lesser utensils of value, and the brazen (bronze) pillars, bases and sea remained; these were now taken away, the larger objects being broken up (2 Kings 25:13-16). The Temple itself, with its connected buildings, and the houses in Jerusalem generally, were set on fire (2 Kings 25:9). The ark doubtless perished in the conflagration, and is no more heard of. The residue of the population--all but the poorest--were carried away captive (2 Kings 25:11-12; see CAPTIVITY). Thus ended the first Temple, after about 400 years of chequered existence.
Continued in TEMPLE, A2.
Temple, A2
Temple, A2 - Continued from TEMPLE, A1.
II. EZEKIEL'S PROPHETIC SKETCH
I. Introductory. 1. Relation to History of Temple: Wellhausen has said that Ezekiel 40:1-49 through Ezekiel 48:1-35 "are the most important in his book, and have been, not incorrectly, called the key to the Old Testament" (Prolegomena, English translation, 167). He means that Ezekiel's legislation represents the first draft, or sketch, of a priestly code, and that subsequently, on its basis, men of the priestly school formulated the Priestly Code as we have it. Without accepting this view, dealt with elsewhere, it is to be admitted that Ezekiel's sketch of a restored temple in chapters 40-43 has important bearings on the history of the Temple, alike in the fact that it presupposes and sheds back light upon the structure and arrangements of the first Temple (Solomon's), and that in important respects it forecasts the plans of the second (Zerubbabel's) and of Herod's temples.
2. The Conception Unique and Ideal: While, however, there is this historical relation, it is to be observed that Ezekiel's temple-sketch is unique, presenting features not found in any of the actually built temples. The temple is, in truth, an ideal construction never intended to be literally realized by returned exiles, or any other body of people. Visionary in origin, the ideas embodied, and not the actual construction, are the main things to the prophet's mind. It gives Ezekiel's conception of what a perfectly restored temple and the service of Yahweh would be under conditions which could scarcely be thought of as ever likely literally to arise. A literal construction, one may say, was impossible. The site of the temple is not the old Zion, but "a very high mountain" (Ezekiel 40:2), occupying indeed the place of Zion, but entirely altered in elevation, configuration and general character. The temple is part of a scheme of transformed land, partitioned in parallel tracts among the restored 12 tribes (Ezekiel 47:13 through Ezekiel 48:7, 23-29), with a large area in the center, likewise stretching across the whole country, hallowed to Yahweh and His service (Ezekiel 48:8-22). Supernatural features, as that of the flowing stream from the temple in Ezekiel 47:1-23, abound. It is unreasonable to suppose that the prophet looked for such changes--some of them quite obviously symbolical--as actually impending.
3. Its Symmetrical Measurements: The visionary character of the temple has the effect of securing that its measurements are perfectly symmetrical. The cubit used is defined as "a cubit and a handbreadth" (Ezekiel 40:5), the contrast being with one or more smaller cubits (see CUBIT). In the diversity of opinion as to the precise length of the cubit, it may be assumed here that it was the same sacred cubit employed in the tabernacle and first Temple, and may be treated, as before, as approximately equivalent to 18 inches.
II. Plan of the Temple. Despite obscurities and corruption in the text of Ezekiel, the main outlines of the ideal temple can be made out without much difficulty (for details the commentaries must be consulted; A. B. Davidson's "Ezekiel" in the Cambridge Bible series may be recommended; compare also Keil; a very lucid description is given in Skinner's "Book of Ezk," in the Expositor's Bible, 406-13; for a different view, see Caldecott, The Second Temple in Jerusalem).
1. The Outer Court: The temple was enclosed in two courts--an outer and an inner--quite different, however, in character and arrangement from those of the first Temple. The outer court, as shown by the separate measurements (compare Keil on Ezekiel 40:27), was a large square of 500 cubits (750 ft.), bounded by a wall 6 cubits (9 ft.) thick and 6 cubits high (Ezekiel 40:5). The wall was pierced in the middle of its north, east and south sides by massive gateways, extending into the court to a distance of 50 cubits (75 ft.), with a width of 25 cubits (37 1/2 ft.). On either side of the passage in these gateways were three guardrooms, each 6 cubits square (Ezekiel 40:7 margin), and each gateway terminated in "porch," 8 cubits (12 ft.) long (Ezekiel 40:9), and apparently (thus, the Septuagint, Ezekiel 40:14; the Hebrew text seems corrupt), 20 cubits across. The ascent to the gateways was by seven steps (Ezekiel 40:6; compare Ezekiel 40:22, 26), showing that the level of the court was to this extent higher than the ground outside. Round the court, on the three sides named--its edge in line with the ends of the gateways--was a "pavement," on which were built, against the wall, chambers, 30 in number (Ezekiel 40:17-18). At the four corners were enclosures (40 cubits by 30) where the sacrifices were cooked (compare Ezekiel 46:21-24)--a fact which suggests that the cells were mainly for purposes of feasting. (The "arches" ('elammim) of Ezekiel 40:16, 21, etc. (the Revised Version margin "colonnade"), if distinguished from the "porch" ('ulam)--A. B. Davidson and others identify them--are still parts of the gateway--Ezekiel 40:21, etc.).
2. The Inner Court: The inner court was a square of 100 cubits (150 ft.), situated exactly in the center of the larger court (Ezekiel 40:47). It, too, was surrounded by a wall, and had gateways, with guardrooms, etc., similar to those of the outer court, saving that the gateways projected outward (50 cubits), not inward. The gates of outer and inner courts were opposite to each other on the North, East, and South, a hundred cubits apart (Ezekiel 40:19, 23, 27; the whole space, therefore, from wall to wall was 50 and 100 and 50 = 200 cubits). The ascent to the gates in this case was by eight steps (Ezekiel 40:37), indicating another rise in level for the inner court. There were two chambers at the sides of the north and south gates respectively, one for Levites, the other for priests (Ezekiel 40:44-46; compare the margin); at the gates also (perhaps only at the north gate) were stone tables for slaughtering (Ezekiel 40:39-43). In the center of this inner court was the great altar of burnt offering (Ezekiel 43:14-17)--a structure 18 cubits (27 ft.) square at the base, and rising in four stages (1, 2, 4, and 4 cubits high respectively, Ezekiel 43:14-15), till it formed a square of 12 cubits (18 ft.) at the top or hearth, with four horns at the corners (Ezekiel 43:15-16). Steps led up to it on the East (Ezekiel 43:17).
See ALTAR OF BURNT OFFERING .
3. The Temple Building and Adjuncts: The inner court was extended westward by a second square of 100 cubits, within which, on a platform elevated another 6 cubits (9 ft.), stood the temple proper and its connected buildings (Ezekiel 41:8). This platform or basement is shown by the measurements to be 60 cubits broad (North and and South) and 105 cubits long (East and West)--5 cubits projecting into the eastern square. The ascent to the temple-porch was by 10 steps (Ezekiel 40:49; Septuagint, the Revised Version margin). The temple itself was a building consisting, like Solomon's, of three parts--a porch at the entrance, 20 cubits (30 ft.) broad by 12 cubits (18 ft.) deep (so most, following the Septuagint, as required by the other measurements); the holy place or hekhal, 40 cubits (60 ft.) long by 20 cubits (30 ft.) broad; and the most holy place, 20 cubits by 20 (Ezekiel 40:48-49; Ezekiel 41:1-4); the measurements are internal. At the sides of the porch stood two pillars (Ezekiel 40:49), corresponding to the Jachin and Boaz of the older Temple. The holy and the most holy places were separated by a partition 2 cubits in thickness (Ezekiel 41:3; so most interpret). The most holy place was empty; of the furniture of the holy place mention is made only of an altar of wood (Ezekiel 41:22; see ALTAR, sec. A, III, 7; B, III, 3). Walls and doors were ornamented with cherubim and palm trees (Ezekiel 41:18, 25). The wall of the temple building was 6 cubits (9 ft.) in thickness (Ezekiel 41:5), and on the north, south, and west sides, as in Solomon's Temple, there were side-chambers in three stories, 30 in number (Ezekiel 41:6; in each story?), with an outer wall 5 cubits (7 1/2 ft.) in thickness (Ezekiel 41:9). These chambers were, on the basement, 4 cubits broad; in the 2nd and 3rd stories, owing, as in the older Temple, to rebatements in the wall, perhaps 5 and 6 cubits broad respectively (Ezekiel 41:6-7; in Solomon's Temple the side-chambers were Ezekiel 5:1-17, Ezekiel 6:1-14, and 7 cubits, 1 Kings 6:6). These dimensions give a total external breadth to the house of 50 cubits (with a length of 100 cubits), leaving 5 cubits on either side and in the front as a passage round the edge of the platform on which the building stood (described as "that which was left") (Ezekiel 41:9, 11). The western end, as far as the outer wall, was occupied, the whole breadth of the inner court, by a large building (Ezekiel 41:12); all but a passage of 20 cubits (30 ft.) between it and the temple, belonging to what is termed "the separate place" (gizrah, Ezekiel 41:12-13, etc.). The temple-platform being only 60 cubits broad, there remained a space of 20 cubits (30 ft.) on the north and south sides, running the entire length of the platform; this, continued round the back, formed the gizrah, or "separate place" just named. Beyond the gizrah for 50 cubits (75 ft.) were other chambers, apparently in two rows, the inner 100 cubits, the outer 50 cubits, long, with a walk of 10 cubits between (Ezekiel 42:1-14; the passage, however, is obscure; some, as Keil, place the "walk" outside the chambers). These chambers were assigned to the priests for the eating of "the most holy things" (Ezekiel 42:13).
See GALLERY.
Such, in general, was the sanctuary of the prophet's vision, the outer and inner courts of which, and, crowning all, the temple itself, rising in successive terraces, presented to his inner eye an imposing spectacle which, in labored description, he seeks to enable his readers likewise to visualize.
III. THE TEMPLE OF ZERUBBABEL
I. Introductory. 1. The Decree of Cyrus: Forty-eight years after Nebuchadnezzar's destruction of the first Temple, the Babylonian empire came to an end (538 BC), and Persia became dominant under Cyrus. In the year following, Cyrus made a decree sanctioning the return of the Jews, and ordering the rebuilding of the Temple at Jerusalem (2 Chronicles 36:23; Ezra 1:1-4). He not only caused the sacred vessels of the old Temple to be restored, but levied a tax upon his western provinces to provide materials for the building, besides what was offered willingly (Ezra 1:6-11; 6:3 ff). The relatively small number of exiles who chose to return for this work (40,000) were led by Sheshbazzar, "the prince of Judah" (Ezra 1:11), whom some identify with Zerubbabel, likewise named "governor of Judah" (Haggai 1:1). With these, if they were distinct was associated Joshua the high priest (in Ezra and Nehemiah called "Jeshua").
2. Founding of the Temple: The first work of Joshua and Zerubbabel was the building of the altar on its old site in the 7th month of the return (Ezra 3:3 ff). Masons and carpenters were engaged for the building of the house, and the Phoenicians were requisitioned for cedar wood from Lebanon (Ezra 3:7). In the 2nd year the foundations of the temple were laid with dignified ceremonial, amid rejoicing, and the weeping of the older men, who remembered the former house (Ezra 3:8-13).
3. Opposition and Completion of the Work: The work soon met with opposition from the mixed population of Samaria, whose offer to join it had been refused; hostile representations, which proved successful, were made to the Persian king; from which causes the building was suspended about 15 years, till the 2nd year of Darius Hystaspis (520 BC; Ezra 4:1-24). On the other hand, the prophets Haggai and Zechariah stimulated the flagging zeal of the builders, and, new permission being obtained, the work was resumed, and proceeded so rapidly that in 516 BC the temple was completed, and was dedicated with joy (Ezra 5:1-17; Ezra 6:1-22).
II. The Temple Structure. 1. The House: Few details are available regarding this temple of Zerubbabel. It stood on the ancient site, and may have been influenced in parts of its plan by the descriptions of the temple in Ezekiel. The inferiority to the first Temple, alluded to in Ezra 3:12 and Haggai 2:3, plainly cannot refer to its size, for its dimensions as specified in the decree of Cyrus, namely, 60 cubits in height, and 60 cubits in breadth (Ezra 6:3; there is no warrant for confining the 60 cubits of height to the porch only; compare Josephus, Ant,XI , i), exceed considerably those of the Temple of Solomon (side-chambers are no doubt included in the breadth). The greater glory of the former Temple can only refer to adornment, and to the presence in it of objects wanting in the second. The Mishna declares that the second temple lacked five things present in the first--the ark, the sacred fire, the shekhinah, the Holy Spirit, and the Urim and Thummim (Yoma', xxi.2).
2. Its Divisions and Furniture: The temple was divided, like its predecessor, into a holy and a most holy place, doubtless in similar proportions. In 1 Maccabees 1:22 mention is made of the "veil" between the two places. The most holy place, as just said, was empty, save for a stone on which the high priest, on the great Day of Atonement, placed his censer (Yoma' v.2). The holy place had its old furniture, but on the simpler scale of the tabernacle--a golden altar of incense, a single table of shewbread, one 7-branched candlestick. These were taken away by Antiochus Epiphanes (1 Maccabees 1:21, 22). At the cleansing of the sanctuary after its profanation by this prince, they were renewed by Judas Maccabeus (1 Maccabees 4:41 ff). Judas pulled down also the old desecrated altar, and built a new one (1 Maccabees 4:44 ff).
3. Its Courts, Altar, etc.:
The second temple had two courts--an outer and an inner (1 Maccabees 4:38, 48; 9:54; Josephus, Ant, XIV, xvi, 2)--planned apparently on the model of those in Ezekiel. A.R.S. Kennedy infers from the measurements in the Haram that "the area of the great court of the second temple, before it was enlarged by Herod on the South and East, followed that of Ezekiel's outer court--that is, it measured 500 cubits each way with the sacred rock precisely in the center" (Expository Times, XX, 182). The altar on this old Sakhra site--the first thing of all to be "set on its base" (Ezra 3:3)--is shown by 1 Maccabees 4:47 and a passage quoted by Josephus from Hecataeus (Apion, I, xxii) to have been built of unhewn stones. Hecataeus gives its dimensions as a square of 20 cubits and 10 cubits in height. There seems to have been free access to this inner court till the time of Alexander Janneus (104-78 BC), who, pelted by the crowd as he sacrificed, fenced off the part of the court in front of the altar, so that no layman could come farther (Josephus, Ant, XIII, xiii, 5). The courts were colonnaded (Ant., XI, iv, 7; XIV, xvi, 2), and, with the house, had numerous chambers (compare Nehemiah 12:44; 13:4 ff, etc.).
A brief contemporary description of this Temple and its worship is given in Aristeas, 83-104. This writer's interest, however, was absorbed chiefly by the devices for carrying away the sacrificial blood and by the technique of the officiating priests.
4. Later Fortunes: The vicissitudes of this temple in its later history are vividly recorded in 1 Maccabees and in Josephus. In Ecclesiasticus 50 is given a glimpse of a certain Simon, son of Onias, who repaired the temple, and a striking picture is furnished of the magnificence of the worship in his time. The desecration and pillaging of the sanctuary by Antiochus, and its cleansing and restoration under Judas are alluded to above (see HASMONEANS; MACCABAEUS). At length Judea became an integral part of the Roman empire. In 66 BC Pompey, having taken the temple-hill, entered the most holy place, but kept his hands off the temple-treasures (Ant., XIV, iv, 4). Some years later Crassus carried away everything of value he could find (Ant., XIV, vii, 1). The people revolted, but Rome remained victorious. This brings us to the time of Herod, who was nominated king of Judea by Rome in 39 BC, but did not attain actual power until two years later.
IV. THE TEMPLE OF HEROD
I. Introductory. 1. Initiation of the Work: Herod became king de facto by the capture of Jerusalem in 37 BC. Some years later he built the fortress Antonia to the North of the temple (before 31 BC). Midway in his reign, assigning a religious motive for his purpose, he formed the project of rebuilding the temple itself on a grander scale (Josephus gives conflicting dates; in Ant, XV, xi, 1, he says "in his 18th year"; in BJ, I, xxi, 1, he names his 15th year; the latter date, as Schurer suggests (GJV4, I 369), may refer to the extensive preparations). To allay the distrust of his subjects, he undertook that the materials for the new building should be collected before the old was taken down; he likewise trained 1,000 priests to be masons and carpenters for work upon the sanctuary; 10,000 skilled workmen altogether were employed upon the task. The building was commenced in 20-19 BC. The naos, or temple proper, was finished in a year and a half, but it took 8 years to complete the courts and cloisters. The total erection occupied a much longer time (compare John 2:20, "Forty and six years," etc.); indeed the work was not entirely completed till 64 AD-6 years before its destruction by the Romans.
2. Its Grandeur: Built of white marble, covered with heavy plates of gold in front and rising high above its marble-cloistered courts--themselves a succession of terraces--the temple, compared by Josephus to a snow-covered mountain (BJ, V, v, 6), was a conspicuous and dazzling object from every side. The general structure is succinctly described by G. A. Smith: "Herod's temple consisted of a house divided like its predecessor into the Holy of Holies, and the Holy Place; a porch; an immediate fore-court with an altar of burnt offering; a Court of Israel; in front of this a Court of Women; and round the whole of the preceding, a Court of the Gentiles" (Jerusalem, II, 502). On the "four courts," compare Josephus, Apion,II , viii.
3. Authorities: The original authorities on Herod's temple are chiefly the descriptions in Josephus (Ant., XV, xi, 3, 5; BJ, V, v, etc.), and the tractate Middoth in the Mishna. The data in these authorities, however, do not always agree. The most helpful modern descriptions, with plans, will be found, with differences in details, in Keil, Biblical Archaeology, I, 187 ff; in Fergusson, Temples of the Jews; in the articles "Temple" in HDB (T. Witton Davies) and Encyclopedia Biblica (G. H. Box); in the important series of papers by A. R. S. Kennedy in The Expository Times (vol XX), "Some Problems of Herod's Temple" (compare his article "Temple" in one-volDB ); in Sanday's Sacred Sites of the Gospels (Waterhouse); latterly in G. A. Smith, Jerusalem, II, 499 ff.
4. Measurements: Differences of opinion continue as to the sacred cubit. A. R. S. Kennedy thinks the cubit can be definitely fixed at 17,6 inches. (Expostory Times, XX, 24 ff); G. A. Smith reckons it at 20,67 inches. (Jerusalem, II, 504); T. Witton Davies estimates it at about 18 in. (HDB, IV, 713), etc. W. S. Caldecott takes the cubit of Josephus and the Middoth to be 1 1/5 ft. It will suffice in this sketch to treat the cubit, as before, as approximately equivalent to 18 inches.
II. The Temple and Its Courts. 1. Temple Area--Court of Gentiles: Josephus states that the area of Herod's temple was double that of its predecessor (BJ, I, xxi, 1). The Mishna (Mid., ii.2) gives the area as 500 cubits (roughly 750 ft.); Josephus (Ant., XV, xi, 3) gives it as a stadium (about 600 Greek ft.); but neither measure is quite exact. It is generally agreed that on its east, west and south sides Herod's area corresponded pretty nearly with the limits of the present Haram area (see JERUSALEM), but that it did not extend as far North as the latter (Kennedy states the difference at about 26 as compared with 35 acres, and makes the whole perimeter to be about 1,420 yards, ut supra, 66). The shape was an irregular oblong, broader at the North than at the South. The whole was surrounded by a strong wall, with several gates, the number and position of some of which are still matters of dispute. Josephus mentions four gates on the West (Ant., XV, xi, 5), the principal of which, named in Mid., i.3, "the gate of Kiponos," was connected by a bridge across the Tyropoeon with the city (where now is Wilson's Arch). The same authority speaks of two gates on the South. These are identified with the "Huldah" (mole) gates of the Mishna--the present Double and Triple Gates--which, opening low down in the wall, slope up in tunnel fashion into the interior of the court. The Mishna puts a gate also on the north and one on the east side. The latter may be represented by the modern Golden Gate--a Byzantine structure, now built up. This great court--known later as the "Court of the Gentiles," because open to everyone--was adorned with splendid porticos or cloisters. The colonnade on the south side--known as the Royal Porch--was specially magnificent. It consisted of four rows of monolithic marble columns--162 in all--with Corinthian capitals, forming three aisles, of which the middle was broader and double the height of the other two. The roofing was of carved cedar. The north, west, and east sides had only double colonnades. That on the east side was the "Solomon's Porch" of the New Testament (John 10:23; Acts 3:11; 5:19). There were also chambers for officials, and perhaps a place of meeting for the Sanhedrin (beth din) (Josephus places this elsewhere). In the wide spaces of this court took place the buying and selling described in the Gospels (Matthew 21:12 and parallel's; John 2:13 ff).
2. Inner Sanctuary Inclosure: (1) Wall, "Chel," "Coregh," Gates. In the upper or northerly part of this large area, on a much higher level, bounded likewise by a wall, was a second or inner enclosure--the "sanctuary" in the stricter sense (Josephus, BJ, V, v, 2)--comprising the court of the women, the court of Israeland the priests' court, with the temple itself (Josephus, Ant, XV, xi, 5). The surrounding wall, according to Josephus (BJ, V, v, 2), was 40 cubits high on the outside, and 25 on the inside--a difference of 15 cubits; its thickness was 5 cubits. Since, however, the inner courts were considerably higher than the court of the women, the difference in height may have been some cubits less in the latter than in the former (compare the different measurements in Kennedy, ut supra, 182), a fact which may explain the difficulty felt as to the number of the steps in the ascent (see below). Round the wall without, at least on three sides (some except the West), at a height of 12 (Mid.) or 14 (Jos) steps, was an embankment or terrace, known as the chel (fortification), 10 cubits broad (Mid. says 6 cubits high), and enclosing the whole was a low balustrade or stone parapet (Josephus says 3 cubits high) called the coregh, to which were attached at intervals tablets with notices in Greek and Latin, prohibiting entry to foreigners on pain of death (see PARTITION,THE MIDDLE WALL OF ). From within the coregh ascent was made to the level of the chel by the steps aforesaid, and five steps more led up to the gates (the reckoning is probably to the lower level of the women's court). Nine gates, with two-storied gatehouses "like towers" (Josephus, BJ, V, v, 3), are mentioned, four on the North, four on the South, and one on the East--the last probably to be identified, though this is still disputed (Waterhouse, etc.), with the "Gate of Nicanor" (Mid.), or "Corinthian Gate" (Jos), which is undoubtedly "the Beautiful Gate" of Acts 3:2, 10 (see for identification, Kennedy, ut supra, 270). This principal gate received its names from being the gift of a wealthy Alexandrian Jew, Nicanor, and from its being made of Corinthian brass. It was of great size--50 cubits high and 40 cubits wide--and was richly adorned, its brass glittering like gold (Mid., ii.3). See BEAUTIFUL GATE. The other gates were covered with gold and silver (Josephus, BJ, V, v, 3).
(2) Court of the Women. The eastern gate, approached from the outside by 12 steps (Mid., ii.3; Maimonides), admitted into the court of the women, so called because it was accessible to women as well as to men. Above its single colonnades were galleries reserved for the use of women. Its dimensions are given in the Mishna as 135 cubits square (Mid., ii.5), but this need not be precise. At its four corners were large roofless rooms for storage and other purposes. Near the pillars of the colonnades were 13 trumpet-shaped boxes for receiving the money-offerings of the people (compare the incident of the widow's mite, Mark 12:41 ff; Luke 21:1 ff); for which reason, and because this court seems to have been the place of deposit of the temple-treasures generally, it bore the name "treasury" (gazophulakion, John 8:20).
See TREASURY.
(3) Inner Courts: Court of Israel; Court of the Priests:
From the women's court, the ascent was made by 15 semicircular steps (Mid., ii.5; on these steps the Levites chanted, and beneath them their instruments were kept) to the inner court, comprising, at different levels, the court of Israel and the court of the priests. Here, again, at the entrance, was a lofty, richly ornamented gate, which some, as said, prefer to regard as the Gate of Nicanor or Beautiful Gate. Probably, however, the view above taken, which places this gate at the outer entrance, is correct. The Mishna gives the total dimensions of the inner court as 187 cubits long (East to West) and 135 cubits wide (Mid., ii.6; v.1). Originally the court was one, but disturbances in the time of Alexander Janneus (104-78 BC) led, as formerly told, to the greater part being railed off for the exclusive use of the priests (Josephus, Ant, XIII, xiii, 5). In the Mishna the name "court of the priests" is used in a restricted sense to denote the space--11 cubits--between the altar and "the court of Israel" (see the detailed measurements in Mid., v.1). The latter--"the court of Israel"--2 1/2 cubits lower than "the court of the priests," and separated from it by a pointed fence, was likewise a narrow strip of only 11 cubits (Mid., ii.6; v.1). Josephus, with more probability, carries the 11 cubits of the "court of Israel" round the whole of the temple-court (BJ, V, vi). Waterhouse (Sacred Sites, 112) thinks 11 cubits too small for a court of male Israelites, and supposes a much larger enclosure, but without warrant in the authorities (compare Kennedy, ut supra, 183; G. A. Smith, Jerusalem, II, 508 ff).
(4) The Altar, etc. In the priests' court the principal object was the great altar of burnt offering, situated on the old site--the Sakhra--immediately in front of the porch of the temple (at 22 cubits distance--the space "between the temple and the altar" of Matthew 23:35). The altar, according to the Mishna (Mid., iii.1), was 32 cubits square, and, like Ezekiel's, rose in stages, each diminishing by a cubit: one of 1 cubit in height, three of 5 cubits, which, with deduction of another cubit for the priests to walk on, left a square of 24 cubits at the top. It had four horns. Josephus, on the other hand, gives 50 cubits for the length and breadth, and 15 cubits for the height of the altar (BJ, V, v, 6)--his reckoning perhaps including a platform (a cubit high?) from which the height is taken (see ALTAR). The altar was built of unhewn stones, and had on the South a sloping ascent of like material, 32 cubits in length and 16 in width. Between temple and altar, toward the South, stood the "laver" for the priests. In the court, on the north side, were rings, hooks, and tables, for the slaughtering, flaying and suspending of the sacrificial victims.
3. The Temple Building: (1) House and Porch. Yet another flight of 12 steps, occupying most of the space between the temple-porch and the altar, led up to the platform (6 cubits high) on which stood the temple itself. This magnificent structure, built, as said before, of blocks of white marble, richly ornamented with gold on front and sides, exceeded in dimensions and splendor all previous temples. The numbers in the Mishna and in Josephus are in parts discrepant, but the general proportions can readily be made out. The building with its platform rose to the height of 100 cubits (150 ft.; the 120 cubits in Josephus, Ant, XV, xi, 3, is a mistake), and was 60 cubits (90 ft.) wide. It was fronted by a porch of like height, but with wings extending 20 cubits (30 ft.) on each side of the temple, making the total breadth of the vestibule 100 cubits (150 ft.) also. The depth of the porch was 10 or 11 cubits; probably at the wings 20 cubits (Jos). The entrance, without doors, was 70 cubits high and 25 cubits wide (Mid. makes 40 cubits high and 20 wide). Above it Herod placed a golden eagle, which the Jews afterward pulled down (Ant., XVII, vi, 3). The porch was adorned with gold.
(2) "Hekhal" and "Debhir". Internally, the temple was divided, as before, into a holy place (hekhal) and a most holy (debhir)--the former measuring, as in Solomon's Temple, 40 cubits (60 ft.) in length, and 20 cubits (30 ft.) in breadth; the height, however, was double that of the older Temple--60 cubits (90 ft.; thus Keil, etc., following Josephus, BJ, V, v, 5). Mid., iv.6, makes the height only 40 cubits; A. R. S. Kennedy and G. A. Smith make the debhir a cube--20 cubits in height only. In the space that remained above the holy places, upper rooms (40 cubits) were erected. The holy place was separated from the holiest by a partition one cubit in thickness, before which hung an embroidered curtain or "veil"--that which was rent at the death of Jesus (Matthew 27:51 and parallel's; Mid., iv.7, makes two veils, with a space of a cubit between them). The Holy of Holies was empty; only a stone stood, as in the temple of Zerubbabel, on which the high priest placed his censer on the Day of Atonement (Mishna, Yoma', v.2). In the holy place were the altar of incense, the table of shewbread (North), and the seven-branched golden candlestick (South). Representations of the two latter are seen in the carvings on the Arch of Titus (see SHEWBREAD, TABLE OF; CANDLESTICK,THE GOLDEN ). The spacious entrance to the holy place had folding doors, before which hung a richly variegated Babylonian curtain. Above the entrance was a golden vine with clusters as large as a man (Josephus, Ant, XV, xi, 3; BJ, V, v, 4).
(3) The Side-Chambers. The walls of the temple appear to have been 5 cubits thick, and against these, on the North, West, and South, were built, as in Solomon's Temple, side-chambers in three stories, 60 cubits in height, and 10 cubits in width (the figures, however, are uncertain), which, with the outer walls, made the entire breadth of the house 60 or 70 cubits. Mid., iv.3, gives the number of the chambers as 38 in all. The roof, which Keil speaks of as "sloping" (Bib. Archaeology, I, 199), had gilded spikes to keep off the birds. A balustrade surrounded it 3 cubits high. Windows are not mentioned, but there would doubtless be openings for light into the holy place from above the sidechambers.
III. New Testament Associations of Herod's Temple.
1. Earlier Incidents: Herod's temple figures so prominently in New Testament history that it is not necessary to do more than refer to some of the events of which it was the scene. It was here, before the incense altar, that the aged Zacharias had the vision which assured him that he should not die childless (Luke 1:11 ff). Here, in the women's court, or treasury, on the presentation by Mary, the infant Jesus was greeted by Simeon and Anna (Luke 2:27 ff). In His 12th year the boy Jesus amazed the temple rabbis by His understanding and answers (Luke 2:46 ff).
2. Jesus in the Temple: The chronological sequence of the Fourth Gospel depends very much upon the visits of Jesus to the temple at the great festivals (see JESUS CHRIST). At the first of these occurred the cleansing of the temple-court--the court of the Gentiles--from the dealers that profaned it (John 2:13 ff), an incident repeated at the close of the ministry (Matthew 21:12 ff and parallel's). When the Jews, on the first occasion, demanded a sign, Jesus spoke of the temple of His body as being destroyed and raised up in three days (John 2:19), eliciting their retort, "Forty and six years was this temple in building," etc. (John 2:20). This may date the occurrence about 27 AD. At the second cleansing He not only drove out the buyers and sellers, but would not allow anyone to carry anything through this part of the temple (Mark 11:15-17). In Jn His zeal flamed out because it was His Father's house; in Mk, because it was a house of prayer for all nations (compare Isaiah 56:7). With this non-exclusiveness agrees the word of Jesus to the woman of Samaria: "The hour cometh, when neither in this mountain (in Samaria), nor in Jerusalem, shall ye worship the Father" (John 4:21). During the two years following His first visit, Jesus repeatedly, at festival times, walked in the temple-courts, and taught and disputed with the Jews. We find Him in John 5:1-47 at "a feast" (Passover or Purim?); in John 7:1-53; John 8:1-59, at "the feast of tabernacles," where the temple-police were sent to apprehend Him (John 7:32, 45 ff), and where He taught "in the treasury" (John 8:20); in John 10:22 ff, at "the feast of the dedication" in winter, walking in "Solomon's Porch." His teaching on these occasions often started from some familiar temple scene--the libations of water carried by the priests to be poured upon the altar (John 7:37 ff), the proselytes (Greeks even) in the great portico (John 12:20 ff), etc. Of course Jesus, not being of the priestly order, never entered the sanctuary; His teaching took place in the several courts open to laymen, generally in the "treasury" (see John 8:20).
3. The Passion-Week: The first days of the closing week of the life of Jesus--the week commencing with the Triumphal Entry--were spent largely in the temple. Here He spoke many parables (Matthew 21:1-46; Matthew 22:1-46 and parallel's); here He delivered His tremendous arraignment of the Pharisees (Matthew 23:1-39 and parallel's); here, as He "sat down over against the treasury," He beheld the people casting in their gifts, and praised the poor widow who cast in her two mites above all who cast in of their abundance (Mark 12:41 ff and parallel's). It was on the evening of His last day in the temple that His disciples drew His attention to "the goodly stones and offerings" (gifts for adornment) of the building (Luke 21:5 and parallel's) and heard from His lips the astonishing announcement that the days were coming--even in that generation--in which there should not be left one stone upon another (Luke 21:6 and parallel's). The prediction was fulfilled to the letter in the destruction of the temple by the Romans in 70 AD.
4. Apostolic Church: Seven weeks after the crucifixion the Pentecost of Acts 2:1-47 was observed. The only place that fulfils the topographical conditions of the great gatherings is Solomon's Porch. The healing of the lame man (Acts 3:1 ff) took place at the "door .... called Beautiful" of the temple, and the multitude after the healing ran together into "Solomon's Porch" or portico (Acts 3:11). Where also were the words of Luke 24:53, they "were continually in the temple, blessing God," and after Pentecost (Acts 2:46), "day by day, continuing stedfastly .... in the temple," etc., so likely to be fulfilled? For long the apostles continued the methods of their Master in daily teaching in the temple (Acts 4:1 ff). Many years later, when Paul visited Jerusalem for the last time, he was put in danger of his life from the myriads of Jewish converts "all zealous for the law" (Acts 21:20), who accused him of profaning the temple by bringing Greeks into its precincts, i.e. within the coregh (Acts 21:28-30). But Christianity had now begun to look farther afield than the temple. Stephen, and after him Saul, who became Paul, preached that "the Most High dwelleth not in houses made with hands" (Acts 7:48; 17:24), though Paul himself attended the temple for ceremonial and other purposes (Acts 21:26).
5. The Temple in Christian Thought: From the time that the temple ceased to exist, the Talmud took its place in Jewish estimation; but it is in Christianity rather than in Judaism that the temple has a perpetual existence. The New Testament writers make no distinction between one temple and another. It is the idea rather than the building which is perpetuated in Christian teaching. The interweaving of temple associations with Christian thought and life runs through the whole New Testament. Jesus Himself supplied the germ for this development in the word He spoke concerning the temple of His body (John 2:19, 21). Paul, notwithstanding all he had suffered from Jews and Jewish Christians, remained saturated with Jewish ideas and modes of thought. In one of his earliest Epistles he recognizes the "Jerus that is above" as "the mother of us all" (Galatians 4:26 the King James Version). In another, the "man of sin" is sitting "in the temple of God" (2 Thessalonians 2:4). The collective church (1 Corinthians 3:16-17), but also the individual believer (1 Corinthians 6:19), is a temple. One notable passage shows how deep was the impression made upon Paul's mind by the incident connected with Trophimus the Ephesian (Acts 21:29). That "middle wall of partition" which so nearly proved fatal to him then was no longer to be looked for in the Christian church (Ephesians 2:14), which was "a holy temple" in the Lord (Ephesians 2:21). It is naturally in the Epistle to the Hebrews that we have the fullest exposition of ideas connected with the temple, although here the form of allusion is to the tabernacle rather than the temple (see TABERNACLE; compare Westcott on Hebrews, 233 ff). The sanctuary and all it included were but representations of heavenly things. Finally, in Revelation, the vision is that of the heavenly temple itself (11:19). But the church--professing Christendom?--is a temple measured by God's command (11:1,2 ff). The climax is reached in 21:22-23: "I saw no temple therein (i.e. in the holy city): for the Lord God the Almighty, and the Lamb, are the temple thereof .... and the lamp thereof is the Lamb." Special ordinances are altogether superseded.
LITERATURE.
In general on the temples see Keil, Biblical Archaeology, I, in which the older literature is mentioned; Fergusson, Temples of the Jews; Comms. on K, Chronicles, Ezr, Neh, and Ezk; articles in the dicts. and encs (DB, HDB, EB); G. A. Smith, Jerusalem and similar works. On Solomon's Temple, compare Benzinger, Heb. Archaologie. On Ezekiel's temple, see Skinner's "Book of Ezekiel" in Expositor's Bible. On Zerubbabel's temple, compare W. Shaw Caldecott, The Second Temple in Jerusalem. The original authorities on Herod's temple are chiefly Josephus, Ant, XV, xi, and BJ, V, v; and the Mishna, Middoth, ii (this section of the Middoth, from Barclay's Talmud, may be seen in App. I of Fergusson's work above named). The German literature is very fully given in Schurer, HJP, I, 1, 438 ff (GJV4, I, 392 f). See also the articles of A. R. S. Kennedy in Expository Times, XX, referred to above, and P. Waterhouse, in Sanday, Sacred Sites of the Gospels, 106 ff. On symbolism, compare Westcott, Hebrews, 233 ff. See also articles in this Encyclopedia on parts, furniture, and utensils of the temple, under their several headings.
W. Shaw Caldecott
James Orr
Temple, B
Temple, B - B. IN CRITICISM
I. ALLEGED LACK OF HARMONY BETWEEN EARLIER (KINGS) AND LATER (CODE OF HAMMURABI) VERSIONS OF TEMPLE BUILDING
1. Second Version Not a Facsimile of First
2. The Two Versions Differ as to the Builder
3. The Earlier Version Silent about Things Recorded in Later Version
II. DETAILED OBJECTIONS AGAINST CHRONICLER'S ACCOUNT
1. Reason for Interdicting David's Purpose to Build a Temple
2. Impossibility of David in His Old Age Collecting Materials Enumerated by the Chronicler
3. Supernaturally Received Pattern of the Temple Said to Have Been Given by David to Solomon
4. Alleged Organization of the Temple-Service by David
5. Assertion by Solomon That the Temple Would Be Used as a Central Sanctuary
LITERATURE
B. IN CRITICISM
Modern criticism does not challenge the existence of a Solomonic Temple on Mt. Moriah, as it does that of a Mosaic tabernacle in the wilderness. Only it maintains that historic value belongs exclusively to the narrative in Kings, while the statements in Chronicles are pure ornamentation or ecclesiastical trimming dating from post-exilic times. All that is true about the Temple, says criticism, is (1) that David originally, i.e. on coming to the throne of all Israel, contemplated erecting such a structure upon Araunah's threshing-floor, but was prohibited from doing so by Nathan, who at first approved of his design but was afterward directed by Yahweh to stay the king's hand, and to inform the king that the work of building a house for Yahweh to dwell in was not to be his (the king's) task and privilege but his son's, and that as a solatium for his disappointment Yahweh would build him a house, by establishing the throne of his kingdom forever (2 Samuel 7:4-17); (2) that after David's death Solomon called to mind the pious purpose of his father of which he had been informed and the express promise of Yahweh that David's successor on the throne should execute that purpose, and accordingly resolved to "build a house for the name of Yahweh his God" (1 Kings 5:3-5); and (3) that 7 1/2 years were employed in the work of construction, after which the finished Temple was dedicated in the presence of the congregation of Israel, with their princes, priests and Levites, in a speech which rehearsed the fact that David had intended to build the house but was prevented, and with a prayer which once more connected the Temple with the pious intention of David (1 Kings 8:18-20).
All the rest is simply embellishment (Wellhausen, GI, 181-92; article "Temple" in EB): (1) that David's purpose to build the Temple was interdicted because he had been a man of war and had shed blood (1 Chronicles 28:3), which in Wellhausen's judgment should rather have been a qualification for the business; (2) that David in his old and feeble age made elaborate preparations for the construction of the house he was not to see--which, again writes Wellhausen, was like "making the bread so far ready that his son only required to shove it into the oven"; (3) that David gave to his son Solomon the pattern of the house in all its details as the Lord had caused him to understand in writing ("black upon white," as Wellhansen expresses it) by His (the Lord's) hand upon him--which was different from the way in which Moses received instruction about the tabernacle, namely, by a pattern shown to him in the Mount, and carried in his recollection; (4) that David before his death arranged all the musical service for the Temple, invented musical instruments, appointed all the officers to be associated with the Temple priests, Levites, porters and singers, distributing them in classes and assigning them their duties by lot (1 Chronicles 23:2-26; 2 Chronicles 8:12-16)--exactly as these things were afterward arranged in the second or post-exilic temple and were now carried back to David as the legislation of the Priestly Code was assigned to Moses; and (5) that David's son Solomon assures Hiram (the Revised Version (British and American) "Huram") that the Temple will be used as a central sanctuary "to burn before him (Yahweh) incense of sweet spices, and for the continual showbread, and for the burnt-offerings morning and evening, on the sabbaths, and on the new moons, and on the set feasts of Yahweh our God" (2 Chronicles 2:3 ff), i.e. for divine service, which, according to criticism, was of post-exilic origin.
The questions that now fall to be considered are: (1) whether the statements of the Chronicler are inconsistent with those in the Books of Samuel and Kings; and (2) if not, whether they are in themselves such as to be incredible.
I. Alleged Want of Harmony between Earlier (K) and Later (Ch) Versions of Temple Building.
1. Second Version Not a Facsimile of First
It does not seem reasonable to hold that this has been established. The circumstance that the second account is not a facsimile of the first does not warrant the conclusion that the first alone is fact and the second fiction. It is quite conceivable that both might be true. David might have had it in his mind, as the first account states and the second acknowledges, to build a house for Yahweh, and yet not have been able to carry his purpose into effect, and have been obliged to hand over its execution to his son. David, moreover, might have been hindered by Yahweh (through His prophet Nathan) from building the Temple for more reasons than one--because the proposal was premature, God having it in His mind to build a house for David, i.e. to establish his dynasty, before requiring a permanent habitation for Himself; and also because the time was unpropitious, David having still much to do in the subjugation of his country's enemies; and because it was more fitting that a temple for the God of Peace should not be erected by one who had been a man of war from his youth. The first of these reasons is stated in Samuel, the second and third are recorded in Chronicles.
2. The Two Versions Differ as to the Builder
The earlier version does not say that David built the house; but that his son was to do it, and this the later version does not contradict; the later version does not claim that the idea originated with Solomon, but ascribes it to David, precisely as the earlier version does. In this there is no disharmony, but rather underlying harmony. Both versions assert that David purposed and that Solomon performed, in which surely there is perfect agreement.
3. The Earlier Version Silent about Things Recorded in Later Version
The silence of the earlier version about the things recorded in the later version, such as the preparation of material and the organization of the Temple-service, does not prove that these things were not known to the author of the earlier version, or had not taken place when he wrote. No writer is obliged to cram into his pages all he knows, but only to insert as much of his information as will subserve his aim in writing. Nor does his omission to set down in his narrative this or that particular fact or incident amount to a demonstration that the unrecorded fact or incident had not then occurred or was not within his cognizance. Least of all is it expected that a writer of civil history shall fill his pages with details that are purely or chiefly ecclesiastical. In short, if the omission from Kings of David's preparations and arrangement for the Temple testifies that no such preparations or arrangements were made, the omission from Chronicles of David's sin with Bath-sheba and of Nathan's parable of the Ewe Lamb should certify that either these things never happened or they were not known after the exile. It is usual to say they were purposely left out because it was the Chronicler's intention to encircle David with a nimbus of glory (Wellhausen), but this is simply critical hypothesis, the truth of which is disputed. On critical principles either these incidents in David's life were not true or the Chronicler was not aware of them. But the Chronicler had as one main source for his composition "the earlier historical books from Genesis to Kings" (Driver), and "the tradition of the older source only has historical value" (Wellhausen).
II. Detailed Objections against Chronicler's Account.
1. Reason for Interdicting David's Purpose to Build a Temple
Examining now in detail the abovestated objections, we readily see that they are by no means so formidable as at first sight they look, and certainly do not prove the Chronicler's account to be incredible. That David's purpose to build a temple should have been interdicted because he had been a man of war and had shed blood appears to Wellhausen to be a watermark of non-historicity. Benzinger in Encyclopedia Biblica (art. "Temple") goes beyond this and says "There is no historical probablity David had thoughts of building a temple." But if David never thought of building a temple, then not only was the Chronicler mistaken in making Solomon say (2 Chronicles 6:7) that it was in the heart of his father so to do, but he was chargeable with something worse in making the Lord say to David, "Whereas it was in thy heart to build a house for my name, thou didst well in that it was in thy heart" (2 Chronicles 6:8), unless he was absolutely certain that the statement was true--which it was not if Benzinger may be relied on.
Nor is it merely the Chronicler whose character for intelligence and piety suffers, if David never thought of building a temple; the reputation of the author or authors of Samuel and Kings must also go, since they both declare that David did entertain the purpose which Benzinger denies (2 Samuel 7:2; 1 Kings 5:3); and an impartial reasoner will hesitate before he sacrifices the good name even of two unknown ancient writers at the ipse dixit of any modern scholar.
We may therefore limit our remarks to Wellhausen's objection and reply that the reason assigned by Chronicles for prohibiting David from carrying out his purpose, namely, that he had been a man of war, might have been an argument for permitting him to do so, or at least for his seeking to do so, had his object been to erect a monument to his own glory or a thank offering to God for the victories he had won; but not if the Temple was designed to be a habitation wherein God might dwell among His people to receive their worship and bless them with His grace. Strange as it may seem (Winer) that David should have been debarred from carrying out his purpose for the reason assigned, yet there was reason in the interdict, for not only was it fitting that peaceful works should be carried out by peaceful hands (Merz in PRE2), but David's vocation was not temple-building but empire-building (to use a modern phrase); and many campaigns lay before him ere the leisure could be found or the land could be ready for the execution of his sacred design.
2. Impossibility of David in His Old Age Collecting Materials Enumerated by the Chronicler
That David in his old and feeble age could not possibly have collected all the materials enumerated by 1 Chronicles 29:1-30 might possibly have been true, had David been an impecunious chieftain and had he only in the last years of his life commenced to amass treasure. But David was a powerful and wealthy eastern potentate and a valiant warrior besides, who had conquered numerous tribes, Philistines, Moabites, Syrians, Edomites and Ammonites, and had acquired from his victories large spoil, which from an early stage in his career he had been accustomed to dedicate to the Lord (2 Samuel 8:11). Hence, it is little better than trifling to put forward as an inherent mark of incredibility the statement that David in his old age could not have made extensive and costly preparations for the building of the Temple--all the more that according to the narrative he was assisted by "the princes of the fathers' houses, and the princes of the tribes of Israel, and the captains of thousands and of hundreds, with the rulers over the king's work," and "the people" generally, who all "offered willingly for the service of the house of God."
No doubt the value in sterling money of these preparations is enormous--the gold and silver alone being variously reckoned at 8 (Keil), 16 (Bertheau), 81 (Michaelis), 450 (Kautzsch), 1,400 (Rawlinson) millions of pounds--and might reasonably suggest either that the text has become corrupt, or the numbers were originally used loosely to express the idea of an extraordinary amount, or were of set purpose exaggerated. The first of these explanations is adopted by Rawlinson; the second by Berthcan; the third by Wellhausen, who sees in the whole section (1 Chronicles 22:1-19 through 1 Chronicles 29:1-30) "'a frightful example of the statistical fantasy of the Jews, which delights itself in immense sums of gold upon paper." But even conceding that in each of these explanations a measure of truth may lie, it does not seem justifiable to wipe out as unhistorical and imaginary the main statement of the Chronicler, that David's preparations were both extensive and costly, all the less that 1 Kings 10:14-15 bears witness to the extraordinary wealth of Solomon. whose income is stated to have been 666 talents of gold, or about 3 millions sterling, a year, besides that he had of the merchantmen, and of the traffic of the spice merchants, and of all the kings of Arabia and of the governors of the country. If David's annual income was anything like this, and if he had command of all the treasures accumulated in previous years, it does not look so impossible as criticism would make out that David could have prepared for the future Temple as the Chronicler reports.
3. Supernaturally Received Pattern of the Temple Said to Have Been Given by David to Solomon
That David gave to Solomon the pattern of the Temple in a writing which had been prepared by him under direct supernatural guidance can be objected to only by those who deny the possibility of such divine communications being made by God to man. If criticism admits, as it sometimes does, the possibility of both revelation and inspiration, the objection under consideration must fall to the ground. That the method of making David acquainted with the pattern of the Temple was not in all respects the same as that adopted for showing Moses the model of the tabernacle, only proves that the resources of infinite wisdom are not usually exhausted by one effort, and that God is not necessarily tied down to one particular way of uttering His thoughts.
But criticism mostly rejects the idea of the supernatural and accordingly dismisses this statement about the God-given pattern as altogether fanciful--pointing (1) to the fact that similar temples already existed among the Canaanites, as e.g. at Shechem (Judges 9:46) and at Gaza (Judges 16:29), which showed there was no special need for a divinely-prepared plan; and (2) to the circumstance that Solomon fetched Hiram, a Tyrian worker in brass, to assist in the erection of the Temple, which again, it is urged, renders probable the conclusion that at least Phoenician ideas entered into its structure (Duncker, Benzinger). Suppose, however, it were true that the Temple was fashioned on a Phoenician, Canaanite or Egyptian model, that would not disprove the statement that David was guided by divine inspiration in drawing up the outline of the building.
4. Alleged Organization of the Temple-Service by David
That David's organization of the Temple-service, both as to officers and instruments as to ritual and music, corresponded exactly (or nearly so) with what afterward existed in the second temple can hardly be adduced as a proof of non-historicity, except on the supposition that Chronicles deliberately "transformed the old history into church history" by ascribing to David the holy music and the arrangement of the Temple personals" which belonged to the post-exilic age, precisely as the author or authors of the Priestly Code, which dated from the same age (according to criticism), attributed this to Moses (Wellhausen, GI, 187)--in other words, by stating what was not true in either case, by representing that as having happened which had not happened. Whether this was originally intended to deceive and was a willful fraud, as some hold, and whether it was legitimate then "to do evil that good might come," to persuade men that David organized the musical service which was performed in the second temple in order to secure for it popular acceptance, it may be left to each reader to determine; it must always be wrong to ascribe doubtful practices to good men like the authors of the Priestly Code (P) and of Chronicles unless one is absolutely sure that they were guilty of such practices. Undoubtedly the fair and reasonable thing is to hold that the Chronicler wrote the truth until it is proved that he did not; and for his statement it may be claimed that at least it has this in its favor, that in the earlier sources David is distinctly stated to have been a musician (1 Samuel 16:23), to have composed a song, Psalms 18:1-50 (2 Samuel 22:1), and to have been designated "the sweet psalmist of Israel." No doubt on the critical hypothesis this might explain why the thought occurred to the Chronicler to credit David with the organization of the Temple-service; but without the critical hypothesis it equally accounts for the interest David took in preparing "the music and the personals" for the Temple which his son was to, build. "The tradition that David intended to build a temple and that he reorganized public worship, not forgetting the musical side thereof (compare 2 Samuel 6:5 with Amos 6:5)," says Kittel (The Scientific Study of the Old Testament, 136, English translation), "is not altogether without foundation."
5. Assertion by Solomon That the Temple Would Be Used as a Central Sanctuary
That the Temple-service was carried out in accordance with the regulations of the Priestly Code does not prove that the Chronicles account is unreliable, unless it is certain that the postexilic Priestly Code was an entirely new ritual which had never existed before, which some modern critics do not admit. But, if it was merely, as some maintain, a codification of a cult that existed before, then no sufficient reason exists for holding that Solomon's Temple was designed to be a private chapel for the king (Benzinger), erected partly out of piety but partly also out of love of splendor and statecraft (Reuss), rather than a central sanctuary for the people. A study of Solomon's letter to Hiram (2 Chronicles 2:4) shows that the Temple was intended for the concentration of the nation's sacrificial worship which had up till then been frequently offered at local shrines, though originally meant for celebration at the Mosaic tabernacle--for the burning of sweet incense (Exodus 30:1), the offering day by day continually of the burnt offering (Exodus 29:39). And though, it is admitted, the letter to Hiram as reported in 1 Kings makes no mention of this intention, yet it is clear from 1 Kings 8:62-65, that Solomon, after dedicating the Temple by prayer, used it for this purpose. Wherefore, if Chronicles simply transferred to the consecration of the Temple a ritual that had no existence until after the exile, the author of Kings did the same, which again would destroy Wellhausen's admission that historical validity attaches to the earlier source. A much more likely supposition is that the ritual reported by both historians was not that of a Priestly Code manufactured for the second temple, but that which had been published by Moses for the tabernacle, in place of which it had come. That local shrines for many years existed alongside of the Temple only proves that Solomon's original idea was not perfectly carried out either by himself or his people.
LITERATURE.
The Commentaries of Bertheau and Keil on Chronicles; Reuss. Geschichte der heiligen Schriften des Alten Testaments; articles on "Temple" in Sch-Herz; Riehm. Handworterbuch; HDB; EB; Wellhausen. Prolegomena schichte Israels.
T. Whitelaw
Temple, Herod's
Temple, Herod's - see TEMPLE
Temples
Temples - tem'-p'lz (raqqah, "thinness," "upper cheeks"): The original signifies the thinnest part of the skull (Judges 4:21-22; 5:26). In Song of Solomon 4:3; 6:7, the bride's cheeks are likened to pomegranates because of the rich coloring of a slice of this fruit.
Temples, Robbers of
Temples, Robbers of - (hierosuloi; the King James Version "robbers of churches," Acts 19:37): To explain this as "sacrilegious persons" is irreconcilable with the contrast in Romans 2:22. In Deuteronomy 7:25, the Jews were commanded entirely to destroy the gold and silver idols, ornaments of the heathen temples. The sin reproved is that of making that a matter of gain which, without regard to its value, they should have destroyed. "Dost thou, who regardest the mere touch of an idol as a horrible defilement, presume to rob their temples?" There is abundant evidence to show that this crime was not unusual. When the town-clerk of Ephesus declares the companions of Paul innocent of such charge, his words imply that the fact that they were Jews rendered them liable to such suspicion. So Josephus goes out of his way (Ant., IV, viii, 10) to deny that Jews ever committed the crime.
H. E. Jacobs
Tempt; Temptation
Tempt; Temptation - temt, tem-ta'-shun (nacah, "to prove" "try," "tempt" maccah, "a trial," "temptation"; peirazo, "to try" "prove" peirasmos "a trial," "proof"): The words have a sinister connotation in present-day usage which has not always attached to them. Originally the words were of neutral content, with the sense of "putting to the proof," the testing of character or quality. Thus, God is "tempted" by Israel's distrust of Him, as if the people were actually challenging Him to show His perfections (Exodus 17:2; Psalms 78:18; Acts 15:10; Hebrews 3:9, and often); Abraham is "tempted," being called upon to offer up Isaac (Genesis 22:1); and Jesus is "tempted" to a spectacular Messiahship (Matthew 4:1-25 and parallel passages (see TEMPTATION OF CHRIST)). No evil is implied in the subject of these temptations. Temptation therefore in the Scripture sense has possibilities of holiness as well as of sin. For as all experience witnesses, it is one thing to be tempted, another thing to fall. To be tempted--one may rejoice in that (James 1:2), since in temptation, by conquering it, one may achieve a higher and nobler manhood.
"Why comes temptation but for man to meet
And master and make crouch beneath his foot,
And so be pedestaled in triumph?"
Holiness in its best estate is possible only under conditions which make it necessary to meet, resist and triumph over temptation. Thus, Jesus Himself became our Great High Priest in that, being tempted in all points like as we are, He never once yielded, but fought and triumphed (Hebrews 4:15).
One must not deceive one's self, however, in thinking that, because by the grace of God one may have profit of virtue through temptation as an instrument, all temptation is equally innocent and virtuous. It is noticeable in the case of Jesus that His temptation was under the direction of the Spirit (Mark 1:12); He Himself did not seek it, nor did He fear it. Temptations encountered in this way, the way of duty, the way of the Spirit, alone constitute the true challenge of saintship (James 1:12); but it is the mark of an ignoble nature to be perpetually the center of vicious fancies and tempers which are not of God but of the devil (James 1:13-15). One may not escape entirely such buffetings of faith, but by any sound nature they are easily disposed of. Not so easily disposed of are the trials (temptations) to faith through adversity, affliction, trouble (Luke 22:28; Acts 20:19; James 1:2; 1 Peter 1:6); and yet there is no lack of evidence to the consoling fact that God does not suffer His own to be tempted above what they are able to bear (1 Corinthians 10:13) and that for every crisis His grace will be sufficient (2 Corinthians 12:8-9).
Charles M. Stuart
Temptation of Christ
Temptation of Christ - 1. The Sources: The sources for this event are Mark 1:12-13; Matthew 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13; compare Hebrews 2:18; Hebrews 4:15-16, and see GETHSEMANE. Mark is probably a condensation; Mt and Luke have the same source, probably the discourses of Jesus. Matthew is usually regarded as nearest the original, and its order is here followed.
2. Time and Place: The Temptation is put immediately after the Baptism by all the synoptists, and this is psychologically necessary, as, we shall see. The place was the wilderness; it was "up" from the Jordan valley (Matthew), and was on the way back to Galilee (Luke). The traditional site, Mt. Quarantana, is probably a good guess.
3. Significance: At His baptism, Jesus received from heaven the final confirmation of His thought that He was the Messiah. It was the greatest conception which ever entered a human mind and left it sane. Under the irresistible influence of the Spirit, He turned aside to seek out in silence and alone the principles which should govern Him in His Messianic work. This was absolutely necessary to any wise prosecution of it. Without the slightest precedent Jesus must determine what a Messiah would do, how He would act. Radical critics agree that, if such a period of meditation and conflict were not recorded, it would have to be assumed. By this conflict, Jesus came to that clearness and decision which characterized His ministry throughout. It is easy to see how this determination of guiding principles involved the severest temptation, and it is noteworthy that all the temptation is represented as coming from without, and none from within. Here too He must take His stand with reference to all the current ideas about the Messiah and His work.
4. The Reporter: Jesus alone can be the original reporter. To this Holtzmann and J. Weiss agree. The report was given for the sake of the disciples, for the principles wrought out in this conflict are the guiding principles in the whole work of the kingdom of God on earth.
5. Exposition: (1) Fasting. Jesus was so intensely absorbed that He forgot to eat. There was nothing ascetic or ritualistic about it, and so this is no example for ascetic fasting for us. It is doubtful whether the text demands absolute abstinence from food; rather, long periods of fasting, and insufficient food when He had it. At the end of the forty days, He woke to the realization that He was a starving man.
(2) The First Temptation. The first temptation is not a temptation to doubt His Messiahship, nor is the second either. "If thou art the Son of God," i.e. "the Messiah," means, simply, "since thou art the Son of God" (see Burton, Moods and Tenses, sections 244, 245; Robertson, Short Grammar, 161). There was not the slightest doubt on this point in Jesus' mind after the baptism, and Satan knew it. There is no temptation to prove Himself the Messiah, nor any hint of such a thing in Jesus' replies. The very point of it all is, How are you going to act, since you are Messiah? (Matthew 4:3 parallel Luke 4:3).
The temptation has these elements: (a) The perfectly innocent craving for food is imperious in the starving man. (b) Why should He not satisfy His hunger, since He is the Son of God and has the power? Jesus replies from Deuteronomy 8:3, that God can and will provide Him bread in His own way and in His own time. He is not referring to spiritual food, which is not in question either here or in Deuteronomy (see Broadus' just and severe remark here). He does not understand how God will provide, but He will wait and trust. Divinely-assured of Messiahship, He knows that God will not let Him perish. Here emerges the principle of His ministry; He will never use His supernatural power to help Himself. Objections based on Luke 4:30 and John 10:39 are worthless, as nothing miraculous is there implied. The walking on the water was to help the apostles' faith. But why would it have been wrong to have used His supernatural power for Himself? Because by so doing He would have refused to share the human lot, and virtually have denied His incarnation. If He is to save others, Himself He cannot save (Matthew 27:42). In passing, it is well to notice that "the temptations all turn on the conflict which arises, when one, who is conscious of supernatural power, feels that there are occasions, when it would not be right to exercise it." So the miraculous is here most deeply imbedded in the first principles of Messianic action.
(3) The Second Temptation. The pinnacle of the temple was probably the southeast corner of the roof of the Royal Cloister, 326 ft. above the bottom of the Kidron valley. The proposition was not to leap from this height into the crowd below in the temple courts, as is usually said, for (a) there is no hint of the people in the narrative; (b) Jesus reply does not fit such an idea; it meets another temptation entirely; (c) this explanation confuses the narrative, making the second temptation a short road to glory like the third; (d) it seems a fantastic temptation, when it is seriously visualized. Rather Satan bids Jesus leap into the abyss outside the temple. Why then the temple at all, and not some mountain precipice? asks Meyer. Because it was the sheerest depth well known to the Jews, who had all shuddered as they had looked down into it (Matthew 4:5-7 parallel Luke 4:5-8).
The first temptation proved Jesus a man of faith, and the second is addressed to Him as such, asking Him to prove His faith by putting God's promise to the test. It is the temptation to fanaticism, which has been the destruction of many a useful servant of God Jesus refuses to yield, for yielding would have been sin. It would have been (a) wicked presumption, as though God must yield to every unreasonable whim of the man, of faith, and so would have been a real "tempting" of God; (b) it would have denied His incarnation in principle, like the first temptation; (c) such fanaticism. would have destroyed His ministry. So the principle was evolved: Jesus will not, of self-will, run into dangers, but will avoid them except in the clear path of duty. He will be no fanatic, running before the Spirit, but will be led by Him in paths of holy sanity and heavenly wisdom. Jesus waited on God.
(4) The Third Temptation. The former tests have proved Jesus a man of faith and of common sense. Surely such a man will take the short and easy road to that universal dominion which right-fully belongs to the Messiah. Satan offers it, as the prince of this world. The lure here is the desire for power, in itself a right instinct, and the natural and proper wish to avoid difficulty and pain. That the final object is to set up a universal kingdom of God in righteousness adds to the subtlety of the temptation. But as a condition Satan demands that Jesus shall worship him. This must be symbolically interpreted. Such worship as is offered God cannot be meant, for every pious soul would shrink from that in horror, and for Jesus it could constitute no temptation at all. Rather a compromise with Satan must be meant--such a compromise as would essentially be a submission to him. Recalling the views of the times and the course of Jesus ministry, we can think this compromise nothing else than the adoption by Jesus of the program of political Messiahship, with its worldly means of war, intrigue, etc. Jesus repudiates the offer. He sees in it only evil, for (a) war, especially aggressive war, is to His mind a vast crime against love, (b) it changes the basis of His kingdom from the spiritual to the external, (c) the means would defeat the end, and involve Him in disaster. He will serve God only, and God is served in righteousness. Only means which God approves can be used (Matthew 4:8-11 parallel Luke 4:9-13). Here then is the third great principle of the kingdom: Only moral and spiritual means to moral and spiritual ends. He turns away from worldly methods to the slow and difficult way of truth-preaching, which can end only with the cross. Jesus must have come from His temptation with the conviction that His ministry meant a life-and-death struggle with all the forces of darkness.
6. The Character of the Narrative: As we should expect of Jesus, He throws the story of the inner conflict of His soul into story form. So only could it be understood by all classes of men in all ages. It was a real struggle, but pictorially, symbolically described. This seems to be proved by various elements in the story, namely, the devil can hardly be conceived as literally taking Jesus from place to place. There is no mountain from which all the kingdoms of the world can be seen. This view of the matter relieves all the difficulties.
7. How Could a Sinless Christ be Tempted?: The difficulty is that there can be no drawing toward an object unless the object seems desirable. But the very fact that a sinful object seems desirable is itself sin. How then can a sinless person really be tempted at all? Possibly an analysis of each temptation will furnish the answer. In each ease the appeal was a real appeal to a perfectly innocent natural instinct or appetite. In the first temptation, it was to hunger; in the second, to faith; in the third, to power as a means of establishing righteousness. In each ease, Jesus felt the tug and pull of the natural instinct; how insistent is the demand of hunger, for instance! Yet, when He perceived that the satisfaction of these desires was sinful under the conditions, He immediately refused their clamorous appeal. It was a glorious moral victory. It was not that He was metaphysically not able to sin, but that He was so pure that He was able not to sin. He did not prove in the wilderness that He could not be tempted, but that He could overcome the tempter. If it is then said that Jesus, never having sinned, can have no real sympathy with sinners, the answer is twofold: (1) Not he who falls at the first assault feels the full force of temptation, but he who, like Jesus, resists it through long years to the end. (2) Only the victor can help the vanquished; only he, who has felt the most dreadful assaults and yet has stood firm, can give the help needed by the fallen.
LITERATURE.
Broadus on Matthew in the place cited.; Rhees, Life of Jesus of Nazareth, secs. 91-96; Sanday, Outlines of the Life of Christ, section 13; Holtzmann, Hand-Commentar, I, 67 f; J. Weiss, Die Schriften des New Testament, I, 227 f; Weiss, Life of Christ, I, 337-54; Dods, article "Temptation," in DCG; Carvie, Expository Times, X (1898-99).
F. L. Anderson
Ten
Ten - (`eser; deka).
See NUMBER.
Ten Commandments, The
Ten Commandments, The - I. THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, AN ISRAELITISH CODE
II. THE PROMULGATON OF THE DECALOGUE
III. ANALYSIS OF THE DECALOGUE WITH BRIEF EXEGETICAL NOTES
1. How Numbered
2. How Grouped
3. Original Form
4. Brief Exegetical Notes
IV. JESUS AND THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
LITERATURE
In the Old Testament the Decalogue is uniformly referred to as "the ten words" (Exodus 34:28 margin; Deuteronomy 4:13 margin; Deuteronomy 10:4 margin), or simply as "the words" spoken by Yahweh (Exodus 20:1; 34:27; Deuteronomy 5:22; 10:2), or as "the words of the covenant" (Exodus 34:28). In the New Testament they are called "commandments" (Matthew 19:17; Ephesians 6:2), as with us in most Christian lands.
I. The Ten Commandments an Israelite Code. The "ten words" were spoken by Yahweh to the people whom He had but recently delivered from Egyptian bondage, and then led out into the wilderness, that He might teach them His laws. It was to Israel that the Decalogue was primarily addressed, and not to all mankind. Thus, the reason assigned for keeping the 5th commandment applies to the people who were on their way to the land which had been given to Abraham and his descendants (Exodus 20:12); and the 4th commandment is enforced by reference to the servitude in Egypt (Deuteronomy 5:15). It is possible, then, that even in the Ten Commandments there are elements peculiar to the Mosaic system and which our Lord and His apostles may not make a part of faith and duty for Christians.
See SABBATH.
Of the "ten words," seven were perhaps binding on the consciences of enlightened men prior to the days of Moses: murder, adultery, theft and false witness were already treated as crimes among the Babylonians and the Egyptians; and intelligent men knew that it was wrong to dishonor God by improper use of His name, or to show lack of respect to parents, or to covet the property of another. No doubt the sharp, ringing words in which these evils are forbidden in the Ten Commandments gave to Israel a clearer apprehension of the sins referred to than they had ever had before; and the manner in which they were grouped by the divine speaker brought into bold relief the chief elements of the moral law. But the first two prohibitions were novelties in the religious life of the world; for men worshipped many gods, and bowed down to images of every conceivable kind. The 2nd commandment was too high even for Israel to grasp at that early day; a few weeks later the people were dancing about the golden calf at the foot of Sinai. The observance of the Sabbath was probably unknown to other nations, though it may have been already known in the family of Abraham.
II. The Promulgation of the Decalogue. The "ten words" were spoken by Yahweh Himself from the top of the mount under circumstances the most awe-inspiring. In the early morning there were thunders and lightnings and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of a trumpet exceeding loud. It is no wonder that the people trembled as they faced the smoking and quaking mount, and listened to the high demands of a holy God. Their request that all future revelations should be made through Moses as the prophet mediator was quite natural. The promulgation of the Ten Commandments stands out as the most notable event in all the wilderness sojourn of Israel. There was no greater day in history before the coming of the Son of God into the world.
After a sojourn of 40 days in the mount, Moses came down with "the two tables of the testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God." At the foot of the mount, when Moses saw the golden calf and the dancing throng about it, he cast the tables out of his hands and broke them in pieces (Exodus 31:18; Exodus 39:15-20). Through the intercession of Moses, the wrath of Yahweh was averted from Israel; and Yahweh invited Moses to ascend the mount with two new tablets, on which He would write the words that were on the first tables, which were broken. Moses was commanded to write the special precepts given by God during this interview; but the. Ten Commandments were written on the stone tablets by Yahweh Himself (Exodus 34:1-4, 27-29; Deuteronomy 10:1-5). These precious tablets were later deposited in the ark of the covenant (Exodus 40:20). Thus in every way possible the Ten Commandments are exalted as the most precious and directly divine of all the precepts of the Mosaic revelation.
III. Analysis of the Decalogue with Brief Exegetical Notes.
That there were "ten words" is expressly stated (Exodus 34:28; Deuteronomy 4:13; 10:4); but just how to delimit them one from another is a task which has not been found easy. For a full discussion of the various theories, see Dillmann, Exodus, 201-5, to whom we are indebted for much that is here set forth.
1. How Numbered: (1) Josephus is the first witness for the division now common among Protestants (except Lutherans), namely, (a) foreign gods, (b) images, (c) name of God, (d) Sabbath, (e) parents, (f) murder, (g) adultery, (h) theft, (i) false witness, (j) coveting. Before him, Philo made the same arrangement, except that he followed the Septuagint in putting adultery before murder. This mode of counting was current with many of the church Fathers, and is now in use in the Greek Catholic church and with most Protestants.
(2) Augustine combined foreign gods and images (Exodus 20:2-6) into one commandment and following the order of Deuteronomy 5:21 (Hebrews 18) made the 9th commandment a prohibition of the coveting of a neighbor's wife, while the 10th prohibits the coveting of his house and other property. Roman Catholics and Lutherans accept Augustine's mode of reckoning, except that they follow the order in Exodus 20:17, so that the Exodus 9:11-35th commandment forbids the coveting of a neighbor's house, while the Exodus 10:11-29th includes his wife and all other property.
(3) A third mode of counting is that adopted by the Jews in the early Christian centuries, which became universal among them in the Middle Ages and so down to the present time. According to this scheme, the opening statement in Exodus 20:2 is the "first word," Exodus 20:3-6 the second (combining foreign gods with images), while the following eight commandments are as in the common Protestant arrangement.
The division of the prohibition of coveting into two commandments is fatal to the Augustinian scheme; and the reckoning of the initial statement in Exodus 20:2 as one of the "ten words" seems equally fatal to the modern Jewish method of counting. The prohibition of images, which is introduced by the solemn formula, "Thou shalt not," is surely a different "word" from the command to worship no god other than Yahweh. Moreover, if nine of the "ten words" are commandments, it would seem reasonable to make the remaining "word" a commandment, if this can be done without violence to the subjectmatter. See Eerdmaus, The Expositor, July, 1909, 21 ff.
2. How Grouped: (1) The Jews, from Philo to the present, divide the "ten words" into two groups of five each. As there were two tables, it would be natural to suppose that five commandments were recorded on each tablet, though the fact that the tablets had writing on both their sides (Exodus 32:15) would seem to weaken the force of the argument for an equal division. Moreover, the first pentad, in the present text of Exodus and Deuteronomy, is more than four times as long as the second.
(2) Augustine supposed that there were three commandments on the first table and seven on the second. According to his method of numbering the commandments, this would put the command to honor parents at the head of the second table, as in the third method of grouping the ten words.
(3) Calvin and many moderns assign four commandments to the first table and six to the second. This has the advantage of assigning all duties to God to the first table and all duties to men to the second. It also accords with our Lord's reduction of the commandments to two (Matthew 22:34-40).
3. Original Form: A comparison of the text of the Decalogue in Deuteronomy 5:1-33 with that in Exodus 20:1-26 reveals a goodly number of differences, especially in the reasons assigned for the observance of the Exodus 4:11-31th and Exodus 5:11-23th commandments, and in the text of the Exodus 10:11-29th commandment. A natural explanation of these differences is the fact that Dt employs the free-and-easy style of public discourse. The Ten Commandments are substantially the same in the two passages.
From the days of Ewald to the present, some of the leading Old Testament scholars have held that originally all the commandments were brief and without the addition of any special reasons for their observance. According to this hypothesis, the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and the 10th commandments were probably as follows: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image"; "Thou shalt not take the name of Yahweh thy God in vain"; "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy"; "Honor thy father and thy mother"; "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house." This early critical theory would account for the differences in the two recensions by supposing that the motives for keeping the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th commandments, as well as the expansion of the 10th, were additions made through the influence of the prophetic teaching. If accompanied by a full recognition of the divine origin of the ten words in the Mosaic era, this hypothesis might be acceptable to a thorough believer in revelation. Before acquiescing in the more radical theories of some recent scholars, such a believer will demand more cogent arguments than the critics have been able to bring forward. Thus when we are told that the Decalogue contains prohibitions that could not have been incorporated into a code before the days of Manasseh, we demand better proofs than the failure of Israel to live up to the high demands of the 2nd and the 10th commandments, or a certain theory of the evolution of the history that may commend itself to the mind of naturalistic critics. Yahweh was at work in the early history of Israel; and the great prophets of the 8th century, far from creating ethical monotheism, were reformers sent to demand that Israel should embody in daily life the teachings of the Torah.
Goethe advanced the view that Exodus 34:10-28 originally contained a second decalogue.
Wellhausen (Code of Hammurabi, 331 f) reconstructs this so-called decalogue as follows:
(1) Thou shalt worship no other god (Exodus 34:14). (2) Thou shalt make thee no molten gods (Exodus 34:17).
(3) The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep (Exodus 344:1Ex 8:1-32a).
(4) Every firstling is mine (Exodus 344:19a). (5) Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks (Exodus 344:2Ex 2:1-25a).
(6) And the feast of ingathering at the year's end (Exodus 344:2Ex 2:1-25c).
(7) Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread (Exodus 344:2Ex 5:1-23a).
(8) The fat of my feast shall not remain all night until the morning (23:18b; compare 34:25b).
(9) The best of the first-fruits of thy ground shalt thou bring to the house of Yahweh thy God (Exodus 344:2Ex 6:1-30a).
(10) Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk (Exodus 344:2Ex 6:1-30b).
Addis agrees with Wellhausen that even this simpler decalogue must be put long after the time of Moses (EB, 1051).
Now, it is evident that the narrative in Exodus 34:27 f, in its present form, means to affirm that Moses was commanded to write the precepts contained in the section immediately preceding. The Ten Commandments, as the foundation of the covenant, were written by Yahweh Himself on the two tablets of stone (Exodus 31:18; 32:15 f; Exodus 34:28). It is only by free critical handling of the narrative that it can be made to appear that Moses wrote on the two tables the supposed decalogue of Exodus 34:14-26. Moreover, the law of the Sabbath (Exodus 34:21), which is certainly appropriate amid the ritual ordinances of Exodus 34:1-35, must be omitted altogether, in order to reduce the precepts to ten; also the command in Exodus 34:23 has to be deleted. It is interesting to observe that the prohibition of molten gods (Exodus 34:17), even according to radical critics, is found in the earliest body of Israelite laws. There is no sufficient reason for denying that the 2nd commandment was promulgated in the days of Moses. Yahweh's requirements have always been in advance of the practice of His people.
4. Brief Exegetical Notes: (1) The 1st commandment prohibits the worship of any god other than Yahweh. If it be said that this precept inculcates monolatry and not monotheism, the reply is ready to hand that a consistent worship of only one God is, for a people surrounded by idolaters, the best possible approach to the conclusion that there is only one true God. The organs of revelation, whatever may have been the notions and practices of the mass of the Israelite people, always speak in words that harmonize with a strict monotheism.
(2) The 2nd commandment forbids the use of images in worship; even an image of Yahweh is not to be tolerated (compare Exodus 32:5). Yahweh's mercy is greater than His wrath; while the iniquity of the fathers descends to the third and the fourth generation for those who hate Yahweh, His mercy overflows to thousands who love Him. It is doubtful whether the rendering `showing mercy to the thousandth generation' (Exodus 20:6) can be successfully defended.
(3) Yahweh's name is sacred, as standing for His person; therefore it must be employed in no vain or false way. The commandment, no doubt, includes more than false swearing. Cursing, blasphemy and every profane use of Yahweh's name are forbidden.
(4) As the 1st commandment inculcates the unity of God and the 2nd His spirituality, so also the 3rd commandment guards His name against irreverent use and the 4th sets apart the seventh day as peculiarly His day, reserved for a Sabbath. Exodus 20:11 emphasizes the religious aspect of the Sabbath, while Deuteronomy 5:14 lays stress on its humane aspect, and Deuteronomy 5:15 links it with the deliverance from bondage in Egypt.
(5) The transition from duties to God to duties to men is made naturally in the 5th commandment, which inculcates reverence for parents, to whom their children should look up with gratitude, as all men should toward the Divine Father.
(6) Human life is so precious and sacred that no man should dare to take it away by violence.
(7) The family life is safeguarded by the 7th commandment.
(8) The 8th commandment forbids theft in all its forms. It recognizes the right of personal ownership of property.
(9) The 9th commandment safeguards honor and good name among men. Slander, defamation, false testimony in court and kindred sins are included.
(10) The 10th commandment is the most searching of them all, for it forbids the inward longing, the covetous desire for what belongs to another. The presence of such a deeply spiritual command among the "ten words" shows that we have before us no mere code of laws defining crimes, but a body of ethical and spiritual precepts for the moral education of the people of Yahweh.
IV. Jesus and the Ten Commandments. Our Lord, in the interview with the rich young ruler, gave a recapitulation of the commandments treating of duties to men (Mark 10:19; Matthew 19:18 f; Luke 18:20). He quotes the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th commandments. The minor variations in the reports in the three Synoptic Gospels remind the student of the similar variations in Exodus 20:1-26 and Deuteronomy 5:1-33. Already in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus had quoted the 6th and 7th commandments, and then had gone on to show that anger is incipient murder, and that lust is adultery in the heart (Matthew 5:27-32). He takes the words of the Decalogue and extends them into the realm of thought and feeling. He may have had in mind the 3rd commandment in His sharp prohibition of the Jewish habit of swearing by various things (Matthew 5:33-37). As to the Sabbath, His teaching and example tended to lighten the onerous restrictions of the rabbis (Mark 2:23-28). Duty to parents He elevated above all supposed claims of vows and offerings (Matthew 15:4-6). In further extension of the 8th commandment, Jesus said, "Do not defraud" (Mark 10:19); and in treating of the ethics of speech, Jesus not only condemns false witness, but also includes railing, blasphemy, and even an idle word (Matthew 15:19; 31, 36 f). In His affirmation that God is spirit (John 4:24), Jesus made the manufacture of images nothing but folly. All his ethical teaching might be said to be founded on the 10th commandment, which tracks sin to its lair in the mind and soul of man.
Our Lord embraced the whole range of human obligation in two, or at most three, commands: (1) "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind"; (2) "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" (Matthew 22:37-40; compare Deuteronomy 6:5; Leviticus 19:18). With love such as is here described in the heart, man cannot trespass against God or his fellow-men. At the close of His ministry, on the night of the betrayal, Jesus gave to His followers a third commandment, not different from the two on which the whole Law hangs, but an extension of the second great commandment upward into a higher realm of self-sacrifice (John 13:34 f; John 15:12 f,John 17:1-26; compare Ephesians 5:2; Galatians 6:10; 1 John 3:14-18). "Thou shalt love" is the first word and the last in the teaching of our Lord. His teaching is positive rather than negative, and so simple that a child can understand it. For the Christian, the Decalogue is no longer the highest summary of human duty. He must ever read it with sincere respect as one of the great monuments of the love of God in the moral and religious education of mankind; but it has given place to the higher teaching of the Son of God, all that was permanently valuable in the Ten Commandments having been taken up into the teaching of our Lord and His apostles.
LITERATURE.
Oehler, Old Testament Theology, I, 267 ff; Dillmann, Exodus-Leviticus, 200-219; Kuenen, Origin and Composition of the Hexateuch, 244; Wellhausen, Code of Hammurabi, 331 f; Rothstein, Das Bundesbuch; Baenstch, Das Bundesbuch; Meissaner, Der Dekalog; Driver, "Deuteronomy," ICC; Addis, Documents of the Hexateuch, I, 136 ff; R. W. Dale, The Ten Commandments; G. D. Boardman, University Lectures on the Ten Commandments (Philadelphia, 1889).
John Richard Sampey
Ten Strings
Ten Strings - (`asor).
See MUSIC, I, 1, (2), (c).
Tender
Tender - ten'-der: The usua1 (11 out of 16 times) translation of rakh, "soft," "delicate," with the noun rokh, in Deuteronomy 28:56 and the verb rakhakh, in 2 Kings 22:19 parallel 2 Chronicles 34:27. Attention need be called only to the following cases: In Genesis 29:17, "Leah's eyes were tender," a physical defect is described ("weak-eyed"; see BLINDNESS). "Tender-hearted" in 2 Chronicles 13:7 means "faint-hearted," while in 2 Kings 22:19 parallel 2 Chronicles 34:27 ("because thy heart was tender"), it means "penitent." Contrast the modern use in Ephesians 4:32.
Throughout Psalms (10 times) and Proverbs (12:10), but not elsewhere (the King James Version has "tender love" in Daniel 1:9, the Revised Version (British and American) "compassion"), English Versions of the Bible translate rachamim, "bowels," by "tender mercies," and this translation has been carried into the New Testament as "tender mercy" (the Revised Version margin "heart of mercy") for the corresponding Greek phrase splagchna eleous ("bowels of mercy") in Luke 1:78; compare "tenderhearted" for eusplagchnos ("right boweled") in Ephesians 4:32, based upon the idea of psychology widely spread among Semitic people, which considers the "bowels" (qerebh) as the seat of all tender emotions of kindness and mercy: See BOWELS. the King James Version also has "of tender mercy" in James 5:11 without justification in the Greek (oiktirmon, the Revised Version (British and American) "merciful").
Other special phrases: "tender grape" in the King James Version, Song of Solomon 2:13, 15; 7:12, for cemadhar. The meaning of the word is not quite certain, but Revised Margin's "blossom" (except Song of Solomon 7:12 margin) is probably right. "Tender grass" in 2 Samuel 23:4; Proverbs 27:25; the Revised Version (British and American) Deuteronomy 32:2 (the King James Version "tender herb"); Isaiah 15:6; 66:14 for deshe' "grass" (Aramaic dethe', Daniel 4:15, 23). The context in these passages and the meaning of the cognates of deshe' in other Semitic languages make this translation probable, but Revised Version's usage is not consistent (compare Genesis 1:11-12; Job 6:5; Psalms 23:2, etc.). Isa, Psalms 53:2 has "tender plant" for yoneq, "a sapling," while Job 14:7 has "tender branch" for the allied word yoneqeth, usually rendered "shoot" (Job 8:16, etc.). Finally, "tender" in Mark 13:28 parallel Matthew 24:32 is for hapalos, "soft." The running sap of springtime softens the branches that were stiff during the winter.
The verb "tender" occurs in 2 Maccabees 4:2, the King James Version "(he had) tendered his own nation," in the modern sense of "tend." The translation is a paraphrase of the noun kedemon, "a protector," the Revised Version (British and American) "the guardian of his fellow-countrymen."
Burton Scott Easton
Tenon
Tenon - ten'-un (yadh): This word, occurring in Exodus 26:1-37 and Exodus 36:1-38, is used in the account of the tabernacle to describe the "hand" or yadh by which its 48 boards were kept in place. Each board had two tenons which were mortised into it (Exodus 36:22 margin). These tenons would be made of harder wood than the acacia, so as better to stand the strain of wind and weather. When in use the tenons were sunk into the "sockets" (which see), and allowed of a speedy reerection of the tabernacle at its every remove.
Sockets are also mentioned as in use for the standards of the tabernacle court (Exodus 27:10 ff), but there is no mention of tenons. It may be that the base of each standard was let into its socket, without the use of any tenon. This would give it sufficient stability, as the height of each standard was but 5 cubits (7 1/2 ft.) (Exodus 27:18).
For Professor A. R. S. Kennedy's different theory of "tenons," see TABERNACLE, and his own article on the "Tabernacle" inHDB ,IV .
W. Shaw Caldecott
Tent
Tent - tent ('ohel; skene; 'ohel is a derivative of 'ahal, "to be clear," "to shine"; hence, 'ohel, "to be conspicuous from a distance"): In the great stretches of uncultivated lands in the interior of Syria or Arabia, which probably have much the same aspect today as in Abraham's time, it is an easy matter to espy an encampment of roving Bedouin, "a nation .... that dwelleth without care .... that have neither gates nor bars" (Jeremiah 49:31). The peaks of their black (compare Song of Solomon 1:5) goats' hair tents stand out in contrast against the lighter colors of the soil.
There seems to be little doubt about the antiquity of the Arab tent, and one can rightly believe that-the dwelling-places of Abraham, Sarah, Jacob, and their descendants were made on the same pattern and of the same materials (Genesis 4:20; 9:27; 12:8; 13:3; 18:6; 25, 30; Psalms 78:55; Hebrews 11:9, etc.). Long after the children of Israel had given up their tents for houses they continued to worship in tents (2 Samuel 7:1-6; 2 Chronicles 1:3-4) (for the use of tents in connection with religious observances see TABERNACLE).
The Arab tents (called bait sha`r, "house of hair") are made of strips of black goats' hair cloth, sewed together into one large piece (see GOATS' HAIR; WEAVING). Poles are placed under this covering at intervals to hold it from the ground, and it is stretched over these poles by ropes of goats hair or hemp (compare Job 4:21; Isaiah 54:2; Jeremiah 10:20) "fastened to hard-wood pins driven into the ground (Isaiah 54:2; Judges 4:21; 5:26). A large wooden mallet for driving the pegs is part of the regular camp equipment (Judges 4:21; 5:26). The sides (curtains) of the tent (Isaiah 54:2) are made of strips of goats hair cloth or from mats woven from split cane or rushes (see Illustration, p. 2948). Where more than one family occupies the same tent or the animals are provided with shelter under the same roof (compare 2 Chronicles 14:15), curtains of the same materials mentioned above form the dividing walls. A corner of the matting where two ends meet is turned back to form the door of the tent (Genesis 18:1). In the summer time the walls are mostly removed. New tents are not water-proof, and the condition of the interior after a heavy rain is not far from squalid. The tent material becomes matted by use, especially if wool has been woven into the fabric, and is then a better protection against the rain. It is the women's duty to pitch the tents.
The poorer Arabs have no mats to cover the ground under their tents. Straw mats, goats' hair or woolen rugs (compare Judges 4:18), more or less elaborate as the taste and means of the family allow, are the usual coverings for the tent floor. The food supplies are usually kept in goats' hair bags, the liquids, as oil or milk products, in skins. One or two tinned copper cooking-vessels, a shallow tray of the same material, a coffee set consisting of roasting pan, mortar and pestle, boiling-pot and cups, make up the usual camp furniture. The more thrifty include bedding in their equipment, but this increases the difficulties of moving, since it might require more than the one animal, sometimes only a donkey, which carries all the earthly belongings of the family. A sheikh or chief has several tents, one for himself and guests, separate ones for his wives and female servants, and still others for his animals (compare Genesis 31:33).
Other Hebrew words translated "tent" are forms of chanah (Numbers 13:19; 1 Samuel 17:53; 2 Kings 7:16; 2 Chronicles 31:2; Zechariah 14:15); cukkah (2 Samuel 11:11; 22:12); mishkenoth (Song of Solomon 1:8).
Figurative: "Neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there" typified utter desolation (Isaiah 13:20). "Enlarge the place of thy tent .... stretch forth the curtains .... lengthen thy cords .... strengthen thy stakes" prophesied an increase in numbers and prosperity of God's people (Isaiah 54:2; compare Isaiah 33:20; Luke 16:9; 2 Corinthians 5:4). Tent cords plucked up denoted death. (Job 4:21). Jeremiah 10:20 is a picture of a destroyed household as applied to Judah. Hezekiah in his sickness bewails that his dwelling (life) had been carried away as easily as a shepherd's tent is plucked up (Isaiah 38:12). Isaiah compared the heavens to a tent spread out (Isaiah 40:22). "They shall pitch their tents against her" i.e. they shall make war (Jeremiah 6:3).
James A. Patch
Tenth
Tenth - See TITHE.
Tenth Deal
Tenth Deal - del (`issaron): The tenth part of an ephah, and so rendered in the Revised Version (British and American) (Numbers 28:1-31; Numbers 29:1-40). It was used in connection with the sacrifices for measuring flour.
Tent-maker
Tent-maker - tent'-mak-er (~skenopoios): Mentioned only once (Acts 18:3). Paul's native province of Cilicia was noted for its goats' hair cloth which was exported under the name of cilicium and was used largely for tentmaking. We are told in the passage mentioned that Paul dwelt with Aquila and Priscilla, and worked with them at tent-making (compare Acts 20:34).
See also CRAFTS,II , 18.
Tephon
Tephon - te'-fon (he Tepho): In 1 Maccabees 9:50, a city of Judea fortified by Bacchides, probably the "Beth-tappuah" of Joshua 15:53, near Hebron. Josephus (Ant., XII, i, 3) calls it "Tochoa."
Terah (1)
Terah (1) - te'-ra (terach; Septuagint Tharra, or (with New Testament) Thara; on the name see especially HDB , under the word): The son of Nahor and father of Abraham, Nahor and Haran (Genesis 11:24 f). At Abraham's birth Terah was 70 years old (Genesis 11:26), and after Abraham's marriage, Terah, Abraham, Sarah and Lot emigrated from Ur of the Chaldees on the road into the land of Canaan, but stopped in Haran (Genesis 11:31). When Abraham was 75 years old he and his nephew resumed their journey, leaving Terah in Haran, where 60 years later he died (Genesis 11:32). Stephen, however, states (Acts 7:4) that Terah was dead when Abraham left Haran, an impression that is easily gained from Genesis 11:1-32 through 12 if the dates are not computed. As there is no reason to suppose that Stephen was granted inspiration that would preserve him from such a purely formal error, the contradiction is of no significance and attempts at "reconciliation" are needless. In particular, the attempt of Blass (Stud. u. Krit., 1896, 460 ff) to alter the text of Acts is quite without foundation. For further discussion see especially Knowling, The Expositor's Greek Testament, at the place It is worth noting that Philo makes the same error (Migr. Abr. 177 (section 32)), perhaps indicating some special Jewish tradition of New Testament times. In Joshua 24:2 Terah is said to have been an idolater. In Jubilees 12 this is softened into explaining that through fear of his life Terah was forced to yield outward conformity to the idolatrous worship of his neighbors. On the other hand certain Jewish legends (e.g. Ber. Rab. 17) represent Terah as actually a maker of idols. Otherwise in the Bible Terah is mentioned only by name in 1 Chronicles 1:26; Luke 3:34.
Burton Scott Easton
Terah (2)
Terah (2) - (Codex Vaticanus Tarath; Codex Alexandrinus Tharath): A wilderness camp of the Israelites between Tahath and Mithkah (Numbers 33:27-28).
See WANDERINGS OF ISRAEL.
Teraphim
Teraphim - ter'-a-fim.
See ASTROLOGY; DIVINATION; IMAGES.
Terebinth
Terebinth - ter'-e-binth: (1) 'elah (Isaiah 6:13, the King James Version "teil tree"; Hosea 4:13, the King James Version "elms"); in Genesis 35:4 (the King James Version "oak"); Judges 6:11, 19; 9:6 (the King James Version "plain"); 2 Samuel 18:9-10, 14; 1 Kings 13:14; 1 Chronicles 10:12; Isaiah 1:30; Ezekiel 6:13, translated "oak," and in margin "terebinth"; "vale of Elah," margin "the terebinth" in 1 Samuel 17:2, 19; 21:9. (2) 'elim (Isaiah 1:29, "oaks," margin "terebinths"). (3) 'allah (Joshua 24:26, English Versions of the Bible have "oak," but the Septuagint terebinthos). (4) 'elon, "oak (margin, "terebinth") of Zaanannim" (Joshua 19:33; Judges 4:11); "oak (the Revised Version margin "terebinth," the King James Version "plain") of Tabor" (1 Samuel 10:3); also Genesis 12:6; 13:18; 14:13; 1 Samuel 10:3; Deuteronomy 11:30; Judges 6:19 all translated "oak" or "oaks," with margin "terebinth" or "terebinths." (5) In Genesis 14:6 Septuagint has terebinthos, as the translation of the el of El-paran. (6) In Ecclesiasticus 24:16 terem (b)inthos, the King James Version turpentine tree," the Revised Version (British and American) "terebinth."
It is clear that the translators are uncertain which translation is correct, and it would seem not improbable that then there was no clear distinction between oak and terebinth in the minds of the Old Testament. writers; yet the two are very different trees to any but the most superficial observation.
The terebinth--Pistacia terebinthus (Natural Order, Anacardiaceae), Arabic Butm]--is a tree allied to the P. vera, which produces the pistachio nut, and to the familiar "pepper tree" (Schinus molle) so extensively cultivated in modern Palestine. Like the latter the terebinth has red berries, like small immature grapes. The leaves are pinnate, four to six pairs, and they change color and fall in autumn, leaving the trunk bare (compare Isaiah 1:30). The terebinth is liable to be infected by many showy galls, some varieties looking like pieces of red coral. In Palestine, this tree assumes noble proportions, especially in situations when, from its association with some sacred tomb, it is allowed to flourish undisturbed. It is in such situations not infrequently as much as 40 ft. high and spreads its branches, with their thick, dark-green foliage, over a wide area (compare 2 Samuel 18:9 f,2 Samuel 14:1-33; Ecclesiasticus 24:16). Dwarfed trees occur among the brushwood all over the land.
From this tree a kind of turpentine is obtained, hence, the alternative name "turpentine tree" (Ecclesiasticus 24:16 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) "terebinth").
E. W. G. Masterman
Teresh
Teresh - te'-resh (teresh (Esther 2:21; 6:2); Codex Vaticanus, Codex Alexandrinus, and Codex Sinaiticus omit it; but Codex Sinaiticus' margin has Tharas and Tharras): A chamberlain of King Ahasuerus. Oppert compares the name with Tiri-dates, the name of the governor of Persepolis in the time of Alexander. Another explanation identifies it with the Persian word turs "firm"; Scheft links it with the Persian tarsha, "desire."
Terrace
Terrace - ter'-as (mecillah): Solomon is said, in 2 Chronicles 9:11, to have made of the algum trees brought him from Ophir "terraces," or raised walks, for the house of Yahweh. In the parallel 1 Kings 10:12, the word used is rendered "pillars," margin "`a railing'; Hebrew `a prop.'"
Terrible, Terror
Terrible, Terror - ter'-i-b'l, ter'-er (yare', "to be feared," "reverenced," arits, "powerful," "tyrannical," 'ayom, "aweinspiring," chittith "terror," ballahah, "a worn-out or wasted thing," 'emah, "fright"; phoberos, "dreadful," phobos, "fear"): The above terms, and many others which employed, denote whatever, by horrible aspect, or by greatness, power, or cruelty, affrights men (Deuteronomy 1:19; 26:8; Daniel 2:31). God is terrible by reason of His awful greatness, His infinite power, His inscrutable dealings, His perfect holiness, His covenant faithfulness, His strict justice and fearful judgments (Exodus 34:10; Deuteronomy 7:21; Nehemiah 9:32; Job 6:4; 37:22; Psalms 65:5; 88:15 f; Joel 2:11; Zephaniah 2:11; Hebrews 12:21). The term is also applied to the enemies of God and of His people (Isaiah 13:11; 25:3 ff; Isaiah 49:25; Daniel 7:7; 1 Peter 3:14). "The terror (the Revised Version (British and American) "fear") of the Lord" (2 Corinthians 5:11) denotes the reverence or fear inspired by the thought that Christ is judge (2 Corinthians 5:10).
M. O. Evans
Tertius
Tertius - tur'-shi-us (Tertios): The amanuensis of Paul who wrote at his dictation the Epistle to the Romans. In the midst of Paul's greetings to the Christians in Rome he interpolated his own, "I Tertius, who write the epistle, salute you in the Lord" (Romans 16:22). "It is as a Christian, not in virtue of any other relation he has to the Romans, that Tertius salutes them" (Denney). Some identify him with Silas, owing to the fact that shalish is the Hebrew for "third (officer)," as tertius is the Latin Others think he was a Roman Christian residing in Corinth. This is, however, merely conjecture. Paul seems to have dictated his letters to an amanuensis, adding by his own hand merely the concluding sentences as "the token in every epistle" (2 Thessalonians 3:17; Colossians 4:18; 1 Corinthians 16:21). How far this may have influenced the style of his letters is discussed in Sanday-Headlam, Romans, Introduction, LX.
S. F. Hunter
Tertullus
Tertullus - ter-tul'-us, ter- (Tertullos, diminutive of Latin tertius, "third"):, An orator who descended with Ananias the high priest and elders from Jerusalem to Caesarea to accuse Paul before Felix the Roman governor (Acts 24:1). Tertullus was a hired pleader whose services were necessary that the case for the Jews might be stated in proper form. Although he bore a Roman name, he was not necessarily a Roman; Roman names were common both among Greeks and Jews, and most orators were at this time of eastern extraction. Nor is it definitely to be concluded from the manner of his speech (Acts 24:2-8) that he was a Jew; it has always been customary for lawyers to identify themselves in their pleading with their clients. His speech before Felix is marked by considerable ingenuity. It begins with an adulation of the governorship of Felix that was little in accord with history (see FELIX); and the subsequent argument is an example of how a strong case may apparently be made out by the skillful manipulation of half-truths. Thus the riot at Jerusalem was ascribed to the sedition-mongering of Paul, who thereby proved himself an enemy of Roman rule and Jewish religion, both of which Felix was pledged to uphold. Again, the arrest of Paul was not an act of mob violence, but was legally carried out by the high priests and elders in the interests of peace; and but for the unwarranted interference of Lysias (see LYSIAS), they would have dealt with the prisoner in their own courts and thus have avoided trespassing on the time of Felix. They were, however, perfectly willing to submit the whole case to his jurisdiction. It is interesting to compare this speech of Tertullus with the true account, as given in Acts 21:27-35, and also with the letter of Lysias (Acts 23:26-30).
C. M. Kerr
Testament
Testament - tes'-ta-ment: The word diatheke, almost invariably rendered "covenant," was rendered in the King James Version "testament" in Hebrews 9:16-17, in the sense of a will to dispose of property after the maker's death. It is not easy to find justification for the retention of this translation in the Revised Version (British and American), "especially in a book which is so impregnated with the language of the Septuagint as the Epistle to the Hebrews" (Hatch).
See COVENANT,IN THE NEW TESTAMENT .
Testament of Isaac
Testament of Isaac - See APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE, sec. IV, 3.
Testament, New, Canon of The
Testament, New, Canon of The - See CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
Testament, New, Text and Manuscripts of The
Testament, New, Text and Manuscripts of The - See TEXT AND MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
Testament, Old, Canon of The
Testament, Old, Canon of The - See CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
Testament, Old, Text of The
Testament, Old, Text of The - See TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs - See APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE, sec. IV, 1.
Testaments, Between The
Testaments, Between The - See BETWEEN THE TESTAMENTS.
Testimony, Ark of The
Testimony, Ark of The - tes'-ti-mo-ni (Exodus 25:21 f).
See ARK OF THE COVENANT.
Teta
Teta - te'-ta. See ATETA.
Teth
Teth - teth (T): The 9th letter of the Hebrew alphabet; transliterated in this Encyclopedia as "T" (a more intense "t"). It came also to be used for the number 9; and with waw ("w") for 15, with zayin ("z") for 16 (i.e. 9 plus 6 and 9 plus 7) to avoid forming regular series with the abbreviation for Yahweh. For name, etc., see ALPHABET.
Tetrarch
Tetrarch - te'-trark, tet'-rark tetrarches): As the name indicates it signifies a prince, who governs one-fourth of a domain or kingdom. The Greeks first used the word. Thus Philip of Macedon divided Thessaly into four "tetrarchies." Later on the Romans adopted the term and applied it to any ruler of a small principality. It is not synonymous with "ethnarch" at least the Romans made a distinction between Herod "tetrarch" of Galilee, Philip "tetrarch" of Trachonitis, Lysanias "tetrarch" of Abilene, and Archelaius "ethnarch" of Judea (BJ, II, vi, 3; Ant, XVII, xi, 4). The title was often conferred on Herodian princes by the Romans, and sometimes it was used courteously as a synonym for king (Matthew 14:9; Mark 6:14). In the same way a "tetrarchy" was sometimes called a kingdom.
Henry E. Dosker
Tetter
Tetter - tet'-er (bohaq; alphos): The term "freckled spot" in the King James Version is thus rendered in the Revised Version (British and American). The eruption referred to in Leviticus 13:39 is a pale white spot on the skin. This is described by Gorraeus as an eruption arising from a diseased state of the system without roughness of skin, scales or ulceration. It did not render the sufferer unclean, although it is difficult of cure. The disease is commonly known by its Latin name vitiligo. Pliny recommended the use of capers and lupins to remove it.
See FRECKLED SPOT;LEPROSY .
Text and Manuscripts of the New Testament
Text and Manuscripts of the New Testament - I. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE FOR THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
1. Autographs of the New Testament Writers
2. Papyrus Fragments of the Greek New Testament
3. Greek Copies or Manuscripts of the New Testament Text
4. List of Manuscripts of the Greek New Testament
(1) Uncials
(2) Minuscules
5. Vernacular Versions
6. Patristic Quotations
7. Lectionaries and Service-Books
II. NECESSITY OF SIFTING AND CRITICIZING THE EVIDENCE
III. METHODS OF CRITICAL PROCEDURE
IV. HISTORY OF THE PROCESS
LITERATURE
The literary evidence to the text of the New Testament is vastly more abundant than that to any other series of writings of like compass in the entire range of ancient letters. Of the sacred books of the Hebrew Bible there is no known copy antedating the 10th century AD. Of Homer there is no complete copy earlier than the 13th century. Of Herodotus there is no manuscript earlier than the 10th century. Of Vergil but one copy is earlier than the 4th century, and but a fragment of all Cicero's writings is even as old as this. Of the New Testament, however, we have two splendid manuscripts of the 4th century, at least ten of the 5th, twentyfive of the 6th and in all a total of more than four thousand copies in whole or in part of the Greek New Testament. To these copies of the text itself may be added the very important and even more ancient evidence of the versions of the New Testament in the Latin, Syriac, and Egyptian tongues, and the quotations and clear references to the New Testament readings found in the works of the early Church Fathers, as well as the inscriptions and monumental data in Syria, Asia Minor, Africa, Italy, and Greece, dating from the very age of the apostles and their immediate successors. It thus appears that the documents of the Christian faith are both so many and so widely scattered that these very facts more than any others have embarrassed the final determination of the text. Now however, the science of textual criticism has so far advanced and the textual problems of the Greek Testament have been so well traversed that one may read the Christian writings with an assurance approximating certainty.
Professor Eberhard Nestle speaks of the Greek text of the New Testament issued by Westcott and Hort as the "nearest in its approach to the goal." Professor Alexander Souter's student's edition of the Revisers' Greek New Testament, Oxford, 1910, no doubt attains even a higher watermark. It is the purpose of the present article to trace, as far as it can be done in a clear and untechnical manner, the process of connection between the original writings and this, one of the latest of the editions of the Greek New Testament.
I. Sources of Evidence for the Text of the New Testament.
1. Autographs of the New Testament Writers: Until very recent times it has not been customary to take up with any degree of confidence, if at all, the subject of New Testament autographs, but since the researches in particular of Dalman, Deissmann, Moulton (W. F.) and Milligan (George), the task is not only appropriate but incumbent upon the careful student. The whole tendency of recent investigation is to give less place to the oral tradition of Christ's life and teaching and to press back the date of the writing of the Synoptic Gospels into the period falling between Pentecost and the destruction of Jerusalem. Sir William M. Ramsay goes so far as to claim that "antecedent probability founded on the general character of personal and contemporary Greek of Gr-Asiatic society" would indicate that the first Christian account of the circumstances connected with the death of Jesus must be presumed to have been written in the year when Jesus died" (Letters to the Seven Churches, 7). W. M. Flinders Petrie argues to the same end and says: "Some generally accepted Gospels must have been in circulation before 60 AD. The mass of briefer records and Logia which the habits and culture of that age would produce must have been welded together within 10 or 20 years by the external necessities" (The Growth of the Gospels, 7).
The autographs of the New Testament writers have long been lost, but the discovery during the last few years of contemporary documents enables us to form fairly clear notions as to their general literary character and condition. In the first place papyrus was probably the material employed by all the New Testament writers, even the original Gospel of Matthew and the general Epistle of James, the only books written within Palestine, not being excepted, for the reason that they were not originally written with a view to their liturgical use, in which case vellum might possibly have been employed. Again the evidence of the writings themselves witnesses to the various literary processes followed during the 1st century. Dictation was largely followed by Paul, the names of at least four of his secretaries, Tertius, Sosthenes, Timothy, and Sylvanus, being given, while the master himself, as in many of the Egyptian papyri, appended his own signature, sometimes with a sentence or two at the end. The method of personal research was pursued, as well as compilation of diverse data including folklore and genealogies, together with the grouping of cognate matters in artistic forms and abundant quotation in writings held in high esteem by the readers, as in the First and Third Gospels and the Book of Acts. The presentation copy of one's works must have been written with unusual pains in case of their dedication to a patrician patron, as Luke to "most excellent Theophilus." For speculation as to the probable dimensions of the original papyrus rolls of New Testament books, one will find Professor J. Rendel Harris and Sir F. G. Kenyon extremely suggestive, and from opposite viewpoints; compare Kenyon, Handbook of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament; Harris, New Testament Autographs.
Comparatively few papyrus fragments of the New Testament are now known to be extant, and no complete book of the New Testament has as yet been found, though the successes in the field of contemporary Greek writings inspire confidence that ere long the rubbish heaps of Egypt will reward the diligent explorer. Of the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) somewhat more has come to light than the New Testament, while the papyrus copies and fragments of Homer are almost daily increasing.
The list below is condensed from that of Sir Frederick G. Kenyon's Handbook of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, 2nd edition, 1912, 41 ff, using Dr. Gregory's method of notation.
2. Papyrus Fragments of the Greek New Testament: P1 Matthew 1:1-9, 12, 14-20. 3rd century. Found at Oxyrhynchus in 1896, now in the University of Pennsylvania.
See illustration under PAPYRUS.
P2 John 12:12-15 in Greek on the verso, with Luke 7:18 ff in Sahidic on the recto. 5th or 6th century. In book form, at the Museo Archeologico, Florence.
P3 Luke 7:36-43; Luke 10:38-42. 6th century. In book form. In the Rainer Collection, Vienna.
P4 Luke 1:74-80; Luke 5:3-8, 30 through Luke 6:4. 4th century. In book form. Found in Egypt joined to a manuscript of Philo; now in the Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris.
P5 John 1:23-31, 33-41; John 20:11-17, 19-25. 3rd century. An outer sheet of a single-quire book. Found at Oxyrhynchus and now in the British Museum.
P6 John 11:45. University of Strassburg.
P7 Luke 4:1-2. Archaeological Museum at Kieff.
P8 Acts 4:31-37; Acts 5:2-9; Acts 6:1-6, 8-15. 4th century. In the Berlin Museum.
P9 1 John 4:11-13, 15-17. 4th or 5th century. In book form. Found at Oxyrhynchus; now in Harvard University Library.
P10 Romans 1:1-7. 4th century. Found at Oxyrhynchus; now in Harvard University Library.
P11 1 Corinthians 1:17-20; 1 Corinthians 6:13-18; 1 Corinthians 7:3-4, 10-14. 5th century. In the Imperial Library at Petersburg.
P12 Hebrews 1:1. 3d or 4th century. In the Amherst Library.
P13 Hebrews 2:14 through 5:5; 10:8 through 11:13; 11:28 through 12:17. 3rd or 4th century. Found at Oxyrhynchus; now in the British Museum.
P14:1 Corinthians 1:25-27; 1 Corinthians 2:3-8; 1 Corinthians 3:8-10, 20. 5th century. In book form; at Catherine's Monastery, Mt. Sinai.
P15:1 Corinthians 7:18 through 1 Corinthians 8:4; Philippians 3:9-17; Philippians 4:2-8. 4th century. Found at Oxyrhynchus.
P16 Romans 12:3-8. 6th or 7th century. Ryland's Library, Manchester.
P17 Titus 1:11-15; Titus 2:3-8. 3rd century. Ryland's Library, Manchester.
P18 Hebrews 9:12-19. 4th century. Found at Oxyrhynchus.
P19 Revelation 1:4-7. 3rd or 4th century. Found at Oxyrhynchus.
3. Greek Copies or Manuscripts of the New Testament Text:
Greek copies or manuscripts of the New Testament text have hitherto been and probably will continue to be the chief source of data in this great field. For determining the existence of the text in its most ancient form the autographs are of supreme value. For determining the content or extent of the text the versions are of highest worth. For estimating the meaning and at the same time for gaining additional data, both as to existence and extent of usage of the New Testament, the quotations of its text by the Church Fathers, whether as apologists, preachers, or historians, in Assyria, Greece, Africa, Italy or Gaul, are of exceeding importance. But for determining the readings of the text itself the Greek manuscripts or copies of the original autographs are still the principal evidence of criticism. About 4,000 manuscripts, in whole or in part, of the Greek New Testament are now known. These manuscripts furnish abundant evidence for determining the reading of practically the entire New Testament, while for the Gospels and most important Epistles the evidence is unprecedented for quantity and for clearness. They are usually divided into two classes: Uncial, or large hand, and Minuscule, or small hand, often called Cursive. The term "cursive" is not satisfactory, since it does not coordinate with the term "uncial," nor are so-called cursive features such as ligatures and oval forms confined to minuscule manuscripts. The uncials comprise about 140 copies extending from the 4th to the 10th centuries. The minuscules include the remaining manuscripts and fall between the 9th century and the invention of printing. Herewith is given a brief description of a few of the chief manuscripts, both uncial and minuscule, of the New Testament.
4. List of Manuscripts of the Greek New Testament:
(1) Uncials. Codex Sinaiticus found by Tischendorf at Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai and now in the Imperial Library at Petersburg; 4th century. This is the only uncial which contains the New Testament entire. It also has the Epistle of Barnabas and part of the Shepherd of Hermas and possibly originally the Didache. The marks of many correctors are found in the text. It is written on 147 1/2 leaves of very thin vellum in four narrow columns of 48 lines each. The pages measure 15 X 13 1/2 in., and the leaves are arranged in quaternions of four sheets. The open sheet exposing eight columns resembles greatly an open papyrus roll. There is but rudimentary punctuation and no use of accent or initial letters, but the Eusebian section numbers are found on the margin of the Gospels.
Codex Alexandrinus (A), so named since it was supposed to have come from Alexandria, being the gift of Cyril Lucar, at one time Patriarch of that Province, though later of Constantinople, to Charles I, through the English ambassador at the Turkish court in 1627, and in 1757 presented to the Royal Library and now in the British Museum. It doubtless belongs to the 5th century, and contained the entire New Testament, lacking now only portions of Matthew, John, and 1 Corinthians, as well as the two Epistles of Clement of Rome and the Psalm of Solomon. It is written on thin vellum in two columns of 41 lines to the page, which is 12 5/8 X 10 3/8 in.; employs frequent initial capitals, and is divided into paragraphs, but has no marginal signs except in the Gospels. Several different hands are discovered in the present state of the MS.
Codex Vaticanus (B), since 1481, at least, the chief treasure of the Vatican Library, and universally esteemed to be the oldest and best manuscript of the Greek New Testament; 4th century. Written on very fine vellum, the leaves nearly square in shape, 10 X 10 1/2 in., with three narrow columns of 40-44 lines per column and five sheets making the quire. A part of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Pastorals, Philemon and Revelation are lacking. It is without accents, breathings or punctuation, though corrected and retraced by later hands. In the Gospels the divisions are of an earlier date than in Codex Sinaiticus. The theory of Tischendorf that Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus were in part prepared by the same hand and that they were both among the 50 manuscripts made under the direction of Eusebius at Caesarea in 331 for use in the emperor Constantine's new capital, is not now generally accepted.
Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C). This is the great palimpsest (twice written) manuscript of the uncial group, and originally contained the whole New Testament. Now, however, a part--approximately half--of every book is lacking, and 2 Thessalonians and 2 John are entirely gone. It belongs to the 5th century, is written on good vellum 9 X 12 1/2 in. to the page of 41 lines, and of one column in the original text, though the superimposed writings of Ephraem are in two. Enlarged initials and the Eusebian marginal sections are used and several hands have corrected the MS. See Fig. 2. Brought to Italy from the East in the 16th century, it came to France with Catherine de' Medici and is now in the Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris.
Codex Bezae (D). This is the early known manuscript which Theodore Beza obtained in 1562 from the monastery of Irenaeus at Lyons and which he gave in 1581 to the University of Cambridge, where it now is. It is a Greek-Latin text, the Greek holding the chief place on the left-hand page, measuring 8 X 10 in., and dates probably from the end of the 5th century. Both Greek and Latin are written in large uncials and divided into short clauses, corresponding line for line. The hands of no less than nine correctors have been traced, and the critical questions arising from the character of the readings are among the most interesting in the whole range of Biblical criticism and are still unsettled. It contains only the Gospels and Acts with a fragment of 3 John.
Codex Washingtoniensis (W). The United States has now in the National Library (Smithsonian) at the capital one of the foremost uncial manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. It is a complete codex of the Gospels, in a slightly sloping but very ancient hand, written upon good vellum, in one column of 30 lines to the page, and 6 X 9 in. in size. By all the tests ordinarily given, it belongs to the period of the earliest codices, possibly of the 4th century. Like Codex Bezae (D), it has the order of the Gospels: Matthew, John, Luke, Mark, and contains an apocryphal interpolation within the longer ending of Mark for which no other Greek authority is known, though it is probably referred to by Jerome. It has been published in facsimile by Mr. C. L. Freer of Detroit, who obtained the manuscript in Egypt in 1906, and is edited by Professor H. A. Sanders for the University of Michigan Press, 1911.
(2) Minuscules. Out of the thousands of minuscule manuscripts now known only the four used by Erasmus, together with one now found in the United States, will be enumerated.
1. This is an 11th-century codex at Basel. It must have been copied from a good uncial, since its text often agrees with Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.
1R. Of the 12th century, and now at Mayhingen, Bayaria: This is the only manuscript Erasmus had for Revelation in his editio princeps, and being defective at the end, 22:16-21, he supplied the Greek text by retranslating from the Latin; compare Textus Receptus of the New Testament and the King James Version. Generally speaking, this manuscript is of high quality.
2. This is a 15th-century manuscript at Basel, and was that on which Erasmus most depended for his 1st edition, 1516. It reflects a good quality of text.
2AP. Some have assigned this manuscript to the 12th century, though it was probably later. It is at Basel, and was the principal text used by Erasmus in the Acts and Epistles.
667. An illustration of a good type of minuscule of the Gospels is taken from Evangelistaria 667, which came from an island of the Sea of Marmorn; purchased in Constantinople by Dr. Albert L. Long in 1892 and now in the Drew Seminary Library at Madison, N.J.
5. Vernacular Versions: Vernacular VSS, or translations of the Scriptures into the tongues of western Christendom, were, some of them, made as early as the 2nd century, and thus antedate by several generations our best-known Greek text. It is considered by many as providential that the Bible was early translated into different tongues, so that its corruption to any large extent became almost if not altogether an impossibility, since the versions of necessity belonged to parts of the church widely removed from one another and with very diverse doctrinal and institutional tendencies. The testimony of translations to the exact form of words used either in an autograph or a Greek copy of an author is at best not beyond dispute, but as evidence for the presence or absence of whole sections or clauses of the original, their standing is of prime importance. Such extreme literalness frequently prevails that the vernacular idiom is entirely set aside and the order and construction of words in the original sources are slavishly followed and even transliterated, so that their bearing on many questions at issue is direct and convincing. Although the Greek New Testament has now been translated into all the principal tongues of the earth, comparative criticism is confined to those versions made during the first eight centuries.
6. Patristic Quotations: Patristic quotations afford a unique basis of evidence for determining readings of the New Testament. So able and energetic were the Church Fathers of the early centuries that it is entirely probable that the whole text of the Greek New Testament could be recovered from this source alone, if the writings of apologists, homilists and commentators were carefully collated. It is also true that the earliest heretics as well as the defenders of the faith recognized the importance of accurately determining the original text, so that their remains also comprise no mean source for critical research. It is evident that the value of patristic quotations will vary according to such factors as the reliability of the reading, as quoted, the personal equation or habit of accuracy or looseness of the particular writer, and the purity or corruption of the text he employs. One of the marked advantages of this sort of evidence arises from the fact that it affords additional ground for localizing and dating the various classes of texts found both in original copies and in versions. For general study the more prominent Church Fathers of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries are sufficient, though profitable investigation may be made of a much wider period. By the beginning of the 5th century, however, the type of text quoted almost universally was closely akin to that now known as the Textus Receptus.
7. Lectionaries and Service-Books: Lectionaries and service-books of the early Christian period afford a source of considerable value in determining the general type of texts, together with the order and contents and distribution of the several books of the Canon. As the lectionary systems both of the eastern and western churches reach back to post-apostolic times and all are marked by great verbal conservatism, they present data of real worth for determining certain problems of textual criticism. From the very nature of the case, being compiled for a liturgical use, the readings are often introduced and ended by set formulas, but these are easily separated from the text itself, which generally follows copy faithfully. Even the systems of chapter headings and divisions furnish clues for classifying and comparing texts, for there is high probability that texts with the same chapter divisions come from the same country. Probably the earliest system of chapter divisions is preserved in Codex Vaticanus, coming down to us from Alexandria probably by way of Caesarea. That it antedates the codex in which it appears is seen from the fact that the Pauline Epistles are numbered as comprising a continuous book with a break between Galatians and Ephesians and the dislocated section numbers attached to Hebrews which follows 2 Thessalonians here, though the numbers indicate its earlier position after Galatians. Another system of chapter divisions, at least as old as the 5th century, found in Codex Alexandrinus, cuts the text into much larger sections, known as Cephalia Majora. In all cases the enumeration begins with the 2nd section, the 1st being considered introductory. Bishop Eusebius developed a system of text division of the Gospels based upon an earlier method attributed to Ammonius, adding a series of tables or Canons. The first table contained sections giving events common to all four evangelists, and its number was written beneath the section number on the margin in each Gospel, so that their parallels could readily be found. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th Canons contain lists of sections in which three of the Gospels have passages in common (the combination Mark, Luke, John, does not occur). The 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th contain lists in which two combine (the combination Mark, John, does not occur). Canon 10 contains those peculiar to some one of the Gospels.
II. Necessity of Sifting and Criticizing the Evidence.
Criticism from its very nature concerns itself entirely with the problems suggested by the errors of various kinds which it brings to light. In the writings of the New Testament the resources of textual evidence are so vast, exceeding, as we have seen, those of any other ancient literature, sacred or secular, that the area of actual error is relatively quite appreciable, though it must be remembered that this very abundance of textual variety ultimately makes for the integrity and doctrinal unity of the teaching of the New Testament books. Conjectural emendation which has played so large a part in the restoration of other writings has but slight place in the textual criticism of the New Testament, whose materials are so abundant that the difficulty is rather to select right renderings than to invent them. We have catalogued the principal sources of right readings, but on the most casual investigation of them discover large numbers of wrong readings mingled with the true, and must proceed to consider the sources of error or various readings, as they are called, of which approximately some 200,000 are known to exist in the various manuscripts, VSS, patristic citations and other data for the text.
"Not," as Dr. Warfield says, "that there are 200,000 places in the New Testament where various readings occur, but that there are nearly 200,000 readings all told, and in many cases the documents so differ among themselves that many various readings are counted on a single word, for each document is compared in turn with one standard and the number of its divergences ascertained, then these sums are themselves added together and the result given as the number of actually observed variations." Dr. Ezra Abbott was accustomed to remark that "about nineteen-twentieths of the variations have so little support that, although there are various readings, no one would think of them as rival readings, and nineteen-twentieths of the remainder are of so little importance that their adoption or rejection would cause no appreciable difference in the sense of the passages in which they occur." Dr. Hort's view was that "upon about one word in eight, various readings exist supported by sufficient evidence to bid us pause and look at it; about one word in sixty has various readings upon it supported by such evidence as to render our decision nice and difficult, but that so many variations are trivial that only about one word in every thousand has upon it substantial variation supported by such evidence as to call out the efforts of the critic in deciding between the readings." The oft-repeated dictum of Bentley is still valid that "the real text of the sacred writings is competently exact, nor is one article of faith or moral precept either perverted or lost, choose as awkwardly as you will, choose the worst by design, out of the whole lump of readings." Despite all this, the true scholar must be furnished rightly to discriminate in the matter of diverse readings.
From the very nature of the case it is probable that errors should be frequent in the New Testament; indeed, even printed works are not free from them, as is seen in the most carefully edited editions of the English Bible, but in manuscripts the difficulty is increased in direct proportion to the number of various copies still extant. There are two classes of errors giving rise to various readings, unconscious or unintentional and conscious or intentional.
1. First Class: Of the first class, that of unconscious errors, there are five sorts:
(1) Errors of the Eye. Errors of the eye, where the sight of the copyist confuses letters or endings that are similar, writing e.g. capital eta for capital sigma; capital omicron for capital theta; capital alpha for capital lambda or capital delta; capital pi (P) for capital tau and capital iota (written together, TI); PAN for TIAN; capital mu (M) for a double capital lambda (LL). Here should be named homoeoteleuton, which arises when two successive lines in a copy end in the same word or syllable and the eye catches the second line instead of the first and the copyist omits the intervening words as in Codex Ephraemi of John 6:39.
(2) Errors of the Pen. Here is classed all that body of variation due to the miswriting by the penman of what is correctly enough in his mind but through carelessness he fails rightly to transfer to the new copy. Transposition of similar letters has evidently occurred in Codices E, M, and H of Mark 14:65, also in H2 L2 of Acts 13:23.
(3) Errors of Speech. Here are included those variations which have sprung from the habitual forms of speech to which the scribe in the particular case was accustomed and which he therefore was inclined to write. Under this head comes "itacism," arising from the confusion of vowels and diphthongs, especially in dictation. Thus, iota (i) is constantly written as epsilon-iota (ei) and vice versa; alpha-iota (ai) for epsilon (e); eta (ee) and iota (i) for epsilon-iota (ei); eta (ee) and omicron-iota (oi) for upsilon (u); omicron (o) for omega (oo) and epsilon (e) for eta (ee). It is observed that in Codex Sinaiticus we have scribal preference for iota (i) alone, while in Codex Vaticanus epsilon-iota (ei) is preferred.
(4) Errors of Memory. These are explained as having arisen from the "copyist holding a clause or sequence of letters in his somewhat treacherous memory between the glance at the manuscript to be copied and his writing down what he saw there." Here are classed the numerous petty changes in the order of words and the substitution of synonyms, as eipen for ephee, ek for apo, and vice versa.
(5) Errors of Judgment. Under this class Dr. Warfield cites "many misreadings of abbreviations, as also the adoption of marginal glosses into the text by which much of the most striking corruption which has entered the text has been produced." Notable instances of this type of error are found in John 5:1-4, explaining how it happened that the waters of Bethesda were healing; and in John 7:53 through John 8:12, the passage concerning the adulteress, and the last twelve verses of Mark.
2. Second Class: Turning to the second class, that of conscious or intentional errors, we may tabulate:
(1) Linguistic or Rhetorical Corrections. Linguistic or rhetorical corrections, no doubt often made in entire good faith under the impression that an error had previously crept into the text and needed correcting. Thus, second aorist terminations in -a are changed to -o and the like.
(2) Historical Corrections. Under this head is placed all that group of changes similar to the case in Mark 1:2, where the phrase "Isaiah the prophet" is changed into "the prophets."
(3) Harmonistic Corrections. These are quite frequent in the Gospels, e.g. the attempted assimilation of the Lord's Prayer in Luke to the fuller form in Matthew, and quite possibly the addition of the words "of sin" to the phrase in John 8:34, "Every one that doeth sin is a slave." A certain group of harmonistic corruptions where scribes allow the memory, perhaps unconsciously, to affect the writing may rightly be classed under (4) above.
(4) Doctrinal Corrections. Of these it is difficult to assert any unquestioned cases unless it be the celebrated Trinitarian passage (King James Version, 1 John 5:77,8a) or the several passages in which fasting is coupled with prayer, as in Matthew 17:21; Mark 9:29; Acts 10:30; 1 Corinthians 7:5.
(5) Liturgical Corrections. These are very common, especially in the lectionaries, as in the beginning of lessons, and are even found in early uncials, e.g. Luke 8:31; 10:23, etc.
III. Methods of Critical Procedure. Here as in other human disciplines necessity is the mother of invention, and the principles of critical procedure rest almost entirely on the data connected with the errors and discrepancies which have consciously or unconsciously crept into the text. The dictum of Dr. George Salmon that "God has at no time given His church a text absolutely free from ambiguity" is true warrant for a free and continued inquiry into this attractive field of study. The process of textual criticism has gradually evolved certain rules based upon judgments formed after patiently classifying and taking into account all the documentary evidence available, both internal and external.
(1) An older reading is preferable to one later, since it is presumed to be nearer the original. However, mere age is no sure proof of purity, as it is now clear that very many of the corruptions of the text became current at an early date, so that in some cases it is found that later copies really represent a more ancient reading.
(2) A more difficult reading, if well supported, is preferable to one that is easier, since it is the tendency of copyists to substitute an easy, well-known and smooth reading for one that is harsh, unusual and ungrammatical. This was commonly done with the best of intentions, the scribe supposing he was rendering a real service to truth.
(3) A shorter is preferable to a longer reading, since here again the common tendency of scribes is toward additions and insertions rather than omissions. Hence arose, in the first place, the marginal glosses and insertions between the lines which later transcribers incorporated into the text. Although this rule has been widely accepted, it must be applied with discrimination, a longer reading being in some cases clearly more in harmony with the style of the original, or the shorter having arisen from a case of homoeoteleuton.
(4) A reading is preferable, other things being equal, from which the origin of all alternative readings can most clearly be derived. This principle is at once of the utmost importance and at the same time demands the most careful application. It is a sharp two-edged-sword, dangerous alike to the user and to his opponents.
(5) A reading is preferable, says Scrivener, "which best suits the peculiar style, manner and habits of thought of an author, it being the tendency of copyists to overlook the idiosyncrasies of the writer. Yet habit or the love of critical correction may sometimes lead the scribe to change the text to his author's more usual style as well as to depart from it through inadvertence, so that we may securely. apply the rule only where the external evidence is not unequally balanced.".
(6) A reading is preferable which reflects no doctrinal bias, whether orthodox on the one side or heretical on the other. This principle is so obvious that it is accepted on all sides, but in practice wide divergence arises, owing to the doctrinal bias of the critic himself.
These are the main Canons of internal evidence. On the side of external evidence may be summarized what has already been implied:
(1) A more ancient reading is usually one that is supported by the most ancient manuscripts.
(2) A reading which has the undoubted support of the earliest manuscripts, versions and patristic writers is unquestionably original.
(3) A disagreement of early authorities usually indicates the existence of corruption prior to them all.
(4) Mere numerical preponderance of witnesses (to a reading) of any one class, locality or time, is of comparative insignificance.
(5) Great significance must be granted to the testimony of witnesses from localities or times widely apart, and it can only be satisfactorily met by a balancing agreement of witnesses also from different times and localities.
These rules, though they are all excellent and each has been employed by different critics with good results, are now somewhat displaced, or rather supplemented, by the application of a principle very widely used, though not discovered, by Westcott and Hort, known as the principle of the genealogy of manuscripts. The inspection of a very broad range of witnesses to the New Testament text has led to their classification into groups and families according to their prevailing errors, it being obvious that the greater the community of errors the closer the relationship of witnesses. Although some of the terms used by Westcott and Hort, as well as their content, have given rise to well-placed criticism, yet their grouping of manuscripts is so self-convincing that it bids fair, with but slight modification, to hold, as it has thus far done, first place in the field. Sir Frederick G. Kenyon has so admirably stated the method that the gist of his account will be given, largely using his identical words (Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, 2nd edition, London, 1912). As in all scientific criticism, four steps are followed by Westcott and Hort: (a) The individual readings and the authorities for them are studied; (b) an estimate is formed of the character of the several authorities; (c) an effort is made to group these authorities as descendants of a common ancestor, and (d) the individual readings are again taken up and the first provisional estimate of their comparative probability revised in the light of the knowledge gained as to the value and interrelation of the several authorities.
Applying these methods, four groups of texts emerge from the mass of early witnesses: (a) The Antiochian or Syrian, the most popular of all and at the base of the Greek Textus Receptus and the English King James Version; in the Gospels the great uncials Alexandrinus and Ephraemi (C) support it as well as Codex N, Codex Sigma and Codex Phi, most of the later uncials and almost all minuscules, the Peshitta-Syriac version and the bulk of the Church Fathers from Chrysostom; (b) the Neutral, a term giving rise to criticism on all sides and by some displaced by the term Egyptian; this group is small but of high antiquity, including S B L T Z, A and C, save in the Gospels, the Coptic versions (especially the Bohairic) and some of the minuscules, notably 33 and 81; (c) the Alexandrian, closely akin to the Neutral group, not found wholly in any one manuscript but traceable in such manuscripts as S C L X, 33, and the Bohairic version, when they differ from the other members headed by B; (d) the Western, another term considered ambiguous, since it includes some important manuscripts and Fathers very ancient and very Eastern; here belong D D2 E2 F2 G2 among the uncials, 28, 235, 383, 565, 614, 700, and 876 among the minuscules, the Old Syriac and Old Latin and sometimes the Sahidic versions.
Of these groups by far the most superior is the Neutral, though Westcott and Hort have made it so exclusively to coincide with Codex Vaticanus that they appear at times to have broken one of the great commandments of a philologist, as quoted by Dr. Nestle from a German professor, "Thou shalt worship no codices. Now, the only serious dispute centers on the apparent slight which this system may have put upon the so-called Western type of text in group four. The variants of this family are extensive and important and appear due to an extremely free handling of the text at some early date when scribes felt themselves at liberty to vary the language of the sacred books and even to insert additional passages of considerable length.
Although this type of text is of very early origin and though prevalent in the East was very early carried to the West, and being widely known there has been called Western, yet, because of the liberties above referred to, its critical value is not high, save in the one field of omissions. In Egypt, however, and especially Alexandria, just as in the case of the Old Testament, the text of the New Testament was critically considered and conserved, and doubtless the family called Neutral, as well as the so-called Alexandrian, springs up here and through close association with Caesarea becomes prevalent in Palestine and is destined to prevail everywhere. The Westcott-Hort contention. that the Antiochian text arose as a formal attempt at repeated revision of the original text in Antioch is not so convincing, but for want of a better theory still holds its place. Their objections, however, to its characteristic readings are well taken and everywhere accepted, even von Soden practically agreeing here, though naming it the Koine text. It is also interesting to find that von Soden's Hesychian text so closely parallels the Neutral-Alexandrian above, and his Jerusalem family the Western. And thus we arrive at the present consensus of opinion as to the genealogical source of the text of the New Testament.
IV. History of the Process. Abundant evidence exists and is constantly growing to show that critical opinion and methods were known at least from the very days of the formation of the New Testament Canon, but in such a sketch as the present the history can only be traced in modern times. The era of printing necessarily marks a new epoch here. Among available manuscripts choice must be made and a standard set, and in view of the material at hand it is remarkable how ably the work was done. It began in Spain under Cardinal Ximenes of Toledo, who printed at Alcala (Complutum) in 1514 the New Testament volume of his great Polyglot, though it was not actually issued until 1522. Meanwhile the great Erasmus, under patronage of Froben the printer of Basel, had been preparing a Greek New Testament, and it was published early in 1516 in a single volume and at low cost, and had reached its 3rd edition by 1522. His 4th edition in 1537 contains Erasmus' definitive text, and, besides using Cardinal Ximenes' text, had the advantage of minuscule manuscripts already named. The next important step was taken by Robert Estienne (Stephanus), whose 3rd edition, "Regia," a folio published in Paris in 1550, was a distinct advance, and, though based directly upon the work of Ximenes and Erasmus, had marginal readings from 15 new manuscripts, one of which was Codex Bezae (D). The learned Theodore Beza himself worked with Stephanus' son Henri, and brought out no less than nine editions of the New Testament, but no great critical advance was made in them. The same may be said of the Seven Elzevir editions brought out at Leyden and Amsterdam between 1624 and 1678, the second, that of 1633, in the preface of which occurs the phrase, "Textum ergo habes nunc ab omnibus receptum," becoming the continental standard, as the 1550 edition of Stephanus has for England. Thus, we arrive at the Textus Receptus, and the period of preparation is closed.
The second period, or that of discovery and research, was ushered in by the great London Polyglot of 1657, edited by Brian Walton (later Bishop of Chester) with collations by Archbishop Ussher of 15 fresh manuscripts, including Codex Alexandrinus and Codex 59. But Dr. John Mill of Oxford was the Erasmus of this period, and in 1707 after 30 years of labor brought out the Greek Textus Receptus with fresh collations of 78 manuscripts, many versions and quotations from the early Fathers. His manuscripts included A B D E K, 28, 33, 59, 69, 71, the Peshito, Old Latin and Vulgate, and his Prolegomena set a new standard for textual criticism. This apparatus was rightly appreciated by Richard Bentley of Cambridge and a revised text of the Greek and of the Vulgate New Testament was projected along lines which have prevailed to this day. The work and wide correspondence of Bentley had stirred up continental scholars, and J. A. Bengel published in 1734 at Tubingen a Greek New Testament with the first suggestion as to genealogical classification of manuscripts. J. J. Wetstein of Basel and Amsterdam, though a very great collector of data and the author of the system of manuscript notation which has continued ever since, made little critical advance. J. S. Semler, taking Wetstein's material, began rightly to interpret it, and his pupil J. J. Griesbach carried the work still farther, clearly distinguishing for the first time a Western, an Alexandrian and a Constantinopolitan recension.
With Carl Lachmann began the last epoch in New Testament criticism which has succeeded in going behind the Textus Receptus and establishing an authentic text based on the most ancient sources. He applied the critical methods with which he was familiar in editing the classics, and with the help of P. Buttmann produced an edition in 1842-50 which led the way directly toward the goal; but they were limited in materials and Tischendorf soon furnished these. Constantine Tischendorf, both as collector and editor, is the foremost man thus far in the field. His 8th edition, 1872, of the Greek New Testament, together with his Prolegomena, completed and published, 1884-1894, by C. R. Gregory, set a new standard. Dr. Gregory's German edition of the Prolegomena, 1900-1909, supplemented by his Die griechischen Handschriften des New Testament, 1908, marks the further advance of the master through his master pupil. Meanwhile, S. P. Tregelles was doing almost as prodigious and valuable a work in England, and was thus preparing for the final advances at Cambridge. F. H. A. Scrivener also ranks high and did extremely valuable, though somewhat conservative, work in the same direction. In 1881 "the greatest edition ever published," according to Professor Souter, was brought out in England coincident with the Revised Version of the English New Testament. This, together with the introduction, which the same writer characterizes as "an achievement never surpassed in the scholarship of any country," was the joint product of B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, friends and co-workers for many years in the University of Cambridge. Thus with the end of the 19th century the history of the process may be said to close, though both process and progress still advance with everincreasing triumph.
Von Soden's edition of the New Testament appeared during the summer of 1913 and is of first importance. It differs from all others in the extreme weight laid on Tatian's Diatessaron as the source of the bulk of the errors in the Gospels. This theory is not likely to command the assent of scholars and the text (which does not differ greatly from Tischendorf's) is consequently of doubtful value. Nevertheless, for fullness of material, clearness of arrangement, and beauty of printing, von Soden's edition must inevitably supersede all others, even where the text is dissented from. Dr. Gregory promises a new edition at some day not too far in the future which, in turn, will probably supersede von Soden's.
LITERATURE.
C. R. Gregory, Prolegomena to Tischendorf's New Testament, Leipzig, 1884-94, Textkritik des New Testament, Leipzig, 1900-1909, Die griechischen Handschriften des New Testament, Leipzig, 1908, Einleitung in das New Testament, Leipzig, 1909, Vorschlage fur eine kritische Ausgabe des griechischen New Testament, Leipzig, 1911; F. G. Kenyon, Paleography of Greek Papyri, Oxford, 1899, Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, London2, 1912; K. Lake, The Text of the New Testament, 4th edition, London, 1910; G. Milligan, Selections from the Greek Papyri, Cambridge, 1910, The New Testament Documents, 1913; Eb. Nestle, Einfuhrung in das New Testament, Gottingen3, 1909; F. H. A. Scrivener, Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 4th edition, London, 1894; Souter, Text and Canon of the New Testament, 1913; E. M. Thompson, Handbook of Greek and Latin Paleography, 2nd edition, London, 1894; H. von Soden, Die Schriften des New Testament, I. Tell, Untersuchungen, Berlin, 1902-10; II, Tell, 1913; B. F. Westcott, and F. J. A. Hort, The New Testament in Greek with Introduction, Cambridge and London, 1896; Th. Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament, English translation, Edinburgh, 1910.
Charles Fremont Sitterly
Text of the Old Testament
Text of the Old Testament - I. EARLIEST FORM OF WRITING IN ISRAEL
1. Invention of Alphabet
2. The Cuneiform
3. References to Writing in the Old Testament
4. Inscriptions after Settlement in Canaan
5. Orthography of the Period
II. THE TWO HEBREW SCRIPTS
1. The Old Hebrew Alphabet
2. Aramean Alphabets
3. The New Hebrew Script
4. New Hebrew Inscriptions
5. Summary
III. THE CHANGE OF SCRIPT
1. Various Theories
2. The Change in the Law
3. In the Other Books
4. Evidence of the Septuagint
5. Evidence of the Text Itself
6. Conclusion
IV. PRESERVATION OF THE TEXT
1. Internal Conditions
2. External Circumstances
3. The Septuagint Version
V. THE TEXT IN THE 1ST CENTURY AD
1. Word Separation
2. Other Breaks in the Text
3. Final Forms of Letters
4. Their Origin
5. Conclusion
6. The Vowel-Letters
7. Anomalous Forms
8. The Dotted Words
9. Their Antiquity
10. The Inverted Nuns ("n")
11. Large and Small Letters
12. Suspended Letters and Divided Waw ("w")
13. Abbreviations
14. Conclusion
VI. ALTERATION OF PRINCIPAL DOCUMENTS
1. Yahweh and Baal
2. Euphemistic Expressions
3. "Tiqqun copherim"
VII. SCRIBAL ERRORS IN THE TEXT
1. Misunderstanding
2. Errors of the Eye
3. Errors of the Ear
4. Errors of Memory
5. Errors of Carelessness and Ignorance
VIII. HISTORY OF THE TEXT
1. Changes Made in Reading
2. Preservation of Text
3. Division into Verses
4. Sections of the Law
5. Sections of the Prophets
6. Poetical Passages
7. Division into Books
IX. VOCALIZATION OF THE TEXT
1. Antiquity of the Points
2. Probable Date of Invention
3. Various Systems and Recensions
X. THE PALESTINIAN SYSTEM
1. The Consonants
2. The Vowels
3. The Accents
4. Anomalous Pointings
XI. THE MASORAH
1. Meaning of the Term
2. The "Qere" and "Kethibh"
3. Other: Features
XII. MANUSCRIPTS AND PRINTED TEXTS
1. Manuscripts
2. Early Printed Texts
3. Later Editions
4. Chapters and Verses
LITERATURE
I. Earliest Form of Writing in Israel. The art of writing is not referred to in the Book of Genesis, even where we might expect a reference to it, e.g. in Genesis 23:1-20, nor anywhere in the Old Testament before the time of Moses (compare however, Genesis 38:18, 25; 41:44, which speak of "sealing" devices).
See SEAL; WRITING.
1. Invention of Alphabet: About the year 1500 BC alphabetic writing was practiced by the Phoenicians, but in Palestine the syllabic Babylonian cuneiform was in use (see ALPHABET). The Israelites probably did not employ any form of writing in their nomadic state, and when they entered Canaan the only script they seem ever to have used was the Phoenicia. This is not disproved by the discovery there of two cuneiform contracts of the 7th century, as these probably belonged to strangers. There is only one alphabet in the world, which has taken many forms to suit the languages for which it was employed. This original alphabet was the invention of the Semites, for it has letters peculiar to the Semitic languages, and probably of the Phoenicians (so Lucan, Pharsalia iii.220; compare Herodotus v.58), who evolved it from the Egyptian hieroglyphics.
2. The Cuneiform: Of the literature of Canaan before the Israelites entered it the remains consist of a number of cuneiform tablets found since 1892 at Lachish, Gezer, Taanach and Megiddo, but especially of the famous the Tell el-Amarna Letters, discovered in Egypt in 1887. Although this non-alphabetic script was in use in Canaan when the Israelites entered it, they do not seem to have adopted it.
3. References to Writing in the Old Testament: The earliest reference to writing in the Old Testament is Exodus 17:14. The next is Exodus 24:7, mentioning the Book of the Covenant (Exodus 20:1-26 through Exodus 23:1-33). The Book of the Wars of Yahweh is named in Numbers 21:14. Other early references are Judges 5:14 margin; Judges 8:14 margin. By the time of the monarchy the king and nobles could write (2 Samuel 11:14; 8:17), but not the common people, until the time of Amos and Hosea, when writing seems to have been common.
4. Inscriptions after Settlement in Canaan: The Phoenician script prevailed in Palestine after the conquest as well as in the countries bordering on it. This is shown by the inscriptions which have been discovered. The chief of these are: the Baal Lebanon inscription found in Cyprus (beginning of the 9th century); the manuscript of about the year 896 of the ordinary chronology; a Hebrew agricultural calendar of the 8th century; fifteen lion-weights from Nineveh of about the year 700; the Siloam Inscription of the time of Hezekiah; about a score of seals; and, in 1911, a large number of ostraca of the time of Ahab.
5. Orthography of the Period: In this oldest writing the vowels are rarely expressed, not even final vowels being indicated. The only mark besides the letters is a point separating the words. There are no special forms for final letters. Words are often divided at the ends of lines. The writing is from right to left. The characters of the Siloam Inscription and the ostraca show some attempt at elegant writing.
II. The Two Hebrew Scripts. 1. The Old Hebrew Alphabet: Two distinct scripts were used by the Hebrews, an earlier and a later. The Old Hebrew alphabet contained 22 letters, all consonants. The order of these letters is known from that of the Greek, taken in order of their numerical values, and later by the alphabetic psalms, etc., and by the figure called 'at-bash (see SHESHACH). In the acrostic passages, however, the order is not always the same; this may be due to corruption of the text. In the alphabet, letters standing together bear similar names. These are ancient, being the same in Greek as in Semitic. They were probably given from some fancied resemblance which the Phoenicians saw in the original Egyptian sign to some object.
2. Aramean Alphabets: The development of the Phoenician alphabet called Aramaic begins about the 7th century BC. It is found inscribed as dockets on the cuneiform clay tablets of Nineveh, as the Phoenician letters were upon the lion-weights; on coins of the Persian satraps to the time of Alexander; on Egyptian inscriptions and papyri; and on the Palmyrene inscriptions. The features of this script are the following: The loops of the Hebrew letters beth (b), daleth (d), Teth (T), qoph (q) and resh (r), which are closed in the Phoenician and Old Hebrew, are open, the bars of the Hebrew letters he (h), waw (w), zayin (z), cheth (ch) and taw (t) are lost, and the tails of kaph (k), lamedh (l), mem (m), pe (p) and tsadhe (ts), which are vertical in the old Aramaic, begin in the Egyptian Aramaic to curve toward the left; words are divided, except in Palmyrene, by a space instead of a point; vowel-letters are freely used; and the use of ligatures involves a distinction of initial, medial and final forms. There are of course no vowel-marks.
3. The New Hebrew Scripture: After the Jews returned from the exile, the Aramaic language was the lingua franca of the Seleucid empire, displacing Assyrian, Old Hebrew and Phoenician. The Phoenician script also had given place to the Aramaic in Mesopotamia, Syria and Egypt. In Syria it divided into two branches, a northern which grew into Syriac, and a southern, or Jewish, from which the New Hebrew character was produced.
4. New Hebrew Inscriptions: What is believed to be the oldest inscription in the modern Hebrew character is that in a cave at `Araq al-`Amir near Heshbon, which was used as a place of retreat in the year 176 BC (Ant., XII, iv, 11; CIH, number 1). Others are: four boundary stones found at Gezer; the inscriptions over the "Tomb of James" really of the Beni Hezir (1 Chronicles 24:15; Nehemiah 10:20); that of Kefr Birim, assigned to the year 300 AD (CIH, number 17), in which the transition to the New Hebrew script may be said to be accomplished; and others have been found all over the Roman empire and beyond.
See ARCHAEOLOGY.
5. Summary: The inscriptions show that the familiar Hebrew character is a branch of the Aramaic. In the 3rd century BC the latter script was in general use in those countries where Assyrio-Babylonian, Old Hebrew and Phoenician had been used before. The Jews, however, continued to employ the Old Hebrew for religious purposes especially, and the Samaritans still retain a form of it in their Bible (the Pentateuch).
III. The Change of Script. It is now almost universally agreed that the script in which the Old Testament was written was at some time changed from the Phoenician to the Aramaic. But in the past many opinions have been held on the a subject.
1. Various Theories: Rabbi Eleazar of Modin (died 135 AD), from the mention of the hooks (waws) in Exodus 27:10 and from Esther 8:9, denied any change at all. Rabbi Jehuda (died circa 210) maintained that the Law was given in the New Hebrew, which was later changed to the Old as a punishment, and then back to the New, on the people repenting in the time of Ezra. Texts bearing on the matter are 2 Kings 5:7; 18:26; Isaiah 8:1, from which various deductions have been drawn. There may have been two scripts in use at the same time, as in Egypt (Herod. ii.36).
2. The Change in the Law: In regard to the change in the Law, the oldest authority, Eleazar ben Jacob (latter part of the 1st century AD), declared that a Prophet at the time of the Return commanded to write the Torah in the new or square character. Next Rabbi Jose (a century later) states (after Ezra 4:7) that Ezra introduced a new script and language. But the locus classicus is a passage in the Talmud (Sanhedhrin 21b): "Originally the Law was given to Israel in the Hebrew character and in the Holy Tongue; it was given again to them in the days of Ezra in the Assyrian characters and in the Aramaic tongue. Israel chose for herself the Assyrian character and the Holy Tongue, and left the Hebrew character and the Aramaic tongue to the hedhyoToth." Here Hebrew = Old Hebrew; Assyrian = the new square character, and hedhyoToth is the Greek idiotai = the Hebrew `am ha-'arets, the illiterate multitude. From the 2nd century on (but not before), the Talmudic tradition is unanimous in ascribing the change of script in the Law to Ezra. The testimony of Josephus points to the Law at least being in the square character in his day (Ant., XII, ii, 1, 4). The Samaritan Pentateuch was almost certainly drawn up in the time of Nehemiah (compare 13:28; also Ant,XI , vii, 2), and points to the Old Hebrew being then in use. So Rabbi Chasda (died 309) refers the word hedhyoToth above to the Samaritans. On the other hand, the Samaritan Pentateuch may have been the original Law, common to both Israel and Judah. In any case it is written in a form of the Old Hebrew character.
3. In the Other Books: In regard to the other books, the old script was used after Ezra's time. Esther 8:9 and Daniel 5:8 ff must refer to the unfamiliar Old Hebrew. So the Massoretic Text of Daniel 5:18 implies the New Hebrew, but only in the Law.
4. Evidence of the Septuagint: The Greek translation known as the Septuagint was made in Alexandria, and is hardly evidence for Palestine. The Law was probably translated under Ptolemy II (284-247 BC), and the other books by the end of the 2nd century BC (compare Ecclesiasticus, Prologue). The variations of the Septuagint from the Massoretic Text point to an early form of the square character as being in use; but the Jews of Egypt had used Aramaic for some centuries before that.
5. Evidence of the Text Itself: The variations between parallel passages in the Massoretic Text itself, such as Joshua 21:1-45 and 1 Chronicles 6:1-81; 2 Samuel 23:1-39 and 1 Chronicles 11:1-47, etc., show that the letters most frequently confused are "d" and "r", which are similar in both the Old and New Hebrew; "b" and "d", which are more alike in the Old Hebrew; "w" and "y" and several others, which are more alike in the New Hebrew. Such errors evidently arose from the use of the square character, and they arose subsequent to the Septuagint, for they are not, except rarely, found in it. The square character is, then, later than the Septuagint.
6. Conclusion: The square character was ascribed to Ezra as the last person who could have made so great a change, the text after his time being considered sacred. This is disproved by the fact of the coins of the Maccabees and of Bar Cochba being in the old character. The Talmud permits Jews resident outside Palestine to possess copies of the Law in Coptic, Median, Hebrew, etc. Here Hebrew can only mean the Old Hebrew script.
IV. Preservation of the Text. 1. Internal Conditions: Judaism has always been a book religion: it stands or falls with the Old Testament, especially with the Pentateuch. Although no manuscript of the Hebrew Old Testament is older than the 10th century AD, save for one minute papyrus, we know, from citations, translations, etc., that the consonantal text of the Old Testament was in the 1st century AD practically what it is today. The Jews transliterated as well as translated their Bible. All the most important translations--the Septuagint, Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus--were made by Jews and aimed at a more literal rendering of the Hebrew--that of Aquila being hardly Greek. The Syriac (Peshitta) seems to be also by Jews or Jewish Christians. Great care was taken of the text itself, and the slightest variant readings of manuscripts were noted. One manuscript belonging to Rabbi Meir (2nd century) is said to have omitted the references to "Admah and Zeboiim" in Deuteronomy 29:23 and to Bethlehem in Genesis 48:7, and to have had other lesser variations, some of which were found also in the manuscript which, among other treasures, decked the triumph of Vespasian (BJ, VII, v, 7).
2. External Circumstances: Religious persecution makes for the purity of the Scriptures by reducing the number of copies and increasing the care bestowed on those saved. The chief moments in which the existence of the Jewish Scriptures was threatened were the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple under Nebuchadnezzar in 587 BC, in which the Book of Jashar and that of the Wars of the Lord may have been lost; the persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes, during which the possession of the sacred books was a capital offense (1 Maccabees 1:56, 57; Ant, XII, v), in which the sources used by the Chronicler may have perished; and the capture of Jerusalem by Titus in 70 AD. By this time, however, the Law at least was known by heart. Josephus says Titus made him a gift of the sacred books (Vita, 75). It is also said that at one time only three copies of the Law were left, and that a text was obtained by taking the readings of two against one. However that may be, it is a fact that there are no variant readings in the Massoretic Text, such as there are in the New Testament.
3. The Septuagint Version: The only ancient version which can come into competition with the Massoretic Text is the Septuagint, and that on two grounds. First, the manuscripts of the Septuagint are of the 4th century AD, those of the Massoretic Text of the 10th. Secondly, the Septuagint translation was made before a uniform Hebrew text, such as our Massoretic Text, existed. The quotations in the New Testament are mainly from the Septuagint. Only in the Book of Jeremiah, however, are the variations striking, and there they do not greatly affect the sense of individual passages. The Greek has also the Apocrypha. The Septuagint is an invaluable aid to restoring the Hebrew where the latter is corrupt.
V. The Text in the 1st Century AD. The Massoretic Text of the 1st Christian century consisted solely of consonants of an early form of the square character. There was no division into chapters or, probably, verses, but words were separated by an interstice, as well as indicated by the final letters. The four vowel-letters were used most freely in the later books. A few words were marked by the scribes with dots placed over them.
1. Word Separation: The Samaritan Pentateuch still employs the point found on the Moabite Stone to separate words. This point was probably dropped when the books came to be written in the square character. Wrong division of words was not uncommon.
Tradition mentions 15 passages noted on the margin of the Hebrew Bible (Genesis 30:11, etc.) in which two words are written as one. One word is written as two in Judges 16:25; 1 Samuel 9:1, etc. Other passages in which tradition and text differ as to the word-division are 2 Samuel 5:2; Ezekiel 42:9; Job 38:12; Ezra 4:12. The Septuagint frequently groups the letters differently from the Massoretic Text, e.g. (see the commentaries) Hosea 11:2; 1 Chronicles 17:10; Psalms 73:4; 106:7.
2. Other Breaks in the Text: The verse-division was not shown in the prose books. The present division is frequently wrong and the Septuagint different from the Hebrew: e.g. Genesis 49:19-20; Psalms 42:6-7; Jeremiah 9:5-6; Psalms 90:2-3. Neither was there any division into chapters, or even books. Hence, the number of the psalms is doubtful. The Greek counts Psalms 9:1-20 and Psalms 10:1-18 as one, and also Psalms 114:1-8 and Psalms 115:1-18, at the same time splitting Psalms 116:1-19 and Psalms 147:1-20 each into two. The Syriac follows the Greek with regard to Psalms 114:1-8 and Psalms 147:1-20. Some manuscripts make one psalm of Psalms 42:1-11 and Psalms 43:1-5. In Acts 13:33, Codex Bezae, Psalms 2:1-12 appears as Psalms 1:1-6.
3. Final Forms of Letters: Final forms of letters are a result of the employment of ligatures. In the Old Hebrew they do not occur, nor apparently in the text used by the Septuagint. Ligatures begin to make their appearance in Egyptian, Aramaic, and Palmyrene. Final forms for the letters k, margin, n, p, ts, were accepted by the 1st century, and all other final forms were apparently rejected.
4. Their Origin: The first rabbi to mention the final forms is Mathiah ben Harash (a pupil of Rabbi Eleazar who died in 117 AD), who refers them to Moses. They are often referred to in the Talmud and by Jerome. The Samaritan Chronicle (11th century) refers them to Ezra. In point of fact, they are not so old as the Septuagint translation, as is proved by its variations in such passages as 1 Samuel 1:1; 20:40; Psalms 16:3; 44:5; Jeremiah 16:19; 14, 23, 33; Hosea 6:5; Nahum 1:12; Zechariah 11:11; Ecclesiastes 3:7. From the fact that the final forms make up the Hebrew expression for "from thy watchers," their invention was referred in the 3rd century to the prophets (compare Isaiah 52:8; Habakkuk 2:1).
5. Conclusion: After the adoption of the square character, therefore, the only breaks in the text of prose books were the spaces left between the words. Before the 1st century there was much uncertainty as to the grouping of the letters into words. After that the word-division was retained in the copies, even when it was not read (as in 2 Samuel 5:2, etc.). At first the final form would occur at the end of the ligature, not necessarily at the end of the word. Remains of this will be found in 1 Chronicles 27:12; Isaiah 9:6; Nehemiah 2:13; Job 38:1; 40:6. When the ligatures were discarded, these forms were used to mark the ends of words. The wonder is that there are not more, or even an initial, medial and final form for every letter, as in Arabic and Syriac.
6. The Vowel-Letters: The four letters, ', h, w, y, seem to have been used to represent vowel sounds from the first. They are found in the manuscripts, but naturally less freely on stone inscriptions than in books. The later the text the more freely they occur, though they are commoner in the Samaritan Pentateuch than in the Massoretic Text. The copies used by the Septuagint had fewer of them than the Textus Receptus, as is proved by their translations, of Amos 9:12; Ezekiel 32:29; Hosea 12:12, and other passages, The four letters occur on Jewish coins of the Hosea 2:11-23nd century BC and AD.
7. Anomalous Forms: In the 1st and 2nd centuries the vowel-letters were retained in the text, even when not read (Hosea 4:6; Micah 3:2, etc.). In the Pentateuch, Deuteronomy 32:13 seems to be the sole instance. The Pentateuch is peculiar also in that in it the 3rd person singular, masculine, of the personal pronoun is used for the feminine, which occurs only 11 times; Genesis 2:12; 14:2; compare Isaiah 30:33; 1 Kings 17:15; Job 31:11. This phenomenon probably arises from the stage in the growth of the script when waw (w) and yodh (y) were identical in form; compare Psalms 73:16; Ecclesiastes 5:8. Frequently the 1st person singular perfect of the verb is written defectively (Psalms 140:13; 2 Kings 18:20; compare Isaiah 36:5); similarly the "h" of na`arah (Deuteronomy 22:1-30). All this shows there was no attempt to correct the text. It was left as it was found.
8. The Dotted Words: When a scribe had miscopied a word he sometimes placed dots over it, without striking it out. There are 15 passages so marked in the Old Testament, and the word naqudh, "pointed," is generally placed in the margin. The word may also be read naqodh, "speckled" (Genesis 30:32), or niqqudh, "punctuation." It is also possible that these points may denote that the word is doubtful. They occur in the following places: Genesis 16:5; 18:9; 19:33; 33:4; 37:12; Numbers 3:39; 9:10; 21:30; 29:15; Deuteronomy 29:28 (29); Psalms 27:13; 2 Samuel 19:20; Isaiah 44:9; Ezekiel 41:20; 46:22. For conjectures as to the meanings of the points in each passage, the reader must be referred to the commentaries.
9. Their Antiquity: These points are found even on synagogue rolls which have, with one exception, no other marks upon them, beyond the bare consonants and vowel-letters. Only those in the Pentateuch and Psalms are mentioned in the Talmud or Midrashim, and only one, Numbers 9:10, in the Mishna before the end of the Numbers 2:11-34nd century, by which time its meaning had been lost. The lower limit, therefore, for their origin is the end of the 1st century AD. They have been, like most things not previously annexed by Moses, assigned to Ezra; but the Septuagint shows no sign of them. They, therefore, probably were inserted at the end of the 1st century BC, or in the 1st century AD. As four only occur in the Prophets and one in the Hagiographa, most care was evidently expended on the collation of the, Law. Blau thinks the reference originally extended to the whole verse or even farther, and became restricted to one or more letters.
10. The Inverted Nuns ("n"): In Numbers 10:35 and Numbers 36:1-13 are enclosed within two inverted nuns as if with brackets. In Psalms 107:1-43 inverted nuns should stand before verses Psalms 23:1-6-Psalms 28:1-9 and Psalms 40:1-17, with a note in the foot margin. These nuns were originally dots (Siphre' on Numbers) and stand for naqkudh, indicating that the verses so marked are in their wrong place (Septuagint Numbers 10:34-36).
11. Large and Small Letters: Large letters were used as our capitals at the beginnings of books, etc. Thus there should be a capital nun at the beginning of the second part of Isaiah. But they serve other purposes also. The large waw (w) in Leviticus 11:42 is the middle letter of the Torah; so in the Israelites' Credo (Deuteronomy 6:4). Other places are Deuteronomy 32:4, 6; Exodus 34:7, 14; Leviticus 11:30; 13:33; Isaiah 56:10, and often. Buxtorf's Tiberias gives 31 large and 32 small letters. Examples of the latter will be found in Genesis 2:4; 23:2; Leviticus 1:1; Job 7:5, etc. The explanations given are fanciful.
12. Suspended Letters and Divided Waw ("w"): There are four letters suspended above the line in the Massoretic Text. They will be found in Judges 18:30; Job 38:13, 15; Psalms 80:14 (13). The last probably indicates the middle letter of the Psalter. The first points to Manasseh being put for Moses. The two in Job are doubtful. In Numbers 25:12 will be found a waw cut in two, perhaps to indicate that the covenant was in abeyance for a time.
13. Abbreviations: Abbreviations are found on early Jewish inscriptions and on coins. Thus the letter shin stands for shanah = "year"; yodh sin = "Israel"; 'aleph = 1; beth = 2, etc. In the text used by the Septuagint the name Yahweh seem to have been indicated merely by a yodh, e.g. Psalms 31:7 (6), "I hate" = Septuagint 30:7, "Thou hatest" (compare 5:5), and the yodh of the Hebrew = "O Yahweh." In Judges 19:18 the Hebrew "house of Yahweh" = Septuagint "my house"; so Jeremiah 6:11; 25:37. A curious example will be found Jeremiah 3:19. The great corruption found in the numbers in the Old Testament is probably due to letters or ciphers being employed. For wrong numbers compare 2 Samuel 10:18; 24:13; 1 Kings 4:26 with parallel passages; also compare Ezra 2:1-70 with Nehemiah 7:1-73, etc. Possible examples of letters representing numbers are: Psalms 90:12, "so" = ken, and kaph plus nun = Psalms 20:1-9 plus Psalms 50:1-23 = Psalms 70:1-5; 1 Samuel 13:1, ben shanah is perhaps for ben n shanah, "fifty years old"; in 1 Samuel 14:14, an apparently redundant k is inserted after "twenty men"; k = 1 Samuel 20:1-42.
14. Conclusion: Such was the Hebrew text in the 1st Christian century. It was a Received Text obtained by collating manuscripts and rejecting variant readings. Henceforward there are no variant readings. But before that date there were, for the Greek and Samaritan often differ from the Hebrew. The Book of Jubilees (middle of 1st century) also varies. The fidelity of the scribes who drew up this text is proved by the many palpable errors which it contains.
VI. Alteration of Principal Documents. 1. Yahweh and Baal: For various reasons the original documents were altered by the scribes, chiefly from motives of taste and religion. In the earliest literary period there was no objection to the use of the divine name Yahweh; later this was felt to be irreverent, and 'Elohim was put in its place; later still Yahweh was written, but not pronounced. Hence, is Psalms 1:1-6 through Psalms 41:1-13, Yahweh occurs 272 times; 'Elohim is hardly used as a proper name; in Psalms 42:1-11 through Psalms 83:1-18 'Elohim occurs 200 times, Yahweh, only Psalms 44:1-26 times; compare especially Psalms 14:1-7 with Psalms 53:1-6; Psalms 40:14-17 with Psalms 70:1-5; 50:7 with Exodus 20:2. Lastly in Psalms 90:1-17 through Psalms 150:1-6 Yahweh is again used, and 'Elohim as a proper name does not occur except in citations in Psalms 108:1-13 and Psalms 144:9. Compare also 2 Kings 22:19 with 2 Chronicles 34:27. A precisely parallel change is that of Baal into bosheth ("shame"). At first there was no objection to compounding names with Baal meaning Yahweh (Judges 6:32; 8:35). Then objection was taken to it (Hosea 2:16 or 18), and it was changed into Bosheth (Jeremiah 3:24; Hosea 9:10); hence, Ishbosheth (2 Samuel 2:1-32 through 2 Samuel 4:1-12), Mephibosheth (2 Samuel 4:4), Eliada (2 Samuel 5:16), Jerrubesheth (2 Samuel 11:21). Later still the objection lost force and the old form was restored, Eshbaal (1 Chronicles 8:33, 1 Chronicles 9:1-444:1 Chronicles 29:30), Merribaal (1 Chronicles 8:34), Beeliada (1 Chronicles 14:7; compare 1 Chronicles 3:8). The Septuagint follows the Hebrew; it treats Baal as feminine, i.e. = Bosheth. So too Molech takes its vowels from Bosheth; it should be Melech.
2. Euphemistic Expressions: Words have been changed from motives of taste, e.g. "bless" is put for "curse" or "blaspheme" (1 Kings 21:10, Septuagint 20:10; Job 1:5; 5, 9, where the word "Lord" follows immediately; otherwise Exodus 22:27, etc.). Sometimes "the enemies of" was inserted (e.g. 2 Samuel 12:14). Another use for the latter expression is 1 Samuel 25:22, where it is not in the Greek Compare further, 2 Samuel 7:12, 14; 24:1, with the parallel passages in Ch.
3. "Tiqqun Copherim": In some 18 places the text was slightly altered by the correction (tiqqun) of the scribes, without any indication being inserted to show that it had been altered. The following are the passages: Genesis 18:22, which orginally ran "Yahweh stood before Abraham"; Numbers 11:15; 12:12; 1 Samuel 3:13; 2 Samuel 16:12; 20:1: Ezekiel 8:17; Habakkuk 1:12; Malachi 1:13; Zechariah 2:8 (12); Jeremiah 2:11; Job 7:20; Hosea 4:7; Job 32:3; Lamentations 3:20; Psalms 106:20. The remaining two, to make 18, may be accounted for either by the third containing more than one correction, or by counting the parallels to the sixth. The Septuagint ignores the supposed original forms of the text, except in the case of 1 Samuel 3:13 and Job 7:20. The Syriac has the supposed original form of Numbers 12:12 and Ciphre of Numbers 11:15, that is, it survived till the Numbers 2:11-34nd century AD. But the rest must have been corrected very early. Like the tiqqun is the `iTTur copherim, that is, the substraction or deletion of the conjunction "and" in five places, namely, Genesis 18:5; 24:55; Numbers 31:2 and Psalms 68:25 (26) before the word "after"; and in Psalms 36:6 (7) before "thy judgments."
VII. Scribal Errors in the Text. The Hebrew text of the Old Testament in no way resembles a text of one of the classics which is obtained by collating many manuscripts and eliminating all errors as far as possible. It is to all intents and purposes a manuscript, and displays all the forms of error found in all manuscripts. These are the following, classifying them according to their source.
1. Misunderstanding: Failure to understand the sense gives rise to wrong division into words, e.g. Amos 6:12, "with oxen" (plural) should probably be "with oxen (collective) the sea"; Jeremiah 15:10; 22:14; Psalms 73:4 have found their way into the text, e.g. Psalms 40:8-9, "In a volume of a book it is written `alay," referring to li in Psalms 40:7; 2 Samuel 1:18 (see Wellhausen).
2. Errors of the Eye: Due to the eye are repetitions, transpositions, omissions, mistaking one letter for another, and so forth. Repetitions will be found: 2 Samuel 6:3-4 (Septuagint); 1 Kings 15:6 (= 1 Kings 14:30); Exodus 30:6 (Septuagint); Leviticus 20:10; 1 Chronicles 9:35-44 = 1 Chronicles 8:29-38; Isaiah 41:1 (compare Isaiah 40:31); Isaiah 53:7; Psalms 35:15; 37:40, and very often. Omissions may be supplied from parallel passages or VSS, as 1 Chronicles 8:29-31 from 1 Chronicles 9:35-37; compare 1 Chronicles 9:41; Joshua 22:34 (from Syriac); Judges 16:2; Genesis 4:8 (Samaritan, Peshitta); Proverbs 10:10 Septuagint, Syriac); Proverbs 11:16 Septuagint, Syriac); 2 Samuel 17:3 (Septuagint). Transpositions of letters will be found (Joshua 6:13; Isaiah 8:12; compare Isaiah 8:13-14). Sometimes a letter slips from word into another, as in 1 Samuel 14:50-51; Jeremiah 18:23; Psalms 139:20. Other examples are Judges 10:12, and many times. Words are transposed in Psalms 35:7; 95:7; 1 Kings 6:17, etc. Examples of transposition of verses will be found: Genesis 244:2Ge 9:1-29b follows Genesis 244:30a; Isaiah 38:21-22 follows Isaiah 38:8; compare 2 Kings 20:6-8; Isaiah 40:19-20 should go with Isaiah 41:6 ff. Most omissions and repetitions are due to homoeoteleuton or homoearchy. Similar letters are frequently mistaken for one another. Examples are: d and r (Psalms 110:3; 2 Samuel 22:11; compare Psalms 18:11). Traditions mention 6 other places, as well as 154 in which waw and yodh are interchanged; other examples are: Joshua 9:4; Deuteronomy 14:13; compare Leviticus 11:14; 2 Chronicles 22:10; compare 2 Kings 11:1.
3. Errors of the Ear: Errors du to the ear would arise when one scribe was dictating to another. Such are: lo' = "not," for lo = "to him," in 15 places (Psalms 100:3, etc.). Also Yahweh and Adonai would be sounded alike. Again we have Adoram in 1 Kings 12:18 and Hadoram in 2 Chronicles 10:18.
4. Errors of Memory: Failure of memory in copying would explain the occurrence of synonymous words in parallel passages without any apparent motive, as for "I call" in 2 Samuel 22:7 and Psalms 18:7, and the interchange of Yahweh and Adonai. In Jeremiah 27:1 Jehoiakim should be Zedekiah.
5. Errors of Carelessness and Ignorance: Many of the scribal errors in the Massoretic Text are due to carelessness and ignorance: in Genesis 36:2, the last "daughter" should be "son"; Numbers 26:8, "son" for son, a common error; compare 1 Chronicles 3:22; 6:13 (28), Vashni means "and the second" (wehasheni); compare 1 Samuel 8:2; also in 1 Samuel 13:1 (compare above V, 13), where a number has dropped out, as also perhaps Isaiah 21:16, and 2 Samuel 3:7, where Ishbosheth has fallen like Mephibosheth. In 2 Samuel 23:18, 19 the first "three" should be "thirty." Compare also Genesis 3:10 (Syr); 2 Chronicles 22:6; Ezekiel 43:13, and often. The Books of Sirach seem to be the most carelessly copied of all the Old Testament books, though the text of Ezekiel is in some respects more unintelligible. In Jeremiah, the Septuagint is shorter by one-eighth than the Hebrew, but it is doubtful which is original.
VIII. History of the Text. The consonantal text of the Old Testament was what it now is by the 1st or at latest the 2nd Christian century. During the next four centuries it was minutely studied, the number of its words and even of its letters being counted. The results of this study are found chiefly in the Talmud. All such study was oral. During this period the text remained a purely consonantal text plus the puncta extraordinaria.
1. Changes Made in Reading: The text was not always read, however, exactly as it was written. Soon after the return from Babylon changes were made. Perhaps the earliest was that the proper name Yahweh was read Adonai, whence the Septuagint, and through it the New Testament "Lord." The reason will be found in Leviticus 24:11, where render "pronounced the name." Sometimes the change was due to motives of taste (Deuteronomy 28:30; 1 Samuel 6:11; 2 Kings 18:27); but the commonest ground was grammar or logic. Thus a word was frequently read which was not in the text at all (Judges 20:13; 2 Samuel 18:20); or a word was omitted in reading (2 Samuel 15:21; 2 Kings 5:18); or the letters of a word were transposed, as in Joshua 6:13; or one letter was put for another, especially waw for yodh or yodh for waw; or words were divided in reading otherwise than in the text (see above V, 1). The written text is called the Kethibh ("written"); what was read is called the Qere ("read").
2. Preservation of Text: The scribes during these centuries, besides fixing the reading, took means to preserve the text by counting the words and letters, and finding the middle verse (Judges 10:8; Isaiah 33:21), and so forth. The middle verse of the Law is Leviticus 8:7, and the middle of the words falls in Leviticus 10:16. The middle verse of the Hebrew Bible is Jeremiah 6:7. Note was made of words written abnormally (Hosea 10:14; Micah 1:15; Isaiah 3:8) and lists were made up. All such lists were retained in the mind; nothing was written.
3. Division into Verses: When the public reading of the Law was accompanied by an Aramaic translation (Nehemiah 8:8), the division of the text into verses would arise spontaneously. The Mishna gives rules for the number of verses to be read at a time before translating. These verses were separated by a space only, as the words were. Hence, versions frequently divide differently for the Hebrew, as Hosea 4:11; Isaiah 1:12. In the Hebrew itself there are 28 old verse divisions no longer observed (see Baer on Hosea 1:2). The space is called picqa' and the verse pacuq.
4. Sections of the Law: About the same time the Law was divided into sections (parashah) for the annual reading. In Palestine the Law was read through once in 3 1/2 years; in Babylon once a year. Hence, the Law is divided into 54 sections (Genesis 6:9; 12:1, etc.) for the annual reading. It is also divided into 379 "shut" sections, indicated by a space in the middle of a line, and 290 "open" sections, indicated by a space at the end of a line. In printed texts these sections are noted by the letters c and p, but, if they coincide with one of the 54, by ccc or ppp. The Palestinian division was into 154 cedharim.
5. Sections of the Prophets: From Maccabean times 54 passages (haphTaroth) were selected from the Prophets for the purposes of the synagogue (Luke 4:17). The Prophets were also divided into smaller sections. As in the case of the Law (Exodus 6:28), there are cases of false division (Isaiah 56:9; Haggai 1:15).
6. Poetical Passages: In the Hebrew Bible certain passages were early written in a peculiar way to resemble the bricks in the wall of a house, either in three columns, a half-brick upon a brick and a brick upon a half-brick (Exodus 15:1-27; Judges 5:1-31; 2 Samuel 22:1-51), or in two columns, a half-brick upon a half-brick and a brick upon a brick (Deuteronomy 32:1-52; Joshua 12:1-24; Esther 9:1-32). In the Septuagint, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiates, Canticles, Job are written in stichs; but that this was not done in Hebrew seems proved by the variations as to the number of lines (Psalms 65:8; 2, 11).
7. Division into Books: The number of books is 24, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles each counting as one, Ezr including Neh, the twelve Minor Prophets counting one book (Micah 3:12 is the middle). The Law counts 5 books, Psalms one, though the division of it into 5 books is ancient (compare Psalms 106:48 with 1 Chronicles 16:35-36). By joining Ruth to Judges and Lamentations to Jeremiah, the number 22 was obtained--the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet. When, probably about the 3rd century AD, leather rolls gave place to parchment books, it would be possible to have the whole Bible in one volume and the question of the order of the books would arise. The order in the Talmud is as follows: The Law (5), the Prophets (8), Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the XII, the Hagiographa or Kethubhim (11), Ruth, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiates, Canticles, Lamentation, Daniel, Esther, Ezra, Chronicles. The Prophets are usually subdivided into Former: Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings; and Latter: Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah and the XII. The traditional or "Masoretic" order places Isaiah before Jeremiah, and in the Hagiographa the order is: Chronicles, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Canticles, Ecclesiates, Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, the middle verse being Psalms 130:3. The order found in printed texts is that of German manuscripts. The books receive their names from a word near the beginning, from their contents, or from their supposed author.
IX. Vocalization of the Text. About the time of the Reformation it was the universal belief that the vowel-marks and other points were of equal antiquity with the consonants. The Jews believed Moses received them orally and Ezra reduced them to writing.
1. Antiquity of the Points: The first to assign a late date to the points was Elias Levita (1468-1549). The battle was fought out in the 17th century. Ludovicus Cappellus (died 1658) argued for a date about 600 AD. The Buxtorfs defended the old view. The following are the facts.
2. Probable Date of Invention: When the Septuagint was made, the Hebrew text had not even as many vowel-letters as it has now, and still less points; nor when the Syriac version was made in the 2nd century, or Jerome's Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) between 393-405, or the earlier Targums. Lastly, the points were unknown to the Talmud. They, therefore, did not exist before 600 AD. The earliest authority on the points is Aaron ben Asher of the school of Tiberias (died about 989). He wrote a copy of the Hebrew Bible with all the points, which became the standard codex. The probable date is, therefore, taken to be about the year 700; and this agrees with what was taking place in regard to Greek, Syriac and Arabic manuscripts. The Jews probably borrowed from the Syrians.
3. Various Systems and Recensions: No doubt, at first, many systems of pointing existed. Of these, two survived, the Palestinian and Babylonian, or superlinear. The chief features of the latter are that the signs are placed above the line; it has no sign for "e" (ceghol), and has but one system of accents. The Palestinian, the one familiar to us, exists in two recensions, those of Ben Asher and of his contemporary, Ben Naphtali of Babylon; hence, a Western and an Eastern.
X. The Palestinian System. Since the vocalization of the text took place about 700 AD, it will be understood that it differs considerably from the living language. What that was may be found from the transliteration of proper names in the Septuagint, in Origen and Jerome, and from a comparison with modern Arabic.
1. The Consonants: A comparison with Arabic indicates that the Hebrew letter cheth (ch), and it is certain from the Septuagint that the Hebrew letter `ayin (`), had each two distinct sounds. This difference is not shown in the pointing, though a point was used to distinguish the two sounds of "b", "g", "d", "k", "p", "t", and of "s", and "sh" and the two values of "h". The absence of this point is indicated by rapheh. The same point marks the doubling of a consonant. The gutturals and "r" are not doubled, though they certainly were when the language was spoken (compare Genesis 43:26; Ezekiel 16:4, etc.).
2. The Vowels: The system of vowel-marks attempts to reproduce the sounds exactly. Thus the short a-sound which must precede a guttural letter is indicated, and before a guttural "i" and "u" are replaced by "e" and "o". On the other hand, "y" before "i" does not seem to have been sounded in some cases. Thus the Septuagint has Israel, but Ieremias. Shewa' is said by Ben Asher to sound "i" before "y"; before a guttural it took the sound of the guttural's vowel, as mo'odh (me'odh), and had other values as well.
3. The Accents: There is a special accentual system for the poetical books, Proverbs, Psalms, and Job (except the prose parts). The titles and such marks as celah are in the Psalms accented as forming part of the verse. The accents had three values, musical, interpunctional, and strictly accentual. But these values have to do with the language, not as it was spoken, but as it was chanted in the public reading of the synagogue.
4. Anomalous Pointings: The words were not always pointed in the usual way, but sometimes according to subjective considerations. Thus the phrase "to see the face of God" is pointed "to appear before God," on account of Exodus 33:20 (Psalms 42:3; Isaiah 1:12). Similarly in Ecclesiastes 3:21, "which goeth upward" is put for "whether it goeth upward." See also Jeremiah 34:18; Isaiah 7:11. Frequently the punctuation is inconsistent with itself. Thus, `gathered to his peoples' (Genesis 35:29), but "gathered to my people" (singular, Genesis 49:29). So pelishtim, "Philistines," receives the article with prepositions, otherwise not. In many places two pointings are mixed, as if to give a choice of readings (Psalms 62:4; 68:3, and often).
XI. The Masorah. 1. Meaning of the Term: The Hebrew text as printed with all the points and accents is called the Masoretic text. Masorah, or better, Maccoreth, is derived from a root meaning "to hand down" (Numbers 31:5). This tradition began early. Rabbi Akiba (died 135) called it a "hedge about the Law." It tells the number of times a particular expression occurs, and mentions synonymous expressions, and so forth. The remarks placed in the side margin of the codex, often merely a letter denoting the number of times the word occurs, are called the Masorah parva. The notes were afterward expanded and placed in the top and bottom margins and called the Masorah magna. Notes too long for insertion in the margin were placed sometimes at the beginning, generally at the end of the codex, and called the Masorah finalis. The Masorah differs with different manuscripts; and there is an Eastern and a Western Masorah.
2. The "Qere" and "Kethibh": The oldest and most important part of the Masorah lies in the readings which differ from the written text, called Qere. These may represent, variant readings of manuscripts, especially of them called cebhir. The most are mere errata and corrigenda of the text. Such are the four Q. perpetua, 'adhonay (for YHWH), Jerusalem, Issachar and hu', in the case of which the read form is not appended at the foot of the page. Sometimes the emendation is right, as in Amos 8:8; compare Amos 9:5; sometimes the Kethibh represents an archaic form (Judges 9:8, 12; Isaiah 32:11).
A Qere was inserted at 1 Samuel 17:34 to correct a misprint in the Venice Bible of 1521.
3. Other Features: Other notes at the foot of the page draw attention to redundant or defective writing. Directions for the arrangement of the text are in Genesis 49:8; Deuteronomy 31:28, and elsewhere. Each book concludes with a note giving the number of verses, sections, middle verse and other particulars about the book. The second last verses of Isaiah, Malalachi, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes are repeated after the last, which is ill-omened.
XII. Manuscripts and Printed Texts. 1. Manuscripts: The manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible are not nearly so old as those of the Greek, old Hebrew manuscripts being generally destroyed. By far the oldest manuscript of any part of the Bible is the Papyrus Nash of about 150 AD, containing the Decalogue and Shema` (Deuteronomy 6:4). Next comes the Petersburg codex of the latter Prophets of 916 AD, though Ginsburg considers a manuscript of the Pentateuch (British Museum Orient. 4445) older. The pointing of the latter is Palestinian; of the former, supper-linear. The oldest manuscript of the whole Old Testament is dated 1010 AD.
2. Early Printed Texts: The following are the chief printed texts: The Psalter of 1477, place unknown, with commentary of Kimchi. The first few psalms are voweled; the Pentateuch, 1482, Bologna, with Rashi and Targum Onkelos; perhaps the Five Rolls appeared at the same time; the Prophets, unpointed, 1485-86, at Soncino, with Rashi and Kimchi; the Hagiographa, 1486-87, at Naples, with points, but not accents, and commentaries (In the last two YHWH and 'Elohim are spelled YHDH and 'Elodhim); the 2nd edition of the Pentateuch at Faro in Portugal, 1487, first without commentary; the editio princeps of the whole Old Testament with points and accents, but no commentary, finished at Soncino, February 14, 1488, reprinted in 1491-93, and in the Brescia Bible of 1494. The last was the one used by Luther. Owing to persecution, the next edition was not till 1511-1517.
3. Later Editions: The first Christian edition of the Hebrew text is that contained in the Complutensian Polyglot, finished July 10, 1517. It has many peculiarities, and first discarded the Masoretic sections for the Christian chapters, the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) being followed. The first rabbinic Bible--that is, pointed and accented text, with Masorah, Targums, and commentaries--was printed by Daniel Bomberg at Venice in 1516-17. The division of Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, and Ezra into two books each is first marked here in a purely Hebrew text, and the consonants of the Qere first given in the margin. Previously the vowels were inserted in the text only. Thus in Isaiah 44:14, Luther did not observe the small nun, taking it for a zayin. What is called, however, the editio princeps of the rabbihic Bible is Bomberg's second edition, edition by Jacob ben Chayyim (1524-25). This forms the standard edition of the Massoretic Text. Samuel and Kings are each treated as two books. Cebhirim are noticed for the first time, and the Qeres marked with q. The Polyglot of Arias Montanus (1567-71) used the dilatable letters', "h", "l", "t", "m", broadened to fill up lines, and first numbered the chapters (in Hebrew letters). Buxtorf's rabbinic Bible appeared in 1618-19; the Paris Polyglot in 1629-44; the London Polyglot of Walton in 1654-57, which first gives the Ethiopic and Persian VSS; that of Athias in 1661, which first inserted the numbers of Christian chapters in the clauses at the end of the books of the Law, the Mantua edition of 1744 inserting them for all the books. In the last is embodied the Masoretic commentary of Solomon de Norzi (1626). Recent editors are Baer and Ginsburg. Special mention must be made of the edition of Kittel which inserts the variant readings of the versions at the foot of the page.
4. Chapters and Verses: In modern editions of the Hebrew text the numbers of the Christian chapters are inserted. The chapters had their origin in the Vulgate, and are variously ascribed to Lanfranc (died 1089), Stephen Langton (died 1228), but with most probability to Hugo de Sancto Care (13th century). They mostly coincide with the Masoretic sections, and came in with the Polyglots from 1517 on, being used first in a purely Hebrew text in 1573-1574. Some modern editions mark the verses in the margin, the 5's in Hebrew letters, except 15, which is denoted by "Tw" = 9 plus 6, instead of "yh" = 10 plus 5, because the latter would = Yah. After the Clausula Masoretica at the end of Chronicles and elsewhere, there is an extended note taken from 1 Chronicles 19:13 (2 Samuel 10:12).
LITERATURE.
Benzinger, Hebraische Archaologie, Leipzig, 1894; Berger, Histoire de l'ecriture dans l'antiquite, Paris, 1892; Blau, Masoretische Untersuchungen, Strassburg, 1891; Einleitung in die heilige Schrift, Budapest, 1894; Studien zum althebraischen Buchwesen, Pt. I, Strassburg, 1902; Buhl, Canon and Text (English translation by J. Macpherson), Edinburgh, 1892; Butin, The Ten Nequdoth of the Torah, Baltimore, 1906; Buxtorf (father), Tiberias side Commentarius Masorethicus, Basel, 1620; Buxtorf (son), Tractatus de Punctorum Origins, etc., Basel, 1648; Cappellus, Arcanum Punctationis Revelatum, Leyden, 1624; Chwolson, Corpus Inscriptionum Hebraicarum, Petersburg, 1882; Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text of Samuel, Oxford, 1913; Edersheim, History of the Jewish Nation, London, 1896; Etheridge, Jerusalem and Tiberias ("Post-Biblical Hebrew Literature"), London, 1856; Frankel, Ueber palastinische und alexandrinische Schriftforschung, Breslau, 1854; Geden, The Massoretic Notes Contained in the Edition of the Hebrew Scriptures, Published by the British and Foreign Bible Society, London, 1905; Geiger, Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel, Breslau, 1857; Ginsburg, Introduction to the .... Hebrew Bible, London, 1897; The Massorah, London, 1880-85; Kennedy, The Note-Line in the Hebrew Scriptures, Edinburgh, 1903; Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient manuscripts, London, 1898; King, The Psalms in Three Collections (on the triennial cycle), Cambridge, 1898; Konig, Einleitung in das Altes Testament, Bonn, 1893; Loisy, Histoire critique du texts et des versions de la Bible, Paris, 1892-95; Nowack, Lehrbuch der hebraischen Archaologie, Freiburg and Leipzig, 1894; De Rouge, Memoire sur l'origine egyptienne de l'alphabet phenicien, Paris, 1874; Schurer, Geschichte des judischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi (English translation by John Macpherson and others), Edinburgh, 1890; Schwab, Jerusalem Talmud (French translation), Paris, 1871-90; Strack, Prolegomena Critica in Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum, Leipzig, 1873; Einleitung in den Talmud, Lelpzig, 1894; Taylor, The Alphabet, London, 1883; T.H. Weir, A Short History of the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament, London, 1907; Winckler, Die Thontafeln yon Tell-el-Amarna, Berlin, 1896; The Tell-el-Amarna Letters, Berlin, London and New York, 1896; Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, Hamburg and Leipzig, 1715-33; Wunsche, Bibliotheca Rabbinica, Leipzig, 1880.
Encyclopaedias:
Cheyne and Black, EB, London, 1899-1903; Fairbairn, Imperial Bible Dict., London, 1866 ("OT," "Scriptures," "Writing," by D. H. Weir); HDB, Edinburgh, 1898-1904 ("Text of the Old Testament," by H. L. Strack); Herzog, RE, Leipzig, 1896 ff; Jew Encyclopedia, New York and London, 1901-6; Vigoureux, Dictionnaire de la Bible, Paris, 1891 ff.
Hebrew texts:
Dikduke ha Te`amim des Ahron .... ben Asher, edition by Baer and Strack, Leipzig, 1879; Massoreth ha-Massoreth of Elias Levita, with English translation and notes by C.D. Ginsburg, London, 1867; Midrash hag-Gadol: Genesis, edition by S. Schechter, Cambridge, 1902; Das Buch, Ochla Weochla, edition by Frensdorff, Hanover, 1864; Mishna, With Latin translation, by Guil. Surenhusius, Amsterdam, 1698-1703; Sifra, edition by Jacob Schlossberg, Vienna, 1862; Sifre, edition by M. Friedmann (first part), Vienna, 1864; Soferim, edition by Joel Muller, Vienna, 1878; Babylonian Talmud, edition (With German translation) by Lazarus Goldschmidt, Berlin, 1896--.
Periodicals:
Academy, XXXI, 454 "The Moabite Stone"; Good Words, 1870, 673, "The Moabite Stone," by D. H. Weir; Jewish Quarterly Review: Dr. A. Buchler on "The Triennial Cycle," V, 420, VI, 1; "E. G. King on the Influence of the Triennial Cycle upon the Psalter," by I. Abrahams, April, 1904; "Neue Masoretische Studien," by Blau, January, 1904; "On the Decalogue Papyrus," by F. C. Burkitt, April, 1903; Journal of Theological Studies, V, 203, "The Influence of the Triennial Cycle upon the Psalter," by E. G., King; PEF: "Heb Mosaic Inscription at Kerr Kenna," by Clermont-Ganneau, October, 1901; "On the Siloam Inscription," 1881, 198; "On the Excavations at Taanach and Megiddo," 1904, 180, 1905, 78; Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology: E. J. Pilcher, "On the Date of the Siloam Inscription," XIX, 165, XX, 213; "On the Decalogue Papyrus," by S. A. Cook, January, 1903 "Hebrew Illuminated manuscripts of the Bible of the 11th and 12th Centuries," by M. Caster, XXII, 226; Scottish Review, IX, 215, "The Apocryphal Character of the Moabite Stone," by Albert Lowy; Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica, III, 1, "The Introduction of the Square Characters in Biblical Manuscripts, and an Account of the Earliest Manuscripts of the Old Testament, with a Table of Alphabets and Facsimiles," by Ad. Neubauer; Mittheilungen und Nachrichten des deutschen Palaestina-Vereins: "On the Excavations at Taanach," by Sellin, 1902, 13, 17, 33, 1903, 1, and 1905, number 3; "On the Excavations at Tell el Mutesellim," by Schumacher, 1904, 14, 33, and 1906, number 3; and by Benzinger, 1904, 65; Zeitschrift des deutschen Palaestina-Vereins: "On the Siloam Inscription," by Socin, XXII, 61; Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenlandischen Gesellschaft: "Zur Geschichte der hebraischen Accents," by P. Kahle, 1901, 167.
Thomas Hunter Weir
Thaddaeus
Thaddaeus - tha-de'-us (Thaddaios): One of the Twelve Apostles (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18). In Matthew 10:3 the King James Version, the reading is "Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus." The name corresponds to Judas, the son (Revised Version), or brother (the King James Version), of James, given in the lists of Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13.
See JUDAS,NOT ISCARIOT ; LEBBAEUS.
The "Gospel of the Ebionites," or "Gospel of the Twelve Apostles," of the 2nd century and mentioned by Origen, narrates that Thaddaeus was also among those who received their call to follow Jesus at the Sea of Tiberias (compare Matthew 4:18-22).
See also SIMON THE CANANAEAN .
According to the "Genealogies of the Twelve Apostles" (compare Budge, Contendings of the Apostles,II , 50), Thaddaeus was of the house of Joseph; according to the "Book of the Bee" he was of the tribe of Judah. There is abundant testimony in apocryphal literature of the missionary activity of a certain Thaddaeus in Syria, but doubt exists as to whether this was the apostle. Thus (1) according to the "Acts of Peter" (compare Budge,II , 466 ff) Peter appointed Thaddaeus over the island of Syria and Edessa. (2) The "Preaching of the blessed Judas, the brother of our Lord, who was surnamed Thaddaeus" (Budge, 357 ff), describes his mission in Syria and in Dacia, and indicates him as one of the Twelve. (3) The "Acta Thaddaei" (compare Tischendorf, Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha, 1851, 261 ff) refers to this Thaddaeus in the text as one of the Twelve, but in the heading as one of the Seventy. (4) The Abgar legend, dealing with a supposed correspondence between Abgar, king of Syria, and Christ, states in its Syriac form, as translated by Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, I, xiii, 6-22) (compare THOMAS), that "after the ascension of Christ, Judas, who was also called Thomas, sent to Abgar the apostle Thaddaeus, one of the Seventy" (compare Hennecke, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, 76 ff). Jerome, however, identifies this same Thaddaeus with Lebbaeus and "Judas .... of James" of Luke (Luke 6:16). Hennecks (op. cit., 473, 474) surmises that in the original form of the Abgar legend Thomas was the central figure, but that through the influence of the later "Acts of Thomas", which required room to be made for Thomas' activity in India, a later Syriac recension was made, in which Thomas became merely the sender of Thaddaeus to Edessa, and that this was the form which Eusebius made use of in his translation According to Phillips (compare Phillips, The Doctrine of Addai the Apostle), who quotes Zahn in support, the confusion may be due to the substitution of the Greek name Thaddaeus for the name Addai of the Syriac manuscripts.
See APOCRYPHAL ACTS.
The general consensus seems to indicate, however, that both Thomas and Thaddaeus the apostle had some connection with Edessa. Of the various identifications of Thaddaeus with other Biblical personages which might be inferred from the foregoing, that with "Judas .... of James" is the only one that has received wide acceptance.
The burial place of Thaddaeus is variously placed at Beirut and in Egypt. A "Gospel of Thaddaeus" is mentioned in the Decree of Gelasius.
C. M. Kerr
Thahash
Thahash - tha'-hash.
See TAHASH.
Thamah
Thamah - tha'-ma.
See TEMAH.
Thamar
Thamar - tha'-mar (Thamar): the King James Version; Greek form of "Tamar" (thus Matthew 1:3 the Revised Version (British and American)). Mother of Perez and Zerah.
Thammuz
Thammuz - tham'-uz (tammuz).
See TAMMUZ.
Thamnatha
Thamnatha - tham'-na-tha.
See TIMNATH.
Thank Offering
Thank Offering - See SACRIFICE.
Thank; Thanks; Thanksgiving
Thank; Thanks; Thanksgiving - thank, thanks, thanks-giv'-ing, thanks'-giv-ing: Both the verb and the nouns appear almost uniformly for yadhah, and eucharisteo, and their cognates. Eucharisteo is the usual Greek verb for "to thank," but yadhah takes on this force only through its context and is rather a synonym for "raise" or "bless" (which see) Septuagint renders yadhah usually by exomologeo, "speak forth together" "praise" (compare Tobit 12:20; Sirach 39:6, etc., and the use of "thank" in English Versions of the Bible to correspond), and this verb reappears in Matthew 11:25 parellel Luke 10:21, with English "thank" (the Revised Version margin "praise"). Compare the use of anthomologeomai (Luke 2:38) and homologeo (Hebrews 13:15, the King James Version "giving thanks," the Revised Version (British and American) "make confession"; the King James Version is preferable). For charis in the sense of "thanks" (note the singular "thank" in the King James Version Sirach 20:16; Luke 6:32-34), see GRACE. 1 Peter 2:19 the King James Version has "thankworthy" for charis, the Revised Version (British and American) "acceptable," the Revised Version margin "grace."
Burton Scott Easton
Thara
Thara - tha'-ra, thar'-a (Thara): the King James Version; Greek form of "Terah" (thus, Luke 3:34 the Revised Version (British and American)).
Tharra
Tharra - thar'-a (Tharra): One of the two eunuchs, "keepers of the court," who with his companion Gabatha (Bigthan) formed a conspiracy against King Artaxerxes which was detected by Mordecai (Additions to Esther 12:1 = "Teresh" of Esther 2:21; 6:2). Tharra and his companion were hanged. Josephus (BJ, II, vi, 4) calls him "Theodestes."
Tharshish
Tharshish - thar'-shish (tarshish).
See TARSHISH.
Thassi
Thassi - thas'-i (Codex Venetus Thassei; Codex Vaticanus Thassis): The surname of Simon, the brother of Judas Maccabeus (1 Maccabees 2:3; Syriac "Tharsi"). It is uncertain what the name means, perhaps "director" or "guide," since Simon was "a man of counsel," or "the zealous."
That Day
That Day - See DAY OF THE LORD.
Theatre
Theatre - the'-a-ter (Acts 19:29, 31).
See GAMES.
Thebes
Thebes - thebz.
See NO-AMON.
Thebez
Thebez - the'-bez (tebhets, "'brightness"; Codex Vaticanus Thebes; Codex Alexandrinus Thaibais): A city in Mt. Ephraim which refused submission to Abimelech when he set up as king of Israel. After the reduction of Shechem he turned his arms against Thebez. There was a strong tower within the city--the citadel--into which all the inhabitants gathered for safety, climbing onto the roof of the tower. Abimelech incautiously venturing near the tower, a woman cast an upper millstone upon his head and broke his skull. Fearing the shame of perishing by the hand of a woman, he persuaded his armor-bearer to thrust him through (Judges 9:50 ff). The incident is alluded to in 2 Samuel 11:21. Eusebius, Onomasticon places it 13 Roman miles from Neapolis (Nablus) on the road to Scythopolis (Beisan). There is no doubt that it is represented by Tubas. This is a village situated in a district of considerable fertility, about 10 miles from Nablus. There are many olive trees. The rain is captured and led to rockcut cisterns, whence the village draws its water-supply. According to the Samaritans the tomb of Neby Toba marks the grave of the patriarch Asher.
W. Ewing
Thecoe
Thecoe - the-ko'-e (1 Maccabees 9:33).
See TEKOA.
Thee-ward
Thee-ward - the'-werd. "To thee-ward" (1 Samuel 19:4) = toward thee.
See WARD.
Theft
Theft - See CRIMES ; PUNISHMENTS.
Thelasar
Thelasar - the-la'-sar (tela'ssar, telassar).
See TELASSAR.
Thelersas
Thelersas - the-lur'-sas (Thelersas (1 Esdras 5:36)).
See TEL-HARSHA.
Theocanus
Theocanus - the-ok'-a-nus: 1 Esdras 9:14 the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and American) "Thocanus."
Theocracy
Theocracy - the-ok'-ra-si (theokratia, from theos, "a god," and kratos, "power"; after the analogy of the words "democracy," "aristocracy," and the like): "Theocracy" is not a Biblical word. The idea, however, is Biblical, and in strictness of speech exclusively Biblical. The realization of the idea is not only confined to Israel, but in the pre-exilic history of Israel the realization of the idea was confined to the Southern Kingdom, and in post-exilic history to the period between the return under Ezra and the days of Malachi.
For the word "theocracy" we are, by common consent, indebted to Josephus. In his writings it seems to occur but once (Apion, II, xvi). The passage reads as follows: "Our lawgiver had an eye to none of these," that is, these different forms of government, such as monarchy, aristocracy, oligarchy, and others of which Josephus had been speaking, "but, as one might say, using a strained expression, he set forth the national polity as a theocracy, referring the rule and might to God" (Stanton's translation). It is generally agreed that the language here used indicates that Josephus knew himself to be coining a new word.
If, now, we turn from the word to the Old Testament idea to which it gives fitting and apt expression, that idea cannot be better stated than it has been by Kautzsch--namely, "The notion of theocracy is that the constitution (of Israel) was so arranged that all the organs of government were without any independent power, and had simply to announce and execute the will of God as declared by priest and prophets, or reduced to writing as a code of laws" (HDB, extra vol, 630, 1, init.). The same writer is entirely correct when he says that in what is known in certain circles as "the PC"--though he might have said in the Old Testament generally--"everything, even civil and criminal law, is looked at from the religious standpoint" (ibid., ut supra).
If the foregoing be a correct account of the idea expressed by the word "theocracy," and particularly if the foregoing be a correct account of the Old Testament representation of God's relation to, and rule in and over Israel, it follows as a matter of course that the realization of such an idea was only possible within the sphere of what is known as special revelation. Indeed, special revelation of the divine will, through divinely-chosen organs, to Divinely appointed executive agents, is, itself, the very essence of the idea of a theocracy.
That the foregoing is the Old Testament idea of God's relation to His people is admitted to be a natural and necessary implication from such passages as Judges 8:23; 1 Samuel 8:1-22; compare 1 Samuel 12:12; 2 Chronicles 13:8; 2 Samuel 7:1-17; Psalms 89:27; Deuteronomy 17:14-20.
Upon any other view of the origin of the Old Testament books than that which has heretofore prevailed, it is certainly a remarkable fact that whenever the books of the Old Testament were written, and by whomsoever they may have been written, and whatever the kind or the number of the redactions to which they may have been subjected, the conception--the confessedly unique conception--of a government of God such as that described above by Kautzsch is evidenced by these writings in all their parts. This fact is all the more impressive in view of the further fact that we do not encounter this sharply defined idea of a rule of God among men in any other literature, ancient or modern. For while the term "theocracy" occurs in modern literature, it is evidently used in a much lower sense. It is futher worth remarking that this Old Testament idea of the true nature of God's rule in Israel has only to be fully apprehended for it to become obvious that many of the alleged analogies between the Old Testament prophet and the modern preacher, reformer and statesman are wholly lacking in any really solid foundation.
W. M. McPheeters
Theodotion
Theodotion - the-o-do'-shi-un.
See LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT; SEPTUAGINT.
Theodotus
Theodotus - the-od'o-tus (Theodotos):
(1) One of the three ambassadors sent by the Syrian general Nicanor to Judas to make peace (2 Maccabees 14:19).
(2) One who plotted to assassinate Ptolemy Philopator, but was prevented by a Jew, Dositheos (3 Maccabees 1:2 f).
Theology
Theology - the-ol'-o-ji.
See BIBLICAL THEOLOGY; JOHANNINE THEOLOGY; PAULINE THEOLOGY.
Theophilus
Theophilus - the-of'-i-lus (Theophilos, "loved of God"): The one to whom Luke addressed his Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles (compare Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1). It has been suggested that Theophilus is merely a generic term for all Christians, but the epithet "most excellent" implies it was applied by Luke to a definite person, probably a Roman official, whom he held in high respect. Theophilus may have been the presbyter who took part in sending the letter from the Corinthians to Paul, given in the "Acta Pauli" (compare Hennecke, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, 378). There is also a magistrate Theophilus mentioned in the "Acts of James" as being converted by James on his way to India (compare Budge, The Contendings of the Apostles,II , 299), but these and other identifications, together with other attempts to trace out the further history of the original Theophilus, are without sufficient evidence for their establishment (compare also Knowling in The Expositor Greek Testament,II , 49-51).
C. M. Kerr
Theras
Theras - the'-ras (Thera): The river by which the company assembled in preparation for the march to Jerusalem under Ezra (1 Esdras 8:41, 61). In Ezra 8:21, 31 the name of the river is Ahava. Possibly the place is represented by the modern Hit on the Euphrates; but no certain identification is possible.
Thermeleth
Thermeleth - thur'-me-leth (Thermeleth (1 Esdras 5:36)).
See TEL-MELAH.
Thessalonians, the First Epistle of Paul to The
Thessalonians, the First Epistle of Paul to The - thes-a-lo'-ni-anz
I. IMPORTANCE OF THE EPISTLE
II. CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE FOUNDING OF THE CHURCH
1. Luke's Narrative in Acts
2. Confirmation of Luke's Narrative in the Epistle
III. CONDITIONS IN THE THESSALONIAN CHURCH AS INDICATED IN THE LETTER
IV. ANALYSIS WIENER, ORIGIN OF THE PENTATEUCH THE EPISTLE
1. Paul's Past and Present Relations with the Thessalonians and His Love for Them
2. Exhortations against Vice, and Comfort and Warning in View of the Coming of Christ
V. DOCTRINAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE EPISTLE
VI. THE EPISTLE'S REVELATIONS OF PAUL'S CHARACTERISTICS
LITERATURE
I. The Importance of the Epistle. The letter is especially important as a witness to the content of the earliest Gospel, on account of its date and its well-nigh unchallenged authenticity. According to Harnack it was written in the year 48 AD; according to Zahn, in the year 53. It is likely that these two dates represent the extreme limits. We are thus justified in saying with confidence that we have before us a document that could not have been written more than 24 years, and may very easily have been written but 19 years, after the ascension of our Lord. This is a fact of great interest in view of the contention that the Jesus of the four Gospels is a product of the legend-making propensity of devout souls in the latter part of the 1st century. When we remember that Paul was converted more than 14 years before the writing of the Epistles, and that he tells us that his conversion was of such an overwhelming nature as to impel him in a straight course from which he never varied, and when we note that at the end of 14 years Peter and John, having fully heard the gospel which he preached, had no corrections to offer (Galatians 1:11 through Galatians 2:10, especially Galatians 2:6-10), we see that the view of Christ and His message given in this Epistle traces itself back into the very presence of the most intimate friends of Jesus. It is not meant by this that the words of Paul or the forms of his teaching are reproductions of things Jesus said in the days of His flesh, but rather that the conception which is embodied in the Epistle of the person of Christ and of His relation to the Father, and of His relation also to the church and to human destiny, is rooted in Christ's own self-revelation.
II. Circumstances of the Founding of the Church. 1. Luke's Narrative in Acts: For the founding of the church we have two sources of information, the Book of Acts and the Epistle itself. Luke's narrative is found in Acts 17:1-34. Here we are told that Paul, after leaving Philippi, began his next siege against entrenched paganism in the great market center of Thessalonica. He went first into the synagogues of the Jews, and for three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures. Some of them, Luke tells us, "were persuaded, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few." This very naturally excited the jealousy of the Jews who found themselves losing the social prestige that came from having a large number of Greeks, including some of the nobility, resorting to them for instruction. Accordingly, they raised a mob of the worst men in town and brought the leading members of the church before the magistrate. These brethren, Jason and certain others, who seem to have been men of some property, were compelled to give bond to preserve the peace, and the intense feeling against Paul made it necessary for him, for the sake of these brethren as well as for his personal safety, to flee from the city.
2. Confirmation of Luke's Narrative in the Epistle:
The historicity of Luke's story of the founding of the church is strongly supported by the text of the Epistle. Paul, for instance, notes that the work in Thessalonica began after they had been shamefully entreated at Philippi (1 Thessalonians 2:2). He bears witness also in the same verse to the conflict in the midst of which the Thessalonian church was founded (see also 1 Thessalonians 2:14). Paul's exhortation to salute all the brethren with a holy kiss, his solemn adjuration that this letter be read unto all the brethren (1 Thessalonians 5:26-27), and his exhortation to despise not prophesying (1 Thessalonians 5:20) are harmonious with Luke's account of the very diverse social elements out of which the church was formed: diversities that would very easily give rise to a disposition on the part of the more aristocratic to neglect the cordial greetings to the poorer members, and to despise their uncouth testimonies to the grace of God that had come to them (Acts 17:4).
Paul tells us that he was forced to labor for his daily bread at Thessalonica (1 Thessalonians 2:9). Luke does not make mention of this, but he tells us of his work at tent-making in the next town where he made a considerable stop (Acts 18:1-3), and thus each statement makes the other probable.
Perhaps, however, the most marked corroboration of the Acts which we have in the letter is the general harmony of its revelation of the character of Paul with that of the Acts. The reminiscences of Paul's work among them (1 Thessalonians 2:1-12) correspond, for instance, in a marked way, in essence though not in style and vocabulary, with Luke's report of Paul's account of the method and spirit of his work at Ephesus (Acts 20:17-35). This, however, is only one of many correspondences which could be pointed out and which will at once be evident to anyone who will read the letter, and then go over Acts 13:1-52 through Acts 28:1-31.
It may seem irrelevant thus to emphasize the historicity of Acts in an article on Thessalonians, but the witness of the Epistle to the historicity of the Gospels and of Acts is for the present moment one of its most important functions.
III. Conditions in the Thessalonian Church as Indicated in the Letter.
A New Testament epistle bears a close resemblance to a doctor's prescription. It relates itself to the immediate situation of the person to whom it is directed. If we study it we can infer with a great deal of accuracy the tendencies, good or bad, in the church. What revelation of the conditions at Thessalonica is made in the First Epistle? Plainly, affairs on the whole are in a very good state, especially when one takes into account the fact that most of the members had been out of heathenism but a few months. They were so notably devoted to God that they were known all over Macedonia as examples to the church (1 Thessalonians 1:7). In particular the Christian grace of cordial good will toward all believers flourished among them: a grace which they doubtless had good opportunity to exercise in this great market town to which Christians from all parts would resort on business errands and where there would be constant demands on their hospitality (1 Thessalonians 4:9-10).
There were, however, shadows in the picture. Some persons were whispering dark suspicions against Paul. Perhaps, as Zahn suggests, they were the unbelieving husbands of the rich ladies who had become members of the church. It was in answer to these criticisms that he felt called upon to say that he was not a fanatic nor a moral leper, nor a deceiver (1 Thessalonians 2:3). When he is so careful to remind them that he was not found at any time wearing a cloak of covetousness, but rather went to the extreme of laboring night and day that he might not be chargeable to any of them (1 Thessalonians 2:9), we may be sure that the Christians were hearing constant jibes about their money-making teacher who had already worked his scheme with the Philippians so successfully that they had twice sent him a contribution (Philippians 4:16). Paul's peculiar sensitiveness on this point at Corinth (1 Corinthians 9:14-15) was possibly in part the result of his immediately preceding experiences at Thessalonica.
One wonders whether Greece was not peculiarly infested at this time with wandering philosophers and religious teachers who beat their way as best they could, living on the credulity of the unwary.
Paul's anxiety to assure them of his intense desire to see them and his telling of his repeated attempts to come to them (1 Thessalonians 2:17-20) show rather plainly also that his absence had given rise to the suspicion that he was afraid to come back, or indeed quite indifferent about revisiting them. "We would fain have come unto you," he says, "I Paul once and again; and Satan hindered us."
Some also were saying that Paul was a flatterer (1 Thessalonians 2:5), who was seeking by this means to carry out unworthy ends. This sneer indeed, after the reading of the letter, would come quite naturally to the superficial mind. Paul's amazing power to idealize his converts and see them in the light of their good intentions and of the general goal and trend of their minds is quite beyond the appreciation of a shallow and sardonic soul.
More than this, we can see plain evidence that the church was in danger of the chronic heathen vice of unchastity (1 Thessalonians 4:3-8). The humble members also, in particular, were in danger of being intoxicated by the new intellectual and spiritual life into which they had been inducted by the gospel, and were spending their time in religious meetings to the neglect of their daily labor (1 Thessalonians 4:10-12). Moreover, some who had lost friends since their baptism were mourning lest at the second coming of Christ these who had fallen asleep would not share in the common glory (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18). This is a quaint proof of the immaturity of their view of Christ, as though a physical accident could separate from His love and care. There was likewise, as suggested above, the ever-present danger of social cliques among the members (1 Thessalonians 5:13, 15, 20, 26-27). It is to this condition of things that Paul pours forth this amazingly vital and human Epistle.
IV. Analysis of the Epistle. The letter may be divided in several ways. Perhaps as simple a way as any is that which separates it into two main divisions.
First, Paul's past and present relations with the Thessalonians, and his love for them (1 Thessalonians 1:1 through 1 Thessalonians 3:13):
1. Paul's Past and Present Relations with the Thessalonians and His Love for Them:
(1) Greeting and Thanksgiving (1 Thessalonians 1:1-10).
(2) Paul reminds them of the character of his life and ministry among them (1 Thessalonians 2:1-12).
(3) The sufferings of the Thessalonians the same as those endured by their Jewish brethren (1 Thessalonians 2:13-16).
(4) Paul's efforts to see them (1 Thessalonians 2:17-20).
(5) Paul's surrender of his beloved helper in order to learn the state of the Thessalonian church, and his joy over the good news which Timothy brought (1 Thessalonians 3:1-13).
Second, exhortations against vice, and comfort and warning in view of the coming of Christ (1 Thessalonians 4:1-5, 18):
2. Exhortations against Vice, and Comfort and Warning in View of the Coming of Christ:
(1) Against gross vice (1 Thessalonians 4:1-8).
(2) Against idleness (1 Thessalonians 4:9-12).
(3) Concerning those who have fallen asleep (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18).
(4) Concerning the true way to watch for the Coming (1 Thessalonians 5:1-11).
(5) Sundry exhortations (1 Thessalonians 5:12-28).
V. Doctrinal Implications of the Epistle. The Epistle to the Thessalonians is not a doctrinal letter. Paul's great teaching concerning salvation by faith alone, apart from the works of the Law, is not sharply defined or baldly stated, and the doctrine of the cross of Christ as central in Christianity is here implied rather than enforced. Almost the only doctrinal statement is that which assures them that those of their number who had fallen asleep would not in any wise be shut out from the rewards and glories at Christ's second coming (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18). But while the main doctrinal positions of Paul are not elaborated or even stated in the letter, it may safely be said that the Epistle could scarcely have been written by one who denied those teachings. And the fact that we know that shortly before or shortly after Paul wrote the Epistle to the Galatians, and the fact that he so definitely describes his attitude at this very time toward the preaching of the cross of Christ, in his reminiscences in 1 Corinthians (see especially 1 Corinthians 2:1-5), show how foolish it is to assume that an author has not yet come to a position because he does not constantly obtrude it in all that he writes.
The Epistle, however, bears abundant evidence to the fact that this contemporary of Jesus had seen in the life and character and resurrection of Jesus that which caused him to exalt Him to divine honors, to mention Him in the same breath with God the Father, and to expect His second coming in glory as the event which would determine the destiny of all men and be the final goal of history. As such the letter, whose authenticity is now practically unquestioned, is a powerful proof that Jesus was a personality as extraordinary as the Jesus of the first three Gospels. And even the Christ of the Fourth Gospel is scarcely more exalted than He who now with God the Father constitutes the spiritual atmosphere in which Christians exist (1 Thessalonians 1:1), and who at the last day will descend from heaven with a shout and with the voice of an archangel and the trump of God, and cause the dead in Christ to rise from their tombs to dwell forever with Himself (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17).
VI. The Epistle's Revelations of Paul's Characteristics.
We notice in the letter the extreme tactfulness of Paul. He has some plain and humiliating warnings to give, but he precedes them in each case with affectionate recognition of the good qualities of the brethren. Before he warns against gross vice he explains that he is simply urging them to continue in the good way they are in. Before he urges them to go to work he cordially recognizes the love that has made them linger so long and so frequently at the common meeting-places. And when in connection with his exhortations about the second coming he alludes to the vice of drunkenness, he first idealizes them as sons of the light and of the day to whom, of course, the drunken orgies of those who are "of the night" would be unthinkable. Thus by a kind of spiritual suggestion he starts them in the right way.
LITERATURE.
Bishop Alexander, the Speaker's Commentary (published in America under the title, The Bible Comm., and bound with most excellent commentaries on all of the Pauline Epistles), New York, Scribners; Milligan, The Epistles to the Thessalonians (the Greek text with Introduction and notes), London, Macmillan; Moffatt, The Expositor's Greek Test. (bound with commentaries by various authors on the Pastoral Epistles, Philemon, Hebrews and James), New York, Dodd, Mead and Co.; Frame, ICC, New York, Scribners; Stevens, An American Commentary on the New Testament, Philadelphia, American Baptist Publication Society; Adeney, The New Century Bible, "1 and 2 Thessalonians" and "Galatians," New York, Henry Frowde; Findlay, "The Epistles to the Thessalonians," Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, New York, Putnams; James Denney, "The Epistles to the Thessalonians," Expositor's Bible, New York, Doran; the two latter are especially recommended as inexpensive, popular and yet scholarly commentaries. The Cambridge Bible is a verse-by-verse commentary, and Professor Denney on "Thess" in Expositor's Bible is one of the most vital and vigorous pieces of homiletical exposition known to the present writer.
Rollin Hough Walker
Thessalonians, the Second Epistle of Paul to The
Thessalonians, the Second Epistle of Paul to The - I. IMPORTANCE OF STUDYING 1 THESSALONIANS AND 2 THESSALONIANS TOGETHER
II. AUTHENTICITY
1. Arguments against the Pauline Authorship
2. Arguments for the Pauline Authorship
III. THE MAN OF SIN
1. Primary Reference
2. Permanent Value of the Teaching concerning the Man of Sin
V. PAUL'S EXHORTATION TO QUIET INDUSTRY
LITERATURE
I. Importance of Studying 1 Thessalonians and 2 Thessalonians Together.
Those who hold to the Pauline authorship of the Epistle unite in ascribing it to a time but little subsequent to the writing of the First Letter. It is simply a second prescription for the same case, made after discovering that some certain stubborn symptoms had not yielded to the first treatment. 2 Thess should be studied in connection with 1 Thessalonians because it is only from an understanding of the First Epistle and the situation that it revealed that one can fully grasp the significance of the Second. And more than that, the solution of the problem as to whether Paul wrote the Second Letter is likewise largely dependent on our knowledge of the First. It would, for instance, be much harder to believe that Paul had written 2 Thessalonians if we did not know that before writing it he had used the tender and tactful methods of treatment which we find in the First Letter. It is as though one should enter a sick rook where the physician is resorting to some rather strong measures with a patient. One is better prepared to judge the wisdom of the treatment if he knows the history of the case, and discovers that gentler methods have already been tried by the physician without success.
II. Authenticity. 1. Arguments against the Pauline Authorship: The different treatment of the subject of the second coming of Christ, the different emotional tone, and the different relationships between Paul and the church presupposed in the First and Second Epistles have been among the causes which have led to repeated questionings of the Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians. Scholars argue, in the first place, that the doctrine concerning the coming of Christ which we find in the Second Letter is not only differently phrased but is contradictory to that in the First. We get the impression from the First Letter that the Day of the Lord is at hand. It will come as a thief in the night (1 Thessalonians 5:2), and one of the main parts of Christian duty is to expect (1 Thessalonians 1:9-10). In the Second Letter, however, he writer urges strongly against any influence that will deceive them into believing that the Day of the Lord is at hand, because it will not be "except the falling away come first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, he that opposeth and exalteth himself against all that is called God or that is worshiped" (2 Thessalonians 2:1-4).
Again very plainly also, say the critics, a different relation exists between the writer and the church at Thessalonica. In the First Letter he coaxes; in the Second Letter he commands (1 Thessalonians 4:1-2, 9-12; 1 Thessalonians 5:1-11; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-4; 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 12-14). Moreover, the whole emotional tone of the Second Letter is different from that of the First. The First Epistle is a veritable geyser of joyous, grateful affection and tenderness. The Second Letter, while it also contains expressions of the warmest affection and appreciation, is quite plainly not written under the same pressure of tender emotion. Here, say the critics, is a lower plane of inspiration. Here are Paul's words and phrases and plain imitations of Paul's manner, but here most emphatically is not the flood tide of Paul's inspiration. Moreover, the lurid vision of the battle between the man of sin and the returning Messiah in the Second Letter is different in form and coloring from anything which we find elsewhere in Paul. These, and other considerations have led many to assume that the letter was written by a hand other than that of the Apostle to the Gentiles.
2. Arguments for the Pauline Authorship: The Hypothesis, however, that Paul was not the author of the Epistle, while it obviates certain difficulties, raises many more. Into a statement of these difficulties we will not go here, but refer the reader to a brief and scholarly putting of them in Peake's Critical Introduction to the New Testament, 12-16 (New York, Scribners, 1910).
There is accordingly today a manifest tendency among all scholars, including those in the more radical camps, to return to the traditional position concerning the authorship. The following are some of the positive arguments for the authenticity:
As for the opposing views of the coming of Christ in the two Epistles, it is to be noted that precisely the same superficial contradiction occurs in our Lord's own teaching on this same subject (Matthew 24:6, 23-24, 25-26; Luke 12:35, 40). Jesus exhorts His disciples to watch, for in such an hour as they think not the Son of man cometh, and yet at the same time and in the same connection warns them that when they see certain signs they should not be troubled, for the end is not yet. Paul, brooding over the subject after writing the First Letter, might easily have come strongly to see the obverse side of the shield. The apostle built his theology upon the tradition which had come from Jesus as interpreted by its practical effects upon his converts, and his mind was quick to counteract any danger due to overemphasis or wrong inferences. He was not nearly as eager for a consistently stated doctrine as he was for a doctrine that made for spiritual life and efficiency. During the fierce persecutions at the beginning of the movement in Thessalonica, the comfort of the thought of the swift coming of Christ was in need of emphasis but as soon as the doctrine was used as an excuse for unhealthful religious excitement the minds of the disciples must be focused on more prosaic and less exciting aspects of reality.
That Paul assumes a commanding and peremptory attitude in the Second Letter which we do not find so plainly asserted in the First is readily admitted. Why should not the First Letter have had its intended effect upon the Thessalonian church as a whole? And if Paul received word that his gracious and tactful message had carried with it the conviction of the dominant elements of the church, but that certain groups had continued to be fanatical and disorderly, we can easily see how, with the main current of the church behind him, he would have dared to use more drastic methods with the offending members.
It is also readily admitted that the Second Letter is not so delightful and heart-warming as the First. It was plainly not written in a mood of such high emotional elevation. But the question may be raised as to whether the coaxing, caressing tone of the First Epistle would have been appropriate in handling the lazy and fanatical elements of the church after it had persisted in disregarding his tender and kindly admonitions. Jesus' stern words to the Pharisees in Matthew 23:1-39 are not so inspiring as John 14:1-31, but they were the words and the only words that were needed at the time. "Let not your heart be troubled" would not be inspired if delivered to hypocrites. Furthermore, we are not called upon to assume that Paul at all times lived in the same mood of emotional exaltation. Indeed his Epistles abound with assertions that this was not the case (2 Corinthians 1:8; 1 Thessalonians 3:9), and it is unreasonable to expect him always to write in the same key. It must be added, however, that the suggestion that the Second Epistle is stern may easily be overdone. If 1 Thessalonians were not before us, it would be the tenderness of Paul's treatment of the church which would most impress us.
Harnack has recently added the weight of his authority to the argument for the Pauline authorship of the letter. He thinks that there were two distinct societies in Thessalonica, the one perhaps meeting in the Jewish quarter and composed chiefly of Jewish Christians, and the other composed of Greeks meeting in some other part of the city. In addition to the probability that this would be true, which arises from the very diverse social classes out of which the church was formed (Acts 17:4), and the size of the city, he points to the adjuration in the First Letter (1 Thessalonians 5:27) that this Epistle be read unto all the brethren, as a proof that there was a coterie in the church that met separately and that might easily have been neglected by the rest, just as the Greeks in Jerusalem were neglected in the daily ministration (Acts 6:1). He thinks that the Second Letter was probably directed to the Jewish element of the Church.
It is to be noted also that Professor Moffatt (Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, 76 ff), who calls in question the authenticity of nearly all of the books of the New Testament that any reputable scholars now attack, finds no sufficient reason to question the Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians.
III. The Man of Sin. 1. Primary Reference: The question as to whom or what Paul refers to in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12, when he speaks of the man of sin, whose revelation is to precede the final manifestation of Christ, has divided scholars during all the Christian centuries. (For a good discussion of the history of the interpretation of this difficult section, see Findlay, "I andII Thessalonians," Cambridge Bible, 170-80.) The reason why each age has had its fresh interpretation identifying the man of sin with the blasphemous powers of evil then most active is the fact that the prophecy has never yet found its complete accomplishment. The man of sin has never been fully revealed, and Christ has never finally destroyed him.
But Paul says that the mystery of iniquity already works (2 Thessalonians 2:7), and he tells the church that the restraining influence which for the time being held it in check is something that "ye know" (2 Thessalonians 2:6). Plainly, then, the evil power and that which held it in check were things quite familiar both to Paul and to his readers. We must therefore give the prophecy a lst-century reference. The alternative probably lies between making the mystery of iniquity the disposition of the Roman emperor to give himself out as an incarnation of deity and force all men to worship him, a tendency which was then being held in check by Claudius, but which soon broke out under Caligula (see Peake's Introduction above cited); or, on the other hand, making the mystery of iniquity to be some peculiar manifestation of diabolism which was to break out from the persecuting Jewish world, and which was then held in check by the restraining power of the Roman government.
In favor of making a blasphemous Roman emperor the man of sin, may be urged the fact that it was this demand of the emperor for worship which brought matters to a crisis in the Roman world and turned the terrific enginery of the Roman empire against Christianity. And it may be argued that it is hardly likely that the temporary protection which Paul received from the Roman government prevented him from seeing that its spirit was such that it must ultimately be ranged against Christianity. One may note also, in arguing for the Roman reference of the man of sin, the figurative and enigmatic way in which Paul refers to the opposing power, a restraint that would be rendered necessary for reasons of prudence (compare Mark 13:14, and also the cryptograms used by the author of the Book of Revelation in referring to Rome). Paul has none of this reserve in referring to the persecuting Jewish world who "please not God, and are contrary to all men" (1 Thessalonians 2:15). And in view of the fact that the Jews were in disfavor in the Roman empire, as is proved by then recently issued decree of Claudius commanding all Jews to depart from Rome (Acts 18:2), and by the fact that to proclaim a man a Jew helped at that time to lash a mob into fury against him (Acts 16:20; 19:34), it would seem hardly likely that Paul would expect the subtle and attractive deception that was to delude the World to come from Jerusalem; and particularly would this seem unlikely in view of the fact that Paul seems to be familiar with our Lord's prophecy of the swift destruction of Jerusalem, as is shown by his assertion in 1 Thessalonians 2:16, that wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.
On the other hand, however, to make the man of sin a person or an influence coming from Judaism is supported by the fact that he is to sit in the temple of God, setting himself forth to be God (1 Thessalonians 2:4), and by the fact that the natural punishment for the rejection of their Messiah was that the Jews should be led to accept a false Messiah. Having opposed Him who came in the Father's name, they were doomed to accept one who came in his own name. Again, and far more important than this, is the fact that during nearly the whole of Paul's life it was the Roman empire that protected him, and the unbelieving Jews that formed the malicious, cunning and powerful opposition to his work and to the well-being and peace of his churches, and he could very well have felt that the final incarnation of evil was to come from the source which had crucified the Christ and which had thus far been chiefly instrumental in opposing the gospel. Moreover, this expectation that a mysterious power of evil should arise out of the Jewish world seems to be in harmony with the rest of the New Testament (Matthew 24:5, 23-24; Revelation 11:3, 1, 8). It is the second alternative, therefore, that is, with misgivings, chosen by the present writer.
It may be objected that this cannot be the true Interpretation, as it was not fulfilled, but, on the contrary, it was Rome that became the gospel's most formidable foe. But this type of objection, if accepted as valid, practically puts a stop to all attempts at a historical interpretation of prophecy. It would force us to deny that the prophecies of the Old Testament, which are usually taken as referring to Christ, referred to Him at all, because plainly they were not literally fulfilled in the time and manner that the prophets expected them to be fulfilled. It would almost force us to deny that John the Baptist referred to Christ when he heralded the coming of the one who would burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire, because as the Gospels tell us Jesus did not fulfill this prophecy in the way John expected (Luke 7:19).
See MAN OF SIN.
2. Permanent Value of the Teaching concerning the Man of Sin:
Although Paul's prediction concerning the man of sin was not literally fulfilled, nevertheless his teaching has a permanent significance. It is always true in every battle for good that the Son of man does not come until the falling away comes and the man of sin is revealed. First, there is the fresh tide of enthusiasm and the promise of swift victory for the kingdom of heaven, but soon there is the reaction and the renascence of opposition in new and overwhelming power. The battle is to the death. And then above the smoke of the battle men see the sign of the coming of the Son of man with power and great glory; the conviction floods them that after all what Christ stands for is at the center of the universe and must prevail, and men begin to recognize Christ's principles as though they were natural law. This action and reaction followed by final victory takes place in practically all religious and reforming movements which involve the social reconstruction of society according to the principles of the Kingdom. It is exceedingly important that men should be delivered from shallow optimism. And this Epistle makes its contribution to that good end.
IV. Paul's Exhortation to Quiet Industry. The exhortation that the brethren should work with quietness and earn their own bread (2 Thessalonians 3:12) is full of interest to those who are studying the psychological development of the early Christians under the influence of the great mental stimulus that came to them from the gospel. Some were so excited by the new dignity that had come to them as members of the Christian society, and by the new hopes that had been inspired in their minds, that they considered themselves above the base necessity of manual labor. This is not an infrequent phenomenon among new converts to Christianity in heathen lands. Paul would have none of it. Fortunately he could point to his own example. He not only labored among them to earn his own livelihood, but he worked until muscles ached and body rebelled (2 These 3:8).
Paul saw that the gospel was to be propagated chiefly by its splendid effects on the lives of all classes of society, and he realized that almost the first duty of the church was to be respected, and so he not only exhorts the individual members to independence, but he lays down the principle that no economic parasite is to be tolerated in the church. "If any man will not work, neither let him eat" (2 Thessalonians 3:10). This forms an important complement to the teaching of Jesus (Matthew 5:42): "Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away."
LITERATURE.
See under 1 Thessalonians.
Rollin Hough Walker
Thessalonica
Thessalonica - thes-a-lo-ni'-ka (Thessalonike, ethnic Thessalonikeus):
1. Position and Name: One of the chief towns of Macedonia from Hellenistic times down to the present day. It lies in 40 degrees 40 minutes North latitude, and 22 degrees 50 minutes East longitude, at the northernmost point of the Thermaic Gulf (Gulf of Salonica), a short distance to the East of the mouth of the Axius (Vardar). It is usually maintained that the earlier name of Thessalonica was Therma or Therme, a town mentioned both by Herodotus (vii.121 ff, 179 ff) and by Thucydides (i.61; ii.29), but that its chief importance dates from about 315 BC, when the Macedonian king Cassander, son of Antipater, enlarged and strengthened it by concentrating there the population of a number of neighboring towns and villages, and renamed it after his wife Thessalonica, daughter of Philip II and step-sister of Alexander the Great. This name, usually shortened since medieval times into Salonica or Saloniki, it has retained down to the present. Pliny, however, speaks of Therma as still existing side by side with Thessalonica (NH, iv.36), and it is possible that the latter was an altogether new foundation, which took from Therma a portion of its inhabitants and replaced it as the most important city on the Gulf.
2. History: Thessalonica rapidly became populous and wealthy. In the war between Perseus and the Romans it appears as the headquarters of the Macedonian navy (Livy xliv. 10) and when, after the battle of Pydna (168 BC), the Romans divided the conquered territory into four districts, it became the capital of the second of these (Livy xlv.29), while later, after the organization of the single Roman province of Macedonia in 146 BC, it was the seat of the governor and thus practically the capital of the whole province. In 58 BC Cicero spent the greater part of his exile there, at the house of the quaestor Plancius (Pro Plancio 41, 99; Epistle Ad Att, iii.8-21). In the civil war between Caesar and Pompey, Thessalonica took the senatorial side and formed one of Pompey's chief bases (49-48 BC), but in the final struggle of the republic, six years later, it proved loyal to Antony and Octavian, and was rewarded by receiving the status and privileges of a "free city" (Pliny, NH, iv.36). Strabo, writing in the reign of Augustus, speaks of it as the most populous town in Macedonia and the metropolis of the province (vii.323, 330), and about the same time the poet Antipater, himself a native of Thessalonica, refers to the city as "mother of all Macedon" (Jacobs, Anthol. Graec., II, p. 98, number 14); in the 2nd century of our era Lucian mentions it as the greatest city of Macedonia (Asinus, 46). It was important, not only as a harbor with a large import and export trade, but also as the principal station on the great Via Egnatia, the highway from the Adriatic to the Hellespont.
3. Paul's Visit: Paul visited the town, together with Silas and Timothy, on his 2nd missionary journey. He had been at Philippi, and traveled thence by the Egnatian Road, passing through Amphipolis and Apollonia on the way (Acts 17:1). He found at Thessalonica a synagogue of the Jews, in which for three successive Sabbaths he preached the gospel, basing his message upon the types and prophecies of the Old Testament Scriptures (Acts 17:2-3). Some of the Jews became converts and a considerable number of proselytes and Greeks, together with many women of high social standing (Acts 17:4). Among these converts were in all probability Aristarchus and Secundus, natives of Thessalonica, whom we afterward find accompanying Paul to Asia at the close of his 3rd missionary journey (Acts 20:4). The former of them was, indeed, one of the apostle's most constant companions; we find him with Paul at Ephesus (Acts 19:29) and on his journey to Rome (Acts 27:2), while in two of his Epistles, written during his captivity, Paul refers to Aristarchus as still with him, his fellow-prisoner (Colossians 4:10; Philemon 1:24). Gaius, too, who is mentioned in conjunction with Aristarchus, may have been a Thessalonian (Acts 19:29). How long Paul remained at Thessalonica on his 1st visit we cannot precisely determine; certainIy we are not to regard his stay there as confined to three weeks, and Ramsay suggests that it probably extended from December, 50 AD, to May, 51 AD (St. Paul the Traveler, 228). In any case, we learn that the Philippines sent him assistance on two occasions during the time which he spent there (Philippians 4:16), although he was "working night and day" to maintain himself (1 Thessalonians 2:9; 2 Thessalonians 3:8). Paul, the great missionary strategist, must have seen that from no other center could Macedonia be permeated with the gospel so effectively as from Thessalonica (1 Thessalonians 1:8).
But his success roused the jealousy of the Jews, who raised a commotion among the dregs of the city populace (Acts 17:5). An attack was made on the house of Jason, with whom the evangelists were lodging, and when these were not found Jason himself and some of the other converts were dragged before the magistrates and accused of harboring men who had caused tumult throughout the Roman world, who maintained the existence of another king, Jesus, and acted in defiance of the imperial decrees. The magistrates were duly alive to the seriousness of the accusation, but, since no evidence was forthcoming of illegal practices on the part of Jason or the other Christians, they released them on security (Acts 17:5-9). Foreseeing further trouble if Paul should continue his work in the town, the converts sent Paul and Silas (and possibly Timothy also) by night to Berea, which lay off the main road and is referred to by Cicero as an out-of-the-way town (oppidum devium: in Pisonem 36). The Berean Jews showed a greater readiness to examine the new teaching than those of Thessalonica, and the work of the apostle was more fruitful there, both among Jews and among Greeks (Acts 17:10-13). But the news of this success reached the Thessalonian Jews and inflamed their hostility afresh. Going to Berea, they raised a tumult there also, and made it necessary for Paul to leave the town and go to Athens (Acts 17:14-15).
Several points in this account are noteworthy as illustrating the strict accuracy of the narrative of the Acts. Philippi was a Roman town, military rather than commercial; hence, we find but few Jews there and no synagogue; the magistrates bear the title of praetors (Acts 16:20, 22, 35-36, 38 the Revised Version margin) and are attended by lictors (Acts 16:35, 38 the Revised Version margin); Paul and Silas are charged with the introduction of customs which Romans may not observe (Acts 16:21); they are beaten with rods (Acts 16:22) and appeal to their privileges as Roman citizens (Acts 16:37-38). At Thessalonica all is changed. We are here in a Greek commercial city and a seaport, a "free city," moreover, enjoying a certain amount of autonomy and its own constitution. Here we find a large number of resident Jews and a synagogue. The charge against Paul is that of trying to replace Caesar by another king; the rioters wish to bring him before "the people," i.e. the popular assembly characteristic of Greek states, and the magistrates of the city bear the Greek name of politarchs (Acts 17:5-9). This title occurs nowhere in Greek literature, but its correctness is proved beyond possibility of question by its occurrence in a number of inscriptions of this period, which have come to light in Thessalonica and the neighborhood, and will be found collected in AJT (1898, 598) and in M. G. Dimitsas, (Makedonia), 422 ff. Among them the most famous is the inscription engraved on the arch which stood at the western end of the main street of Salonica and was called the Vardar Gate. The arch itself, which was perhaps erected to commemorate the victory of Philippi, though some authorities assign it to a later date, has been removed, and the inscription is now in the British Museum (CIG, 1967; Leake, Northern Greece, III, 236; Le Bas, Voyage archeologique, number 1357; Vaux, Trans. Royal Sec. Lit., VIII, 528). This proves that the politarchs were six in number, and it is a curious coincidence that in it occur the names Sosipater, Gaius and Secundus, which are berate by three Macedonian converts, of whom the first two were probably Thessalonians, the last certainly.
4. The Thessalonian Church: The Thessalonian church was a strong and flourishing one, composed of Gentiles rather than of Jews, if we may judge from the tone of the two Epistles addressed to its members, the absence of quotations from and allusions to the Old Testament, and the phrase "Ye turned unto God from idols" (1 Thessalonians 1:9; compare also 1 Thessalonians 2:14). These, by common consent the earliest of Paul's Epistles, show us that the apostle was eager to revisit Thessalonica very soon after his enforced departure: "once and again" the desire to return was strong in him, but "Satan hindered" him (1 Thessalonians 2:18)--a reference probably to the danger and loss in which such a step would involve Jason and the other leading converts. But though himself prevented from continuing his work at Thessalonica, he sent Timothy from Athens to visit the church and confirm the faith of the Christians amid their hardships and persecutions (1 Thessalonians 3:2-10). The favorable report brought back by Timothy was a great comfort to Paul, and at the same time intensified his longing to see his converts again (1 Thessalonians 3:10-11). This desire was to be fulfilled more than once. Almost certainly Paul returned there on his 3rd missionary journey, both on his way to Greece (Acts 20:1) and again while he was going thence to Jerusalem (Acts 20:3); it is on this latter occasion that we hear of Aristarchus and Secundus accompanying him (Acts 20:4). Probably Paul was again in Thessalonica after his first imprisonment. From the Epistle to the Philippians (Acts 1:26; 2:24), written during his captivity, we learn that his intention was to revisit Philippi if possible, and 1 Timothy 1:3 records a subsequent journey to Macedonia, in the course of which the apostle may well have made a longer or shorter stay at Thessalonica. The only other mention of the town in the New Testament occurs in 2 Timothy 4:10, where Paul writes that Demas has forsaken him and has gone there. Whether Demas was a Thessalonian, as some have supposed, cannot be determined.
5. Later History: For centuries the city remained one of the chief strongholds of Christianity, and it won for itself the title of "the Orthodox City," not only by the tenacity and vigor of its resistance to the successive attacks of various barbarous races, but also by being largely responsible for their conversion to Christianity.
From the middle of the 3rd century AD it was entitled "metropolis and colony," and when Diocletian (284-305) divided Macedonia into two provinces, Thessalonica was chosen as the capital of the first of these. It was also the scene in 390 AD of the famous massacre ordered by Theodosius the Great, for which Ambrose excluded that emperor for some months from the cathedral at Milan. In 253 the Goths had made a vain attempt to capture the city, and again in 479 Theodoric, king of the Ostrogoths, found it so strong and well prepared that he did not venture to attack it. From the 6th to the 9th century it was engaged in repeated struggles against Avars, Slavonians and Bulgarians, whose attacks it repelled with the utmost difficulty. Finally, in 904 AD it was captured by the Saracens, who, after slaughtering a great number of the inhabitants and burning a considerable portion of the city, sailed away carrying with them 22,000 captives, young men, women and children. In 1185, when the famous scholar Eustathius was bishop, the Normans under Tancred stormed the city, and once more a general massacre took place. In 1204 Thessalonica became the center of a Latin kingdom under Boniface, marquis of Monferrat, and for over two centuries it passed from hand to hand, now ruled by Latins now by Greeks, until in 1430 it fell before the sultan Amurath II. After that time it remained in the possession of the Turks, and it was, indeed, the chief European city of their dominions, with the exception of Constantinople, until it was recaptured by the Greeks in the Balkan war of 1912. Its population includes some 32,000 Turks, 47,000 Jews (mostly the descendants of refugees from Spain) and 16,000 Greeks and other Europeans. The city is rich in examples of Byzantine ecclesiastical architecture and art, and possesses, in addition to a large number of mosques, 12 churches and 25 synagogues.
LITERATURE.
The fullest account of the topography of Thessalonica and its history, especially from the 5th to the 15th century, is that of Tafel, De Thessalonica eiusque agro. Dissertatio geographica, Berlin, 1839; compare also the Histories of Gibbon and Finlay. A description of the town and its ancient remains is given by Leake, Travels in Northern Greece, III, 235 ff; Cousinery, Voyage dans la Macedoine, I, 23 ff; Heuzey, Mission archeol. de Macedoine,' 272 ff; and other travelers. The inscriptions, mostly in Greek, are collected in Dimitsas, (Makedonia), 421 ff.
M. N. Tod
Theudas
Theudas - thu'-das (Theudas, a contraction of Theodorus, "the gift of God"): Theudas is referred to by Gamaliel in his speech before the Sanhedrin, when he advised them as to the position they should adopt in regard to the apostles (Acts 5:36). The failure of the rebellion of Theudas was quoted by Gamaliel on this occasion as typical of the natural end of such movements as were inspired "not of God, but of men." A rising under one Theudas is also described by Josephus (Ant., XX, v, 1), but this occurred at a later date (according to Josephus about 44 or 45 AD) than the speech of Gamaliel (before 37 AD). Of theories put forward in explanation of the apparent anachronism in Gameliels speech, the two most in favor are (1) that as there were many insurrections during the period in question, the two writers refer to different Theudases; (2) that the reference to Theudas in the narrative of Acts was inserted by a later reviser, whose historical knowledge was inaccurate (Weiss; compare also Knowling, The Expositor's Greek Testament,II , 157-59).
C. M. Kerr
Thick Trees
Thick Trees - (`ets `abhoth (Leviticus 23:40; Nehemiah 8:15)): One of the varieties of trees which the Israelites were directed to use at the Feast of Tabernacles; in the latter passage they are expressly directed to make booths with them. According to the Talmudic writings, the "thick trees" are myrtles (Suk. 12a; Jer Suk. iii, 53d), and further tradition has prescribed certain special features as to the varieties of myrtle employed, without which they cannot be used in the ritual of the feast. In Sirach 14:18 "thick tree" represents dendron dasu, "leafy tree."
See MYRTLE.
Thicket
Thicket - thik'-et (cebhakh (Genesis 22:13; Isaiah 9:18; 10:34), or cobhekh (Jeremiah 4:7); in 1 Samuel 13:6, choach): A thick or dense growth of trees or shrubs (thorns, brambles), in which wild beasts may lurk (Jeremiah 4:7), or animals be caught by their horns (Genesis 22:13; Abraham's ram).
See FOREST.
Thief
Thief - thef: In the Old Testament the uniform translation (17 times) of gannabh, from ganabh, "steal," but gannabh is rather broader than the English "thief," and may even include a kidnapper (Deuteronomy 24:7). In Apocrypha and the New Testament, the King James Version uses "thief" indifferently for kleptes, and lestes, but the Revised Version (British and American) always renders the latter word by "robber" (a great improvement), See CRIMES . The figurative use of thief" as one coming without warning" (Matthew 24:43, etc.) needs no explanation.
The penitent thief ("robber," the Revised Version (British and American) Mark 15:27; Matthew 27:38, 44; "malefactor," Luke 23:32, 39) was one of the two criminals crucified with Christ. According to Mark and Matthew, both of these joined in the crowd's mockery, but Luke tells that one of them reproached his fellow for the insults, acknowledged his own guilt, and begged Christ to remember him at the coming of the Kingdom. And Christ replied by promising more than was asked--immediate admission into Paradise. It should be noted that unusual moral courage was needed for the thief to make his request at such a time and under such circumstances, and that his case has little in common with certain sentimental "death-bed repentances."
To explain the repentance and the acknowledgment of Christ as Messiah, some previous acquaintance of the thief with Christ must be supposed, but all guesses as to time and place are of course useless. Later tradition abundantly filled the blanks and gave the penitent thief the name Titus or Dysmas.
Burton Scott Easton
Thigh
Thigh - thi (yarekh; Aramaic yarekhah (Daniel 2:32); meros (Judith 9:2; Sirach 19:12; Revelation 19:16); as part of a sacrificial animal (Exodus 29:22, etc.) shoq, the King James Version, the Revised Version margin "shoulder"; in addition the King James Version has "thigh" for shoq in Isaiah 47:2 (the Revised Version (British and American) "leg")): The portion of the leg from the knee to the hip, against which a weapon hangs when suspended from the waist (Exodus 32:27; Judges 3:16, 21; Psalms 45:3, etc.). So the thigh of a rider on horseback would be covered by a loose girdle, on which his name might be embroidered (Revelation 19:16). The "hollow of the thigh" (Genesis 32:25 ff) is the hip-socket or the groin.
See also HIP.
The thighs were thought to play a part in procreation (Genesis 46:26; Exodus 1:5, English Versions of the Bible "loins"; Judges 8:30, English Versions of the Bible "body"; compare Numbers 5:21 ff), so that an oath taken with the hand under the thigh (Genesis 24:2, 9; 47:29) was taken by the life-power (the rabbis interpreted "by the seal of circumcision"). It is perhaps significant that this oath in both Genesis 24:1-67 and Genesis 47:1-31 is said to have been exacted by persons in danger of death. Doubtless this association of the thigh with life (aided perhaps by its excellence as food (1 Samuel 9:24; Ezekiel 24:4)) determined its choice as a sacrificial potion (Exodus 29:22, etc.; on the "heave thigh" see SACRIFICE). Consequently, it is natural to find the thigh classed as forbidden ("sacred") food among certain peoples, and, probably, this sacred character of the part is the real basis of Genesis 32:32: "The children of Israel eat not the sinew of the hip which is upon the hollow of the thigh, unto this day." The origin of the prohibition, however, was unknown to the writer of the verse, and he sought an explanation from a story in which special attention was called to the thigh. Nothing else is heard about this precept in the Old Testament, but it receives elaborate attention in the Mishna (Chullin vii), where, for instance, all food cooked with meat containing the sinew (nervus ischiadicus) is rendered unclean if the sinew imparts a flavor to it, but not otherwise. (For further details see the comms., especially Skinner. (ICC) and RS2, 380.) One of the proofs of guilt in the jealousy trial (Numbers 5:27) was the falling-away of the "thigh" (a euphemism; see JEALOUSY). To smite upon the thigh was a token of contrition (Jeremiah 31:19) or of terror (Ezra 21:12).
Burton Scott Easton
Thimnathah
Thimnathah - thim'-na-tha, thim-na'-tha (timnathah): the King James Version in Joshua 19:43. It is correctly "Timnah" with Heb locale meaning "towed Timnah."
See TIMNAH.
Think
Think - think: The Old Testament often translates 'amar, "to say," meaning what one says to himself, and hence, a definite and clearly formulated decision or purpose (Genesis 20:11; Numbers 24:4; Ruth 4:4, etc.), illustrated by the, change made by the Revised Version (British and American) in the King James Version of Esther 6:6, where "thought in his heart" becomes "said in his heart." In other passages, for chashabh, damah, or zamam, indicating the result of mental activity, as in an intention or estimate formed after careful deliberation (compare Ecclesiasticus 18:25); In the New Testament, most, frequently for dokeo, "to be of the opinion, "suppose," literally, "seem" (Matthew 3:9; 6:7; Luke 10:36, etc.). Sometimes, for logizomai, "to compute," "reckon" (Romans 2:3, etc.); sometimes, for nomizo, literally referring to what attains the force of law (nomos), and then, "to be of the opinion"; or, for phroneo, implying a thought that is cherished--a mental habit, rather than an act (Romans 12:3; 1 Corinthians 13:11). The Greek hegeomai, "to consider," implies logical deduction from premises (Acts 26:2; Philippians 2:6), while in Matthew 1:20; 9:4, and Acts 10:19, enthumoumai, refers to the mental process itself, the thinking-out of a project, the concentration of the faculties upon the formation of a plan.
H. E. Jacobs
Third
Third - thurd (shelishi; tritos): Isaiah 19:24, "In that day shall Israel be the third with Egypt and with Assyria," etc., brings out very distinctly the universal and missionary character of Isaiah's prophecies and of Israel's destiny (compare Ezekiel 16:63; and see G. A. Smith, Isaiah, II, 275, 278; Watkinson, Th. Blind Spot 21 ff).
For "third hour," "third month," "third year," see CALENDAR; DAY; TIME.
Third Day
Third Day - See LORD'S DAY.
Thirst
Thirst - thurst (tsama', verb tsame'; dipsao, dipsos, dipsa): One of the most powerful natural appetities, the craving for water or other drink. Besides its natural significance, thirst is figuratively used of strong spiritual desire. The soul thirsts for God (Psalms 42:2; 63:1). Jesus meets the soul's thirst with water of life (John 4:13 ff; John 6:35; 7:37). It is said of the heavenly bliss, "They shall hunger no more; neither thirst any more" (Revelation 7:16-17; compare Isaiah 49:10).
Thirteen; Thirty
Thirteen; Thirty - thur'-ten, thur-ten', thur'-ti.
See NUMBER.
Thisbe
Thisbe - thiz'-be (Codex Vaticanus Thisbe, Codex Alexandrinus Thibe): The home of Tobit whence he was carried into captivity to Babylon. It is said te be "on the right hand (i.e. South) of Kedesh-naphtali in Galilee" (Tobit 1:2). Some have thought that this was the native place of Elijah the Tishbite, but this is mere conjecture. The site has not been recovered. We need not expect strict geographical accuracy in the romance of Tobit, any more than in that of Judith.
Thistles
Thistles - this'-'-lz.
See THORNS .
Thocanus
Thocanus - tho-ka'-nus (Thokanos, Thokanos; the King James Version Theocanus): The father of Ezekias, who with Jonathan "took the matter upon them" in the proceedings under Ezra against foreign wives (1 Esdras 9:14) = "Tikvah" in Ezra 10:15.
Thomas
Thomas - tom'-as (Thomas; ta'om, "a twin" (in plural only):
1. In the New Testament: One of the Twelve Apostles. Thomas, who was also called "Didymus" or "the Twin" (compare John 11:16; 20:24; 21:2), is referred to in detail by the Gospel of John alone. His election to the Twelve is recorded in Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13. In John 11:1-54, when Jesus, despite imminent danger at the hands of hostile Jews, declared His intention of going to Bethany to heal Lazarus, Thomas alone opposed the other disciples who sought to dissuade Him, and protested, "Let us also go; that we may died with him" (John 11:16). On the eve of the Passion, Thomas put the question, "Lord, we know now whither thou goest; how know we the way?" (John 14:5). After the crucifixion, Thomas apparently severed his connection with the rest of the apostiles for a time, as he was not present when the risen Christ first appeared to them (compare John 20:24). But his subsequent conversation with them, while not convincing him of the truth of the resurrection--"except I shall see .... I will not believe" (John 20:25)--at least induced him to be among their number eight days afterward (John 20:26) in the upper room. There, having received the proofs for which he sought, he made the confession, "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28), and was reproved by Jesus for his previous unbelief: "Because thou hast seen me thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed" (John 20:29). He was one of the disciples to whom Jesus manifested Himself during the fishing expedition at the Sea of Tiberias (John 21:1-11).
2. In Apocryphal Literature: According to the "Genealogies of the Twelve Apostles" (compare Budge, The Contendings of the Apostles,II , 50), Thomas was of the house of Asher. The oldest accounts are to the effect that he died a natural death of (compare Clement of Alexandria iv.9, 71). Two fields are mentioned by apocryphal literature as the scene of Thomas' missionary labors. (1) According to origen, he preached in Parthia, the according to a Syrian legend he died at Edessa. The Agbar legend also indicates the connection of Thomas with Edessa. But Eusebius indicates it was Thaddaeus and not Thomas who preached there (see THADDAEUS). (2) Along with these are other sources identifying Thomas with India. Thus, "The Acts of Thomas" (see APOCRYPHAL ACTS, sec. B, V), a Gnostic work dating from the 2nd century, tells how when the world was partitioned out as a mission field among the disciples, India fell to "Judas Thomas, also called Didymus," and narrates his adventures on the way, his trials, missionary success, and death at the hands of Misdai, king of India (compare Budge,II , 404 ff; Hennecke, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, 473-544; Pick, The Apocryphal Acts, 224 ff). The "Preaching of Thomas" (compare Budge,II , 319) relates still more fantastic adventures of Thomas in India, and the "Martyrdom of Thomas in India" states that on his departure toward Macedonia he was put to death as a sorcerer.
Of the two, the former is the more probable. An attempt at reconciliation has been made by supposing that the relics of Thomas were transported from India to Edessa, but this is based on inaccurate historical information (compare Hennecke, op. cit., 474). The additional names "Judas" and "Didymus" have causd further confusion in apocryphal literature in regard to Thomas, and have led to his identification with Judas of James, and hence, with Thaddaeus (see THADDAEUS), and also with Judas the brother of Jesus (compare Matthew 13:55). Thus in the "Acts of Thomas" he is twice called the "twin brother of the Messiah." Another legend makes Lysia the twin sister of Thomas. A Gnostic "Gospel of Thomas" (see APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS,III , 2, (a)) was known to Irenaeus (compare Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., 1,20).
3. Character: Although little is recorded of Thomas in the Gospels, he is yet one of the most fascinating of the apostles. He is typical of that nature--a nature by no means rare--which contains within it certain conflicting elements exceedingly difficult of reconciliation. Possessed of little natural buoyancy of spirit, and inclined to look upon life with the eyes of gloom or despondency, Thomas was yet a man of indomitable courage and entire unselfishness. Thus with a perplexed faith in the teaching of Jesus was mingled a sincere love for Jesus the teacher. In the incident of Christ's departure for Bethany, his devotion to his Master proved stronger than his fear of death. Thus far, in a situation demanding immediate action, the faith of Thomas triumphed; but when it came into conflict with his standards of belief it was put to a harder test. For Thomas desired to test all truth by the evidence of his senses, and in this, coupled with a mind tenacious both of its beliefs and disbeliefs, lay the real source of his religious difficulties. It was his sincerity which made him to stand aloof from the rest of the disciples till he had attained to personal conviction regarding the resurrection; but his sincerity also drew from him the testimony to that conviction, "My Lord and my God," the greatest and fullest in all Christianity.
C. M. Kerr
Thomas, Gospel of
Thomas, Gospel of - See APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS,III , 2, (a).
Thomei
Thomei - thom'-e-i (Codex Alexandrinus Thomei; Fritzsche Thomoi; Codex Vaticanus and Swete Thomthei; the King James Version, Thomoi): A family name of temple-servants who returned with Zerubbabel (1 Esdras 5:32) = "Temah" in Ezra 2:53; Nehemiah 7:55.
Thorn in the Flesh
Thorn in the Flesh - thorn (skolops te sarki): Paul thus characterizes some bodily ailment which afflicted him and impaired his usefulness (2 Corinthians 12:7). The data are insufficient to enable us to ascertain its real nature, and all the speculations on the point are therefore inconclusive. All that we are told is that it was a messenger of Satan; that thereby he was beaten as with a fist, which might be figurative or actual; that it rendered his bodily presence unattractive. It appears that the infirmity recurred, for thrice he sought deliverance; but, by the help of God, he was able to glory in it. Sir W. Ramsay sees in it some form of recurring malarial fever. It was something that disabled him (Galatians 4:12-15); hence, Farrar supposes that it was ophthalmia, from the reference to his eyes, from his inability to recognize the high priest (Acts 23:5), from his employing amanuenses to write his epistles, and his writing the Galatian letter in large characters with his own hand (Galatians 6:11). Krenkel has at great length argued that it was epilepsy, and thereby endeavors to account for his trances and his falling to the earth on his way to Damascus, but his work is essentially a special pleading for a foregone conclusion, and Paul would not have called his visions "a messenger of Satan." It is also beside the question to heap up instances of other distinguished epileptics. On the whole Farrar's theory is the most probable.
It is probably only a coincidence that "pricks in your eyes" Septuagint skolopes) are mentioned in Numbers 33:55. Any pedestrian in Palestine must be familiar with the ubiquitous and troublesome thorny shrubs and thistles which abound there.
Alexander Macalister
THORNS, THISTLES, etc.
thornz: There are very many references to various thorny plants in the Bible, and of the Hebrew words employed great uncertainty exists regarding their exact meaning. The alternative translations given in the text of English Versions of the Bible and in the margin show how divided are the views of the translators. In the following list the suggestions given of possinle species indicated, usually by comparison with the Arabic, are those of the late Professor Post, who spent the best years of his life in study of the botany of Palestine. In the great majority of instances, however, it is quite impossible to make any reasonable suggestion as to any particular species being indicated.
(1) 'aTadh (Judges 9:14, English Versions of the Bible "bramble," the King James Version margin "thistle," the Revised Version margin "thorn"; Psalms 58:9, English Versions of the Bible "thorns"): Probably the buckthorn (Rhamnus Palestina Post). Atad occurs as a proper name in Genesis 50:10-11.
(2) barqanim (Judges 8:7, 16, English Versions of the Bible "briers"): Some thorny plant. The Egyptian-Arabic bargan is, according to Moore (Commentary on Judges), the same as Centaurea scoparius (Natural Order, Compositae), a common Palestinian thistle.
(3) dardar (Genesis 3:18; Hosea 10:8, English Versions of the Bible "thistle"; Septuagint tribolos): In Arabic, shauket ed-dardar is a general name for the thistles known as Centaureae or star-thistles (Natural Order, Compositae), of which Palestine produces nearly 50 species. The purple-flowered C. calcitrapa and the yellow C. verutum are among the commonest and most striking.
(4) chedheq (Proverbs 15:19, English Versions of the Bible "thorns"; Septuagint akantha; Micah 7:4, English Versions of the Bible "brier"): From former passages this should be some thorny plant suitable for making a hedge (compare Arabic chadaq, "to enclose," "wall in"). Lane states that Arabic chadaq is Solanum sanctum. Post suggests the oleaster, Eleagnus hortensis.
(5) choach; Septuagint knide, and akantha (2 Kings 14:9; Job 31:40, English Versions of the Bible, "thistle," margin "thorn"; 2 Chronicles 25:18, English Versions of the Bible "thistle," the King James Version margin "furze bush," the Revised Version margin "thorn"; Hosea 9:6; Song of Solomon 2:2, English Versions of the Bible "thorns"; Isaiah 34:13 the King James Version "brambles" the Revised Version (British and American) "thistles"; Proverbs 26:9, English Versions of the Bible "a thorn"; 1 Samuel 13:6, "thickets"; chawachim, is, however, according to Driver and others a corruption for horim, "holes"; Job 41:2, the King James Version "thorn" the Revised Version (British and American) "hook"; 2 Chronicles 33:11, the King James Version "thorns," the Revised Version (British and American) "in chains," margin "with hooks"): Clearly choach stands for some plant with very strong thorns, but it is quite impossible to say what species is intended; indeed, probably the word was used in a general way.
See HOOK.
(6) mecukhah, occurs only in Micah 7:4, where it means a "thorn hedge."
(7) na`atsuts (Isaiah 7:19, the King James Version "thorns," the Revised Version (British and American) "thorn hedges"; Isaiah 55:13, English Versions of the Bible "thorn"): The word is derived from the root na`ats, "to prick," or "pierce," and probably applies to any prickly plant. The Septuagint translation has stoibe (Isaiah 55:13), suggesting the thorny burnet, Poterium spinosum, so common in Palestine (see BOTANY). Post says, "It may be one of the thorny acacias" (HDB, IV, 752).
(8) cirim (Ecclesiastes 7:6, "the crackling of thorns (cirim) under a pot" (cir); Isaiah 34:13, "Thorns shall come up in its palaces"; Hosea 2:6, "I will hedge up thy way with thorns"; Nahum 1:10, "Entangled like thorns (King James Version "folden together as thorns") .... they are consumed utterly as dry stubble"): The thorny burner, Poterium spinosum, is today so extensively used for burning in ovens and lime-kilns in Palestine that it is tempting to suppose this is the plant especially indicated here. In Amos 4:2 ciroth, is translated "fish-hooks."
See HOOK.
(9) cillon (Ezekiel 28:24, English Versions of the Bible, "brier"); callonim (Ezekiel 2:6, English Versions of the Bible, "thorns"): Arabic, sallu = "thorn."
(10) carabhim (Ezekiel 2:6, English Versions of the Bible, "briers;" the King James Version margin "rebels"): The translation as a plant name is very doubtful.
(11) cirpadh (Isaiah 55:13, "Instead of the brier shall come up the myrtle-tree"): The Septuagint has konuza, which is (Post) the elecampane, Inula viscosa (Natural Order Compositae), a plant 2 or 3 ft. high, growing on the bare hillsides of Palestine, not infrequently in close association with the myrtle.
(12) tsinnim (Job 5:5; Proverbs 22:5, English Versions of the Bible, "thorns"); tseninim (Numbers 33:55; Joshua 23:13, English Versions of the Bible, "thorns"): The words apparently have a very general meaning.
(13) qots; the Septuagint akantha: A general name for thorny and prickly plants, the commonest in the Old Testament (Genesis 3:18; Exodus 22:6; Judges 8:7, 16; 2 Samuel 23:6; Psalms 118:12; Isaiah 32:13; 33:12; Jeremiah 4:3; 12:13; Ezekiel 28:24; Hosea 10:8).
(14) qimmosh (Proverbs 24:31, "thorns"; Isaiah 34:13; Hosea 9:6, "nettles").
See NETTLES.
(15) sikkim, plural of sekh, same as Arabic shauk, "a thorn" (Numbers 33:55, "pricks").
(16) shayith: A word peculiar to Isa (5:6; 7:23 ff; 9:18; 10:17; 27:4) and always associated with shamir (See (17)), always translated "thorns."
(17) shamir: References as above (16), and in Isaiah 32:13, where it is with qots (see (13)) always translated briers." The Arabic samur is the thorny acacia A. seyyal and A. tortilis (Post).
(18) akanthos: The equivalent of qots (see (13)) (Matthew 7:16; 7, 22; 27:29, etc.). Always translated "thorns."
(19) rhamnos (Baruch 6:71, "white thorn"): The Rhamnus Palaestina.
(20) skolops (2 Corinthians 12:7, English Versions of the Bible "thorn," margin "stake").
See THORN IN THE FLESH.
(21) tribolos (Matthew 7:16, "thistle"; Hebrews 6:8, the King James Version "briers" the Revised Version (British and American) "thistles").
The extraordinary plentifulness of various prickly plants in Palestine--in its present condition--is evident to any traveler during the summer months. Many of the trees and shrubs are thorny and the ground is everywhere covered thick with thistles, many of which are very handsome and some of which attain a height of 6 or 8 ft. Before the peasant can plow, he must dear these away by burning (compare Isaiah 10:17). The early autumn winds often drive before them in revolving mass some of the star-thistles--a sight so characteristic that it may be the "thistle down" (the King James Version margin, the Revised Version (British and American) "whirling dust") of Isaiah 17:13. Thorns and thistles are described (Genesis 3:18) as God's curse on the ground for sin. The Talmud suggests that these must be edible and are therefore artichokes. The removal of them and the replacement by more useful plants is a sign of God's blessing (Isaiah 55:13; Ezekiel 28:24).
Genesis 3:18 uses the words qots and dardar for "thorns" and "thistles." Midrash Rabba' to Genesis (Midr. Gen. Rabba' 20 10) says that qots ("thorn") is the same as (`akkabhith), which means an edible thistle (compare Levy, Dictionary, 645), and that (dardar, "thistle") is the same as (qinrac; Greek kunara, "artichoke") (compare Levy, Dictionary, 298). "But," adds the Midrash, "some reverse it, and say that (dardar) is ('akkabhith) and that (qots) is (qinrats)."
The neglected vineyard of the sluggard "was all grown over with thorns the face thereof was covered with nettles" (Proverbs 24:31), and in God's symbolic vineyard "there shall come up briers and thorns" (Isaiah 5:6); "They have sown wheat and have reaped thorns; they have put themselves to pain, and profit nothing" (Jeremiah 12:13).
Jotham compares the usurper Abimelech to a bramble (Rhamnus Palaestina) (Judges 9:14 f), and Jehoash king of Israel, taunted Amaziah, king of Judah, by comparing him slightingly to a thistle (margin "thorn"), readily trodden down by a wild beast (2 Kings 14:9).
Nevertheless, thorns and thistles have their uses. On them the goats and camels browse; scarcely any thorns seem to be too sharp for their hardened palates. The thorny burner (Poterium spinosum), Arabic ballan, which covers countless acres of bare hillside, is used all over Palestine for ovens (Ecclesiastes 7:6) and lime-kilns. Before kindling one of these latter the fellahin gather enormous piles of this plant--carried on their heads in masses much larger than the bearers--around the kiln mouth.
Thorny hedges around dwellings and fields are very common. The most characteristic plant for the purpose today is the "prickly pear" (Opunctia ficus Indica), but this is a comparatively late introduction. Hedges of brambles oleasters, etc., are common, especially where there is some water In the Jordan valley masses of broken branches of the Zizyphus and other thorny trees are piled in a circle round tents or cultivated fields or flocks as a protection against man and beast (Proverbs 15:19; Micah 7:4, etc.).
The Saviour's "crown of thorns" (Matthew 27:29) was according to Palestinian tradition constructed from the twisted branches of a species of Rhamnaceae either the Zizyphus lotus or the Z. spina.
E. W. G. Masterman
Thought
Thought - thot: The most frequent word in the Old Testament (machashebheth, from the verb chashabh, "to think") refers to a "device," or a purpose firmly fixed, as in the passage in Isa (55:7-9) where the "thought" of God and of man are contrasted (compare Psalms 40:5; 92:5; Jeremiah 29:11). In the New Testament dialogismos (Matthew 15:19; 1 Corinthians 3:20), refers to the inner reasoning or deliberation of one with himself.
See THINK.