COVERLET
priest-as he could not be on earth (713f:)-in the
celestial temple (620 ~ I I ) , and as such bear the
responsibility for the new arrangement (Eyyuos ~ z z ) ,
~ J 9S1 5
and on God‘s behalf make it operative ( ~ L E U 86
1zz4)by sprinkling the blood on men’s consciences,
thus pledging and devoting them to the new priestly
service (1019,cp Ex. 2920 [PI Lev. 823 [PI). The ‘ a r k
of. the law’ (&as$Kv) is mentioned in Heb. 94 (cp
Rev. 1119). In Eph. 2 12 the one great promise is con-
sidered as renewed by a series of solemn assurances
(at 8taB?jKal r?js hrayyehlas). Peter’s contemporaries
are represented in Acts325 as ‘sons’-i:e., heirs, who
might enter into possession of the promise (srae$Kq)
to Abraham, whilst in 7 8 the word &aO$Kq is used to
designate the ordinance of circumcision.l
T h e most recent inquiry into the historical meaning of din-th
is Kraetzschmar’s Die BundemorstelZungim AZten Testament
(‘96). See also Valeton, Z A TW12 1-22 224-260 13 245.279
[‘?231; Bertholet, Die Stelhng d.IsraeZiten zc. Juden zu d.
liremfen, 46, 8 7 3 176, 214 r961 ; W R S ReZ. SendP), 269 8
3 1 2 8 4 7 9 3 , Kin. 4 6 8 : ;W. M. Ramsay, ‘Covenant’ in the
Expositor, Nov. ‘98, pp. 321-336. N. S.
COVERLET (lz?Q), 2 I<. 815t RV. See BED, 5 3
COVERS (nikp)? EX. 3716, etc. ; see CUP, 6.
COW (n?~), Is. 117.. See C ATTLE , 5 2.
COZ, RV strangely H AKKOZ (VP; K W E [B”b?A], natural science ? The question to be answered is rather
OEKWE [e€ superscr.] [Ba?vid.], K W C [L]) of J UDAH
( I Ch. 48). The name is probably not connected with
Habkoz. As it occurs nowhere else, perhaps we should
read TEKOA (pip?, ~ E K W E ; cp @BA). See HAKKOZ, borrowed by the Hebrews from another people?
TEKOA.
COZBI (’313, ‘deceitful,’ § 79 ; cp Ass. kuzdu,
‘lasciviousncss,’ Haupt, SBOT on Gen. 38 s), daughter
of Zur (Nu. 25 15 18), a Midianite, who was slain by
Phinehas at Shittim (Nu.256-18, P ; xacB[s]l [BAFL],
xocBia [Jos. Ant. iv. ~ I O I Z ] ) .
COZEBA, AV CHOZEBA (32f3), I Ch. 4 22.1.. See recently filled up by the discoveryof missing passages, and
ACHZIB, I.
CRACKNELS (P’qp), I K.143. See BAKEMEATS,
5 2.
CRAFTSMEN, VALLEY OF ( WyhQp ’J), Neh.
1135 EV See CHARASHIM.
CRANE (laj$ ; C T p O Y e l a [BKAQ]), Is. 3814 Jer.
8 7 t RV, AV by an error [see below] ‘swallow.’ In
Is. 38 14 there is no ‘ or ’ between the first two names in
MT, and a B N A Q r omits ‘igzw altogether, rendering the
other word (DJD)correctly X E ~ L (see G ~ S WALLOW , z ) ; Long since when above I the heaven had not been named,
in the second passage where in M T the same two
words occur (Jer. 87) the connective particle is again
omitted, this time by 6. Hence it has been suggested
that in neither place should both words occur (Kloster-
mann, Duhm, etc., omit i u y in Is. ) ; this receives some
countenance from the fact that the M T order of the
words is reversed in Targ. and Pesh. in Jer. 87. The
transposition misled most Jewish authorities as to the
real meaning of the two words respectively, and our
translators followed them. That D ~ D(or rather D’D : see
SWALLOW, z ) means swallow ’ or ‘ swift’ there can he
no doubt, and so the words ‘crane’ and ‘swallow’
should at least change places (as in RV).
What ‘ig& means is somewhat uncertain : probably
Grus communis or cinerea, which is the crane of
Palestine. Once it bred in England. The passage in
Isaiah refers to its ‘ chattering’ ; and its powers of
1 On the meaning of Sw&jq, see Hatch, Essays on Bi6IicaZ
Greek, p. 47.
2 Lagnrde suggested that it means ‘bird of passage’
(& = G
‘, ‘to turn back, return,’ Uebers. 59).
3 ‘The Heh. (q???) properly signifies a shrill penetrating
sound, and is therefore more applicable to the stridulous ,cry of
the swift than to the deep, trumpet-like blast of the crane. See
the rest of Che.’s note in Pro#. Is., ad loc.
937
CREATION
Ziving utterance to loud and trumpet-like sounds both
when in flight and when at rest are well known.
Cranes are migratory birds, spending the summer in N.
atitudes and the winter as a rule in Central Africa and S. Asia;
>ut some pass the cold season in the plains of S. Judaea. While
.ravellingthey f l y in great flocks, and a t times come to rest on
:he borders of some stream or lake. They appear to have fixed
-0osting-places to which they return a t night in large numhers.
Jeremiah notices the regularity of their seasonal migrations.
N. M.-A. E. S. 1
CRATES ( KPATHC [A], W C A C [VI), the name of a
Former viceroy ‘ i n Cyprus’ (Pal r D v Kuaplwv), who
was left in charge of the citadel (of Jerusalem) by
SOSTRATUS in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes:
2 Macc. 4 29.
CREATION. I . Accounts1 of Creation.-It may be
regarded as an axiom of modern study that the descrip-
1. critical tions of creation contained in the biblical
standpoint. records, and especially in Gen. 1 1 - 2 4 a , ~
are permanently valuable only in so far
as they express certain religious truths which are still
recognised as such (see below, 5 25). To seek for even
a kernel of historical fact in such cosmogonies is incon-
sistent with a scientific point of view. W e can no
longer state the critical problem thus : How can the
biblical cosmogony he reconciled with the results of
this : From what source have the cosmogonic ideas ex-
pressed in the O T been derived? Are they ideas which
belonged to the Hebrews from the first, or were they
This question has passed into a new phase since the
most complete form of the Creation-story of the Baby-
2. Babylonian lonians has become known to us in its
cuneiform original. True, the story
epic’ given in the tablets lies before us in a
very fragmentarycondition. The exact nnmber of tablets
is uncertain. Considerable Zacuna, however, have been
there is good hope that further excavations will one day
enable us to complete the entire record. At any rate
we are now able to arrange all the extant fragments in
their right order-which was not the case a few years
ago-and so to recover at least the main features of the
connection of the cuneiform narrative. Only a brief
sketch of the contents can he given here.8
‘The ‘ Creation-epic’ begins by telling us that in the
beginning, before heaven and earth were made, there
was only the primaeval ocean-flood. This is personified
as a male and a female being (Apsii and TiBmat).
when h e earth beneath I (still) bore no name,
when Apsii the prirnzval -the generator of them
the originator (?)Ti&at,4 I who brought the; both forth
their waters in one I together mingled
when fields were (still) unformgd, I reeds (still) nowhere
seen-
1 On conceptions of creation, see helow, 5s 25-29 ; on words,
see 8 30.
2 It may be observed here that Gen. 2 4a was, originally the
superscription not the subscription. Schr., in his reprodultion
of the two n&ratives of the primitive story, rightly restores
it as the heading (Studien ZUY Kn’tik der UTesch., 1863, p.
172): In that case the priestly narrator can hardly have
continued with Gen. 1I . Restore therefore with Di. (Genesis,
17, 39), ‘This is the birth-story of heaven and earth when
E k h i m created them’ $ 0 7 7 5 ~~ a y $ . Then continue, ‘ N OW
the earth,’ etc. (v. 2 ) . Then God s a d Let light he; and light
was.’ See Kautzsch‘s translation (Kau: HS).
3 Cp Del. Das Bab. WeZtsclzd>fungsepos (‘97); Jensen,
KosnzoL 268.300; Zimmern, in Gunkel, Schd>J 401.417; and
Ball, Li‘At f r o m the East 1-21 (‘99). The metrical divisions
are well marked. The e i; is mainly composed in four-line
stanzas, and in each line tfere is a ciesura.
4 [Ass. Mummu Tzrinlaf. I n line 17 of this first tablet we
meet (most probably) with a god called Mummu. T h e name
corresponds to the M W W ~ LofF Darnascius (see beloy, 8 15 end),
and is rendered hy Frd. Del. in I. 4 , ‘the roaring. This’ is by
no means certainly right ; for the grounds see Del. 119. Pinches
renders, Lady Tilmat (Ex$ Times, 3 166). But Jensen warns
us that there is another ?~zu?~znzu. At any rate, the supposed
connection with oiil must he abandoned.]
938
 CREATION
long since, when of the gods I not one had arisen
when no name had been named, I no lot [be& determined],
.
U e n were made 1 the gods, [ . . I.
Thus the world of gods came into being. Its harmony,
however, was not long maintained. Tiamat, the mother
of the gods, was discontented with things as they were,
and from hatred (it would seem) to the newly pro-
duced Light, rebelled against the supreme gods, and
drew some of the gods to her side. She also for her
own behoof produced monstrous beings to help her in
her fight. This falling away of Tiamat called for divine
vengeance. T o reply to the call, however, required a
courage which none of the upper gods possessed, till at
last Marduk (Merodach) offered himself, on condition
that, after he had conquered Tiamat, the regal sway
over heaven and earth should be his. In a solemn
divine assembly this was assured to him. He then
equipped himself for the fight, and rode on the war-
chariot to meet Tiiimat and her crew. The victory fell
to Marduk, who slew TiBmat, and threw her abettors
into chains.
This is followed by the account of the creation of the
world by Marduk: The process is imagined thus.
Marduk cuts in two the carcase of Tiamat (the per-
sonified ocean-flood), and out of the one part produces
heaven, out of the other earth.2
H e smote her as a ... I into two parts.
one half he took, I he made it h e d i ’ s arch,
pushed bars before it, I stationed watchmen
not to let out its waters I he gave them’as a charge.
Thus the upper waters of TiHmat, held back by bars,
form heaven, just as in Gen.1 the first step to the
creation of heaven and earth consists in the separation
of the upper from the lower waters by the firmament.
Then follows a detailed description of the making of tl,,
heavenly bodies ( ‘ stations for the great gods ’).
After this most unfortunately come’s a great Zacuna.
W e can venture, however, to state so much as this-that
the missing passage must have related the creation of
the dry land, of plants, of animals, and of men. I n
support of this we can appeal ( I ) to separate small
fragments, ( 2 ) to the account of BErossus, ( 3 ) to the
recapitulation of the separate creative acts of Marduk
in a hymn to that god at the close of the epic, and (?)
to the description of the creative activity of Marduk in
a second cuneiform recension of the Creation-story
lately discovered (on the various Babylonian Creation-
stories, see also below, § 133).
What then is the relation between this Babylonian
and the chief biblical cosmogony? W e have no right
3. Relation to to assume without investigation that
the Hebrew myth of Creation appears
in its original form in Gen. 1I-2qa. The
present writer is entirely at one with Hermann Gunkel,
whose work entitled Sc/i@fzng u. Chaos in. Umeit und
Enn‘zeit3 (‘95) contains the fullest collection of the
relevant evidence, that this myth has passed through a
long development within the domain of Hebraism prior
to the composition of Gen. 1 1 . 2 4 ~ .’ Only with a clear
perception of this does critical method allow us to com-
pare the latter document directly with the Babylonian
Creation-epic. Then, however, our surprise is all the
greater that in spite of the preceding development there is
stillin the main points, a far-reaching coincidence between
the myths. For instance, both stories place water and
darkness alone at the beginning of things, and personify
the primzeval flood by the same name (Tiamat = TehGm).
In both the appearance of light forms the beginning of
the new order. Whether the production of light in
1 Jensen denies that Tiamat is anywhere in the Creation-epic
represented a s a dragon. she is always he thinks a woman.
It is, however not robadle that the poiular view df Tiamat a s
aserpent had’no egect on the poet of the Creation-epic. See
DRAGON 5 4 8
2 [Pos&bly the head of Tiamat is referred to at a later point of
the story by BEr6ssus. See below $j~ 5 . 1
3 The sub-title of this work which will he referred to again
is ‘Eine reZigiansreschi~htZiic/:aUntersurhnng ii6er Gen. i. u d i
Ap.joks xii. Mit Beitragen von Heinrich Zimmern.’
939
CREATION
the Babylonian account was specified as a separate
creative act or not (a point on which complete cer-
tainty cannot as yet be obtained), Marduk is at any rate
the god of light XUT’ .?fox?jv, and, consequently, his
battle with Tiamat is essentially a battle between light
and darkness. In both accounts the creation of heaven
is effected through the divine creator’s division of the
waters of the primaeval flood, so that the upper waters
form the heaven. In the Babylonian epic this division
of the waters of the flood is in the closest relation to the
battle with TiZmat ; nor can we doubt that R paralle
description once existed in the Hebrew myth of crea-
tion, though it is but faintly echoed in Gen. 16f: The
list of the several creative acts runs thus in the two
accounts :-
BABYLONIAN. GEN. 1, IN PRESENT O RDER .~
I. Heaven. I. Heaven.
2. Heavenlv bodies. 2. Earth.
3. Earth. . 3. Plants.
4. Plants. 4. Heavenly bodies.
5. Animals. 5. Animals.
6. Men. 6. Men.
There is much, however, to be said for the view that the
present position of the heavenly bodies after the plants
is secondary,2 and that originally the creation of the
heavenly bodies was related clirectly’after that of heaven ;
the order will then be the same in both accounts.
Further coincidences can be traced in points of detail :
Fg., the stress laid, in both accounts of the creation of
the heavenly bodies, on their being destined to serve
for the division of time (see also below, 6). Can we
doubt that, between accounts which have so many coin-
cidences, there is a real historical connection?
W e must now inquire how this connection is to
he reDresented. There are two ways which are his-
4. Distinctively torically conceivable. Either the
Hebrew and the Babylonian accounts
Babylonian are independent developments of n
baclrground. Drimitive Semitic mvth. or the Hebrew
is borrowed direcily or indirectly from the Babylonian.
Dillmaun proposes the former view in connection with a
remark that the Hebrew story cannot have been simply
borrowed from the Babylonians on account of the patent
differences between the two narratives. ‘There is no
doubt a common basis ; hut this basis comes from very
early times, and its data have been developed and
turned to account in different ways by the Israelites and
the Babylonians.’ In reply we may concede to Dill-
mann that the cosmogony in Gen. 1 cannot have been
simply taken over from the Babylonians, and that there
are strong a priori reasons for admitting the existence
of a common stock of primitive Skmitic myths. Still,
that the Hebrew myth, which is still visible in Gen. 1,
was borrowed at a later time from the Babylonians, is
the only theory which accounts for the phenomena
before 11s. There are features of the utmost importance
to the story which cannot be satisfactorily explained
except from the Babylonian point of view.
At the‘ very outset for instance why from a specifically
Hebrew point of view,’should the witers &the tWim be placed
a t the beginning of all thinqs? Or we may put our objection t o
Di.’s theory thus the quesiion to be answered by a cosmogony
is this, ‘ Hpw did the visible heaven and earth first come into
existence? T h e answer given in Gen. 1 is unintelligible in the
mouth of an early Israelite, for it implies a mental icture which
is characteristically Babylonian. As the world s t i t arises anew
every year and every day, so, thought the Babylonian, must it
originally have been produced. During the long winter the
Babylonian plain looks like the sea (which in Babylonian is
ti(imtu, tiamat), owing to the heavy rains. Then com’es the
spring, when the god of the vernal sun (Marduk) brings forth
the land anew, and by his potent rays divides the waters of
1 Most critics, however, reckon eight or seven creative acts.
C p Wellh. C H 1 8 7 8 ; Bu. Txesch. 4 g 8 x ; Di. Gen.16,y.
2 See Gunkel, SckfijJ 14 ; this unnatural arrangement may
be explained by supposing that when the framework of the seven
days was introduced, the plants, for which no special day re-
mained, were combined with the earth, and so came to stand
before the stars.’
3 Di. Gen. (‘92), p. 1 1 ; cp his UeJw die Herkunfi der
urgeschichtl. Sagen (Berlin Acad. 1882)) p. 4 2 7 3 , and Ryle,
Early Narratives ofGen., I Z ~ .
940
 CREATION
Tiamat which previously, a s it were, formed a whole, and sends
them partly upward a s clouds, partly downward to the rivers
and canals. So must it have been in the first spring, a t the first
New Year, when, after a tight between Marduk and Tiamat
the organised world came into being.1 Or (for Marduk is als;
the god of the early morning sun), just as the sun crosses and
conquers the cosmic sea (TiZmat) every morning and out of the
chaos of night causes to appear first the h e w & and then the
earth so must heaven and earth have arisen for the first time on
the fiist morning of creation. T o imagine a similar origin of the
myth from a Hebrew point of view would be hopeless. T h e
picture requires as its scene an a l l u k d land which Babylonia
is, and Palestine or the Syro-Arabian desert is Aot, and it requires
further a special god of the spring sun or of the early morning
sun, such as Marduk is and Yahwe is nbt.2
In short, rightly to understand the Babylonian account
as, in its origin, a mythic description of one of the most
familiar natural phenomena of Babylonia gives the key
to the problem before us. The Israelitish cosmogony
must have been borrowed directly or indirectly from the
Babylonian (cp also §§ 5 and 11). H. %.
The preceding sections contain ( I ) an account of the
great Babylonian creation epic (§ z ) , ( 2 ) a comparison
5, Mythical of this with the chief Hebrew cosmogony,
basis of Gen, and a criticism of Dillmann’s theory (§
3), and ( 3 ) an explanation of the Baby-
1 I-24a. lonian myth and of its pale Jewish copy
(§ 4). Of these 3 and § 4 relate to snbjects on which
It is not unbecoming for the present writer to speak.$
That there is more than one Hebrew cosmogony, will be
shown presently; we will begin with that in Gen. 1I-24a.
It is a very unfortunate statement of Wellhausen that
the only detail in this section derived from mythology is
that of chaos in z. 2, the rest being, he thinks, due to
reflection and systematic construction. Reflection, no
doubt, is not absent--e.g., the framework of days is
certainly late-bnt the basis of the story is mythical.
Nor can we content ourselves with comparing the data
of Gen. 1 with any single mythology, snch as the Baby-
lonian. Circumstanced as the Israelites were, we must
allow for the possibility of Phcenician, Egyptian, and
Persian, as well as Babylonian influences, and we must
not refuse to take a passing glance at cosmogonies of
less civilised peoples. For some elements in the Jewish
Creation-story are so primitive that we can best under-
stand them from the wide point of view of an anthro-
pologist.
The Babylonian parallelisms may be summed up
briefly (cp above, § 3). The points of contact are- (I)
6. Parallelisms: the primzval flood (oinn=Ti%mat),
Babylonian. (2)the primzval light (Marduk was a
god of light before the luminaries were
created), (3) the production of heaven by the division of
the primzval flood, ( 4 ) the appointment of the heavenly
bodies to regulate times and seasons, (5) the order of
the creative acts (the parallelism, however, in the present
form of Gen. 1 is imperfect), (6) the divine admonitions
addressed to men after their creation.5 T o these may
be added (7) creation by a word (see below, § 27), an
idea which was doubtless prominent in the full Baby-
1 [The Babylonian New Year’s festival called Zzkmuk, which
has clearly influenced the corresponding Jewish festival, stands
in close relation to the ccsmogonic myth. For the ‘tablets of
destiny,’ on which the fates of all living were inscribed on New
Year’s Day, were taken by Marduk from Kingu the captive
consort of Tilmat (Tab. iv. I 121). I n its popula; conception,
Zakmuk was probably a t once the anniversary of creation and
the day of judgment. So Karppe.]
2 Cp Jensen KosmoL 307.309. Gunkel Sc@#/ 24-26.
3 T h e gerrn’of what follows ik to be found in the EB art.
‘Cosmogony,’ 1877. The view of the history of mytholdgical
ideas among the Israelites is that which the writer has advocated
in a series of works (some of them are referred to later) and
which, with a much fuller array of facts, but with some qu&tion-
able critical statements, has been put forward lately hy Gunkel
(‘95). On the general subject of cosmogonies, cp Fr. Lukas
Gerund6eg~Q7iezu den Kosiuogonieen deer alten VoZker (‘93);
pp. 1-14, on the Babylonian myths and Genesis.
4 Perol. ET 298.
5 Seethe fragment in Del. WeZfschd2fungsCpos5 4 5 111. T h e
admonitions relate to purity of heart, early mording prayer, and
sacrifice. T h e passage on the creation of man has not yet been
found ; hut there is a n allusion to this creative act in the con-
cluding tablet.
94 = $42
CREATION
lonian epic, and (8) the creation of man in the divine
image, and the participation of inferior divine beings in
the w0rk.l
Phcenician mythology is an embarrassing combination
of Babylonian and Egyptian (possibly we should add
7. Phcenician. Jewish2) elements, and is, moreover,
known to us only from fragments of
older works cited by Philo of *Byblns and Damascius.3
Still, distorted and discoloured as the myths presented
to us may be, the main features of them have a very
primitive appearance. The source of all things is
described in the first of Philo’s cosmogonies as a chaos
turbid and black as Erebns, which was acted upon by a
wind (the pi of Gen. 12 [cp below, col. 944, n. 21)
which became enamoured of its own elements ( d p p i ) .
These d p ~ ared the two sides or aspects of the divine
being referred to “the male and female principle, the
latter of which in another of the Byhlian cosmogonies
(Muller, op. cit. iii. 500 3 )is called Baau. We may
perhaps compare this Baau with BohE7 in the Hebrew
phrase f&u wd-65hu (wasteness and wideness = chaos) in
Gen. 12. Some would also connect it with the Baby-
lonian Bn’u, the ‘great mother.’ True, this goddess
was held to be the consort of Ninib, the god of the rising
sun, whereas Baau is the spouse of B u ~ p o s~ o h s i a sand
her name is said to mean ‘ night ’ ( =chaos ?). The con-
nection of Ba’u with Ninib, however, may perhaps be of
later origin. The result of the union of the two divine
dpXal was the birth of MwT-Z’.~. , according to Hal&vy,8
r b Mwr=niahp (cp Prov. 8 2 4 , niohgwa). M w r , we are
told, was egg-shaped. Here one may detect Egyptian
influence, for Egyptian mythology knows of a world-egg,
which emerged out of the watery mass (the god Nun).
This is confirmed by a reference in the cosmogony of
Mochus (in Damascius, 385) to Xouuwp ‘the opener,’
whom it is tempting to connect with Ptah, the divine
deminrge of Memphis ; the name of Ptah may have bceii
explained in Phcenician as the ‘ opener (nna),’ viz. of the
cosmic egg. T o the same cosmogony (Philo gives a
different account) we owe the statement that this Xouuwp
split the egg in two,yupon which one of the pieces became
1 See the Berossian story referred to below (B 15). In the
epic the creation of man was ascribed to Marduk (but cp Jensen
Kosnr. zgz,f). but it ispossible(seeDel. 03.cit. 110) that M a r d u i
committed &me part of the creation of the world to the other
greater divinities. May we thus account for the evolutionar):
language of some parts of Gen. 1 II? ‘Let the earth bring forth
would then mean ‘Let the earth-god (a diyine energy inherent
in the earth) cause the earth to bring forth.
2 Considering the late date of the reporter, we cannot exclude
this ossibility.
3 8 p Baudissin, Sfudd. zur sem. ReL-gesch. i. (Essay I.);
Gruppe, Uiegriech. Curie u. MyUen, 1 3 5 1 8
4 Muller, Perapt. Hist. Grrpc. 3 565.
5 The two later Targums explain n*n5x n n in Gen. 1z b y
] p ! 9 N ? ? l ‘the spirit of love’ (cp Wisd. 1124). T h e love
ex ressed here however is that called forth by the need of help.
! D l Vogii6: Mcflang&, 6 0 5
7 Holzinger (note on Gen. 12) objects to the combination of
Baau and BBhB, that Baau appears a s the mother of the two
first men, which will not suit B6hii ; but the Byblian mythologist
is inerror, as WRS(Burnett Lectures[AlSl)haspointed out. ALWV
is not properly a ‘mortal man,’ and 1rpw6yovos is a late inven-
tion based upon a wrong theory ; here as elsewhere the dualism
is artificial. Afwv is identical with the O ~ ? h o ~of o rMochus, the
Xp6vopofEudemus-i.e., P>v ’the world’ (see Eccl. 3 11). T h e
connection with Bab. Ba’u ismore doubtful. Cp Jensen KosmoZ.
245 ; Hommel, Diesem. ViUzeer, i. 3 7 9 8 , A H T , 66, GhA, 2j5 ;
Haupt, Bcitr. ztw Assyer. i. 181 ; and see KB, 3a21. Whether
T o h t (ink) also was from the first a mythic word, is uncertain.
T h e combination of taho and bohil may be artificial ; cp Jabal,
Jubal, Tubal (Geu. 4 20-zz), 2 g V p ?$d (Job 30 3), “pp?
(Ezek. G 14).
8 MLl. 387 ; W R S in Burnett Lectures agrees.
Elsewhere X o u u ~ pand his brother are said to have discovered
the use of iron, like the Hebrew Tubal-Cain, himself probably a
divine demiurge (see CAINITES,$ IO). W R S (Burnett Lectures)
suggests that he may have invented iron to cut open the cosmic
egg (cp the arming of Marduk in the Creation-epic, Tab. iv.).
This is clearly correct. Kpdvos in Philo’s theogony makes Bpmq
and S6pu to fight against O6pauds. Originally however the
weapon of the demiurge was the lightning ; see Jinsen, Ko&oZ.
333.
 CREATION
heaven, and the other earth. Here we have a point of
contact with the Babylonian and also with the Hebrew
cosmogony, for the body of Tiamat is, in fact, as
Robertson Smith in his Burnett Lectures remarks, ' the
matrix or envelope of the dark seething waters of
primaeval chaos,' and the separation of the lower from
the upper waters in Gen. 1 7 is only a less picturesque
form of the same mythic statement. These are ' poor
and beggarly elements,' no doubt : but then Phcenicia
lacked what Babylonia possessed, a poet who could
select, and to some extent moralise, such parts of the
tradition as were best worth preserving. W e shall see
later (5 28) that Judaea had a writer who in some im-
portant respects excelled even the author of the epic.
Egyptian mythology, which had perhaps an original
kinship to the Babylonian cannot be passed over, when
8. Egyptian. we consider the close relations which long
existed between Egypt and Canaan. The
common Egyptian belief was that for many ages the
latent germs of things had slept in the bosom of the
dark flood (personified as Nut or Niiit and Nun). How
these germs were drawn forth and developed was a story
told differently in the different nomes or districts.
A t Elephantine, for instance, the derniurge was called u n u m u ;
h e was the potter who moulded his creatures out of the mud of
the Nile (which was the earthly image of Nun); or, it was also
said, who modelled the world-egg. His counterpart at Memphis,
the artizan god Ptah, gave to the light-god, and to his body,
the artistically perfect form. At Hermopolis it was Thoth who
made the world, speaking it into existence. 'That which flows
from his mputh,'it is said, 'happens and what he speaks, comes
into being. I n the east of the Delta: a more complicated account
was given. Earth and sky were originally two lovers lost in the
primaeval waters, the god lying under the goddess. 'On the day
of creation a new god Shu, slipped between the two, and seizing
Nnit with both hands: lifted her above his head with outstretched
arms.' Thus, among other less striking parallelisms, we have
in Egypt, as well as in Babylonia and in Palestine, the primaeval
flood, the forcible separation of heaven and earth, and creation
by a word, as elements in the conceptions of creation.3
The subject of Iranian parallelisms has been treated
at great length by Lz~garde,~ who argues for the depend-
9. Iranian. ence of the Priestly Writer as regards the
order of the works and days, on a Persian
system, against which, however, in the very act of
borrowing from it, this writer protests. It is not
probable, however, that the indebtedness of the Jews
to Persia began so early ; it is not before the latter part
of the Persian rule that the direct influence of Persian
beliefs (themselves largely influenced by Babylonian)
begins to be clearly traceable in-Judaism. If we could
venture to identify the A R T ~ E R X E ( qS. v . ) of Ezra with
Artaxerxes II., it would beeasier to adopt Lagarde'sview.
I n the present stageof critical inquiry, however, this course
does not appear to be advisable. Nor is it at all certain
that the Iranian belief in the creation of the world in
six periods goes back so far as to the time of Artaxerxes
11. It is referred to only in the late book called
Bundehish, and in one or two passages of the Yasna
(192 4 8 ) and the Vispered (7;), which, on philological
grounds, are regarded as comparatively late. Caland,
indeed, has endeavoured to show that in the Yasht of
the Fravashis (or protective spirits) a poetical reference
is made to the creative works of Ahura WIazda, in the
order in which these are given in the Bnndehish.6 Hut
what object can we have in tracing the Hebrew accoimt
to the Iranian, when we have, close at hand, the
Babyloniau story, from which the Iranian is plainly
derived? The reference, or at least allusion, to chaos
1 Second series (M.7).
2 C p Hommel, Der 6a6. Ursjrungder&~yjpf. KuZiizlv, 1892
(infer alia, the Egyptian Nun is connected with Bab. Anum,
the god of the heavenly ocean).
3 See Brugsch. h'd u. Myth. der alien Aegypfer, 2 2 ro7.161
2nd elsewhere ; Maspero, Dawn of Civ. 128 146 ; Meyer, GA 74.
4 Purim, ein Eeitr. zur Gesch. der ReZ. ('87).
5 T h T 23 179-185 ['891.
6 The order is-heaven the waters earth, plants animals
mankind. Light the lighi in which k o d dwells. is)itself unt
created-an incorkstency due to Babylonian influence (see col.
950 n. I). I n Job3S7 there may be a tendency to this belief
(see 0 21 [el).
913
CREATION
n Gen. 1 2 is at any rate not Iranian ; why should the
%her features in the narrative be? It would no doubt
>e possible to give the epithet ' Iranian ' to the ascription
,f ideal perfection to the newly created world in the
Hebrew cosmogony. But it is by no means necessary
.o do so. Such idealisation would be naturally suggested
3y the thought that the evil now so prominent in the
world cannot have lain within the purpose of the divine
xeat0r.I Besides, Jewish thinkers would inevitably be
*epelled by Zoroastrian dualism. The existence of the
two primaval antagonistic spirits is not indeed alluded
to in the rock-cut inscriptions of Darius and Xerxes ;
but the best scholars agree that it formed part of the
old Zoroastrian creed; it is indeed expressly recognised
in the GBthLs (Yasna xxx.). Ahura Mazda, the 'much-
knowing Lord,' assisted by the six Anishaspands, is the
xeator of all the good things in the world. He is opposed,
however, by Angra Mainyu, to whom the material and
moral possession of the world is ascribed. All that we
can venture to suppose, is a possible indirect influence of
the high Zoroastrian conception of Ahura Mazda on the
conception of Yahwi: formed by the Babylonian Jews.
The details of the Jewish Creation-story arose inde-
pendently of Persia.
Points of contact with more primitive mythologies
also are numerous. Abundant material will be found in
Sir George Grey's Polynesian Mytho-
lo. more Zogy, and vol. vi. of Waitz iind Ger-
primitive land's AnUropolofie de7 NaiurvoZher.
mythologies.
That drv land and animate life. but not
matter, had a beginning, and that, before the' present
order of things, water held all things in solution, are
opinions common among primitive races, and one of the
most widely spread mythic symbols is the egg. The
expression in Gen. 12, ' and the breath of Elohim was
brooding (nanio) over the surface of the waters,' has its
best illustration (in the absence of the mythic original
which probably represented the deity as a bird) in the
common Polynesian representation of Tangaloa, the god
of heaven, and of the atmosphere, as a bird which hovered
over the ocean-waters, till, as it is sometimes said, he
laid an egg3 (the world-egg). This egg is the world-
egg, and we may suppose that 'in the earliest form of
the [Hebrew] narrative it may have been said " the bird
of ElBhim ; " wind appears to be an interpretation.'4
" "
The forcible separation of heaven and earth (Gen. 1 7 IO)
is illustrated, not only by the interesting Egyptian myth
mentioned above (I 8), but also by the delightful Maori
story told by Sir George Grey, and illustrated by Lang
in a not less delightful essay ( C z d o m and iWyth, 4 5 8 ) .
The anecdotal character of myths like these adds to
their charm. It is only in the last stage of a religion
that cosmogonies are systematised,-
Greek endings, each the little passing-bell
That signifies some faith's about to die,
though the death-struggle may be prolonged, and may
issue in a higher life.
We have thus seen that the Creation-story in Gen. 1I-
1 Gunkel less naturally thinks that in the formula, ' And God
saw that it was good ' there is a n implied contrast to the evil
state called t&zriddh~~(chaos).
2 The word qni (Piel) occurs only twice, and both times (as in
Syriac) of a bird's brooding. See Dt. 82 11, and Driver's note
(Dezif. 358, foot), also We. ProL(4) 395 (lD!li Jer.239, should
he 9222 [Gratz]). Hence the Talmudists compared the divine
spirit to a dove (cp Mt. 316 Mk.110 Lk. 322). The Phce-
nician myth, in the very late form known to us, has lost all
trace of the bird-symbol ; it speaks only of a wind (571).
3 Waitz-Gerland, AnthvopoZ. 6 241. I n Egypt too, the first
creative act begins with the formation of an e g i ; but it is the
egg of the sun and nothinr: is said of a bird which laid the egg
(see Brugsch, kel. z. Myih. deraZfen Aegyjter i o i f i ) .
4 EE art. 'Cosmogony,' 1877. I n 1835 ;he same idea
occurred to Gunkel (Schij5J E). It is of course not a storm-
bird that is meant. storm-birds are not uncommon : see, e.g.,
the Babylonian m j t h of Adapa, in which the south wind is
represented as having wings, and c p Ps. 1810 [II]). See
WINDS.
944
 CREATION
24n is not, as Wellhausen represents (above, § s), merely
ll. Fuller the product of reflection. It has a
account of considerably mythic substratum. That
Gen. r-2 4a. substratum is mainly Babylonian ; but
Egyptian and even Persian influence is not
excluded. Indeed, for that singular passage Gen. 1 2 ,
Egyptian influence, either direct or more probably
(through Phoenician or Canaanitish mythology) indirect,
seems to be suggested. W e are thus brought face to
face with a new problem. How is it that the Priestly
Writer, with his purified theology, and his comparatively
slight interest in popular tradition, should have adopted
so much mythology as the basis of his statement that
'God created the heaven, the earth, and all that is in
the earth, and hallowed the seventh day ' ?
If the Yahwist had given a creation-story, corre-
sponding to his Flood-story, the phenomena of Gen. 1
would not be so surprising. The Priestly
12*Lost Jz Writer might thus be taken to have acted
Original' consistently by giving an improved version
of both traditional st0ries.l But we have no Yahwistic
creation-story, except indeed in a fragmentary form,
and though the lost portion of the cosmogonic preface
to J's Paradise-story (based probably on a Canaanitish
story) must have differed greatly from the cosmogony
in Gen. 1, yet it is most improbable that P would
spontaneously have thought of competing with J by
producing a new semi-Babylonian cosmogony. I n the
next place it should be noticed that the Flood-story
which J has borrowed, directly or indirectly, from
Babylon, stands in Babylonian mythology in close
connection with the creation-story ; the two events are
in fact only separated by the ten antediluvian Chaldean
kings and an uncertain interval between creation and
the foundation of a dynasty. The list of the ten kings
is certainly represented, however imperfectly, by J's
Cainite genealogy (see CAINITES§ 3 J ) ; it is probable
therefore that J (as represented by the stratum called Jz)
originally had a creation-story with strong Babylonian
affinities, and that P used this story as the basis of his
own cosmogony.
Accepting this hypothesis, we are no longer surprised
at the echoes of mythology in Gen. 1 1 - 2 4 n . Underneath
P we recognise the debris of the cosmogony of Jz The
Priestly Writer did not go out of his way to collect
Babylonian mythic d a t a ; he simply adopted and
adapted the work of a much earlier writer.
T h e hypothesis is due to the sagacity of Budde 2 and the more
clearly we discern the mythic elements in P's Losmogony, the
more probable and indeed inevitable does the hypothesis become.
That the old cosmogony has been lost, is much to he deplored :
but we can easily believe that it would have been too trying to
devout members of the ' congregation' to have had before them
in the same book the early and almost half-heathenish recension
of a Canaanitish-Babylonian cosmogony produced by Jz and the
much more sober but in all essentials thoroughly orthodox recast
of this recension due to the Priestly Writer. Whether the latter
found any reference to the sabbath in the older story which
might seem to justify his insertion of the divine appointment of
the sabbath, we do not know. Jepsen finds a reference to the
17th and 14th days of the month in the fifth tablet of the epic
(ZZ. 173), and Zimmern even inserts conjecturally 'oil the
sabbath' (line 18) ; hut whether anypart of this obscure passage
lay in any form before Jz, must remain uncertain.
The explanation given by Zimmern (above, 4) does
justice, as no other explanation can do, to the circum-
stances and the ideas of the ancient
13. Develop-
merit of the Babylonians at a comparatively remote
v-: ~ period. If it somewhat closely re-
q U G .
sembles the explanation of the Baby-
~
lonian flood-story, this is no -objection. The post-
diluvian earth may in a qualified sense be called a new
earth, and some mythologies expressly recognise that
the present creation is rather a re-~reation.~Still, it
1 P has in fact given his own Flood-story in which the tradi-
tion of J is harmonised with P's theory of the history of cultus.
See DELUGE, B 4 3
2 U ~ e s c h470.492;
. Z A T W 6 3 7 . 6 ['861. Cp Bacon, Gen.
3 3 5 . 6 ['921.
3 See, e.g., the legend of the (non-Aryan) Santals of Bengal in
Hunter's K w a Z BengaZ, 15of:
915
.GREATION
would be rash to suppose that even this explanation
sntirely accounts for the Babylonian myth. It may
very possibly have been the theory of the most thought-
lul of the Babylonian priests-of those who did most
lor the systematising of the mythic details. The details,
however, are themselves so peculiar that they invite a close
Examination and a fuller application of the comparative
method. When this has been given we see that a long
mythic development must have preceded the story of the
creation epic, which is not like an isolated rock rising
out of a vast plain, but like a tree which derives its
sustenance from a rich vegetable mould, itself of very
gradual formation. It is out of the mould of primeval
folklore that the great creation-myth has drawn its life ;
later ages recombined the old material, and gave the
result a new meaning. Man invents but little: the
Babylonians, we may be sure, borrowed their dragon-
myth, and much besides, from earlier races, whose modes
of thoiight lie outside of our present field of study.
The comparative lateness of the ' epic ' (the title is
not inappropriate) which ASur-bani-pal added to his royal
library, is too obvious to require argument ; but it is
plain also that it is based upon archaic materials. In
particular the myth of Apsc and l i a m a t can be traced
as far back as to 1500 B.C. through inscriptions which
refer to the ' abysses ' or ' seas ' of Babylonian temples
(see NEI~USHTAN § 2 ) ; these ' seas' were in fact
trophies of the victory of the young Sun-god over the
primzeval, cosmic sea, with which Tiamat is to be
identified. In 1500 B . C . this myth was doubtless
already of immemorial antiquity.
Other less elaborate creation-stories are known to
us-specimens of the very varied traditions which had
14. at least a local circulation. Some are
forms. preserved in fragments of BErBssus and
Damascius, others have only lately been
revealed to us by T. G. Pinches and his predecessor the '
lamented G. Smith, whom ASur-bani-pal would certainly
have recognised as worthy to have been one of the
dupSnrri, or scribes, of his library, for it was he who
was the discoverer and the first translator of A h - b a n i -
pal's great ' Creation-epic.'
The Greek-reading world owed its chief acquaintance
with Babylonian mythology to a Greelc-writing priest
15. Beros- of Bel named BErBssus (about 280 B .c.).
sian, etc. It is unfortunate that we B ~ O Whis book
Xahsbiitd onlyfrom very imperfect extracts ;1
but, considering his competence and his unique oppor-
tunities of consulting ancient documents, we cannot
afford to neglect these extract's. One of the most
important of them is a fragment of a cosmogony. Its
resemblances to statements in both the creation-stories
of Genesis, especially the first, are obvious. Among
them we may mention ( I ) the description of the
primeval darlcness and water, ( 2 )the name 0 a p n 2 (cp.
D i m ) , translated BBXauaa, which is given to the woman
who ruled over the monsters of chaos,3 and ( 3 ) the
origin ascribed to heaven and earth, which arose out
of the two halves of the body of 0 a u ~cut , asunder by
Bel, while the creation of man by one of the gods (at
Bel's command), who mixed with clay the blood which
flowed from the severed head, not of Bel, but of the
dragon T i a m ~ ~may t , ~be compared, or contrasted, with
Gen. 27.
1 See Muller, Fmx. Hist. Grec. 2 497; Budde, Urges&.
474-485 ; and cp Tiele, BAG I T : Schr. COT1 1 3 3
2 According to Robertson Smith's happy restoration, Z A
6 3 3 9 . T h e text has OaharB.
8 Cp those monsters with the 'helpers of Rahab' in Job
9 1 3 RV, and with the 'four beasts' which came u
the 'greatsea'(Dan. 7 2 - 4 ) . T h e latter passageis eschato?o$:$
The powers of evil will again he let loose and rule upon earth,
but will a t last be overcome (cn A N TI C HRI S T . 6 I ) .
4 The correction of ;avm$ (twice) -inthe YextFf B r a s s u s (in
Syncellns, 52 J ) is due to Dindorf. but its importance was
noticed first by Stncken ( A s f r a l & f h e n 1 5 5 ) . T h e text is
translated by Lenormant, Las oris'nes 1507 and Gunkel SchciYJ
19. Just before mention has been m,he of h e formation'of earth
916
 CREATION
The theogony of Damasciusl (6th cent. A . D . ) is at
first sight of less importance. It shows, however, more
clearly than the Berossian fragment that the essential
features of the story of the epic were well known, for
the two chief mythic names mentioned by Damascius-
viz., TauOe and Amcuwv-are plainly derived from
Tiamat and Apsil, whilst the only begotten son of this
couple is Mwupcs, which corresponds to the obscure name
Mummu in the epic (Tab. I , ZZ. 4, 1 3 ; see above, § 2,
second note).
We now turn to the cuneiform records, among which
the so-called Cuthaean cosmogony .( Z L " ) 1r49j?)2 is
16. Three not to be included. ( a ) The chief of these
cuneiform is the great Creation-epic, of which the
stories. reader has already heard. Its place of
origin was, of conrse, Babylon, as appears
from the fact that its hero is the god Marduk, who
was the patron of Babylon. Obviously this is only
one of several local versions of the primitive myth.
I n the original story Bel of Nippur was, no doubt,
the great god who overcame 'Tiamat, and prepared
the way for creation. The priests of the other sacred
cities, however, had to protect the interests of their
patron deities, and local Creation-myths were the result.
(6) In another version of the myth,$ the fight between
the divine champion and Tihinat occurs after the
creation, and is waged for the deliverance of gods and
men alike. ' W h o will set forth (to slay) the dragon,
to rescue the wide earth and seize the royal power?
Set forth, 0 God SOH, slay the dragon, rescue the
wide earth, and seize the royal power. ' An extravagant
account is given (in the manner of the Jewish Talmud)
of the dragon's size, and it is said that when the dragon
was slain its blood flowed night and day for three
years and three (six ? ) months. This may suggest the
ultimate mythic origin of ' a time, times, and a half' in
* Dan. 1 2 7 Rev. 1214.
( c ) A much fuller and, if we assume its antiquity, more
important narrative is the ' non-Semitic ' one translated
by Pinches in 1890 from a bilingual text discovered by
G. Smith.l It is a mixture of creation- a i d cultnre-
myth, and as a culture-myth we have already had
occasion to refer to it (see C AINITES , 3). The
creation-story is given only in allusions. It is stated that
once upon a time thrr:: was no vegetation, and ' all the
lands' (of Babyloilia?) were sea. Then there arose a
movement in the sea, and the most ancient cities and
temples of Babylonia were created. Next the sub-
ordinate divine beings called Aaunnaki were created,
after which Mardulc set a reed on the water,Gformed
dust, and poured it out beside the reed. Then, ' tc
cause the gods to dwell in a delightful place,' hc
made mankind (cp Gen. 126J ) with the co-operation ol
and heiven out (Jf the two parts of Opop(w)Kar (with whom the
renorter of BerOssus identifies Tinmat). I t stands to reasor
th'at the severed head spoken of in connection with the creatior
of man must be TiLmat's not that of the Creator thougk
Eusebius already had before)him the reading ;avmii (,e Budde
UrResch. 479). T h e passage is therefore not a statement 0:
the kinship of God and man (WRS Rel. Sem.P) 43), thougk
it is of course to be assumed that the god spoken of made mar
in his own physical likeness (cp Maspero, Dawn of Ciu. 110).
Strange to say, the name Opop(o)Ka seems to have come intc
the text of BErOssus by mistake. For most likely it is a cor
ruption of Marduk (Jastrow Re!. of Ba6. and Ass. 5 ; cy
J. H,. Wright, Z A 1071 s).' T h e story, however, is onl)
Intelligible on the theory adopted in this note.
1 See Scbr. C O T 1 1 2 ; Jensen, Kosmol. 2 7 0 3
2 See Zimmern, Z A , 1897, 377 8 The story relates to tht
mythological history of a king of the primitive age, and is no
cosmogonic.
3 See Zimmern's transl. in Gunkel, Sch62J 417-419. Tht
colophon assigns this tablet also to the library of ASnr-bani-pal.
4 Pinches, RPPJ6 1 0 9 8 ' cp Hommel, Deuische Rundsckiau
('91), pp. 105-114. A. jiremias represents this and siinila
myths as artificial products, composed iu a Babylonian interes
(Beitv. zur Assvv. iii. 1108),. : but the Driests certainlv did no
&went altogethe;.
5 Cp the name ' land of reeds and canals,' given to S. Baby
lonia on the vases of Egaganna, king of Erech, before 4500 B.C.
and See the illustration of gigantic Chaldzan reeds, Maspero
Dawn of Ciu. 552.
917
CREATION
.he goddess Arnru (whom we shall have to refer to
tgain, col. 949, n. 4). W e are allowed to infer that
:his waste of water had been converted into a fruitful
plain by the industry of the newly created men, a+ng
under the direction of the gods ; and to these gods is
ascribed the greatest of all human worlcs, the erection
3f the sacred cities of Babylonia with their temples.
Thus the most characteristic part of the Babylonian
myth-viz., the fight of the sun-god with Tiamat-is
conspicuous by its absence. The reader should notice
this, as it illustrates one of the two chief Hebrew
cosmogonies (see below, § zo [c]).
The statement that the myth which underlies Gen. 1
is of Babylonian origin may now be supplemented thus.
'I. The epic of Alur-bani-pal's library stands at the
height of a great mythic developnient. W e cannot
17. Provisional therefore presume that we have re-
covercd the exact form of theBabylonian
result, myth on which the narrative in Gen. 1
(or the earlier narrative out of which that in Gen. 1
has grown) is based.
2. Since there were several creation-stories in Baby-
lonia, it is n priori probable that other stories besides
that refcrred to may, either as wholes or in parts, have
influenced the creation-stories in Palestine.
These reasoilable inferencessuggest two fresh inquiries.
W e have to ask, T. What is the earliest date at which
19. Date of the adoption of Babylonian myths by
the Israelites is historically conceivable ?
and 2. What evidence have we of the
isation' existence of other Hebrew creation-myths
than that in Gen. l r - 2 4 n , some of which may even
enable us to fill up incomplete parts of that narrative?
In reply to the first question it is enough to refer to
recent studies on the Amarna tablets. The letters in
Babylonian cuneiform sent by kings and governors of
Western Asia to Amen-hotep Ill. and Amen-hotep IV.
prove that, even before the Egyptian conquests and the
rise of the Assyrian kingdom, Babylonian culture had
spread to the shores of the Mediterranean. ' Religious
myths must have formed part of this culture.'l It is
therefore in the highest degree probable that Babylonian
creation- and deluge- myths penetrated into Canaan
before the fifteenth century B . c . , and as soon as the
Israelites became settled in Palestine they would have
opportunities enough of absorbing these myths.
At the same time it should be noticed that there are
also several other periods in Israelitish history when
either an introduction of new or a revival of old myths
is historically conceivable.2 T h e s s t is the time of
David and Solomon. The former appears to have had
a Babylonian secretary (see S HAVSHA) ; the latter
admitted into his temple a brazen ' sea ' (representing,
as shown already, the primaeval Mzim or tiamat) and a
brazen serpent (representing the dragon ; see NEHUSH-
TAN). The second is the eighth and seventh centuries
B. c., when Aramzan, Assyrian, and neo-Babylonian
influences became exceedingly strong, and were felt
even in the sphere of religion. The third and fozwth
are .the exilic and post-exilic periods, when (see e.g.,
Job and Is. 40-55) there was a revival of mythology
which the religious organisation of Judaism could
neutralise but not put down.
I n replying to the second question (asto the evidence
for other cosmogonic stories in the OT), we must of
20. OT. reff. course be satisfied with very incomplete
to other cos- references. Such we can find both in
. pre-exilic and in post - exilic writings.
'
mogonles Pre-exilic references occur in ( a ) Gen.
pre-exilic. gq, 2 5 , in (6) Tudq. 520, and especially
. - in
(c) the introduction to 'the Ecien-story ; post-exilic in
1 Che. Nineteentk Cenfuvy, Dec. 1891,p. 964.
2 This has been repeatedly shown by Cheyne (see e.g., 106
and Solomon, 76-78: OPs. 202, ,268-270, .279, 3.91); cp Gunkel,
Sch>#, which, inspite of some critical detrciencies (see notice in
Crit. Rev., July 1895), is too ingenious and instructivenot to be
recommended to advanced students.
948
 CREATION
( d ) Job 157$, ( e ) 384-11 (f)Prov. 822-31 (besides the
passages on the D RAGON ).
(a)The phrase in the Blessing of Joseph, ' the flood
(t&h7m)couching1 beneath' (cp Gen. 711), is certainly
the echo of a TiHmat-myth, and ( 8 ) the 'stars from
their roads ' (a Babylonian phrase2) in Judg. 5 20 of a
myth like that in the fifth tablet of the epic.
(c) Gen. 246-7 needs more special, even if brief, treat-
ment. It rnns thus, the original introduction of the
Eden-story having been abridged by the editor of JEP.
'. . . when Yahwe [Elahim] made earth and heaven. Now
there were no bushes as yet upon the earth, and no herbaxe as
yet sprouted forth, for Yahwe [Elahim] had not caused it to
rain upon the earth and there was no man to till the ground
but a floods used ;o come up from the earth and drench th;
whole face of the ground ; then YahwS [Elahiml formed man of
dust from the ground, and breathed, into his nostrils breath of
life, and man became a living being.
Evidently this belongs to the second section of a
mythological creation-story, and its details are all of
Babylonian origin. Like Pinches' lion-Semitic creation-
story (above, § 16 [ d ] ) , it describes, though with
mythic exaggeration, the phenomena witnessed by the
first colonists of Babylonia. The extremely small rain-
fall in Lower Mesopotamia was remarked upon by
Herodotus (1193) ; consequently, without the careful
'
direction and control of the yearly inundation of the
Euphrates and the Tigris the land would be either
marsh or desert. Water-plants there must have been
for a season even in the most desolate tracts ; but the
myth-writers imagine a time when even reeds had not
yet appeared, and when ' all the lands were sea' (myth,
Z. IO), since ' a flood used to come up (it seemed)
from the earth' (Gen. 26). Next, the Hebrew writer
tells us that Yahwb formed man out of dust (Z7),just
as, in the myth (ZZ. zof.), Marduk, with the help of
the potter-goddess Aruru,* makes man (no doubt) of clay,
and somewhat as, in the story of BErBssus (see above,
§ IS), one of the gods forms men out of earth moistened
with TiHniat's (not REl's) blood. The sequel in the
Hebrew story has obviously been abridged. There
must have been some reference to the peaceful subjuga-
tion of the yearly flood, otherwise how could YahwA
have ' planted a garden (or park) in Eden' (n. 8 ) ? So
in the old myth we hear next that Marduk made the
Tigris and the Euphrates ' in their places,' the reeds and
the woods, and the green of the fields (ZZ. 23-26).
Besides this affinity of its contents to the non-Semitic
Creation-myth the Yahwistic passage has a striking
resemblance in form to the first tablet of the Creation-
epic, which, as it now stands, is of course a Semitic
work.
On ( d ) !ob157$, ( e ) 384-11, (f)Prov. 8 2 2 - 3 1 we
must be brief.
I n ( d ) u'e have apparently a reference to a more
heroic ?rpw?-byouos than the Adam of the Yahwist (like
21. Post-exilic. the Yima of the Avesta and the Maui
of New Zealand mythology, and some-
what like the Adapa of a Babylonian myth),5who shared
the privileges of the divine or semi-divine members of
the council of E l S h . This first man was an embodi-
ment of absolute Wisdom, and it is noteworthy that the
1 T h e name suggests a wild beast (Gen.499). The same
epithet (rehi!) is given to Nergal, the god of the nether world
in the Gilgame5-epic (Tab. xii., in Jeremias, VorsteZZungm,
8 9).
2 nibpp=Bah. alhdte, plur. of alaktzr (,',~=+;r). Cp Sa
kakkabrini~amitneaLkat-xu-nu'the way ofthe stars of heaven'
(Del. Ass. N W B 68b).
3 =Ass. e& (Zdu), 'flood, waves, high tide' (so Frd. Del.,
Lyon, Hommel). The cylinder inscription of Sargon states
that he planned great irrigation works for desert lands, opening
the dams, and causing the waters to flow everywhere Rigibis
e&, ' like the exuberance of a flood.'
4 Aruru probably means 'potter' (Jeusen). In the Gilgame5-
epic (8 34) this goddess kneads Eabani out of clay (riyu). T h e
Yahwist puts 'dust ' (14~) for 'clay ' (mn) : but we find the
latter word in Job 33 6, ?y?p 1Fhp (the same root yyp is used
I .
in the e ic).
5 Cp %aspero, Dawn OfCiv. 6 5 9 8
949
CREATION
same word ',sin ' t o be brought forth,' is used of this
wondrous personage and of the Wisdom who is described
inProv. 8, and that, equallywith the Wisdom of Proverbs,
the first man spoken of by Eliphaz came into existence
before the hilk. This myth has a very Babylonian
appearance, and may conceivably belong to the same
cycle as the myth of Knoch ( =Noah, the ' first man '
of the second age of the world), who was said to have
derived his wisdom from his intercourse with angels.
In ( e ) Job 884-11we find the singular notion (a.7 )
that the stars are older than the earth. In the
creation-epic the creation of the stars as 'stations for
the great gods ' (see Srfims, 3 d ) , follows on the snb-
jugation of the dragon of chaos and the creation of
heaven and earth (out of the carcase of TiHmat). The
Hebrew poet, however, does not perhaps consider this
story, or even its purified offshoot in Gen. 1, to be a
worthy representation. Heaven and its stars must
always have existed for YahwA and the ' holy ones' to
dwell in (cp Is. 26 19 ' dew of lights ' and the ' endless
lights' where Ahura dwells,l in the Avesta). He admits,
indeed, that the ocean once on a time rcsisfed Yahwk,
and was forced into obedience (cp Ps. 1046-9). Of a
separation of upper and lower waters, however, he has
nothing to say.
In (f) Prov. 822-31we find the same careful restriction
of the mythological element. The mysterious caprices
of the ocean still suggest a primEva1 rebellion on its
parr against YahwA ; but this is described in the simplest
manner. Of a time when chaos reigned supreme we
hear nothing. YahwA and Wisdom were together before
the earth was.z In fact the new quasi-mythic representa-
tion of Wisdom was incompatible with the antique
Babylonian cosmogony.
These passages seem to show that there was a great
variety of view in the post-exilic period respecting the
22. Prophetical best way of imagining creation. Some
and historical writers seem to have refused the dragon-
myth (except in the palest form) ; others
writers. seem to have found it symbolically
useful. To this we shall return presently (S 23). There
is a remarkable phenomenon respecting the pre-exilic
time which has a prior claiin on our attention. Though
both J 1 and J2have a cosmogony (S IZ), there is an almost
complete silence respecting such myths in the pre-exilic
prophetic literature. There is, in fact, only one passage
(Ani. 9 3 ) that remotely suggests the existence of a
creation-myth. This obscure passagehasbeen considered
elsewhere SERPENT, 3 $ ) , and it may suffice here
to point out that mythology did not come naturally to
the early Israelites, and that one great aim of the
prophets was t o recall their countrymen to old Israelitish
ways : Solomon who affected foreign fashions was no
true Israelite. We need not be surprised, therefore, at
the scanty references in the greater prophets to such
figures of the Babylonian and Canaanitish myths as the
Dragon, the Cherubim, the Seraphim. It is to a
historical writer that we are indebted for the information
that there was a brazen serpent, synibolising probably '
the Dragon (see N EHUSHTAN , 5 z ) , in Solomon's temple.
At a later period (post-exilic) references to the Chaos-
dragon, to the subjugation of the primEva1 sea by
Yahwk, and to some other features of mythic tradition,
abound. Nor was the spring of mythic imagery dried
up even in still later times, as the apocalyptic writings
show. See D RAGON , R AHAB , S ERPENT , A NTICHRIST ,
ABOMINATION O F DESOLATION, ABYSS, ARMAGEDDON,
APOCALYPSE.
If the above presentation of facts be correct, it is a
1 Sp, in Babylonian mythology, the sky-god Anu dwells in
the highest region of the universe, in the north towards the pole,
where no storm can dim the perpetual brilliance (bee Jensen
KoosnroZ. 651). I t is the 'heaven of Ann,' in which the inferio;
gods take refuge a t the Deluge (Deluge-story I. 108).
2 The text of this fine passage is not fre'e from corruption.
See Che. Jewish ReL Life, Lect. iv., and cp Gunkel, .Sc?zb$~
93f:
950
 CREATION
mistake to assert that the Israelites had, from their
23. General entrance into Canaan onwards, a fairly
complete creation-myth, in which Yahwb
result. took the place of Marduk, and t d h i i n ,
liwydthdn, tannin, rahnb, etc., that of the dragon
Tigmat. This theory has indeed been vigorously defended
by Gunkel ; but it is liable to grave critical objections.
It is a significant fact that Amos (see last 8) has little if
any comprehension of the mythical serpent (tini), and
that the Israelites who worshipped in Solomon's temple
completely misunderstood the true meaning of ' Nehush-
tan,' while from the time of the Babylonian ' exile' un-
mistakable references to the dragon-myth abound.
This implies, not of course that there was not previously
a Hebrew dragon-myth, but that a revival of mythology
had brought the old myth into fresh prominence. It is
probable that before the 'exile' the cosmogonic myths of
the Israelites at large were in a very fragmentary state,
and that if the myth on which the creation-story of
Gen. 1 is based then existed (as it most probably did),
it was uncomprehended by the people, and had no
influence upon their thoughts. It appears, however,
that, from the last pre-exilic century onwards, increased
contact with Syria and (especially) Babylonia brought
about a reawakening of the mythological interest, and
that the myths which at a very early date had been
derived by the Israelites from the Canaanites, were
revived by religious writers (not prophets, at any rate
in the proper seiise of the word) and adapted to general
use. This was done, sometimes with a rougher,
sometimes with a gentler hand. but always without any
dangerous concession to antiquated, naturalistic religion
- a grand result, which the Babylonian priests, noble
as their own higher religion was, never accomplished.
T o inquire into the cause of this success belongs to the
history of Jewish religion.
The question has been raised whether Gen. l r - 2 4 a
is, or is not, a poem. The theory was first propounded
by d'Eichtha1, Texte primitif du
24. Gen* l r ; 2 4 " premiev rdcit de La Crkation ( ' 7 5 ) ,
a poem' who found a true poem, composed of
perfectly regular strophes, which had been distorted by
the editor ( 3 2 3 ) . Briggs (OZd Test. Student, April
'84) added to this the discovery of a metre (five tones
in each line with czesura). The possibility of this is
established by the undoubted existence of metre in the
Babylonian creation-epic (see Del. WeZtschopJ ) ; but
unless we had before us J i s form of the creation-story,
how could we expect to restore without arbitrariness the
true Hebrew metre?
11. Conceptions ofcreation.-It has been shown above
that there circulated in Jndah in the regal period at
:25. Doctrine of least two mythic stories of creation
z z ) , both of which were directly
creation late. (cp or indirectlv of Babvlonian oriein. It
~ ~~~ ~
0 both nature and mankind owed their existence to
is still with the former that we are specially concerned
for the present. That there. is no clear reference to
this myth in the fragmentary remains (cp below,
§ 29) of the pre-exilic prophets, is, no doubt, a fact
which has to be accounted for ; but when we consider
the Canaanitish-Babylonian origin of the myth we
cease to be surprised at it. Certainly Isaiah and
the other great prophets believed in the creatorship
of Yahwb ; but they could not have given their sanction
to even a simplified edition of any of the grotesque
and heathenish myths of the Canaanites and the
Babylonians. Why, then, it may be asked, did they
not, like the Second Isaiah (Is. 40-48), preach the
creatorship of YahwA without any mythic ornamenta-
tion? The answer is, that their object was not to teach
an improved theology, but to dispel those illusions
which threatened, they believed, to involve good and
bad Israelites alike in one common ruin. The pre-exilic
prophets were preachers of judgment : the truth they
had to announce was that Yahwb was not merely the
god of Israel, but also the moral governor of the world,
951
CREATION
who would punish all guilty nations, and more especially
rhe most favoured nation, the Israelites. It was for the
late exilic and the post-exilic prophets and other religious
writers, whose function was, not so mnch threatening,
as edification and consolation, to draw out the manifold
Ipplications of that other great truth that YahwB is the
:reator of the world.
On the pre-exilic conception of creation, therefore,
not much can be said. There were, no doubt, hymns to
26. Pre-exilic YahwB as the creator ; bnt the divine
creatorship was not a central truth in
traces. that early age, and could not have been
axpressed in a form congenial to the later worshippers.
We have, however, a fragment of a song in the Book
of Jashar ( I I<. S I Z J ) , which the narrator who quotes
it ascribes to Solomon. With the help of the LXX we
may restore it thus :-
The sun did Yahwl: settle in heaven,
But he said he would (himself) dwell in dark clouds.
I have built a lofty house for thee,
A settled place for thy perpetual hahitation.1
Here Yahwb is described as the creator of the sun.
He is therefore greater than the solar deity Marduk,
the creator in the Babylonian cosmogony. None of the
heavenly bodies serves Yahwb as a mansion ; dark clouds
are round about him (cp Ps. 972 1811,5g>g again). I t
is of his condescension that he dwells in Solomon's
temple, which will therefore be as enduring as the sun in
the firmament (cp Ps. 7 8 6 9 ) . Considering that Solomon
(it would seem) put up in the temple a trophy of
Yahwe's victory over the Dragon of chaos (see NEHUSH-
TAN), it is conceivable, though scarcely probable, that
a hymn to the creator which contained these four lines
was actually written for use at the dedication of the first
temple. At any rate, even if not of the Solonionic age,
the fragment is presumably pre-exilic, and confirms the
idea that the creation of the world @ e . , the world known
to the Israelites) was early spoken of as a proof of
YahwB's greatness. Nor can we be surprised that some
scanty reference to Yahwb as the Maker KUT' 6EoxSv is
traceable in pre-exilic proper names (see N AMES , 30,
and cp the Bab. and Ass. names Sin-bani, Bel-bani,
Bel-ibni).
It was the Second Isaiah, however, so far as we know,
who made the CreatorshiD of Y A W & a fundamental
2,. Isaiah. Jewish belief. Is. 40 gives the key to
the later doctrine of creation. Living
after the collapse of the ancient state, and amidst new
scenery and other men, gifted moreover with a tenderly
devoiit spirit and a rich poetic imagination, the Second
Isaiah felt what was needed to regenerate Jewish
religion-a wider view of the divine nature. To
him Yahwb was far too high for the common sacrificial
cultus, far too great to be merely a local deity;
YahwB. H e had indeed chosen Israel for a special
possession ; but it was for purely moral ends. There-
fore Israel's fall could not be for ever ; Israel's and the
worlds creator would certainly, for his own great ends,
restore his people. Let Israel then look up to him as
the creator of all things, and therefore also as the
Redeemer ( i ~ jof) Israel. However the Second Isaiah
does not stop here. H e rectifies some of the notions
which were presumablycurrent among the Israelites-old
notions, now awaking to a fresh life under Babylonian
influence. Israel was, n o doubt, one of the youngest of
the nations ; but Yahwb was not, like Mardult, according
to the old myth, one of the youngest of the gods ;
' before me (Yahwb) no god was made' (Is. 43 I O ). Nor
1 The passage is given in a fuller form in 6 B A L after v. 5 3
(than in MT), with an introductory and a closing formula. The
former runs 'Then spake Solomon concerning the house when
he had finished building it ; the latter, 'Surely it is written drri
B~i3hlou Gs $S$s.' I n line I read ; u q m v = ~ ' ? ~with
, @L,
rather than B~VJPLVEU which Klo. prefers, and in line 2 6v yv6$xp
[AL] rather than 6r yv6t+ov. Cp JASHER, BOOKOF, $ 3 .
952
 CREATION
could it be right either to make an image of YahwA (as
if he were no better than the sun-god Marduk), or to
say that other El6him helped Yahwk (as they were said
to have helped Marduk) in the work of creation (Is.40
18, etc. 4424). Whether there was really a chaos at
the beginning of all things, he does not expressly say.
He does tell us, however, that there is, nothing chaotic
(tshii) in the earth as it came from Yahwh ; the inference
from which is, that both in history and in prophecy
Gods dealings are clear and comprehensible, and de-
signed for the good of man (Is. 45 18f.). He pointedly
declares that YahwB not only formed light but also
made darkness (Is. 45 7), whereas the old cosmogony
of JZ (see 12) ascribed only light, not darkness,
to the creative activity of Elohini.
The Second Isaiah does not assert that the creator-
ship of YahwB is a new truth. All that he professes to
do is to unfold the meaning of one of the great truths
of primeval tradition (Is. 4021 ; see SBOT). His view
of creative activity is a large one. Creatorship consists,
he thinks, not only in bringing into existence that which
before was not, but also in the direction of the course of
history (4120 4 5 8 487). He affirms that both men and
things are ‘called’ into existence by Yahw& ( 4 1 4 ; cp
4026 4426 4813) ; but he does not refuse to speak also
of YahwB‘s hand (4813 cp 4022, etc.), or of his breath
( 4 4 3 cp 4024), as the agent of production. Ease and
irresistibleness are two leading characteristics of Yahwk’s
action, and hence it is that the Second Isaiah prefers
(though less distinctly than the Priestly Writer) the
conception of creation by the voice .to that of creation
by the hand. Creation by the voice is also a specially
characteristic idea of Zoroastrianism ; but the Jews prob-
ably derived the idea, directly or indirectly, not from
Persia but from Babylonia. No more striking expression
of it could be wished for than that contained in the
following lines from the Creation-epic (Tab. iv.) :-
Then in their midst they laid a garment,
T o Marduk their first-born thus they spoke :
Let thy rule, 0 Lord, surpass that of the gods,
Perishing and becoming-speak and let it be I
At the opening of thy mouth let the garment perish ;
Again command it, then let the garment reappear !
He spoke with his mouth, and the garment perished ;
Again he conimanded it, and the garment reappeared.2
Did the Priestly Writer really believe in a pre-existent
chaos, out of which the world was made? Or is the
28. p. retention of chaos in his cosmogony simply due
to educational considerations ? Considering the
line taken by the Second Isaiah, and still more by the
later wise men, we may venture to class the reference
to chaos in Fen. 1 2 with those other concessions to
popular superstition which make Ezra’s law- book an
ecclesiastical compromise rather than an ideal standard.3
A similar remark applies to the other mythic features
in the cosmogony; all that the Priestly Writer really
cares for are the religious truths at the base of the
story, such as the creatorship of YahwB,: the divine
image (surely not, according to P, physical) in man,
and the fundamental cosmic importance of the sabbath.
The later writings show that the teaching of the
Second Isaiah and the Priestly Writer was not thrown
Two of the most beautiful psalms
29. Later away.
(8 1 0 4 ) are suggested by the priestly cos-
writings’ mogony, and in Ps. 339 1 4 8 5 creation by
the word of God, without any mention of chaos, is
affirmed with emphatic conciseness. The fragments oj
the older prophetic writings were deficient in references
to creation ; the post-exilic adapters and supplenienters
of prophecy have remedied this defect (see e.,n, Am. 4I:
Jer. 423-26 5221) 1012 3135-37), whilst the Book of Job i:
pervaded by the belief in the Creator. The Praise oi
Wisdom, too (Prov. 822-31), gives a grand picture of tht
1 The Avesta, however, connects creation with the recital o
a certain potent formula called Ahuna-vairya
- (Honover).
. Gen. 1
knows noihing of spells.
2 Del. Weltsc/@J, 104 ; Zimmern, in Gunkel’s Schdyf:, 41of
3 But cp Smend, A T Rel.-gesch.P) 457.
953
CRESCENS
activity of the’ Creator, who requires no sabbath-rest,
For he cannot be fatigued.l Nothing is said here, or
in the Book of Job,2 of chaos or pre-existent matter.
I‘he first of the late didactic mTiters who distinctly
lsserts the creation of the world out of matter is the
author of the Book of Wisdom3 (1117 K T ~ U U U Urbv K ~ U ~ O V
$( cip6p@ou Gkvs). H e may no doubt be said to Plato-
nize ; but Philo before him, not indeed without some
hesitation, held the belief of the eternity of matter,4 and
he appears to have been influenced by contemporary
Jewish interpretations of Gen. 11. In z Macc., however
(a Pharisean record), we find the statement that the
world and its contents were made O ~ K Bvrwv (?A),
a guarded p h r a ~ ewhich
,~ reminds one of Heb. 113, and
is at any rate incompatible with a belief in tlpop@os Ilk7 ;
and, in two fine passages in ApOc. Bar. (Charles), God
is addressed thus, ‘ 0 Thou ...
that hast called from
the beginning that which did not yet exist, and they
obey thee’ (214), and ‘with a word thou quickenest that
which was not ’ (488). Parallel passages in N T are
Rom. 4 17 Heb. 11 3 (where, however, p+ PK @atuopdvwu
is not to be confused with PK p+j @ a r ~ o p 6 u w v ) . ~ W e
must not, however, overlook the fact that in one of
the latest books a distinct reference to chaos occurs.
In z Pet. 3 5 the earth is described as ‘ compacted out
of water ... by the word of God.’ Here ‘water’
obviously means that portion of the chaotic waters
which was under the firmament ; out of this, according
to Gen. 1 6 , the dry land emerged at the fiat of YahwB.
The importance given to the Logos in Jn. 1 3 , and to
the Son of God in Heb. 12, as the organ of the divine
creati,ve activity, is best treated in another connection
(see LOGOS). On the doctrine of the re-creation of
heaven and earth, see DELUGE, 19.
1 which Ass. 6anzi ‘ t o make create,’ is a phonetic
~ 1 (of
modification)7 is a charactehstic word bf P (Gen. 1 often, 2 3f:
5 if:. @ r r o r f b [AEL], but in 2 4 6,s ~ Y ~ U V B T O
30. Words [AEL]) ;8 also cp Is. 40 -86 (twenty times ; 0
‘
for create.’ various renderings). Di. (Gen. 17) wishes to
claim ~ 1 for 1 JE ; but Ex. 34 10 Nu. 16 30 have
been manipulated by R. In Gen. 67 y - j w i i (for ‘nwy) is assigned
to R by Di. himself. Is. 45 and Am. 4 13 are interpolations (see
AMOS,$ 12,I SAIAH, ii., $ 5). Jer. 31 2 2 occurs in a section written
or rewritten late. Dt. 432 (where ~ 1 stands1 of the creation of
man) is hardly pre-exilic (cp D EUTERONOMY , 0 19). In spite of
these facts, it would be unwise to say that the narrative in J
(see above, 8 12) cannot have contained the word ~ 1 1correspond-
,
ing to Ass. 6nnu;.
nip ‘ t o fabricate make create’ Gen.141gzz (‘creator of
.
heaven and earth ’ is ;;O&V [-4DLI) Dt. 32 6 (‘ thy father that
made thee’; but ; K & U ~ T O [BAFL]); 1;rov. 822 (Yahwe‘screation
of Wisdom, h w f v [ERA]); Ps. 139 13 (‘thou didst create my
reins’; biit &njuo [BKART]). All these passagcs are late;
hut 1.p is probably a divine title (see C AIN , 9 5), and Eve, in
Gen. 4 I, says (probably) ‘ I have produced, created (but ;KV+
p ~ v[ADEL]), a man like (the Creator) Yahwb’ (713’ ne?>?).
nwy, ‘tomake,’Gen.2418(J), Is.437. iy*‘toform,’Gen.271g
(J) Is.4317 Jer.1016 Am.413 Zech.121.
H. z., 15 1-4;T. K. c., #I 5-30.
CREDITOR (a@), z I<. 4 I. See L AW A N D
JUSTICE, 5 16.
CRESCENS ( K P H C K H C [Ti. WH]), a companion of
Paul who had gone to Galatia (zTim. 410f). In the
A$. Constt. (746) he is named, as ‘bishop of the
churches of Galatia,’ among those bishops who had
been ordained in the lifetime of the apostles. There is
some authority (K C, etc. Ti.) for reading FahXiau
1 Cp Jn. 5 77 and contrast Gdn. 2 2.
2 Except in’the faint allusion (Joh388). The same writer
would almost seem to have believed in me-existent lieht (v.. 7.,) .
I
See above, $ 21 (e).
3 See Drummond PhiZo ]udeus 1 r88 who also refers to
8rc~urroSro(196) a s (mplying the s a d e doctiine.
4 Drummond op. cit. 1 2 9 9 3
6 Vg. boldly ienders here OGK & ;‘ 6 v ~ wby ex nihilo. So in
Pastov H e m e , 2 I, the old translator gives ex nihiZo for d~
706 p+ BVTOS.
6 Vg. boldly, e x inuisidiZi6us (cp Gen. 1 2 , a).
7 Earth, ZDMG, 1887, p. 640.
8 Cp Frankel, Palustin. Exegese, 36 ; Geiger, Urschrift,
3438
954
 CRESCENTS
instead of r a X a d a v in z Tim. 410. Gallia is a natural
emendation, possibly a right interpretation, of Galatia-
' in accordance with the later usage as regards Gaul, both
Galatia and Gaul having in St. Pad's time usually, if
not always, alike been called l7aXa.ria by the Greeks'
(WH). Cp GALATIA.
In the list of the seventy apostles compiled by the Pseudo-
Dorotheus (see Chvon. Pasch. Bonn Ed., 2121) Crcscens is
cnumeraled as 'bishop of Chalcidon in Gaul' ( X ~ K + ~ V O75s
F ;v
l'ahhia) ; in that drawn up by Pseudo-Hippolytus he appears
a5 'Ckisces hishop of Carchedon in Gaul.' According to the
Pseudo-Sophronius who enumerates Timothy Titus Crescens,
and the Ethiopian Aunuch iinmediatelyafter t i e twel& apostles,
he was founder of the church of Vienne in Gaul. The Latin
church commemorates him on June 27 ; the Greek on July 30
(along with Silas, Andronicus, and Epmnetus). See Lipsius,
A i b o k A,*.-Gesch.
CRESCENTS (O9j77@), Judg. 821 26 RV (AV ' orna-
ments '), Is. 3 18 RV (AV ' round tires like the moon ').
See NECKLACE.
CRETE ( K P H T H : mod. Candin), the largest island
in the Bgean sea, of which it is also the S. limit.
Crete extends 140 m. from W. to E., consisting of an irregular
ridge of mountains which fall into three distinct groups, the
cenrral and loftiest (mod. Psiloriti) being the Mount Ida of the
ancients. The N. coast is broken into a series of large bays
and promontories; on the S. there are few harbours, and only
one considerable hay-that of Messara, under Mt. Ida. T h e
physical character of Crete is succinctly described by Straho
(475, bpsrvt KCL\L SausTa $ v ~ u o c &a
, G'aLhGvas C ~ I K C ~ ~ ~ V U S ) .
Lying at almost equal distance froin Europe, Asia,
and Africa, Crete was one of the earliest stages in the
passage of Oriental civilisation to the W. I n historical
times it was of little importance-chiefly as a recruiting
ground for mercenary troops (Pol. 3126, Jos. Ant. xiii.
43 ; cp I Macc. 1131).l Quintus Metellus reduced the
island in 67 B.c., and it was combined with the
Cyrenaica to form one province-senatorial under the
emperors.
The Jews were early connected with Crete (cp the
story told in Tac. Hist. 5 2 that the Jews were originally
fugitives from Crete). In @"Q* of Ezek. 25 16 and Zeph.
25 [BHAQ] I<p?j.res is read for the ' Cherethites' or
' Cherethims' (o?m) of EV, and Kp4~7[BMAQ] in
Zeph. 26 for ny3, which, however, is certainly not Crete,
but. denotes ' land of the Cherethites '--i.e., Philistia.
R P ? ~ Talso
E S occurs i n @ of Ezek. 305 apparently for
~ 1 5 . See CHERETHITES ; and, on the hypothesis con-
necting the Philistines with Crete, CAPHTOR,PHILIS-
TINES. Gortyna (near modern H. Deka in the Messara,
the only considerable plain in the island) is mentioned
as containing many Jews ( ~ M a c c 1523 . cp 1067), and
Philo ( L e , . ad Cni. 36) says that Crete, like all the
Mediterranean islands, was full of them (cp Acts211
Tit. 110 14, Jos. Ant. xvii. 121, Vita, § 76).
The account of Paul's voyage to Rome furnishes
several geographical details. From Cnrdus his ship
ran under the lee of Crete (Acts277 brre~hetuapev~ j l v
H ~ $ T ~K YU T ~ Z a X p 6 v ~ v ) ,and some time appears to
have been spent in the shelter of the Fair Havens.
Whether the apostle was able to accomplish there any
missionary work cannot even be guessed ; and we are
thus left without any information as to the process of
the evangelisation of the island. When we next hear
of it the gospel has apparently been widely established
(see PASTORAL EPISTLES).
The character of the Cretans as gathered from the
epistle to Titus, is entirely in accord with what is
known from other sources. The epistle (Tit. 112)quotes
' a prophet of their own' ( i e . , Epimenides, called
eEiopd ~ 4 pby Plato, L ~ W S , 1642; eeo+lX+ Plut. sol.
1 2 ) , who stigmatised them as liars and beasts. It
was a popular saying that it was impossible to out-
Cretan a Cretan (Pol. 821, cp Pol. 646J 818 3316).
Polybins (646) writes that 'greed and avarice are so
native to the soil in Crete, that they are the only people
1 They were mostly archers: Paus. i. 234, 'Ehhqu~v 876 p+
Kpqvb O+K & r r p 5 p ~ o v Bw ro&&w. Their internal dissensions
kept the Cretans in,military training: cp Pol. 48 244.
955
CROCODILE
arnrjng whom no stigma attaches to any sort of gain
whatever' (cp Tit. 1IT, ' teaching things which they
ought not for an ignominious gain.'-a similar phrase
occurs in Tit. 1 7 ) . The repetition of the thought of
Tit. 1 7 rrdpoivov, 22 v-q+ahious, 23 p76> olvy aoXXQ
6e6ouhwp~vas is equally ominous (Cretan wine was
famous i n antiquity; cp Juv. Sat. 14270). Tit. 3 1
bears obvious reference to the turbulence of the Cretans,
a characteristic which runs through their history.
For Crete as the ' stepping stone of Continents,' see
A. J. Evans on ' Primitive Pictographs from Crete' in
f. Hellen. Stud. 14 ( ' 9 4 ) . W. J. W.
CRIB ( D . I X ) , Is. 1 3 , etc. See CATTLE, 5.
CRICKET ($j?n), Lev. 1122, RV. AV BEETLE
(4.v.).
CRIME (?W),Job3111; see L AW A N D J USTICE ,
§ IO/..
CRIMSON, &in,
tCZi', a word common in the fem.
form 7&i~,, t$litih, or &n,
tjla'ath, is used in EX.
1620 in the general sense of 'worm' [EV], in Is. 118
(EV ' crimson'), Lam. 4 5 (EV 'scarlet ') for the crimson
dye prepared from the body of the female Coccus iZicis,
a Homopterous insect belonging to the family Coccidae.
The female, which grows to the size of a grain of corn, is in
the adult or imago stage attached by its inserted proboscis into
the leaves and twigs of the Syrian Holm-oak, whose juices it
lives on. The male is winged and flies about. The bodies
of the females are'collected and dried, and from them are
prepared the colouring matters known a s Cochineal, Lake, and
Crimson. Since the discovery of America a Mexican species
of Coccus, C . cacti, which lives on the India fig, has largely
supplanted the first-named species as the source of the pigment
and a t the present day both have lost their commercial valu:
owing to the invention of aniline dyes. In old literature the
name Kermes (see below) is frequently used for Coccus.
Other names for this colour are 9$, EnZ (Jer. 430,
RV ' scarlet ' ; elsewhere EV ' scarlet ' ; see COLOURS,
114)and the late equivalent \*ma, KarmiZ1 ( z Ch. 2714
[6 131 3 141.2).The origin of the termination - 2 in $plz
is obscure ; it can scarcely be explained (as in Ges. (13))
by the Pers. affix -in ; for there is no word Kirmin in
Pers., nor would it .signify the colour if there were.
For Is. 63 I ( yran, RVmg. ' crimsoned,' EV ' dyed '),
see COLOURS, § 13f. N. M.-A. E. S.
CRISPING PINS (D'??), Is. 322. See BAG (2).
CRISPUS ( ~ p i c r r o c[Ti. WH] ; a Roman name),
ruler of the synagogue at Corinth, and one of Paul's
converts there (Acts188 I Cor. 114).
In A*. Comtt. 746 he is said to have been ordained hishop of
iEgina. In Mart. Ronz. Vet. he is commemorated on Oct. 4.
CROCODILE. ' Beasts of the reeds ' is an alternative
rendering (in AVmg.) of 332 n)R, Ps. 6830 [31] (@
e H p i A T O Y K A ~ A M O Y ) , AV ' conlpany of spearmen,'
RV rightly wild beast of the reeds.' This means the
crocodile (hardly Bi.hEm6th--i.e., the hippopotamus),
used to synibolise the Egyptian power. Cp Hupfeld
and Del. ad Zoc.
According to @ the 22 of Lev. 1129 (AV ' tortoise ')
was a ' land-crocodile ' ; see L IZARD , I. For ' land-
crocodile,' RV's rendering of n5, a kind of lizard (Lev.
1 1 3 0 ) , see CHAMEL.EON, I. For Jer. 146 RVmg. (o.?n ;
AV ' dragons,' RV 'jackals '), see D RAGON , § 4. For
Job 4 1 1 3 RVmS [40~5] (EV 'Leviathan,' AVm&
' whale,' ' whirlpool '), see BEHEMOTH and LEVIATHAN.
The animal described poetically in Job has generally
been identified with the crocodile (see especially Bochart
37378). Until recent times, when the propriety of
1 Probably from Pers. kirrtt, ' a worm ' and perhaps akin to
our 'crimson' and 'carmine' (see Skea; S.71. 'crimson').
Sans. KTillzi, which is probably identical k t h our word ' wo,",':
(2.S.W. 'worm'). On the other hand Del. ( Z L T 3 9 593 ['78])
may he right in connecting Ar. and Pws. kirmrz, from which
crrrmesiiius and crimson are most tiaturally derived, with an
independent Turkish root beginning with p instead of 3.
2 The word \ , ~seemsy to have been read for 5 ~ 7 by
2 in
Cant. 7 5 [6]. See H.41~.
956
 CROCODILE, LAND
nialcing any zoological identification has been questioned,
the chief dissentient has been Schultens. This great
eighteenth-century scholar thinks that the arguments for
the 'crocodile and the whale are about equal ; the poet
does not seem to hini to have been consistent in his de-
scription. Tristram, however ( N H B258),is of opinion
as a naturalist that the crocodile is described under the
name LeviathBn, and if Budde's translation and ex-
position be adopted, the characteristics of the crocodile
-the difficulty of capturing or taming it, its vast size,
its formidable row of teeth, its impervious scales, its
gleaming eyes, its violent snorting, and its immense
strength,-all come out with marvellous exactness.
Riehm (HLFB, S.W. 'Leviathan') leaves it an open
question whether the poet may not even have seen
crocodiles in Palestine. Certainly the Nahr ez-Zer158
near Czesarea is believed to have had crocodiles quite
ately,l and, as the climate of this marsh region re-
sembles that of the Delta, there is in this nothing sur-
prising. Still, though Pliny ( H N 5 19)speaks of this river
as the Crocodile river, and mentions a town called Cro-
codilon, we have no evidence that there were crocodiles
there in biblical times. A thirteenth-century tract gives
a strange story of fierce beasts called ' cocatrices ' having
been brought there (see COCKATRICE). Sir John
Maundeville designates them corcodrils. See further
Budde's elaborate commentary on Job 40f: ; and for
another view (connecting the description in Job with
mythology) see BEHEMOTH AND L EVIATHAN , 5 3.
Crocodilus niloticns formerly common throughout .the Nile,
has been almost exterminated in the lower part of the river,
though it still flourishes above the second cataract. I t is found
from the Nile and the Senegal to the Cape of (:ood Hope, and
in Madagascar and Syria. Large specimens attaip a length of
15 feet. I t was worshipped by the ancient Egyptians at Omhos
and in the Fayinn (by Lake Moeris) under the name of Sobku
(transcribed in Gk. as Eoir~op); for a possible explanation of
this, see Maspero, Dawn of Civ. 103f: N. M.-A. E. s.
CROCODILE, LAND (Q3), Lev. 1130, R V ; AV
CHAMELEON (4.71.). See also above.
CROCUS (nign), Cant. 21, RV"g.; EV ROSE
k.3. ).
CROSS. W e shall not attempt to introduce the
reader to the archzological study of the symbolism
of the cross. Interesting as the task would be, it is
really superfluous. If there was a time when it could
be supposed that between Christianity and the non-
Christian religions there was, in respect of the symbol
of the cross, an affinity that was divinely appointed,
that time is passed. W e are no longer tempted to
imagine that between the sign of the cross in baptism,
and the heathen custom of bearing a mark indicat-
ing the special religious communion of the individual,
there is a kind of pre-ordained relation. On the
other hand, the fact that heathen notions did affect
popular Christian beliefs in very early times. cannot
be denied: the magic virtue ascribed to the cross
has doubtless a non-Christian origin. For-these matters
it is enough to refer to Zoclcler (Das Kwuz Christi).
who fully recognises the original purity and simplicity
of the earliest Christian view of the cross. His sobriety
contrasts with the fantastic subjectivity of E. von Bunsen
(Das SymdoZ des Krezfzes, 1876).
First as to the meaning of the Greek word u.raup&,
which has a wider range than the word 'cross' h j
1. Nature !vhich it is rendered in English. W e finc
and use. tt frequently used for the most primitivc
instrument of execution, the upright stakt
( c m x simnpl~x)to which the delinquent was bounc
when no tree was at hand (cp infeZix ardor and infcZiccI
Zignum; Liv.126 Cic. Pro Rndir. 4), or on whicl-
he was impaled (cp H ANGING ), as well as for tht
fabricated cross ( c w x con7posita) of various shapes.
1 Schumacher says that he has seen a crocodile there hu
that there are very few crocodiles left (PEFQ, Jan. 1887, I)b.
For a sifting of the evidence down t o 1857 see Tobler, Dn'td
Wandemng nach Palasiina ('~g), 375 8 Cp Rob. Phy
Geog. ('cis), 1751: ; Baed. PaLW 272.
957
CROSS
The -origin of crucifixion is traced back to the
?hcenicians. The cross was also used at quite an early
late in some form or other by Egyptians (Thuc.
i n o ) , Persians (Herod. 9 IZO), Carthaginians (Valerius
VIaximus ; Polyb. 1 1 1 , etc.), Indians (Diod. 218),
jcythians (Justin, 25), and others, besides the Greeks
Q. Curtius, 44) and the Romans.] Among the last-
inmed, however, this cruel form of punishment (cp
Zic. Very. 5 64 ' crudelissimum teterrimumque sup-
dicium'; Jos. I?/ v. 11 I ) was originally reserved for
;laves ( s e m i b s/lppZiiiz~nr; compare the application of
.he term fzwcz~eer to skaves) and criminals of the worst
lkind.2 It was at first considered too shameful a punish-
ment to be inflicted upon Roman citizens (Cic. Very.
1 5 5 61 etc. ).
Of the cross proper there were three shapes-the crux
im?nissn or four-armed cross, the crux coinnzissa or
2. Shape. three-armed cross, and the crux decussafa
which is more conimouly known as St.
Andrew's cross. Following the old tradition of the
Church (Iren. HaPr.ii. 244; Justin. Tryph. 91 ; Tert. ad*.
/ud. I O , etc.) which finds some support in the assertion
of the Gospels that above the head of Jesus was placed a
title (MIL 1526 dmypa@+r%s a i d a s ; Lk. 2338 h r ~ y p a q 5 ~ ;
Mt. 2737 a h i a ; Jn. 1919 ~ T ~ o sthe ) , cross of the N T
has commonly been taken to be the c n ~ ixn z m i ~ s s n . ~
The accounts of the mmzner of the crucifixion being
so meagre, any degree of certainty on. this point is
impossible ;" but the evidence seems to preponderate in
favour of the traditional view.
The four-,armed cross in use at the time of the cruci-
fixion of Jesus was most probably of the following
3. NT cIoss. description. It consisted of two pieces-
an upright stake (stipes,staticulunz),which
was firnily fixed in the ground with pegs or fastened to the
stump of a tree, and a cross-beam (antenna,p a t i b u h n ) ,
which was carried by the condemned to the place of
execution. High up in the upright stake an indentation
was probably made in which to fasten with cord 2nd
perhaps also to nail the cross-beam (cp Lucian's [dha
T ~ K T ~ ~ V E; Walso Hor. Carm. 1 3 5 ; Cic. Very. 521). At
a suitable height from the ground was fixed a peg
(~$-ypa, s e d i k ; see Iren. Huer. ii. 244) on which to set
the body astride (cp Justin, D i d . 91 ; Iren. IC.; Tert.
cont. Marc. 3 18) so that the whole weight might not rest
upon the hands and a r m s 5 This, together with the
fastenings, made a rest for the feet ( 3 ~ o r r b 8 t o v .
suppedaneum Zixnum; cp Greg. of Tours, De Glor.
iWartyr., chap. 6 ) unnecessary.
It is probable that on such a cross as this Jesus
was crucified.6 and that the execution was carried out
4. c r u c i ~ o n . in the regular manner. Soon after the
sentence (Val. Max. 116 : Dion. Hal.
948), or on the way to execution (Liv. 3336; cp Cic.
&'err. 5 54) the condemned was sco~irged.~H e was
led, bearing his own cross, or rather part of it (Plut.
De sera nurninrs vingicta, chap. 9 ; Artemid. 256
1 In some of these cases (e.g., Persians), no doubt, only the
c m x siw@ex is intended. The cross'in the strict sense of the
word was not used by the early Jews. In Esth. 79 813 @ re-
presents nin ' to hang' (cp the application of the term to
Jesus by the later Jews) by v a v p o i r v . See, however, H AN G -
I NG. It was introduced into Palestine by the Romans (see
L AW A N D JUSTICE 5 TZ : and cp Jos. Ant. xii. 142 xx. 6 2 , E/
ii.126). Pesb. in t'hk Gospels uses zi&a$h, which seems to
mean primarily ' to elevate. Q$Bn (4156) uses salaha.
2 Cp Lk. 2332, Sen. E$. 7, CIC.Prtron. 71, Dion. 5 52, Jos.
A n t . 1322, Apul. Asin. 3.
3 This too is the shape of the cross in the old (3rd cent.)
caricature of the crucifixion which was found on the Palatine
hill a t Rome.
4 Some scholars (Keim etc.) have contended for the cmx
coninrissn (cp Seneca ~ o n h ad . Mar 20 JOS. E/ v. 11 1).
5 Jeremy Taylor (i+ of Chrisf)sibpoies the body to have
'rested upon nothing but four great wounds.'
6 T h e offence alleged (Lk. 23 2 ) was a political one. Stoning
was the Jewish puiiishment for blasphemy. See L AW A N U
JUSTICE 5 12.
7 The'scourging of Lk.2322 Jn. 191 was probably a prc-
liminary and therefore an irregular one.
958
 CROSS
and cp the symbolical.phrase in Mt. 1 0 3 8 1 6 2 4 ) to
which he was bound, along the public roads to an
eminence (see GOLGOTHA) outside the city gates (Cic.
V e w . 5 6 6 ; Plant. Mil. ghr. ii. 4 6 ) . In front of
him went a herald bearing a tablet ( t i t u h s ; Suet., C a l
32) of condemnation, or he himself carried the ai&
(cp aavis, Sow. HE 1 1 7 ; d v a f , Euseb. H E v. 1 4 4 ;
X ~ K W , U ~Soz.
, H E 1 1 7 ) suspended by a cord from his
neck (Suet. CuZig. 3 2 ; Domit. I O ; Dio Cass. 5 4 3 ;
Euseb. fZE v. 1 4 4 ) . On arrival at the place of execu-
tion the cruciavizis was stripped of his clothing and
laid on the ground upon his back. The cross-beam
was then thrust under his head, and his arms were
stretched out across it to the right and left and perhaps
bound to the wood (cp Lucan, Phars. 6 5 4 3 f : Plin.
H N xxviii. 4 1 r ) , the hand being fastened by means
of a long nail (cp cruci$gere, a&ere). Already, before
or after the arrival of the condemned (see Cic. Yeix
v. 6 6 , and cp Polyb. i. 86 6 ; Diod. xxv. 5 z ; Jos. BY
vii. 6 4 ) , the upright stake had been firmlyfastened in the
ground. The cross-beam was then, with the help of
ropes (cp perhaps Plin. HN xxix. 4 5 7 ) and perhaps
of some other simple contrivance, raised to its place on
the stake. Here it was hung provisionally, by a rope
attached to its ends, on a firm nail or notch,’ whilst
the body was placed astride the lower peg in the stake,
and the legs bound. The beams were then probably
bound and nailed together at the point of intersection.
Nails like those already used for the hands would be
employed to fix the feet (Lk. 24 39 ; cp Plautus, M o s t e l
ii. 1 1 3 ; Just. Dial. chap. 97 ; Tert. Adv. Marc. 3 19,
etc.), which were only slightly elevated above the
ground. The nails were driven through each foot
either in front, through the instep and sole, or at the
side, through the tendo A c h i Z l i ~ . ~The body remained
on the cross until it decayed (Hor. Ep. i. 7 6 4 8 Lucan,
Phurs. 6 5 4 3 ) , or (from the time of Augustus) until it
was given up to the friends of the condemned for burial
(Quintil. Decl. 6 9 ; cp Jos. BY iv. 5 2 ) . Soldiers were
set to watch the crucified (Cic. Pro RuBir. 4 II ; Petron.
Sat. 3 ; Quint. DecL 6 9 ; Mt. 2 7 6 6 Jn. 1 9 2 3 ) . Death
resulted from hunger (Euseb. H E 8 8 ) or pain (Seneca,
Ep. 101). T o alleviate the latter the Jews offered the
victim a stupefying draught (Mk. 1 5 2 3 Mt. 2 7 3 4 Bab.
Sanh. f: 43 I ) . Breaking of the legs ( U K ~ ~ O K O ;T see ~
5 6) was a distinct form of punishment among the
Romans (Seneca, De Ira 3 3 2 ; Suet. Aug. 6 7 ; cp,
however, Origen on Mt. 27 54). M. A. C.
Modern realism takes an interest in these painful
details which was unknown to Drimitive Christianitv
5. Evangelists,and to the evangelists. From an
point of view. archaeological point of view this may
be iustified : hut it is necessarv to uoint
, I
out that the evangelists are entirely indifferent to the
archzology of the circumstances of the Passion. All
indeed that they seem to care for is ( I ) the opportunity
which the Cross gave for Christ to make fresh disclosures
(in speech) of his wonderful character, and ( 2 ) the
proofs which the Passion gave, as it appeared to them,
of a ’ pre-established harmony ’ between prophecy and
the life of Jesus. When the &~pupr~up&xOTVOP (wine
mingled with myrrh) or @or (vinegar) is mentioned, it
is chiefly, we may presume, to suggest a connection
with Ps. 6921.~ So the ‘casting lots’ doubtless fixed
1 Jeremy Taylor (Life of Christ) and Farrar ( L i f e o f Chrisl),
assume that the body was nailed to a prostrate cross which was
afterwards raised and fixed in its socket. C p however, the
expressions crucein ascendere, in crucein excuryere, dvapaivsrv
m i .rbv m. etc.
2 See B&dt Die Evangelische Geschichte from which this
part of the d&ription is borrowed. For ;he two nails cp
Plantus, Mostell. ii. 1 7 3 and see Meyer. Others (Keim, Farrar,
etc.) think that only one nail was used.
3 This seems to be plain from the expression in Mt. 27 34
( W H and RV) ‘wine mingled with gall.’ T h e allusion is to
Ps. G9 2 1 (xoA4, ‘gall,’ would never have come in otherwise),
and one rememhers that Ps. 22 (from which the ‘Eli, eli,’ etc.,
of Mt. 27 46 is taken) is a fellow psalm to Ps. 69. See also Lk.
959
itself in tradition because of the parallelism of Ps. 22 18.l
The only N T passages in which a clear trace of sympathy
with the physical pains of Jesus is discernible are Lk.
2 2 4 4 and Heb. 5 7 , especially the former. Here also
great reserve is noticeable. Though Wetstein ( N T ,
1751) quotes several ancient writers who state that
sweat. in some circumstances, is really tinged with
blood,Q yet the early writer of Lk. 2 2 4 3 J 3 contents
himself with saying that the sweat of Jesus in his
agony was ‘as it were clots of blood’ (;lad 0pi;UPoL
There is no evidence that aay
6. Death of a ~ p ~ o s ) .
N T writer had formed the idea that Jesus
Jesus* died of a broken heart, as W. Stroud,
M. D., supposed ( Treatise on the Physical Cnuse of the
Death of Christ, 1847)-certainly an idea for which
many modern readers of the Gospel would be glad to
find sufficient evidence. The hypothesis is based on
Jn. 1 9 3 4 , where we read that ‘ one of the soldiers with a
spear pierced (&WEE) his side, and forthwith there came
out blood and water.’ From a critical point of view,
we can hardly say that the fact that Jesus received
this wound after he had breathed his last is well
established ; theorising upon it therefore, with a view
to determine the cause of Jesus’ death, is excluded.
W e have reason to believe (see Orig. on Mt. 2 7 5 4 ) that
a lance wound was sometimes given to those who were
crucified to accelerate death. The probability is (if the
kernel of Jn. 19 31-37 be accepted as historical) that the
two malefactors first had their legs broken (crucifru~iuin)
and then received their coup de grdce by being pierced
with a lance. This is not opposed to the literal
interpretation of a. 34, for all that the evangelist denies
is that the legs of Jesus were broken. That the state-
ment of the ‘eye-witness’ ( 6 h w p a ~ t 3 has ~ ) come down
to us in its original form, cannot, however, safely be
asserted, because of the impossibility of explaining the
issuing of ‘ blood and water ’ from an internal source
physiologically. Perhaps one may suppose that the
writerof Jn. 1 9 3 1 - 3 7 in its present formhasaccommodated
the facts of tradition (the tradition attested by the ‘ eye-
witness ’) to his theological needs. There is a theological
commentary on the ‘ blood and water ’ in I Jn. 5 7 Sf:,
where the ’ water ’ and the ’ blood ’ have become, as it
were, technical expressions for permanent supernatural
channels of divine grace, though the commentary may
to us (not to its first readers) be as obscure as the text.
‘With regard to the hypothesis of Dr. Stroud (viz., that death
was sudden from rupture of the heart, and that the blood and
water were the separated clot and serum of theescaped blood in
the pericardial sac which the spear had pierced), it is sufficient
to mention the in:ariable fact, of which this physician appears
to have been ignorant, that the blood escaping into a serum
cavity from rupture of a great organ, such as the heart
(aneurysmal aorta) or parturient uterus, does not show the
smallestJendency to separate into clot and sprum (“blood and I’
“water as he takes it), hut remains thick, dark-red liquid
blood. ‘The notion that the wound was on the left side is com-
paratively late. I t is embodied in some of the newer crucifixes,
where the wound is placed horizontally about the fifth costal
interspace ; hut in most modern crucifixes, and probably in all
the more ancient the wound is placed somewhat low on the
right side. That) it was deep and wide, is inferred from the
language of Jn. 202- where Thomas is hidden to “reach hither
thy hand and thru;; it into my side”-namely the side of the
spiritual body.’
[The ordinary view of the motive of the soldier (Jn. 19 34)-
viz., that he wished to make sure of the death of Jesus-is of
course a mere conjecture. If, therefore, the expression B&K&
n p a v (=?in,‘they thrust throngh,’in Zech. 1 2 ro)will permit it,
some may :refer to accept a new hypothesis that the wound
inflicted by the lance was only a slight one. The author of this
hypothesis thus explains it.-En.] ‘ M a y it not have been R
thoughtless, rather than a brutal act, the point of the lance being
directed a t somethinz on the surface of the bodv, Derhavs a dis-
23 35 and especially Jn. 19 z8$, which allude to the same passage
(the &+i) of Jn. corresponds to the e k .;I”Si+adpou of the
psalm). b[os is most naturally rendered V IN E G A R tq.v.1; cp
quotations in Wetstein. This too snits Ps. GO.
1 This is not inconsistent with the fact that the second part of
Mt. 2735 is wanting in the best MSS, and omitted by recent
editors. See Tu. 1924.
2 ‘ Numerok more’or less unauthentic modern iustances have
:ilso been needlessly brought together.’-c.c
3 .4n early addition to the original text (WH).
 CROW
colonred wheal, bleb, or exudation such as the scourging (Mt.
2726) might have left, or the preske of the (assumed)ligature
supporting the weight of the body might have produced?
Water not unmixed with blood from some such superficial
source is conceivable; hut blood and water from an internal
source are a mystery.’-c. c.
Apart from the references to the cross in the evangeli-
cal narratives, there are a few passages in which the
7. Biblical cross is mentioned, or has been thought
References. to be mentioned, in a manner which has
the note of originality.
I . If Sellin (SerudZJalieZ, 106) were right inflreading
fit n’?Ls’p-;?l in Is. 539 we should get a striking though
unconscious anticipation of the cross of Jesus in
prophecy. It is this writer’s rather strange theory that
ZERUBBABEL k . v . 1 , whom he idealises in the light of
Is. 53 and kindred passages, suffered impalement as the
Jewish Messianic king. Unfortunatelythe senseof ‘ cross’
(uTaup6s) for is justified neither by its etymology (see
Ges.-Buhl) nor by usage. Taw means properly a
tribal or religious sign, and is used in Ezek. 946 for a
mark of religious import on the foreheacl (cp CUTTINGS,
6)and in Job 31 35 (if the text is right) for a signature.l
No Jew would have used m for u ~ a u p i though, , the
crux conzinissa being in the shape of a T, the cross is
often referred to by early Christian writers as the
mystical Tau.
2. Mt. 1038 ‘ H e that talteth not (od Xup(3dver) his
cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me”; cp
Lk. 1427 ‘ doth not bear ( o h ~ U U T ~ { Ehis I ) cross ’ ; Mt.
1624 ‘let him take up (dpcirw) his cross’ (so Mk. 834
Lk. 923). Two views are held: ( I ) l h a t to take, or
take up, or bear a cross was a proverbial phrase for
undergoing a great disgrace, suggested by the sight of
the Roman punishment of crucifixion; and ( 2 ) that
though the substance of the saying may be due to Jesus
himself, the form, as perhaps in many other cases, is due
to the recasting of the saying by a later generation,
possibly under the influence of the highly original
phraseology of Paul.
3. Gal. 2 2 0 xp[ur@ uuveurabpwpar ; ‘ I have been
crucified with Christ’ (cp 614). It would be difficult to
assert that this strong expression was suggested by any
saying of Jesus; it has obviously arisen out of the
previous statement, ‘ through the law I died to the law.’
The crucifixion of Jesus is of slight interest to Paul as
a mere historical event ; it becomes all-important
through the apostle’s mystical connexion with Christ.
The crucifixion has an ideal as well as a real character,
and the former gives a value to the latter (cp ADAMA N D
E VE, § 2). On Gal. 313 see H ANGING . T. IC. c.
See further JESCS,§ 29f:, and GOSPELS, §§ 12 14 ; also
Brandt, DieEuangelische Geschichte (‘93),1 7 9 8 ; Keim,
Jesu won Nazara, 34098 ; Meyer, Das ;IJatthaus-Evan-
geZiium (7th ed., 1898), 488f: ; Godet’s Commentary on
Luke ; and, in particular 0. Zoclder’s Das Krczm Christi
(1875 ; E T 1878). 1-4M. A. C . , 0s 5-7 T. K. C.
CROW ( KOPWNH), Bar. 654. See RAVEN.
CROWN. I n considering the crown of the Hebrews
the primary~-signification of the English word, and the
1. . origin of the crown itself, must not
Varieties be lost sight of. Originally crown,
garland, fillet, chaplet, and diadem were hardly to be
distinguished from one another.
As to the form of the Israelite crown we have no
certain information. The ancient Egyptian forms of
the upper and lower country crowns, the one with high
receding slope, the other bottle-shaped (see hieroglyphs
in EGYPT, 43 n.), are less to be thought of than the
Assyrian truncated cone with its sinall pointed elevation
rising in the centre. The latter was worn by the highest
classes, and may well have been the head-dress of
1 So RV, with most critics ; hut the text of z). 34f: is certainly
in disorder (see Beer, ad loc.). ’W ‘my sign ’ (= ‘my signature ’)
is a most improbable expression. Tg. and Vg. presuppose ? ‘:!e
‘my desire.’
31 961
CROWN
Hebrew royalty. Another important variety was
the D IADEM [ q . v . ] , which was worn as a fillet (see
T URBAN , I ) , or encircled the high imperial hat of
Persian sovereigns. From this has probably been
derived the high priest’s MITRE [ q . ~,. 21. The Persian
hat is perhaps referred to in the late Heb. Keiher (lo?
Esth.111 217 68 and perhaps Ps. 459 [IO] [Gra. Che.],
, ~ in the dGaprs of I Esd. 3 6 ( E V
in Esth. G r c i G q p ~ )and
‘ headtire ’). The Hebrews must have been familiar
with the ancient custom of distinguishing rulers by
special forms of headgear ; but in the frequent allusions
2. Royal c r o ~ n .to the ceremonies of a royal accession
coronaZion is mentioned only once-
in the case of Joash (2 I<. 1112). See CORONATION.
Besides the bracelets ( n i i y y ; so We.’s emendation .:
see BRACELET), we see that the distinctive ornament
worn by King Joash was the nizer 7 , ~ . It means simply
‘mark of separation orconsecration,’z and, originally, was
perhaps nothing more than a fillet (WRS ZZeZ. sei^.(^)
483 f:): !n post-exilic literature it forms part of the
high priest s headdress (see MITRE, 3 4). Of its earliest
use we are ignorant. It is true that according to z S.
1IO Saul’s nizer was transferred to his rival David ; but
we cannot be sure that the statement is historical. The
representation that kings went into battle wearing their
insignia need not be disputed ; 3 but there is good ground
for suspecting that the writer (who is an Ephrainiite) is
imaginative. See SAMUEL, i. § 4 (2). Kowack (ZSA
1 3 0 7 ) holds that Solomon was the first to introduce
a royal crown. Certainly David did not have his son
crowned (anxious though he was to have Solomon’s
right popularly recognised : I K. 1 3 3 ) , and neither
Absalom nor Adonijah went through the rite of corona-
tion when claiming the throne; but it is remarkable
that, when so p n c h is said of Solomon’s throne ( I I<.
1018); nothing is hinted about a crown. That the
‘Jtdrah (xiny) was, at least for a limitecl period, the
usual ornament of Jewish kings may be taken as certain.
It is possible that this also was originally a diadem or
fillet, although in Job3136 we read that it could be
‘bound’ upon the head (ay), which suggests that it
was a turban. In Cant. 311 it represents the bride-
groom’s (Hellenic?) garland.4 Not only does the
‘&iudlz, by a common metaphor, typify dignity and
honour, but also in late passages its possession implies
sovereignty and its loss is synonymous with the king’s
degradation. A case of the former is Ps. 21 3 [ 4 ] , ‘ Thou
scttest a crown (niny) of fine gold on his head ’ (ud@avov
8~ hfOou~ r p l o;~of ) the latter, Ezek. 21 26 [31], ‘ Remove
the mitre ( n ~ i m Kisapis), and take off the crown (may
U T ~ @ U ~ O S ) . ’ Here we may follow Smend arid Bertholet
in explaining both mitre and crown of the royalinsignia:
Zedelciah is to be stripped of all his dignity. For the
1 It is in Esther, too, that the decoration of the horse with the
king’s crown is most clearly associated with the royal dignity
(contrast Estb. 6 8 with I K. 133). See also C HA PLET . In later
Hebrew in3 became the ordinary word for crown. It is used
in the phrase ‘ t h e crown of the law,’ a precious crown-shaped
ornament of h e scrolls of the Pentateuch, also of the crowns
on certain Hebrew letters and in the famous Mishnic sentence
(Aboth4rg), ‘There are three crowns: the crown of Torah
(Law), the crown of priesthood, and the crpwn of royalty; but
the crown of a good name excels them. Lagarde (Gesam.
Allzardl. 20’1 13.15) regards i n 3 as a Persian loan-word : hut
the root is common in Hebrew. As in most other words for
crown, the root-meaning must he ‘ t o encircle.
2 @ uses different words for 711. I n 2 S. 1 IO it has padihsrov
[BA], GrdSqpa [L] in Ex.296 me‘mzhov, whilst in 2 K.llrz t h e
word is left untra&lated (r2&p [B], &p [A] ; but hyulavpa [Ll).
I n the last-mentioned place the Targum aud Pesh. have
N%J fiA3.
3 Thenius refers to Layard, Nineveh, fig. 18. Rameses put
on a distinguishing ornament when he went against the Khih
.
(Brngsch, Gesclz. Kg. 499).
4 The 8lbx which David captured (z S. 1230)belonged to the
idol of the Ammonites(seeA M M O N , 8). For the Talmudic view
on this and other passages connected with rnyal and priestly
crowns see Leopold Lijw s excellent essay ‘ Kranz und Krone
in his des. Sclzr. 3 407f:
962
 CRUCIFIXION
priestly may (cp Ecclus.451z), see M I T RE ; and for
other Heb. words to designate distinguished head-gear,
see DIADEM, TURB.4N.
Crowns or garlands were worn by brides (Ezelr. 1612
nl~m nmx) and by bridegrooms (Is. 6110 le?, RV 2 4 1 4 3 a 6 6 p f U I ) .
3. Bride- garland).l The ‘oil of joy’ (id.,w. 3)’recalls
groom,s the royal anointing (see C ORONATION ), and xa,,bdrcqs, a150 written +cap$dqs, which, if from K&W, would
It may be that the briaegroom wore a chaplet
‘‘Own’ as king of the festival. Delitzsch thinks that
the bridegroom’s p ? i ~ was a turban. Solomon (Cant.
311)is represented as wparing a diadem or ‘a’@rihon
the day of his’ espousals (cp CANTICLES, § 9). In
the time of Vespasian the bridegroom’s chaplet was
abandoned (Mish. Sotalt 9 14). In the Middle Ages
the Jews resumed the use of wreaths for brides.
Josephus asserts that after the return from the exile
Aristobtilus, eldest son of Hyrc2nus I., was the first to put
*.
and Post-exilic
‘ a diadem on his head ’ ( S i d B ~ p aAnt.
... ,
NT usages. ?in. 11I). From Zech. 6 9-15, however, Elisha to hold salt, was probahly a flat dish or plate
it would appear that Zechariah was
directed to select from the exiles’ gifts enough gold and
silver to inake crowns (niigx) or a crown (n!cy, Wc.,
Now. ) for Zerubbabel. Josephus was perhaps thinking
solely of the Hasmonaean kings ; those priest-kings wore
‘buckles of gold’ on their shoulders, not crowns on
their heads ( I Macc. 1089 1444, d p a v v xpuu;iu ; see
BUCKLE, 3). The Talmud thinks that Hyrcgnus. the
‘second David,’ wore two separate crowns, one royal
and one priestly (&da?. 66 a ) ; and Josephus reports
a present to this king of a golden crown from Athens
(urk@uvor, Ant. xiv. 8 5).
The Gr. urd+avos, which properly denotes the badge
of merit as distinct from Gid87pua the badge of roya!ty
(see D IADEM ), is frequently used by B to represent
m t g ; but the distinction between 8idSvpa and U T ~ @ W O S
was not consistently observed in Hellenistic Greek.
I n the N T urC@uuosis used of the garlands given to
the victors in games ( I Cor. 9 25 ; cp z Tim. 25), of the
ornaments worn by the ‘ elders,’ etc. in the visions of the
Apocalypse(Rev. 441062 97 1414[here, theSonofMan]),
and of Jesus’ crown of thorns. The last perhaps affccts
the Romanrather than the Jewishidea as to the symbolism
of the crown ; but Judzan ideas on such matters must by
that date have heen assimilated to the Roman.
I n R V r Macc. 1029 1 1 3 5 133739 z M a c c . l 4 4 ( u ~ Q ~ a v o s ) d. iiwp, EV ‘vapour’ (Ps. 1498).
‘ crown ’ (AV ‘crown tax ’ ) refers to a ‘ fixed nioncy pay-
ment like the Roman aurum coronariunr (Cic. ix Pison.
ch. 3 7 ) , in room of the wreath or crown of gold which
at one time it was customary, and even obligatory, for
subject peoples to present as a gift of honour (cp 2
Macc. 144 and 5 z above) to the reigning king on
certain occasions ’ (Camb. Bib. ad I Macc. 1029) ; see
TAXATION.
On thezcr of the altar (Ex. 30 3f. 37263 EV ‘crown,’
RVmS ‘rim’ or ‘moulding.’), see ALTAR, Q 11 ; on
that of the ark (id. 2511 3 7 2 ) . see A R K , 5 1 3 ; and on
that of the table of sbewbread’ (i6. 25243 371rf:), see
ALTAR, Q I O . 63 renders by Kupdriov . r r p e a r 6 v and
(TTE@&UT.
See CHAPLET, MITRE, T URBAN ; and cp GOLD.
I. A,-S. A. C.
CRUCIFIXION. See CROSS.
CBUSE. I. The cruse of mater (nn9$,~ajpd/znt/z)
which stood by Saul’s licncl wlien he was surprised by
David ( I S.2611 12 16 : cp I I<. 196) was probdAy a
small water-jar of porous clay like the ’i61-.i& (vulgar
pronunciation, hi&) of the modern Syrians and
Egyptians. The porosity of the clay enables the
water to be kept cool if the 6?*@ is placed in a draught.
1 The reading is difficult. Many follow Hitzig and read 1-y
for 1;1y ( I s u . , SL’OT 110): ‘like a bridegroom who o r d e r s
his ’coronal.’ Crowns, it may he added, a& still used in the
marriage rites of the Greek Church.
2 The MT a+ns Zechariah‘s crown to Joshua the hiqh priest;
but this can hardly bemaintained (see ZERUBBABEI., and‘cpI&i*ul>i Vg. Pesh.). It i s of course possible that we should read nip ;
ad ZOC.).
CUCKOW
The same vessel was used by the poor to hold oil (cp
I I<. I71z 14 16, where it is distinguished from the
larger 12 or water-jar [EV ‘pitcher’] in which the
household supply was fetched from the well [Gen.
In I K. 17 U.C., in 196 and in Judith 105, 6 uses the word
sugzest the shape of the Roman anz+nZla.
2. The cruse of honey which Jeroboam’s wife took as
part of her present to Ahijah ( I K. 143) was the dn+k
or earthenware bottle (see BOTTLE). The Greek trans-
lators ((BAL Aq.) render by U T ~ ~ V O Sa, wine-jar, which,
it is interesting to note, is also used by GBAFL for the
sinreneth (EV ‘ pot of manna’) laid up in the sanctuary
(Ex. 1633). This cruse or jar of manna was of earthen-
ware according to the Targum, but of gold according
to d (ZOC. cit. ).
3. The cruse (n*riis, ~ S P ~ U K Tof) 2 I<. 2201.~used by
rather than a bottle or jar (cp m ) ~ z, Ch. 3513 [@ K U ~
~doSdb’v] ; ng& i n z I<. 21 13 6 dXcipaurpor [n], r b
dhdpaurpou [A], m & l v [L], P AN ).
4. On the crnse (1B X ~ ~ U U T ;~ i3 O.VS BOX, z ) of Mt.
267, etc., strictly a jar or phial of ala!mster, usually
pear-shaped or pyramidal (Pliny, HN 9 56). see
ALABASTER. A. R. S. K .
CRYSTAL. There can be little doubt that rock
crystal is intended by the K ~ ~ U T U ~of~ Rev. O S 21 IT : glass
is represented by iiahos (see GLASS). Theophrastus
(54) reckons crystal among the pellucid stones used for
engraved seals. I n modern speech we apply the term
c i j s l a Z (as the ancients apparently did) to a glass-like
transparent stone (commonly of a hexagonal form) of
the flint fiuiiily, the most refined kind of quartz.
In d K ~ ~ U T U ~represents-
~ O S
a. n?,?, ‘ frost ’ or ‘ ice,’ perhaps even in Ezek. 1 z z . l
d. [’Ix] (Is. 5412, EVf ’carbuncles’),- thatis,
‘ stones of fire’ (cp Ass. adnn i.Eii, ‘ stone of fire’ =
&$&a?u), on an assumed derivation from mp, to kindle’
(lit. by rubbing) : bcnce the rendering of Aq. hi8. T ~ U T U -
viupusil, Sym. Theod. [XiU.] yXup?js, Vg. Zapidcs scu&dos
[scaQtos]. L S X and Pesh. have K ~ U U T ~ ~(nir:,?). ~ O U
c. nyig, EV ‘ bdellicm’ Nu. 1 1 7 (cp Field, H e m p . ) .
For Job 29 171. AV ( n > ? n ) , RV ‘ glass ’ ; see GLASS.
d o ? , @bi.F (Job 2918 ; RV ‘crystal,’ A V ‘pearls’),
.T
is of obscure origin ; cp perhaps Ass. g a d i f u , ‘ be thick,
massive.’
The RV ‘crystal’ finds support in the Heb. ”?$\$, ‘hail’
(on the relation of meanings see BDI:, S.V. u*I~), and possibly
in IheTarg. ] $ i(Lag. i ~ also yi-,~ =6ppu<ov, o h izu772 [Dan. 10 5
z Ch. 3 j Vg. ; cp OI’HIR]), irhich, like AT. Pers. dillnvar (the
word i s slightly transposci!), means ‘crystal or even ‘ glass,’ as
well as ‘ berq-I.’ Blau underbtands ‘glass pearls.’
GBsAc transliterates ya,!3<w and so Theod. yapw ; the Pesh.
is too paraphrastic to be of any use ; and 6repqppCva [SI-m.1
J-LS [Syr. Hex., mg. k - ~ l are appellatives
derived from hIH ~ 2 2 ‘to , heap up,’ D%<l~??,‘heap,’ ‘hill.’
CUB (3.13),Ezek.305 R V ; AV C HUB ( q . ~ . ) .
CUBIT. See WEIGHTS AN D MEASURES.
The common term is nl$X, ’ummah (prop. length of fore-arm?
see DDC ; Ass. nmmatu, ;inN i n the Siloam inscription [5$]),
Gen. 0 15 ; cp c‘yn?.?., ‘ a n ordinary cubit’ (Dt. 3 IT) nit25
n9AJ ,?$v? one handbreadth longer than the usual cubit (Ezek.
40 5),,etc.
l?~,gdmed, Judg. 3 r6t seems to he a short cubit ; so Jewish
tradition : see Moore, .[EL 13 104 [‘031.
The NT term is rij,yvs, &I:. (i 27 Lk. 1225.
CUCKOW, RV ‘ seamew ’ (qnd ; hdpor [BAFL] ;
1 Hitz. and Co. delete ‘terrible,’ N$;i (so 6 B A , but not @a
cp 6.
 CUCUMBERS
Lev. 11 16 Dt. 1 4 IS+), is mentioned among unclean birds.
It cannot be identified with certainty. ‘1 be Heb. root
probably signifies leanness ; thus the kindred word
n z y i , Iu.h.hd$heth (cp Ar. su&Ef), denotes consumption
or phthisis. There is no settled Jewish tradition ; hut
and Vg. are very likely right in understanding some
kind of aquatic bird, perhaps the tern (Sterna fluviatilis,
FFP, 135). The AV ‘ cuckow ’ comes from the Geneva
Bible.
Two species of cuckoo spend the summer in Palestine :Cuculus
c a ~ o n i sthe widely-spread common cuckoo, which returns from
its wintkr quarters towards the end of March; and the great
spotted cuckoo, Coccystes glandamus, which arrives rather
earlier. Canoi Tristram enumerates nine species of tern belong-
ing to two genera found in Palestine some of which are plentiful
along the sea c o x t s and around t i e inland waters, especially
in winter. The shearwater, PuBnus, is another identification
suggested for the Sakaph. P. yelkouanus an inhahitant of
the Mediterranean and other seas has acqkred the name of
lame damnee’ from the French-;peaking inhabitants of the
Bosphorus, its restless habits having given rise among the
Mohammedan population to the notion that it is the corporeal
habitation of lost souls. N. M. - A. E. S.
CUCUMBERS ( ~ i y $ p ,p i ~ z z ’ i m; C I K Y A I [;yo1
BabL], Nu. 11s?) and G&den of Cucumbers (n???,
mikEh; CIKYHPATON, Is. 1 8 Bar. 670[69]f). Forms
analogous to the word rendered ‘cucumber’ occur in
Arabic, Aramaic, Ethiopic, Assyrian, and Carthaginian ;
and probably Gr. urd7 is the same word with the first
iwo consonants transposed.2 It is thus known that what
is meant is some kind of gourd, cucumber, or melon,
perhaps primarily Cucumis Chaste, L. (Low, 330), which
is now regarded as a variety of the melon (Cucumis
MeZo; see Hasselqnist, Iter Palest. 491).
The cucumber itself, Circn7?zis sativus, originated in NW.
India, and certainly the Sanscrit name soukasn looks strikingly
like ( T ~ K U O S . It seems clear that the cucumber reached the
Mediterranean region pretty early. D e Caiidolle (Or. PZ.
Cult. 212) says that there is no evidence that it was known in
ancient Egypt ; this, however, applies equally to the melon (208).
y i t p (for a?.???) is simply ’place of cucumbers’ ;
Ar. and Syr. have similar words with the same
meaning. Cp FOOD, 5. N. ~ . - - w . T. ,r.-D.
CUMMIN (fE? ; KYMINON, cyminurn, Is. 2 8 2 5 27
Mt. 2323-1) is the seed of an umbelliferous herbaceous
plant (Cuminurn ryminzcm, L. ) which is used as a condi-
ment with different kinds of food. A native of the
Mediterranean r e g i ~ n ,it~ was from an early period
largely spread over W. Asia.4 The Heb. name, which
is of unknown origin, is found also in Arab., Syr.,
Eth., and Carthaginian, and has passed into Greek.
Latin, and many modern languages, including English.
Cummin is often referred to by ancient writers. Thus two
early Greek comedians include it in lists of coiidiments (Meineke,
3 7 8 437); Dioscorides (36rx) and Pliny (2014[571) descri! e its
medicinal properties, the latter noticing especially its effect in
producing paleness-referredto by Horace (E+. i. I 9 18, ‘exsangue
cuminum ’) and by Persius (v. 55, pallentis grana cumini ’).
The mention of the seed in Mt.2323 5s a trifling
object on which tithe was rigidly imposed by the
Pharisees reminds us of the Greek use of Kupivo7rpiunp
( I cummin-sawer ’) for a niggard or skinflint (Arist.
Eth. N. iv. 139). In Is. 2 8 2 7 , where Yahwb‘s varied
discipline of Israel is illustrated by the care and dis-
ctimination with which the husbandman performs his
appointed task, it is noticed that finer grains, cummin
and m4? (see FITCHES), are threshed with staff and rod,
the heavier treatment by the threshing wain being re-
served for coarser seeds. N. M.
CUN (p13),I Ch. 1 8 8 R V ; AV CHUN.
CUNNING WORK, CUNNING WORKMAN. The
‘ cunning workman,’ >$n, is distinguished from the
* craftsman’-+?-in Ex. 3 5 3 5 3823, and the recur-
rence of the phrase a@xpin connection with certain
1 Theophrastus has U ~ K V O Sand ULKGV : according to Fraas the
former was the cucumber the latter the melon.
2 So Gec. TJtes. S.V. ; Lag. A-I. St. 1975. Mih‘h. 2356.
3 Eentham and Hooker Gen. PZ.1 9 k
4 Dioscorides knows it :hiefly in Asia Minor.
965
CURSE
textile fabrics (Ex. 261 31 286 15 3 6 8 3 5 3 9 3 8 [PI) sug-
gests sonie specialised meaning (see EMBROIDERY).
46, usually has S+&V~JFor S+av& ; Vg. u s u a l l y p o l y m i t a n ~ s
or opus polymifarizmz, the work of the damask weaver (see
WEAVING). AVm& (Ex. 26 I), perhaps less accurately, has
‘ embroiderer’ (see EMBROIDERY). On the other hand, the
‘cunning work’ (n:?n$) of Ex. 31 4 35 32 33 35 2 Ch. 2 14 [13] is
mainly that of the metal worker and jeweller ; in 2 Ch. 26 15 it
i. that of the military engineer.
CUP. The seven Hebrew and Greek words rendered
‘ cup ’ in EV can he but imperfectly distinguished ; see,
however, FLAGON, G O B L E T , MEALS, POTTERY ; also,
on Joseph’s divining cup, D IVINATION , 3 [3],
J OSEPH ; and on the ‘cup of blessing ’ ( I Cor. 10 16),
EUCHARIST, PASSOVER.
The figure of a wine-cup occurs frequently to
express the Cffect, whether cheering (Ps. 2 3 5 ) or the
reverse,’ of providential appointments.
ap:E:?ins. The prophets being primarilymessengers
of woe, the second of these applications
predominates. In the N T the figure describesthe suffer-
ings willingly accepted by Christ and his followers (Mt.
2022,f 2 6 3 9 , etc.), and is used in the older Jewish sense
in Revelation (e.g., 1410 1 6 19). Nowhere does the term
‘ cup ‘ stand by itself in the sense of ‘ destiny’ ; the use
described above never produced what may be called
a technical sense of Diz, ‘cup.’ In Ps. 1 1 6 1 6 5 it is
a second niz, meaning ‘appointment, destiny,’ from
~ D D I = XI>, ‘ to number, to determine,’ that is used.
‘ The portion of my (or their) cup ’ should be ‘ niy (or
their) destined portion.’ No one can drink ‘fire and
brimstone,’ nor can ’ cup ’ and ‘ lot ’ stand as parallel
expressions. From the list of passages we designedly
omit Ps. 11613 ; lift up the cup of salvation ’ should be
‘ lift up the ensign of victory ’ (reading DJ ; see ENSIGN).
For ’agg&n, Is. 22 24 EV, see BASON,I. For Jer. 35 5,
$”?*, gdbiri’, Joseph’s silver d ng cup, Gen. 4 4 2 12 16J, see
above. For the bowls upon the golden candlestick(Ex. 25 3 1 8
37 17 &t) see CANULESTICK, 8 2. For DiJ, his, the Common
term (Gen. 40 11, etc.), see MEALS, 0 12. For Jer. 52 19, n‘,?!n,
?%%a&+% (AV ‘cup’), and Jer. 5219, qD, snph (RV ‘cup’),
see BASON,4. For Nu. 4 7 RV, I Ch. 28 17 EV, nip?, &sriwBth,
see FLAGON. The N T term ismnjprov(in Ci for his), Mt. 23 25
26 27, etc.
CUPBEARER (n@Q, lit. one who gives to drink ’ ;
0 1 ~ 0 x 0 0 ~In
) .Eastern courts, wherethe fear of intrigues
and plots was never absent, cuphearers were naturally
men whose loyalty was above suspicion ; they frequently
enjoyed the sovereign’s confidence, and their post was
one of high importance and honour (so, e.g., at the
court of Cambyses, Her. 3 3 4 ; cp Marquart, Philologus,
5 5 2 2 9 ) . The only reference to cupbearers in Israel is
in the unique chapter describing Solomon’s court, I K.
1 0 5 ( ~ d v o l ; x o u s[L])=z Ch. 9 4 . Elsewhere cupbearers
are spoken of in connection with ,Egypt (Geu. 4 0 1 - 2 3
41 g), Shushan (Neh. 111 ~dvou^xos[BWa]), and Nineveh
(Tob. 122). It is perhaps hardly necessary to add that
the Assyrian R ABSHAKEH [q.v.]has nothing to do with
‘ cupbearer. ’
In Gen. Z.C., E V ‘butler’ O’jYh?>?, ‘chief butler’ (402
dppxvox6os [APLI). I n v. 13 Q aptly uscs dp,yro~vo,yoia where
the Hebrew has p, ‘position, office.’ With reference to Neh.
1I T it is worth noticing that Nehemiah was only one of the
cupbearers to Artaxerxes (not t/ia cupbearer; cp ]->e.-Rys.).
46, finds a reference to male and female cuphearers in Eccles.
2 8 (nhW) @, olvoxiov [-OVS Kc.=A] K& o l v o ~ i a s ) ; but see
ECCLESIASTES, 9 2. The chance allusion in Jos. Ant. xvi. 8 I
shows that a t the court of Herod (as was also the case in
Assyria) the cuphearers were eunuchs (a’ss;voGxos above may,
of course, he nothing more than an error). See, generally,
MEALS, § II end.
CURDS (nk$Q), Is. 715 RVmg. See MILK.
CURSE. See BLESSINGS A N D CURSINGS,BLAS-
1 Cp Fr. &me, applied in a specialised sense to civil and
military mgineering(ingenbni), and the Eng. en&e.
2 Ps.603 [5l 758[911s.51 17 Jer.251~1740rzLam.4azEzek.
2 3 32-34 ; cp also Jer. 51 7 Zech. 12 2.
966
 CURTAIN
PHEMY, B AN , COVENANT; and Cp URIM AND
THUMMIM.
On y n , &?rem (Mal. 46 [3 241, etc.), see especially B AK .
O n ngl>t, M h i ‘ d / l , Is. 65 15 (RVnlg. prefers O ATH [ q . ~ . ] ) ;
.)2 in Nu. 5 21 (RVmg. ‘adjuration ’) ; 17& [il)fc Lam. 3 651,
”4p, Dt. 28 20 (RV ‘ciirsing’) ; n)\& KarciBepa, Rev. 22 3
( R V w ‘ anything accursed’), and ran+, Gal. 3 IO 13, see BLESS-
INGS A N D CURSIXCS.
CURTAIN. For Ex. 26 I j?, etc. (qw),and
Nu. 3 26 [31], etc. (?@ ; more usually ’hanging’ in AV, gener-
ally ‘screen’ in RV), see TABERNACLE. ?$ ( ~ a p d p a : Is.
40 z?), R V i w ‘gauze,’ is properly infin. of ppq, ‘to he fine or
thin. The heavens are likened to a fine gauzy expanse. T h e
rendering ‘curtain’ is loose, and is due, no doubt, to the use of
nyq, in the parallel Ps. 104 2.
CUSH. I. A (non-Semitic) people called KaSSe is
mentioned in the cuneiform inscriptions as dwelling in
1. Babylonian. the border country between N. f l a m
and Media. Sennacherib (Tayl. Cyl.
164 8 ;K B 1 8 7 ) describes this region as ‘difficult -to
traverse, and as not subjugated by any of his pre-
decessors. In fact, it was a conquering race that
dwelt there. To it belonged the dynasty which ruled
over Babylonia for nearly six centuries-a lengthened
rule, the consequence of which was the infusion of
a large KaSgite element into the population of Baby-
lonia. especially S. Babylonia, which might fitly be
called the land of KLS. It is this KaS or KoS (whence
MT‘s I<CLS)~ thnt is intended in Gen. 1 0 8 , where
N IMROD [q.v.] is called the son of Cush. That the
Babylonian KaS is meant in Gen. 2.3 as the passage
now stands, is much less easy to make out (see P ARA -
DI S E ), while to hold with Winckler ( A T Untersuch.
1468) that Isaiah refers to the S. Babylonian KbS in
the difficult prophecy, Is. 18, can be rendered possible
only. by . somewhat improbable textual criticism and
exegesis.
Wi.’s result (1892) is that the embassy mentioned by Isaiah
is that of Merodach-haladan to Hcaekiah in 720 B.c., and his
strongest argument is that ‘ t h e streams of Cush’ in IS I is not
applicable to the kingdom of Ethiopia, which had hut one
stream the Nile. The anSwer is thxt the geographical knom-
ledge ;If the writer was naturally hut small, and that the island
of MeroE, to which the residence of the Ethiopian kings was
removed after ‘l‘aharka’s time, is formed by the union of the
Nile, the Athara, and the Blue Nile. On grounds independent
of Wi.’s hypothesis the words pr>-*ini$i x y n itm are correctly
held to he a late i)nterpolation. (See further Che. and Haupt
in Isaiah, Heb. SBOT.)
2. The ouestion of the existence of an Arabian Cush ~~ ~
has passed into a new phase since the discwery by
2
2. Arabian. Winclcler (MZLSYZ‘,[ 9 8 ] ) of a N.
Arabian land of Kus contiguous to the
N. Arabian Musr or Mu>ri, and together with it forming
the region called Meluhha (see MIZIUIM, 26). The
land being known as I<UB ( =din) to the Assyrians, we
cannot avoid a re-examination of the more difficult O T
passages in which dqj (Cush) or wii3 (Cushi) occurs.
Referring first to the Pentateuch ‘and reserving the
complicated question arising out of Gen. 213 for sub-
sequent consideration, we see at once (a)how probable
it is that in the list of names in Gen. 1 0 6 Cush is an
Arabian and not an African country ; for none of the
eleven names in Gen. 10 6 7 can be supposed to be
African except Cush, Mizraim, Put, and Seba, and of
these Mizraim (read rather Mizrim) has been claimed
elsewhere for Arabia, while Pwr [q.v.] is at any rate
not Libya, and Seba ( V ~ O ) , which resists all attempts
to localise it in Africa, may well be suspected to be
only another form of Sheba (yq)--i.e., the well-known
Arabian Sabzeans. It is true Sheba appears in v. 7 as
a son of Raamah; but no objection can be based
upon that. The same name probably fixed itself in
slightly different forms in different localities, and in Ps.
7210 we even find NXD (which has intruded into the
Unless we suppose the vocalisation K G (& to he produced
by the confusion of the Babylonian and the African p
.,
967
CUSHAN-RISHATHAIM
text) as a variant to R:W. (Possibly ShEbB, should
everywhererather beSbbH, K?? ) This conclusion greatly
reduces the error committed by the redactor of Gen. 10
in inserting vu. 8 10-15 18b-19 (which belong to J ) between
vu, 6f: and v. 20 (xhich belong to P) ; for the popu-
lation of the Babylonian land of IC& to which Nimrod
belonged, was largely formed by the immigration of
‘ Chaldzean ’ tribes (nqw3) mhose home was probably
in E. Arabia. If KaS be taken, not ethnically but
geographically, as a designation of the Arabian home
of the ancestors of a large part of the people of S.
Babylonia, it was not incorrect to regard Nimrod as
related to the Cnsh mentioned in u. 6f. (For J’s view
see N IMROD , MIZRAIM. )
(6)In S u . 71 I ( E ) we hear of ‘ the Cushite woman’
whom Moses had married. In Ex.21621(1) his wife
Zipporah is represented as a Midianite. A northern
locality for Midiaiiites is probable even without the very
doubtful passage I K. 1118 (cp HADAD, 3). There
is no necessity to follow Wellhausen in his excision of
the whole of Nu. 1216; at any rate ‘the Cushite
woman ’ comes from an early source. See IVOSES.
(6) On z S. 1821 see CUSIII, 3.
(d, e , f ) Is. 2 0 3 433 45 14, see MIZRAIM.
(g) 4m. 97. Who are the n,;@? v?? Hardly the
‘ children of the Ethiopians ’ (EV). What evidence
have we that the Ethiopians were regarded with con-
tempt in Amos’s time? Probably the prophet looked
nearer home, and saw the misery inflicted on the Arabian
Cush by some great mischance in war (cp Wi., 09.
cit. 8).
( h ) Hab. 3 7 , ’the tents of Cushan.’ should
perhaps become $33, Ciish; at any rate, N. Arabian
peoplesaremeant inboth parts of theverse. See CUSIIAN.
(i) Job 7 17. It is quite possible to read o w 3 or
ow^, Cushi(yi)m (Che. JQR 4575) for ow03 ( E V
‘ Chaldeans ’ [ g . ~ . ] )which
. is not without difficulty, and
to explain this of the N. Arabian Cushites, who must
at any rate be referred to.
( j ) In z Ch. 21 16 we hear of ’ Cushites ’ beside the
Arabians (cp A RABIA ), a reminiscence of whose pre-
datory raids probably underlies the distorted tradition
of ‘Zerah the Cushite’ (see Z ERAH ) in z Ch. 1 4 9 8
( k ) Ps. 837 [ 8 ] . its *?@?-oy,‘with the inhabitants of
Tyre,’ should be drjl k n , ‘ Mugi and Cush’ ; a
similar emendation is required in Ps. 874. The com-
bination of Philistines and Tyrians. Tyrians and Ethi-
opians, presented in MT, is extremely improbable.
(Besides Wi. Musri 2 [MDVG, 18981, cp Glaser,
Skiaze, 2 3 2 6 8 )
3. Egyptian. See ETHIOPIA. T. K. C.
CUSH (IbD,XOYC[E]I [BXAR], chusi [Vg.], B”P
[Tg.]) a Benjamite (Ps. 7, heading). The text, how-
ever, IS corrupt.
Cushi (‘8 al.) is a very poor conjecture (see ClISHr, 3). N o
doubt ‘ Cush’ should he ‘.Kish’ (see Tg.), and the text should
run yyy-[z o*p-iz ... q ~ i - 5 ~ T. h e missing name was
either Mordecai (Esth. 2 5 ; cp Che. OPs 229J) or, perhaps more
probably, SHIMEX (q.v., IC), a member of the clan of Kish (so
Kay, Che. Ps.121). In the former case, David was supposed to
he speaking% the name of Mordecai :1 in the latter, the curses
of Shimei are the supposed occasion of the psalm.
CUSHAN (pjE ; alelonec [BKC.avC.bAQ], €8.
[K”]),,Hab. 37f. The name should mean ‘ ( a clan)
belonging to Cush,’ on the analogy of Ithran, Kenan,
Lmtan (but see CUSH,i. § z h ) . It is at any rate
parallel to Midian. This agrees with OT passages
which appear to place the Midianites in N. Arabia,
where, according to the evidence produced by Winckler,
there’was a region known to the Assyrians as KGS
or Cush. See CUSH, i. 2 ; MIDIAN.
-
CUSHAN RISHATHAIM RV ; AV Chushan -
rishathaim (D!D$y? ]pl3, i.e., ‘Cushan of double
wickedness ’).
1 Ps. 7 was a Purim psalm.
968
 CUSHAN-RISHATHAIM
T h e versions have : XovcapuaOarp [BA], -avpsuapwO [Ll [not
originall ; Vet. Lat., Chusarsafon; Naples Synopsis, Xovuap-
o&)wv[sic] ; Jos. XoucapuaOou [gen.] ; Vg. Chusan Rasafhaiir :
(see Mez, Die Bibel desJos. I T ; Lagarde, Sepfuac. Studien,
14Zf: 2 74).
The name of a king of h a m (MT ARAM-NAHARAIM
Fq.u.1- : a very rare expression), who is said to have
-~
1. The storis
oppressed the Israelites after their con-
quest of Canaan for eight years, till
Othniel ben Ken& overthrew him (Judg37-;1). The
story of this oppression and deliverance is introduced as
a typical illustration of the edifying theory of Israelitish
history put forward in Judg. 211-19,and was wanting in
the pre-Deuteronomic book of heroic stories which forms
the basis of our J U D G E S ( q . ~ . 5s
, 3 5). Hence we are not
surprised that it presents none of the characteristics of
narratives founded upon genuine popular traditions,
and that only two assertions emerge out of the phrases
of which it mainly consisrs-viz., that the land of Israel
was conquered by an early Aramzean king, and that
the Israelites were delivered by the Judahite (Kenizzite)
hero Othniel. These assertions, however, are contra-
dictory. Even in the early tjme of David the clans
of Judah had but a slight connection with Israel, and
in the time of Deb6rah’s insurrection, it appears, they
stood entirely aloof from the Israelites (see Judg. 6 ) .
It i s historically impossible that the Judahite clan of
Othniel could have played the glorious part ascribed
to it in the story. Bndde (Ri.Sa. 95), therefore,
while admitting that the oppression of Cushan-rishathaim
may conceivably rest on a traditional basis, rejects
Othniel’s championship. The editor of Judges, he re-
marks, belonged no doubt to the tribe of Judah, and
took a pleasure in giving it a representative among the
‘judges.’ Similarly Wellhausen and Stade.
It is more probable, however, that the whole trouble
is caused by an error in the text.
There is some reason to think that the true reading of @ in
Judg. 3 8 I O is . .. XovuapcaOarp @acrh&s @acihia) Pvpias
note the position of Iro.rapiv in v. 8 and see
2. Probable (Field’s Hex. on v. IO).^ Even apart from this,
Origin Of it is not too hold to emend niK, ‘Aram,’ into
the name. 0i.y Edom (as in 2 K. I66), aud to omit n*i;lj
a s 2 gloss (with Gritz, Klost.). l h a t Othiiiel
the Keuizzite should he the deliverer of Judah from the
Edomite tyranny is only natural. Observe that the next
oppressors are the Moahites. Whether w; may go on to
correct Rislzafltaint into L‘os/z-haf-f2ttrrini the chief of the
Temanites,’ with Klost. (Gesch. 122)) and to’work into this para-
graph the isolated passage 136 by prefixing ?!, ‘ and he smote,’
is prohlematical. I t seems to the present writer enough to read,
for nvydlt ’lp:! YlTp, ‘from the land of the Temanites,’
which is the description attached to the name of the Edomite
king Husham in Gen. 36 34. The letters became partly defaced,
and an editor wittily read .!!”D’ I t is very possible, too, that
the name 1013 (Cushan) is a corruption of D@l (O??) Husham
(cp Klost. 119). The writer was a t a loss for a name, and took
oue from the list of Edomite kings. Husham’s son Hadad was
a ereat warrior (u. 35); it was natural to make the father equal
tdhim in this respect. Whether we may suppose that the editor
to whom we are indebted for ‘Cushan-rishathaim king of Aram-
naharaim,’ had in his mind Kassite (Cushite) &cursions such
as some scholars connect with. N IMROD and Z ERAH (yy.v.)
which might be loosely stated to have proceeded from ‘ Araml
naharaim,’ may he doubted. For a different view of the origin
of the story as given in M T see Moore ( k d g e s 88 f;),who
thinks that we have here a distortion of the tradihon of a raid
of Midianitish ‘ Cushites’ into Judah.
Those who prefer to take the book of Judges as it
3, Other stands, without applying critical methods,
theories. have two recent hypotheses respecting
Cushan-rishathaim to choose from.
Prof. M‘Curdy (Hist. Projh. Mon. 1 2 3 0 ; cp 221) thinks that
the ‘whole land ’ (of Canaan) may have been subdued by the
Aramreans, who, during the enfeeblement of Assyria, had re-
occupied the land of Mitsni, the Eqyptian Naharina, which
includes W. Mesopotamia (see R P P ) 359) some time before
the accession of Tiglath-pileser I. (1120 n.c.j. In the ease with
which the asserted conquest of the strong cities of Canaan was
effected hy the Aratnaeans, in the name Cusharz-rishathaim, and
in the championship of a Kenizzite or Judahite hero, he.finds no
difficulty. Prof. Sayce, too, in his ingenious defence of a
1 @B has in v. 8 XovuapgaOn‘rpp a r ~ k i o IrorapGv
c Zvplar, and
in v. IO X . p. Zvpios ao.rae&.
969
CUTH
non-critical view of the narrative ( C r i f . Mon. 297-300)~makes
,no remark on the name of Israel’s oppressor, and holds Othnicl
to have been the deliverer of ‘ S. Palestine’ from the tyranny of
lhc army of the king of Mitini at the time of the iovgsion of
Egypt by the N. peoples somewhere about 1210 B.C. (reign of
Rameses 111.). The imaginativeness of Prof. Sayce’s statements
respecting the king of Mitini’s movements has been pointed
out by Driver (Confeinp.lieu. 65 420f; [‘94]). In fact the state-
nient that the king of Mitini ‘participated in the kouthward
movement of the peoples of the N.,’ but ‘lingered on the way ’
and presumably ‘sought to secure that dominion in Canaah
v hich had belonged to some of his predecessors has no monu-
mental evidence in its favour. If tradition had preserved the
memory of any incident in the great migration of the N.
peoples, would it not have been the desolation of the land of
Amur (N. Palestine) caused by the N. peoples themselves? I t
should be added that Stade (Gesclz. 169) positively denies that
there is any basis of tradition in the story, and both Budde
and G. F. Moore (whose treatment of Judg. 3 7-11 is thoroughly
good) are half inclined to agree with him. Stade, however oes
too far when he says that the form of the name Cushan-rinha;faim
is enough to prove it unhistorical (Gesch. 169 ; -cp Kuenen,
Einbitunp, 1, $ Ig n. I). Nor is this assumption a t all essential
to his theory. [Since the above was written, Klost.’s view has
been adopted by J. Marquart (Fund. II).] T. K. C .
CUSHI (’p13, ‘Cushite’; cp JEHIJDIand the Moab-
ite name Musuri (man of Musur) in the lists of Esar-
L 0 2,
I. An ancestor of J EHUDI Iy.n.1 (Jer. 36 14).
2. Father of Z E P H A N I A H ~ Lq.u.1 (Zeph. 1I).
3. >eq>g, RV ‘the Cushite,’ the messenger whom Joab
despatched. in preference to Ahimaaz, to inform David
of the drath of Absalom. Ahimaaz, we are told, follow-
ing later ran by the way of the plain2 and reached
David first ( 2 S. 18 19-32). Two questions arise. Who
was ‘ the Cushite ’ ? and why did Joab prefer him to
Ahimaaz as the messenger? The account, which has
been taken from a fuller narrative, does not say. Evi-
dently ‘ the Cushite’ was a foreigner, and this was the
reason why, like the Amalekite in z S. 1, he could
without offence be the bearer of evil tidings. That
David had foreign soldiers (eg.,the Hittite Uriah) is
well known. ‘ l h e Cushite’ was not (as H. P. Sm.
supposes) a negro. W e can hardly doubt that he
belonged to the N. Arabian Cush3 (see CUSH, 2).
CUSHIONS (Wl31?3,Prov. 7 16 31 z z RVmg.. n p & -
K ~ @ & A & I o N Mk.438 RV). See BED, 3f., and
cp ROGBLIM.
CUSTOX, ( I ) Ezra413 2 0 7 2 4 RV(AV ‘tribute’),
(2) 7>4 Ezra ZZ.C.~ AV (RV ‘toll’), (3) TEAUNIO~J
Mt. 9 9 etc. AV ‘receipt of custom,’ RV ‘place of toll.’
See TAXATION.
CUTE (n83; xoye [ B ; A omits], XUea [L];
Chutnci; r-) and Cuthah (ncja ; XoyNBa [B],
xoya [A], XUea [L]; CuUn), a place in Babylonia
from which colonists were brought to N. Israel ( 2 K.
1 7 24), identified with TeU-I6rZ/zCnz, NE. of Babylon,
where remains of Nergal’s temple have been found.
It is the KutH or Kuta of the cuneiform inscriptions.
Before the rise of Babylon, Kutii and Sippar, it appears,
were the chief cities of N. Babylonia. As late as the
time of ASur-b5ni-pal it was obligatory on the kings
of Assyria to sacrifice to SamG and NERGAL[ q . ~ . ]at
Sippar and Kut5 respectively, a custom apparently
due to the primitive importance of these cities in the
‘kingdom of the Four Quarters of the World;
(Winclder, (;BA 33 281).
We have a record of the building of the temple of Nergal in
KutS by Dungi, King of U r ( K B 3 a 8 1 ) ;and Nehuchadrezzar
1 This is apparently the Cusi who fipiires as the father of Ezra
in a Spanish MS of 4 Esd. ; see Bensly, Fourth Ezra, x1iv.f:
Ixxx.
2 ??a?
(MT), but perhaps rather ]hT+?,‘the gorge‘(K1o.).
See EPHRAIM W OOD OF.
3 T h e alterhative would be to suppose hak-k&’ (zrd KuS)
to he a n old corruption of H u s h a i (see the readings). This
reminds ns too much of Theodore of Mopsnestia’s confusion of
the CUSHLq.v.1 in the title of Ps.7 with the Archite Hushai.
4 T h e third term in these passages, iI$& is rendered ‘toll
(AV) or ‘tribute ’ (RV).
970
 CUTTING O F F
mentions among his pious acts that he restored the temples of
the great gods a t K u t i ( K B 3 6 5 r ) . It was from the temple of
Nergal that one of the creation-stories brought from ASnr-blni-
pal’s library is stated to have come (lfP1’41147-153); see
CREAT~ON, 8 16. The name ‘Cuthaeans lies hidden under
ARCHEVITES (q.u.) in E u a 49. In the phraseology of the later
Jews ‘Cuthaeaos’is equivalent to ‘Samaritans’ (so in Jos. and
the Talmud). With this name is probably to be connected the
COUTHA of T Esd. 5 32 (not in the lists of Ezra and Nehemiah).
1’. IC. c.
CUTTING OFF. This penalty (‘ I [Yahwk] will cut
him off from among his people,‘ ‘ h e shall be cut off
from his people,’ ‘from Israel,’ ‘from the assembly,’
and the like ; iny q m inK 9ni2n) is first met with in H
(see L EVITICUS ), where it is attached to a variety of
offences, many of them of a ceremonial or technical
character (Lev. 17 4 g, failure to bring slain ox, lamb, or
goat to the tabernacle ; 17 IO 14, eating blood ; 1829,
various ‘ abominations ’ ; 203 5 3 , Moloch-worship ; 20
17f., incest, etc. ; 223, unclean alrrproach to holy things).
It occurs frequently in P (Gen. 17 14, neglect of circum-
cision ; Ex. 12 15, eating leavcn in paschal season ; Ex.
3033 38, imitating or putting to secular use the holy oil
or incense ; Ex. 31 14, sabbath profanation ; Lev. 7 .of.,
unclean sacrificial eating ; 7 25 27, eating of fat or blood ;
198, eating sacrifice on third day ; 2329, non-observance
of day of atonement ; Nu. 913, failure to keep the
passover though clean and not on a journey ; 15 3 0 3 ,
high-handed sin, insult to Yahwk ; 19 13, contact with
dead ; 19 23, failure to remove uncleanness from contact
with dead by sprinkling).
The view of the older interpreters was that the ex-
pression meant the death penalty. It is worth noticing,
however, that in Ex. 31 1 4 3 separate emphasis is laid on
‘ h e shall be put to death ’ (nail ma) as distinguished
from ‘ that soul shall be cut off’ ( N V ~wain nnm21) ; cp
Lev. 2027 (death penalty on witchcraft), the Deutero-
nomic expression yin i y ~ ‘, put away the evil,’ Dt. 135
[6] (in connection with the death penalty on the false
prophet or dreamer of dreams), and perhaps also Lev.
2329f., n n i j j followed by ’nizxn, gradation of penalties.
I f account be taken of the actual circumstances amid
which H and P arose, it seems more probable that the
writers had in their mind either some such idea as that
which w,as carried into practice under Ezraand Nehemiah
(Ezra 108, ‘ separated from the congregation of the
captivity,’ 11 I Esd. 94, ‘cast out‘from the multitude of
them that were of the captivity’), and ultimately de-
velopeS into the minor and major excommunications of
the synagogue (see S YNAGOGUE ), or that they thought
only of death through divine agency, not of punishment
inflicted at the hands of the community (Driver on Lev.
7 2 0 f.). See, further, B AN .
CUTTINGS OF THE FLESH (CeremoniaI Mutila-
tions). The former heading is derived from the EV
of Lev. 1928 215. It is, however, too narrow in its
range. Circumcision cannot altogether be left out in
dealing with the ’ cuttings ’ referred to in these passages ;
nor can we forget how intimately the laceration of the
flesh in mourning is associated with the practice of
shaving the head or cutting off part of the hair. The
origin and significance of C IRCUMCISION [ y . v . ] is treated
elsewhere. The present article will deal with (I) in-
cisions ($ I$), ( 2 ) the cutting off of the hair (§§ 3-s),
and ( 3 ) tattooing (§ 6 J ) , regarded as ceremonial
mutilations (see further S ACRIFICE ).
The technical Hebrew terms for ceremonial incisions
are sib, naib (verb ai&) ;2 the verb iihnn
.. .. also is used.
TI_ .
“ I T
In Lk;;.215 [HI we read (with refer-
*’ References ence to mourning for the dead), ‘ They
to cuttings’ shall not make ... any cuttings in
their flesh’ (point ne!,: as plur. of tnt?).The practice
1 I t may he noted that the I ’ is peculiar to H, as also the
phrase ‘ I will set my face’ (Lev. 17 IO 20 3 6 26 17) or ‘put m y
face’ (20 5 ) against the offender.
Aram. d & C l3 , farrifu, Ar. Xa’arafa, strictly ‘ t o cut
Ass.
.. into,’ ‘nick; or ‘notch.’
971
CUTTINGS O F THE FLESH
was forbidden especially to the priests, who would
thereby ‘ profane ’ themselves. The substantive p)?p
occurs in Lev. 19 28 : ‘Ye shall not make any cutting in
Jour flesh for a (departed) soul.’ (On the only other
lassage [Zech. 1231 in which ~ y occurs
w no stress can
3e laid).l There is no exact parallel for this Hebrew
.[sage in Assyrian; but we do find &z~nldfuused of
-ending a garment in token of grief (a passage in
Sargon’s AnnaLr, 294, gives a striking parallel to z S.
1 z ) , and probably enough this rending was an attenu-
ition of the more savage custom of rending the flesh.%
4Hur-bSni-pal (Smith, 127 81) too speaks of his warriors
ts those who at the behest of the gods bt themsel-des
le hacked tu pieces in the fray’ (ittaizah-a&~). On this
t may be remarked that the case of mourners who
shed their blood to feed the manes of departed friends
.s analogous to that of soldiers who do this on the
battlefield in obedience to the gods. A supposed second
term for ceremonial incisions (ni??) is simply due to
misunderstanding. In Jer. 48 37 we should read with
OHA n q ? $2 (‘all hands are cut into’) ; the prefixed
?i) in MT is an error ; n i x is, in fact, participial.
The reflexive form l i m n occurs in Dt. 141 (parallel to
the already cited passage of Lev.), and at least six
times elsewhere. The primary meaning of the simple
stem is obviously ‘ to cut off‘ ; cp Ar. j a d d a , &&a,
&.
l??’ The ceremonial cutting referred to was an
xdinary custom of mourners in the time of Jeremiah,
to dispense with which would have been something very
strange and unusual (Jer. 16.6 4 1 5 475) ; evidently the
contemporaries of the prophet did not recognise the
Law in Dt. 141. The incisions referred to in Mic. 5
‘4141, ‘Now hack thyself [so Nowack], 0 daughter
bf attack,’ must also be signs of mourning; and this
may well be the case too in Jer. 57, where iiiim., ‘ they
would cut themselves,’ implies that the apostate Jews
who resorted to the Whore’s .House ( i e . , the idol
temple) wished to bring over the Deity to their side by
self-mutilation. This description of the prophet may
be illustrated by I K. 18 28, where the ‘ cutting ’ practised
by the priests of Baal is said to have been after this
custom or ritual, and to have followed the ritual dance
by or round the altar (see D ANCE , 5). Hosea, too
(714), speaks of Israelites who ‘because of corn and
new wine cut themselves,’ to propitiate their god (read-
ing m i i n ? with aBAQ We.,
, Che., RVmg.).
The practice of shedding the blood in one way or
another as an honour due to the dead is world-wide.
2. Signi~cance,It is found not only among the Hebrews
and the Arabs (We. Heid.C2)181), but
also among the ancient Greeks and the modern
African and Polynesian peoples. ‘The blood is the
l i e ’ ; and it is probable that when in primitive times
the mourning kin ‘ cut themselves for the dead,‘ they
did it in the belief that the departed drank in new
life with the blood thus poured out by the willing self-
sacrifice of sorrowing friends, and at the same time
renewed their bond of union with the living (cp
E SCHATOLOGY 3 , 4 ) .
Such acts doubtless had a sacrificial or sacramental aspect;
and in view of the fact that the disembodied spirit was conceived
as possessing a quasi-divine or daemonic character, with un-
defined otencies for good and evil, it may he assumed that the
blood-o&ng was, or became, as much a conciliatory present
to the manes of the dead a s that of slain victims was intended
to he to the highergods. It may even have been thought that, as
the deceased man had passed into another world on leaving the
circle ofhis kin, he had in some sense become a stranger to them,
and that therefore it was necessary to make a blood-covenant
with him, and so secure his good-will for the tribe or family.
T h e radical change of death might suggest that as the corporate
unity of the departed with his clan had been broken, it must he
1 If the text is correct the meaning mus,t be ‘ t o strain oneself
to pieces,‘ ‘to break down under a load. Nowack, however,
holds that a gloss has been taken into the text.
2 There was no longer any consciousness of this when the
post-exilic prophet Joel wrote ‘Rend your heart, and not your
garments’ (Joel2 13). Else 6 e would have said, ‘Rend your
heart, and not your flesh’ (cp Jer. 44).
972
 CUTTINGS O F THE FLESH
restored by giving the dead to drink of the blood of the living
kindred.
Bearing in mind that ritual practices acqnire a new
symbolism as time goes on, and that affection for
the dead has often evinced itself, even at a high stage
of culture, by suicide over the corpse, and by such
customs as the Hindu Sat?, w-e may be inclined to see
in the ' incisions for the dead,' as practised in the period
of the great prophets, a symbolical expression for the
willingness of the mourner to depart and be with the
loved and lost one.
The passages which mention incisions of the Aesh
also mention cutting off the hair as a sign of mourning.
3. cutting Thus Lev. 215 [HI : 'They (the priests)
shall not make a bare bald patch on their
hair. head, and the corner of their beard they
shall not shave off' (cp Lev. 1927 Dt.141, 'And ye
shall not set baldness between your eyes '-4e., on the
forehead--'for one that is dead ') ; Ezekiel, too (4420),
forbids artificial baldness to the priests. The preval-
ence of the custom of cutting off the hair in token of
deep grief is, however, presupposed by the earlier
prophets, who take no exception to it. Micah says,
addressing a city community, 'Make thee bald and
shear thee for thy darling children; make broad thy
baldness like the vulture's ; for they are carried away
captive from thee ' (Mic. 1 1 4 ) . See also Am. S I O Is. 22
IZ (cp 324) Jer. 729 166 Ezek. 7 18 ; such passages show
that the prohibition of the custom referred to belongs
to a later age of religious legalism. In Dt. 141 these
practices are forbidden to Israelites generally, on account
of their relation to YahwB, on the principle on which
Aaronites with any physical defect are excluded from
the service of the altar (Lev. 21 16-23).
Cutting off the hair was also the most characteristic
expression of an Arab woman's moerning. When
Halid b. al-Walid died, all the women of his family
offered their hair at his grave (Agh. 15 IZ ; We. Heid.PJ
182). It was a sacrifice to the dead, and the under-
lying idea of the offering is suggested by the story of
Samson. ' If I be shaven,' said that hero, 'my strength
will go from m e ' (Judg. 1617). In other words, the
hair, the growth of which was continually renewed,
appeared to the ancients a centre of vitality, like the
blood ; l and thus to offer it, whether to deity (Nu. 618)
or to the spirits of the dead, had essentially the same
import and purpose as to offer one's blood, the aim
being to originate or to renew a bond of vital union
between the worshipper and the unseen' power. Re-
*. Initiatory garded as sacrificial acts, both blood-
ceremonials. letting and offering the hair were ' private
acts of worship,' performed by the in-
dividual for his own good a s distinct from that of
the community; and both are common elements in
ceremonies of initiation by which youths are admitted
to the rights of manhood, especially to marriage and
participation in the tribal worship. Thus CIHCUM-
CISION [p. v . , 41 was originally a rite preliminary to
marriage (Ex. 424-26) ; and Lucian (Dea Syr. 60)
informs us that the long locks of young people were
shorn and dedicated at the old Syrian sanctuaries on
the same occasion. In the course of time the barbarous
character of the blood-offering caused it to lapse from
general use, except among certain priesthoods and
votaries ; whilst the hair-offering, which in origin and
principle was identical, survived to the close of Pagan-
ism, and may be recognised in the tonsure of early
Christian Monachism.
T h e passage Lev. 1927 (H ; about 570 B . c . ) has
already been referred to. It is a prohibition of a
practice, in vogue among certain Arabian
5. Other
specialised tribes, of shaving off the hair all round
the head, a circular patch being left on
forms* the crown (Herod. 38)-a practice indi-
1 See WRS ReL Senr.P) 324, and note the Chinese phrase
nrao hszi'eh,'hair and blood,' and the saying, 'Am I not of th;
same hair (sciZ. a s my father)?'
973 ' 974
cated, it seems, by the nickname ' Shorn-pates ' (*sisp
naa) applied by Jeremiah to some Arabian peoples (RV,
also AV mg., ' all that have the corners [of their hair]
polled' ; Jer. 926 [ZS] 25 23 49 52). There can be little
doubt that this, like most other ancient tribal badges and
customs, had religious associations and a religious
significance ; in fact, Herodotus (38) expressly says
that the Arabs pretended to imitate their national god
Orotal-Dionysos by their peculiar tonsure. Hence, no
doubt, the practice was forbidden to the Jews by the
older Levitical code (Lev. 1927), the object being t6
isolate the, people of Yahwi: from the neighbouring
nations and their worships. On the other band,
there were some important religious customs which,
though of ethnic origin, were not abolished by the
law. Hence it was that the Nazirite continued to make
an offering to YahwB of his shorn hair (see NAZIIIITE)
-a practice which survived, in a shape modified by
circumstances, in the days of Paul (Acts 21 23-26 ; cp
1S18). See H A IR , § zf:
What we call ' tattooing ' also is prohibited (Lev. 19
28). T h e expression y;!? nab? does not occur again
Tattooing, in the OT ; but in New Hebrew yppp
y ~ y ' p means the same as the Greek
etc.
.. " . to set a mark on a thine
unYuaTf?w.
by pricking, puncturing, or branding .(see Buxtorf ; it
-
is also used of fowls scratching the ground).
The object of graving or branding marks on the
Aesh would appear to be dedication of the person to
his god. Herodotus ( 2 113) mentions a temple of
Herakles a t Taricheia, by the Canopic mouth of the
Nile, where a runaway slave might find asylum if he
' gave himself to the god' by having certain 'sacred
stigmata' made on hin1.l In Is. 445 we have a good
instance of graving a divine name on the hand, in token
of self-dedication : ' One will say, I am YahwB's ; and
another will name himself by the name of Jacob ; and
another will mark on his hand Ynhwd's, and receive the
surname Israel' (SBOT; cp critical notes). As far as
they indicated the ownership or property of the god,
such marks are analogous to the wusum or cattle-marlcs
of the Bedawi tribes, and may have had their origin in
that necessary practice of primitive pastoral life (cp
col. 711, n. I). In Ezek.946 we read of marking a
Tau or cross, the symbol of life (cp the Egyptian
'n&, life, with f , the Phcenician form of the letter
?
,
Tau) on the foreheads of the faithful in Jerusalem, who
are to be spared from slaughter ; which recalls the
sealing of the 144,000 servants of God on their fore-
heads (Rev. 73$), and further, the mark of the Beast
(xcipaypa, something graven, Actsl7zg) on the right
hand or the forehead of his worshippers (Rev. 1 316f.
204). The strongly metaphorical words of Paul, too,
Z bear in m y body the nznrks (or brands) OfJesus, r2L
uTfypaTa TOG ' I ~ U O G (Gal. 617) clearly presuppose a
custom of tattooing or branding the flesh with sacred
names and symbols, which would be familiar as a
heathen practice to Paul's Asiatic converts2
In Ex. 139 Dt. 68 1118 and elsewhere we have what
may be regarded as a substitute for the painful processes
., Substitutes. of tattooing and branding. The Israel-
ite is to bind the DreceDts of the Law
I .
on his hand for a sign; they are also to serve as
FRONTLETS [g. v . ] (nhia, phylacteries) between his eyes,
-i.e., on his forehead (cp Dt. 68 Rev. 73). The sign
on the hand recalls the sign which Yahwi: set on Cain
(Gen. 4 15 : see C AIN , § 4), whilst those strips of inscribed
vellum, the phylacteries ( = ' frontlets,' EV of OT) of
Mt. 235, were looked upon as having magical qualities,
1 Thus Ptolemy Philopator branded the Alexandrian Jews
with the sign of the ivy to identify them wiih the cult of
Dionysus; see BACCHUS. Cp Frazer, Totentism, 2 6 f i For
the branding of serfs see EGYPT, $! 90.
2 Cp Deissmann, Bi6eZstlstudien (99, 262-276 (a new and in-
genious theory).
 CYAMON
not less than the old tattooings and brandings : they
were a protection against harm,l and probably also
secured health and good fortune (cp Targ. Cant. 83).
For the literature of the subjects here treated’of, see
the works referred to under C IRCUMCISION , M OURNING
CUSTOMS, FRONTLETS, S ACRIFICE , etc. See also
W R S Kel. S e 7 ~ . ( ~ch.
) 9, and the authorities there
cited ; E. B. Tylor, Prim. Cult. 218. C. J. B.
CYAMON ( K Y A M W N [BXA] ; c h e h o n [Vg.] ;
\QAOo;rr [Syr.]), ‘which is over against Esdraelon’
(Judith 73), looks like a corruption of J OKNEAM or
(Movers) JOKMEAM. Robinson. however, noting that
K U U ~ L J means
~ beanfield,’ identifies it with the modern
EZ ZWelz, the bean,’ on the plain itself but ‘over
against’ the city ‘of Jezreel.’ Cp Bii. Pc7L 210. The
name Cyamon should probably be restored in Judith 4 4
for Kwva [B]. See KONAE.
CYLINDER (5’.
3), Cant. 514 RV”lg. See RING.
CYMBALS. For I Ch. 138, etc. (n,R)yD), 2 S. 6 5
Ps. 150 5 (O$?%), and for I Cor. 13 I ( ~ 6 p p a h o v )see MUSIC,
5 3 (2).
CYPRESS, RV H OLM T REE (;?l?g, Is.4414.f.), a The connection with Greece and with Hellenic ideals
tree which in the single. passage where it occurs is
coupled with the oak. The Hebrew ii~zih does not
appear in any cognate language, bat may be connected
with Ar. turozn, ‘ to be hard.’ LXX and Pesh. omit the
word ; Aq. and Th. render iLyproPdXavos ( ‘ wild acorn ’).
Vg. has ilex, which is defended by Celsius (2269fi),
and has been wisely adopted by our revisers. It IS
difficult, however, to be certain ; for the evergreen oak
(queTczLs ilex, L.) is at the present day rare in Palestine
(>FP 412). The heavy, hard nature of its wood
would harmonise well with the probable etymology of
tivzlih. ‘ Cypress ’ (perhaps a mere gness) comes from
the Genevan Bible. David Kinil!i and others thought
that what was meant was the fir tree ; Luther preferred
the beech. Cheyne (Is. SBOT, Heb.) thinks nnn
corrupt, and withGr., reads i?l~(see P INE ),
[so AV] ; and for
For Cant. 1 14 4 13 AVmg., see CAMPHIRE
Is. 41 19 KVIw., see Box TREE [so EV]. N. M.
CYPRUS ( K Y ~ P O C[Ti. WH]), the third largest
island of the Mediterranean, placed in the angle between
the coast of Syria and that of Asia Minor (Strabo, 681),
called Ala& in the Amarna letters, where its copper
is specially referred to (so E. Meyer, Petrie, etc.), ’As! by
the Egyptians, Yavnan by the Assyrians, and KITTIM
(4.v.)by the Hebrews. Its physical structure is simple.
It consists of a central plain running
Description. across the island from E. to W.,
bounded by a long mountain ridge to the N., and by
a broader mountain district to the S.
T h e central plain was likened in antiquity t o the valley of
the Nile, being flooded annually by the Pediaeus, which left rich
deposits of mud. Strabo sketches Che productiveness of Cyprus
(684: & a r v 6 ~dun K a L e i h a r o s , uivp h aitrkpxer. x p i j m i ) . Copper
(named after the island) was found in the mountains, and timber
for shipbuilding.
In situation, climate, and productions, Cyprus belongs
to all the three surrounding continents, ‘and historic-
ally it has constantly shared in their vicissitudes. It
is most accessible from the E. and the S., and, lying
right over against Syria, was early visited by the Phoeni-
cians, who founded Amathus, Paphos, and Citium, the
1 T h e Tg. on I S . 1IO takes Saul’s bracelet for a hitMZah-
i.e., ai1 amulet.The Hexap. on Ezek. 13 18 gives $ v & m j p L a as
a Hebrew’ or ‘Jewish’ interpretation of nino3 (EV ‘pillows,’
SeeDREss 8 8) which is connectedwith Ass. h a d , ‘ tobind.’ T h e
Rabbis ('?aim.' Sha66. 576) also explain t&ki$hGth as amulets.
The word cannot he explained from the Semitic languages, and,
since the Jewish ideas of magic came ultimately from the
Sumerians of primitive Babylonia, may reasonably be explained
by the Sumerian di6& (from dahdub), ‘ t o hind’=Ass. kaslz
(see above), kumd. For a n analogy, cp ’ID~D, Jer. 51 27 Nah.
317 frpm Ass. dvfisu~,‘tablet-writer which is of Snmerian
origi? (dzd ‘tablet ’ s u r ‘write’). S e d C O T 2 r r 8 f :
2 We should p&haps associ,ate with this Syr. teras, ‘to be
straight.
975
CYPRUS
last, the Phoenician capital, giving its name to the whole
island.’
The Phcenicians were not, however, the earliest
inhabitants of Cyprus. They found in possession a
2. History. people closely connected, as their art and
alphabet show, with the primitive races
of Asia Minor (for WMM’s theory see KITTIM,and cp
As. u. EUY.337). The Greek colonists arrived before
the eighth century B.C. The discoveries in the island
indicate clearly its partition between the Phcenician
element in the S. and the Hellenic in the central de-
pression stretching from Soli in the W. to Salamis in
the E., at which latter site we find an art that is largely
Greek. The Cypriote character was wanting in energy,
and the island was almost wholly under the influence
alternately of Asia and of Egypt.
(I) I n 709 B.C. Sargon II., king of Assyria, was recognised as
over-lord by seven Cypriote princes ; their tribute was continued
t o his grandson Esarhaddon Schr. Iiil TP) 368 355. (2) I n the
sixth century Amasis kin; of Egypt conquered the island
(Herod. 2 182. Perhais it had been co&uerecl even before his
time hy Thotmes 111. I n any case the r p i ~ o sdvSpJmov of
HerAd. is an error). (3) After the conquest of Egypt b y
Cambyses, Cyprus fell to Persia, being included in the fifth
satrapy (Herod. 3 1991).
was brilliant but purely episodical (Evagoras, king of
Salamis : 410 B .c.). The island fell into the hands of
Alexander the Great, and firiallq’ remained with the
Ptolemies as one of their most cherished possessions
until its conquest by the Romans (cp zMacc. 1013:
Mahaffy, Enip. of the Pfolemies, pass. ).
The Jews probably settled in Cyprus before the time
of Alexander the Great I I Macc. 15211. Manv would -I
~
3. Jewish be attracted later by the fact that its
copper mines were at one time farmed to
Herod the Great (Jos. Ani. xvi. 4 5 : a
Cyprian inscr., Boeckh 2628, refers to one of the family).
After the rising of the Jews in 116 A.D. in Cyrene, in
Egypt, and in Cyprus had been suppressed, it was decreed
that no Jew might set foot upon the island, under
penalty of death, even for shipwrecked Israelites (Dio
Cass. 6832. See SALAMIS). I n the history of the
spread of Christianity Cyprus holds an honourable place
(Acts 436, Joseph surnamed Barnabas). Its Jewish
population heard the Gospel after Stephen’s death
from those whom the persecution had driven from
Judzea. (Acts 1119). Some of these were men of C y p s
and Cyrene, who fled to Antioch and addressed the
Greeks of the city (v.20). Cyprus was in turn the first
scene of the labours of Panl with Barnabas and Mark
(Acts 134-1z), afterwards of Barnabas and Mark alone
(Acts 1539). One of the first Christian missionaries
may have been that ‘ old disciple ‘ Mnason with whom
Paul lodged at Jerusalem (Acts 21 16). Returning to
Palestine at the close of his third journey, Panl and his
companions sighted Cyprus (Acts 213, ~ ~ U @ ~ ~ U r+v V T E S
K.; AV ‘discovered’), leaving it on the left hand as
they ran from PatLra to Tyre. In the voyage to Rome
from Czsarea the ship ‘ sailed under Cyprus ’ (Acts 274,
dm?rXEliuapev)-i.e., northwards ‘ over the sea of
Cilicia and. Pamphylia’ (v. 5 : cp Str. 681)-taking
advantage of the northerly and westerly set o i the
current, in order to reach Myra.
After its seizure by the Romans in 58 B.C. Cyprus
had been united for administrative purposes with Cilicia ;
4. Adminis- but in the first partition of the Roman
tration. world after Actium it was made an im-
perial province (Dio Cass. 43 I z ) - - i . e . , its
governor, if it had one of its own, and were not rather
united with Cilicia to form a single province, bore the
title Zegntus Aufusti propmiore (rpeu@ur+s ZEPUUTOG
dvrwrpdrqyos. cp Dio Cass. 5313 ; in N T always
+y~pLJv,cp Lk. 22, Str. 840 4yEpbvar Kal B L O ~ K ~ ) T ~ S
Iiaiuap ~ i p r e i ) . Why then does the writer of Acts 137
1 Josephus ( A n t . i. 6 I) says X & p a ... K h p o s ahq vJv
4
xaXsirai. Epiphanms, aCyprian bishop, writes, K i m w liurrpiwv
~ U O rcahaTrar
S ’ K h o i y k p K h p r o r , Her. 80 2 5 (see KITTIM).
976
 CYRENE
call Sergius Paulus I proconsul' ( d u R h a r o r , the proper
title of governors of senatorial provinces, AV ' deputy ' ;
cp Acts 18 12 19 38) ? Some have argued that he used
the word loosely, and appeal to Strabo (685, Pykvero
daapxia 4 vi+v KaRdmp Kai uDv Pun urparTyiK?j) to
prove that the island was governed by a p ~ o p v e t o r
appointed by tlle emperor ; but the writer of Acts is
quite correct. From Dio Cassius (5312) we learn that,
in 22 B.'c., Augustus restored Cyprus to the Senate in
exchange for S. Gaul (cp Dio Cass. 544). In Paul's
time, therefore, its governor was properly called ' pro-
consul.' The passage quoted from Strabo is misunder-
stood, as is clear from id. 840 (CIS 66 r d s Gqpouias 6
Bijpos urparTyo3s +) h d r o u s a&mci-i.e., governors of
senatorial provinces were either of consular or of
przetorian rank, in either case the official title being
p v c o n s u l ) . In the case of Cyprus, authors, inscriptions,
and coins have preserved the names of some twenty of
her propraetorian governors with the ' brevet ' rank of
proconsul. Lucius Sergius Paulus (governor at the
time of Paul's visit, about 47 A D . ) is known to us from
an inscription from the site of Soli (see Hogarth, Devia
C y p i a , 114f. and Appendix).
See P. Gardner mew chajs. in Gr. Hist. 1 5 3 3 For excava-
tions in the islabd J H S pass. Perrot and Chipiez, A r t iiz
Phltiz. a i d Cyjrus. For the arch;eology Max Ohnefalsch-
Richter, Kypros, die Bibeel i ~ Homer
. is especially valuable.
For Christian times the most recent work is Hackett's History
of the Church in Cypms, 1899. w. J. w.
CYRENE (KYPHNH [Ti. WH]), a city on the N.
coast of Africa. It was the capital of that part of L IBYA
1. Position [qv.] between the Egyptian and Cartha-
and history. gmian territories, which bore the name of
Cyrenaica or Pentapolis; the phrase in
Acts 210, 'the parts of Libya about Cyrene.' r b ,u&pp?l
r;is AiPhp res KU& Kup+~qv,is equivalent to the AipLv
4 m p i K. of Dio Cass. (5312) and 4 r p b s Kup-;)uyAlp.
of Jos. Ant. xvi. 6 I. The city was thoroughly Greek in
character, and won a high reputation as the mother of
physicians (Herod. 3131 ; temple of Asklepios, Paus. ii.
269 ; Tac. Ann. 1418), philosophers, and poets. Calli-
machus, Carneades, Eratosthenes, Aristippus (Strabo,
837), and Synesius, bishop of Ptolemais, are only a few
of the many famous nien who were sprung from the Cyre-
naica. After the death of Alexander the Great, Cyrene
with its territory was absorbed by Egypt. Though so
thoroughly Hellenic, it had, since the time of Ptolemy son
of Lagos (Jos. c. A p . 2 4, end of 4th century B. c. ), a large
Jewish population. Strabo, quoted by Jos. Ant. xiv. 72,
says that the Jews formed one of the four classes of the
inhabitants. The privileges granted to the Jews by
Ptolemy were continued and augmented by the Romans
(Jos. A n t . xvi. 6 5 ) , who received the Cyrenaica, under
the will of the childless Ptolemy Apion, in 96 B.C.,
though for twenty years they shirked the responsibility
of the legacy. In 74 B.C. the territory was made a
province, which was combined with Crete when that
island was subjugated in 67 B.C. (see C RETE ). In 27
B.C. the Cyrenaica and Crete were definitely united to
form a single province, under the title C ~ e t nCyrcnn?. or
Creta et Cyren.? (but either name might be used to
denote the dual province : cp Tac. A n n . 3 38 7 0 ) . The
province was senatorial-Le. , governed by proconsuls
of praetorian rank, and so remained to the time of
Diocletian. The subsequent history of Cyrene is con-
nected with its Jewish inhabitants, the chief event being
their terrible massacre of the Greek and Roman citizens
in the reign of Trajan (Dio Cass. 68 32).
The modern province of Barca, on the E. of the gulf of Sidra,
represents the ancient Cyrenaica, and in this rovince Grmnah
marks the exact site of Cyrene, which was p?aced on the edge
of a plateau 1800 feet above the sea-level, overlooking the
Mediterranean at a distance of ten miles (Str. 837; T ~ A E O S
py6.kqs i u rpam<oeLSei 7re8io ~ e ~ p h q c&r , ;K 705 ~ a A 6 y o v s
BwpQpsv a h j v ) . The port &as called Apollonia. The sur-
rounding district was, and is, of remarkable fertility (Str. Z.C.,
~ n ~ o r p b + o Bpivrq,
c K U A A ~ K L I ~ W WHerod.
; 4 1585). T h e pros.
perity of Cyrene was based upon i t s export of the drug si@hium,
derived from an umbelliferous plant, not yet certainly identified,
977
CYRUS
:rowing in the S. desert (see Mon. d. Z m t . PI. 47 : a vase repre-
enting King Arcesilaus superintending t h e h g h i n g of si@/iilmz;
p the coins ; Aristoph. PZut. 925, r b B&mu oiA+rov).
That the Jews of Cyrene were largely Hellenised, is
)eyond question. Jason of Cyrene is mentioned as an
author in 2 Macc. 224 (see MACCABEES,
2. Jewish
S ECOND , § 2). In the N T we hear of
connection' Simon of Cyrene who bore the cross of
'esus (Mk. 1521 LB. 2326, ' S . a Cyrenian' AV; cp
&tt. 2732, ' a man of C.' ; RV, 'of Cyrene' in all
hree passages: the adj. Hupvuaios is used in each
:ase). Jews from the Cyrenaica were in the Pentecostal
tudience of Peter (Acts 2 IO ; see above on the phrase
ised). Cyrenreans joined with the Alexandrian and
4siatic Jews to attack Stephen (Acts 6 9 ) , and Cyrenaxu
:onverts helped to found the first Gentile church at
4ntioch (dX&houu Kai ?rpbs ro3s"EhhTuas [-vrurds W H ] ;
Acts 1120). One of their first missionaries may have
been the ' Lucius of @yrene ' of Acts 13I, one of the
' prophets and teachers ' who ' ministered to the Lord '
in Antioch. He is said to have been the first bishop
3f Cyrene. Other traditions connect Mark with the
foundation of the Cyrenaic church.
Plan and Description of the site in AnnnaZ of the Brit. Sch.
z t Aihens, 2 1 1 3 3 ; cp Studniczka, kyYene. w. J . w.
CYRENIUS ( K Y P H N ! O C [Ti. WH]), Lk. 22AV; RV
QUIRINIUS.
CYRUS (d$ ; KYPOC [BAL]), the fonnder of the
old-Persian empire, belonged to the ancient princely
1. Origin. race of the Achaemenidze, so called after
their ancestor Achzemenes (Hakhimanish).
H e was the second' of his name, his grandfather
having been called Cyrus (Kurush, in the Babylonian
inscriptions Ku-ra-nS, K u r - ~ a fk-u-ur-ra-fu),
~ Cyrus
was thus, without a doubt, an Aryan and Persian by de-
scent--not an Elamite, as has recently been conjectured.
For Darius Hystaspis speaks of Cambyses the son of
Cyrus as being one of our race' (nmakhnm ta'numgyyd
[Behist. i. II]), and calls himself a Persian, son of a
Persian, an Aryan of Aryan descent (NalG-i-RustBni,
a. 2 ; Suez c. § 3). At first Cyrus was king only of
Persia and of AnSan, or Anzan, an Elamite province-
probably with Susa (Shushan) for capital-which, after
the fall of the Elamite kingdom, andcertainly as early
as the time of his ancestor Tei'spes (Cispi.<),had come
under the dominion of the A c h a e m e n i d ~ . ~In Baby-
lonia Cyrus calls himself by preference king of AnSan ;
but once, in the annals of Nabil-nH'id (Nabonnedus),col.
2, 15, he is spoken of as ' king of Persia.' Neither state,
however, was then of much importance in comparison
withthe great Median andchaldean empires ; both states,
too, were tributary to Media. NabC-nZ'id mentions
Cyrus as the ' petty vassal ' of Astyages, who had only
a very small army at his disposal ( 5 R64, i. 2 8 8 ) .
The career of this vassal-king, who rose till he brought
under his sway the whole of Western Asia, so struck
the popular imagination that a legend of world-wide
diffusion respecting the foundling prince who was
brought up among poor people and afterwards became
a famous monarch was applied to him as it had already
been applied to others ; and this Persian tradition is
the source from which Herodotus (1107 z),
and the
authority upon whom Justinus depends (i. 48-13), may
be supposed to have drawn. From Cyrns's own in-
scriptions, however, it appears that at least three of his
ancestors had the same kingdom before him. It is
possible, but not certain, that Cyrus in his youth may
1 I n Herod. 5 11-from which NBldeke (A&sGtze BUY $em.
Gesch. 15) seeks to show that Cyrus was the third of the name
-Herodotus simply places the genealogies of Cambyses and
of Xerxes one above the other.
2 According to Herod. 1 113f., Cyrus had previously borne
another name, and Strabo (15 729) says that he was originally
called Agradates, and that he did not assnme the name of Cyrus
till his accession to the throne. On this point cp R. Schubert,
Herodot's DarsteZZunE de7, Cyrussage 60& (Breslau, '9r).
t 3 See C P. Tiele ' Het Land AnshAn-Anzan ' in FeesthundeZ
vooouy P./.'Veth, ig&? (Leyden, '94).
978
 GYRUS
have attended the Median court, and that either he
himself or his father was son-in-law of Astyages.l
Astyages (Zshtuvegu on the inscriptions of Nabii-did)
is called at one time king of Media, at another king of
the Ummlin-manda,2 by which, it has been
2' Career*conjectured, are meant the Scythians. On
this assumption, Astyages might with some reason be re-
garded as a Scythian usurper. In the third year of
Nabb-nB'id (553 B. c. ) there seems to have arisen within
the Median kingdom a revolt against the foreign domina-
tion. At least, at that date the Ummrin-mnnda who
were in occupation of HarrBn were recalled (5Rawl.
64, i. 2 8 8 ) Some time had still to elapse, however,
before Cyrns contrived, by treachery in the Median
camp, to become master of Astyages and at the same
time of the throne of Media. This happened probably
in the sixth, or at all events before the seventh, year of
NabU-nB'id (before 550 B .c.), Ann. col. z I ~ f The i I SAIAH , ii. § 21), announces that, for the deliverance of
two texts cited can hardly otherwise be brought into
agreement with each other. In the following years
Cyrus extended his dominion over the whole Median
empire, and after subjugating Lydia he directed his
energies against Babylon. By the fall of Crcesus the
alliance between that monarch, Nabb-nz'id, and Amasis
of Egypt (Herod. 1 7 7 8 ) was broken up, and each
one had to look out for himself. In 538 the end came.
For several years the king of Babylon had withdrawn
himself from Babylon, and alienated priests and people
alike by neglect of the sacred feasts and of the worship
of Marduk, as well as by other arbitrary proceedings.
When, in his seventeenth year, he returned to his capital,
it was already too late. Cyrus with his victorious
bands had been steadily advancing upon the northern
frontier of Accad, which the king's son, probably the
B-I-Sa-uSur who (in I R 69, col. 2, 2 6 ; 59 and 68,
n. I , col. 2, z 4 j ) is called his first-born, was guard-
ing with the army. The brave prince did what he
could ; but after his army had been defeated-first near
the city of Opis ( U p s ) , and again as often as he rallied
it-and after the Accadians or North Babylonians had
revolted against the Chaldaean king, Sippar opened
its gates to the enemy, and Babylon also fell into his
hands without further resistance. After Gobryas (Ug-
baru or Gubaru), governor of Gutium, had taken
possession with the vanguard, Cyrus himself made his
entry into the city with the main body of his troops on
the third day of the eighth month, 539-38, being received
(so at least his inscriptions tell US) by all classes, and
especially by the priesthood and nobles, as a liberator,
with every manifestation of joy. Some days afterwards
Gobryas seems to have pursued Bel-Sar-uSur and put
him to death; but the place where decipherers think
this ought to be read ( A n n . col. 3, 223,) is very much
injured. Nabii-nH'id had already been captured.
Cyrus reigned about nine years from this time. In his
last year he handed over the sovereignity of Babylon
to his son Cambyses (see Strassmaier, Znsc/irifen voiz
Cnmtvses, Leipsic, 1890, Pref.). Cp B ABYLONIA , § 69.
Under the name of K6reS (see above, I ), this Cyrus
is repeatedly referred to in the OT, usually as ' king of
3. Judah's the Persians' (z Ch.36zzf: E z r a l r J 8 3 7
hopes. 46 239Dan. l o r ) , once as 'the Persian' (Dan.
) , once as king of Babylon ' (Ezra5 13).
Great expectations were cherished of him by the Jews.
When, after his defeat of Crcesus, he advanced to the
conquest of the whole of Asia Minor, there arose one
of the exiles in Babylon, who pointed him out as the
king raised up by Yahw.4 to be Israel's redeemer.
From his pen comes Is. 40-48 (so much will be admitted
by all critics), where Cyrus is represented a s expressly
called to accomplish the divine judgment upon Babylon,
1 See Schubert, Z.C. 6 2 8 , and the works of Evers and Bauer
there referred to.
2 Del. Ass. HWB writes: 'Ummdn man&, hordeofpeoples,
a general designatioh of the northern peoples hostile to Assyria
subject at any ?ne time to Media-cg., the G i k r r a i , the Mannai:
the Scythians. Cp Sayce, PSBA,Oct. 1896.
979
GYRUS
td set the captives free, and to restore Jerusalem and
the temple (48143 4428 4513). It was for this end,
we are told, that Yahwi: had given Cyrus victory upon
victory, and would still lead him on to fresh triumphs
( 4 1 25 45 1-8). Whether he received recompense for
his services or not is left uncertain (cp 43 3f: with 45 13) ;
but at any rate he was no mere passive tool in YahwB's
hand. He did not, indeed, know Yahw&before he was
called (453J) ; but, once called, he fulfilled his mission
invoking Yaliwit's name (412 5 ) and received the honour-
able titles of ' Yahwit's friend ' and ' Yahwit's anointed '
(4428 451).
Bitter must have been the disappointment of the
Jews; for, whatever else Cyrus may have done for
them, he did not realise the high-pitched
4. Trans-
formation. expectations of the Exile prophet. Hence
a younger prophet, living in Palestine (see
Israel, Yahw.4 alone will judge the nations, without any
allies from among ' the peoples ' (Is. 63 1-15, cp 59 16&),
thus reversing the old expectation respecting Cyrns.
'
The later Jews, however, found it difficult to believe
that the deliverance which Yahw.4 was to have wrought
through the instrumentality of the great Persian king
had never been accomplished. The prophecy must
somehow or other have come to pass. Cyrus w-as not
regarded, it is true, as the man who had finally delivered
Israel-the deliverance was still one of the hopes of the
future-but the Jews desired to recognise in him, at
least, the initiator of the restoration of Israel. Such is
the reflection inevitably suggested by a strictly critical
reading of the work of the Chronicler (see E ZRA , ii.
§ 7).
The restoration of Israel might be considered to have
begun with the rebuilding of the temple. and the
I I
, 5. build in^ of problem now arose, how to bring this
Temple : three event into connection with Cyrus. A
versions. difficulty instantly presented itself.
I , -
In\ According to the evidence of
Haggai, of Zech. 1-8 and of Ezra 51-10, the building
was first begun under Darius, in whose reign it was also
completed. This made it necessary to give another
account of the origin and course of the building, if the
work was to be attributed to Cyrns. More than one
way of effecting this was found. ( a ) According to the
author of Ezra513-17 63-5, Cyrus committed the task of
rebuilding the temple to his governor Sheshbazzar, and
the work thus begun by him was carried on without
interruption till the reign of Darius. (6)The Chronicler,
however, from whose hand we have Ezra1 3 1-4524,gives
another version. He too has it that Cyrus ordered the
restoration. The work was not talcen in hand by the
king himself ; but permission was given by him to the
exiles to return to Jerusalem for the purpose. Immedi-
ately on their arrival in the holy city they set up the
altar and laid the foundations of the temple ; but while
Cyrus was still on the throne they were compelled to
stop the work by order of the king himself, who had
been stirred up by the adversaries of the Jews. Not
till the second year of Darius could the building be
resumed.
However widely these accounts may differ from one
another in detail, they agr&e in stating that the restora-
tion of the temple was originated by Cyrus, and in
representing him as a worshipper of Yah,wi:, whom he
recognised as the one true God. Yahw.4 is the God of
heaven, who has bestowed universal empire upon Cyrus
in order that he may restore the true worship in
Jerusalem; the temple there is for Cyrus no mere
ordinary temple, of which there were so many, but the
veritable House of God.
At the same time, the discrepancies which we find in
the narratives d and c are by no means unimportant.
According to the older (a), the building of the temple
was entirely the work of Cyrus, which he caused to be
carried on uninterruptedly, defraying the entire cost out
980
 GYRUS
of the royal treasury. According to the other (c), it
was carried out at the instance of Cyrus; not by himself,
hoCever, but only by returned exiles, who, along with
their comrades left behind in Babylon, contributed the
expenses of the undertaking (146 268f: 37). So far,
indeed, is the restoration of the temple from being,
according to this account, the work of Cyrus, that it is
actually represented as broken off during his reign a t
his command. Probably the Jews in the long run found
the idea unbearable, that the sanctuary should have
been built by a foreigner, even though the foreigner
was Cyrus, and therefore his share in the work was
reduced by the Chronicler to more modest dimensions.
The importance of Cyrus for Israel lies less in
anything he actually did for them than in the great
expectations that he excited, expectations which in
their turn exercised a great influence on the ideas
ultimately formed by the Jews as to the earlier stages
of their restoration after the misfortunes of the ’ exile.’
Cp ISXAEL, 50 ; DISPERSION, 5.
In the OT Cyrus is mentioned also in Dan. 628 [ z g ]
101; in the first-cited passage as the successor of
Darius, that is, of ‘ Darius the Mede ’ (Dan. 531 [SI]).
See DARIUS,I .
The preceding sketch of the result of a critical
examination of the ~- ussages of the O T relating - to
6. policy of Cyrns is not contradicted by anything
the victorious contained in the inscriptions of Cyrus
,-- himself discovered some wars ago.
Gyrus. It is certainlv worthv of note how
Y
closely, even down to details, the representation of the
Persian conqueror in these inscriptions agrees with that
which is found in Is. 4428 and 4.5 I . Evidently the
second Isaiah had a correct idea of what a Persian king,
as opposed to a Babylonian, would be likely to do.
In the cylinder inscription ( 5 R 35 ; cp Hagen, ‘ Cyrus-
texte‘ in Beitv. 8. AssyrioL 2 205 3,and KL? 36
120 8 ) Cyrifs is the deliverer of oppressed peoples,
chosen by Marduk himself, and hailed by all &mer
and Accad as a saviour, exactly as with the Israelite
prophet he is the called, the anointed, of Yahwk. A
difference there is between the joyous hope which the
Jewish exiles cherished and the official statements which
Babylonian scribes at royal command had to chronicle
on their cylinders ; bnt the coincidences referred to are
too close to be entirely accidental. Moreover, priests
and people alike had reason enough to be dissatisfied
with the arbitrariness and misgovernment of their former
sovereign, and Cyrus, with fine political tact, knew
how to utilise this temper and win hearts by deference
towards the national religion, restraint of robbery and
violence, and redress of grievances. No wonder that
the Jewish exiles also hoped for enlargement at his
hands. That he fulfilled this expectation does not
appear at least from his inscriptions.
The passage in which some scholars have thought that this may
be read demands another interpretation. I n Cyl. 2. I T the words
irtnii taairn kullat m n t Z t a were taken together and translated
‘he (itfarduk) decreed return from all lands” hut it is certai;
that, with Hagen and Del., we must connec; the words iri&
faaim with those which precede, and hullat matEia with those
CYRUS
which follow so that the meaning is : ‘[after that Marduk in
his wrath, h l d brought all sorts of miseries upon the landi he
changed [his disposition 11 and had compassion. Round all
lands he looked ; he sought [and so found as ,the right prince
the fulfiller of his gracious decrees Cyrns etc.] In this passag;
nothing is said of any restoration bf exiles to their native land.
More interest attaches to the passage 2. 3 0 8 , where,
however, the names on which the question chiefly turns
are, unfortunately, obliterated. Here Cyrus says that
he returned to their places the gods of a great
many towns, brought together the inhabitants, and
restored both temples and dwelling-houses. The towns
referred to were all named, and it was added that
they lay on the banks of the Tigris,2 and that their
territory extended from [lacuna in the text] to A & r
and &Jan (according to the correct interpretation of
Delitzsch and Hagen), by which expressions are in-
tended not the cities of the name but the countries of
Assyria and West Elam (the city of ASur lay on the
right bank of the river). The obliterated names (or
name) can have denoted only the western and southern
boundaries of the district referred to-probably &mer
and Accad, which are separately mentioned immediately
afterwards. Accordingly, there can be no doubt that
reference is here made to Cyrus’s care for the restoration
of neglected worships and for the return of the in-
habitants of certain cities to their former habitations ;
this, however, only in the immediate neighbourhood of
Babylon. At the same time, although in these inscrip-
tions, which doubtless belong to the earlier period of
Cyrus’s,rule over Babylon, no mention is made of any
general measure extending also to exiles from the West,
there remains the possibility that the Persian conqueror
may have taken up this work of restoration at a later
time.3 A t all events the conciliatory policy of which
he had already given positive evidence can very well
have aroused among the Jews the hope and expectation
that they also would one day benefit by it.
The tomb of Cyrus ‘the king, the Achaemenid,’ at
MzqhEJ (Pasargadze 7) is now assigned by Weissbach
(ZDdZG 4 8 6 5 3 3 ) to the younger Cyrus. At any
rate the E-yptian head-dress of the king on the
monument shows that it can have been erected only
after the conquest of Egypt by Cambyses.
C. P. T.-W. €1. I<.
1 Probably the words usa&&irka . .. should be completed
so as to read either k a [ b i t f ~ uorl ha[ab-da-as-su].
(So Tiele.)
2 The words ?a i?tu apnaiiza d z Z Subatsun are not clear.
Schr. translates : ‘whose place from of ol$ lay in ruins ’; Hagen,
Del. ‘founded in the most ancient time. But does itadzi ever
mea; this? In our present inquiry the question is of sub-
ordinate importance.
3 [Cp the very isteresting inscription in the last section of
Brngsch‘s Hist. of Egrpt (‘the Persians in Egypt’), which
describes the religious patriotism of an Egyptian Nehemiah.
The deceased is represented on his statue (now in the Vatican)
as telling the events of the Persian period of his life. Being in
high favour as a physician with Cambyses, he was able to induce
that monarch to give orders for the restoration of the temple of
Neith a t Cais and of the religious services. H e was physician
also to Darin;, who, when he was in Elam, sent him to Egypt
to restore the arrangements for the scribes of the temples.
This last mission appears to synchronise with the erection of
the (second) temple at Jerusalem. Cp. Meyer, Enist. 71:
Che. Jew. Rel. Life. T. K. C.]