DAVID, CITY OF
of them-the deeply-felt elegy on Saul and Jonathan-
was taken from the so-called Book of JASHAR(q.w ., § ?),
and another-the short elegy on Abner-may have
been copied from the same book. These occur in
z S. 119-27 and 3333 respectively. They have an
antique air and are worthy of David. Whether any
religious elements formerly present have been removed,
we cannot say ; but there is no special reason to think
so. That the song of triumph in 2 S. 22 ( = Ps. 18)
and the 'last words of David' in 231-7 (both highly
religious compositions) are Davidic, is not, on grounds
of criticism, tenable. Nor can any of the psalms in the
Psalter be ascribed with any probability to David.
The eager search for possible Davidic psalms seems to
be a proof that the seekers have taken up the study of
the Psalter at the,wrong end. That David composed
religious songs is of course probable enough. When
he aGd his companions ' played before Yahwk with all
their might, and with songs and with (divers musical
instruments),' it is reasonable to conjecture that ' some
of these songs had been made for the purpose by the
poet-king. But how much resemblance would these
psalms have had to the psalms of the second temple?
and how could the David known to us from history
have entered into the ideas of Psalms 32 and 51, which
are assigned by Delitzsch and Orelli to the sad period
of David's great sin? Would not that have been one
of the greatest of miracles ? See PSALMS.
[In the above sketch sentences have been here and
there borrowed from the late Robertson Smith's art.
' David ' in the EB, especially where David's character
and his originality as a ruler are referred to. The
advance of criticism since 1877 required a fresh survey
of the subject. On Renan's view of David in his Hist.
d'Zsme2, see W R S Eng. Hist. Rev., 1888, p. 1 3 4 3
Duncker (Hist. of Ant. vol. ii.) is hardly less un-
sympathetic than Renan, and his narrative needs
adjustment to the results of critical analysis. St.'s G VI
1223-298, and We.'s Prol., ET, 261-272, and IJGi3)
56-64, are of the highest importance. Wi.'s CZ 1 is
fresh and original, but often rash. Cheyne's Aids
('92), part I, relates to the David-narratives; Ki.'s
analysis in Kau. H S , the results of which are tabulated
in chap. 1, is provisionally adopted. See also Dr.
TBS ('9:) ; kamph., PhiZister una' Hedraer zu7
Zeit Dnwzds, Z A T W r86] 43-97; Marquart's Funda-
mente ('97); and the articles in this Dictionary on
Samuel and Chronicles (with the books there referred
to). Prof. W. R. Smiths article in EBP) should be
taken with the corresponding portion of Ewald's History.
Chandler's Lzye of David (1st ed. 1766) gives answers
to the very real difficulties suggested by Pierre Bayle
which are now superseded. Stiihelin's Leden Dawids
('66) is recommended by Robertson Smith for the
numerous parallels adduced from Oriental history. The
late H. A. White's art. in Hastings' DB has great
merit. For an account of David as a tactician, see
Dieulafoy's monograph. ] T. I<. C.
DAVID, CITY OF (l!; l'q), 2 Sam. 5 7
See JERUSALEM.
DAY. Among the ancients the day was reckoned in
a great variety of ways. ' T h e Babylonians reckoned
1. Ancient from sunrise to sunrise, the Athenians from
reckoning. sunset to sunset, the Umbrians from noon
to noon, the common people everywhere
from dawn to dark, the Roman priests and those by
whom the civil day has been defined, as also the
Egyptians and Hipparchus, from midnight to midnight '
(Plin. H N 279, 188). 'From dawn to dark' ( a luce
ad te7zedms) was the ancient and ordinary meaning of
a day (oi.) among the Israelites; night, a s being the
time ' when no man can work ' (Jn. 9 4). might, it was
considered, be left out of account altogether, or, at all
1 z S. 65. We emend with Klost., after I Ch. 13 a
2 Ch;. U P S . 192.
I035
DAY
events, as being the evident complement of the 'day
and involved in it, did not require explicit mention.
Thus the word ' day' came to have a twofold meaning :
at one time signifying the period from sunrise to sunset ;
a t another including day's inseparable accompaniment,.
the night, and embracing the whole period from one
sunrise to the next. Only in cases where the contrast
had to be brought out, or there was risk of ambiguity,
was it necessary to name the night (a>;>) expressly,
as, for example, in G e n . 7 4 1 ~ 3139. Apart from pi*
and the combination of ni?and n>$$, the Hebrews pos-
sessed no expression for the civil day as including day
and night; for the designation i$! my, 'evening
morning,' which makes its first appearance in the
second century B.C. (Dan. 814). equivalent to the Greek
vuXB+pepov (zCor. llq), is but a combination precisely
similar to the older nV and .>is.
The Israelites regarded the morning as the beginning
of the day ; in the evening the day declined ' or ' went
down,' and until the new day (~QQ,' morning ') brolce
it was necessary to ' tarry all night ' (cp Judg. 19 6-9 and
ttie series in Nu. 1132, ' all that day and all the night
and all the next day '). Not till post-exilic times do we
find traces of a new mode of reckoning which makes
day begin at sunset and continue till the sunset follow-
ing. In P, it is true, the expression ' day and night'
(e.g.,Lev. 835 Nu. 921) is unhesitatinglyused, not ' night
and day,' and the evening following the fourteenth
day of the first month is regarded as the evening of that
day (Ex. 1218) ; but Lev. 23 32 certainly reckons the day
as extending from evening to evening, and the same
mode of reckoning seems to have been in the mind of the
writer (P) when, after describing the work of each day,
he invariably adds, ' So there was evening and there was
morning, a first [second, third, etc.] day ' (Gen. 1 5 8 13,
etc., v@. mK ni3 i,p-$?;>.>lg-n;~). The later mode
of reckoning is shown also in the above-mentioned
expression in Dan. 814 (ij$ q), in the order of the
words ' evening, morning, noon ' in Ps. 55 17 [d],and in
the !night and day,' ' night or day,' of the late passages
Is. 273 3410 Esth. 416.1 In connection with this later
Jewish custom one has to remember the .importance
which the new moon (visible only in the evening) had
for the Israelites in the determination of their feasts,
and it must not be forgotten that other ancient peoples
who observed lunar divisions of time (Athenians, Gauls,
Germans) also began their day with evening. A11
the same, it is undeniably a somewhat unnatural mode
of reckoning, and as far as Israel is concerned can have
come into use only when it was desired to fix times with
legal and uhform precision for the nation at large.
The ancient Israelites had no precise subdivision
of the day for accurate measurement of time. They
2. Itssib- designated the various periods of the
division day by the natural changes which
am on^ the marked its successive stages, or by the
Israelites, successive occupations in ordinary daily
I K. 210, routine. Thus it was in the nature of
things that morning (i@). midday (o:ay,), and evening
(I??) should be distinguished, and equally so that
morning should be spoken of as the rising of the morning,
the breaking of the day (Geu.1915 3224 [.SI), or the
rising of the sun (Gen. 19 23 3231[ p ] ;) midday, the heat
of the day (Gen. 181 I S. 1111)or the height of the day
[EV the perfect day] (Prov. 418); afternoon, the time of
the day's decline (Judg. 19 8) ; and evening, the time of
the going down of the sun (Gen. 15IZ 17) or of 'the wind of
the day ' or evening breeze (Gen. 38 Cant. 2 17 [when the
day is cool] 46). Specially noticeable is the expression
D:??~T i ?'~ ,
between the two evenings,' met with only in
1 In Dt.2866 Jer. 14 17 the original text had 'day and night'
(see a);a l a t e transcribersubstitnted 'night and day 'in accord-
ance with the mode of expression current in his own time.
1036
 DAY
P (Ex. 126 16122939 41 308 Lev. 23 5 Nu. 93 5 II 284 8),
which can mean only ' towards evening,' ' about the
evening time,' since it is used to indicate the same period
that is called in Dt. 166 the time of the going down of
the sun (cp Ex. 126 Nu.93511). Whether the form
ought to be taken as a dual, and ' the two evenings'
understood as meaning ' the evening of the sun and the
evening of its still visible light,' may be left an open
question ; but it is important to note that the evening
sacrifice prescribed by the law to be made D!?:~I 1q-i. e.,
towards evening (Ex. 29 39 41 Nu. 28 4 8)-was offered in
the first century of our era in the afternoon between
half-past two and half-past three (cp Jos. Ant. xiv. 43
and Mishna, Pesagim 5 I ; also Acts3 I 10330, where the
prayer associated with the evening sacrifice also is made
at the ninth hour), and that only the Samaritans and
Karaites maintain the old correct. interpretation. T h e
change possibly may not have taken place till after the
Maccabean period ; for in Daniel (921) the daily offering
is still spoken of as mt np!p, 'the evening oblation,'
and no place in the O T gives any hint of a change (cp
on the other hand, the reminiscences of psalmody by
night in the temple : I Ch. 9 33 23 30 Ps. 922 3 [3 41 134I ; the word and of its cognates.
cp 119 62). By reference to functions of daily recurrence,
morning is called ' the time of incense ' (Lk.1IO), ; the
middle of the afternoon, the time of the offering of the
Minha ( I K. 182936) ; and the evening, ' the time that
women go out to draw water ' (Gen. 2411), or ' the time of
the evening oblation ' (Dan. 9 21 ; cp Ezra94f: ). Cp also
' cock-crowing ' as denoting early morning (Mk. 1 4 30 72).
The OT affords no evidence that the Israelites divided
their day into twelve hours as the Babylonians did.
( I ) of Ahaz ( 2 K. 209-11 Is. 2755 Lk. 83) of the women who minisrered to Jesus in his
3. The term The388), whatever it was (see DIAL), did not
hour' lead to a more accurate measurement of
time on the part of the people, and even at so late a date
as that of Daniel (416 5 s).the Aramaic word.nt& ('hour')
does not mean any exact portion of time. Reckoning by
hours is met with first in the N T , where the day consists
of twelve hours (Jn. 1 1 9 ) or twelfths simply designated as
first [second, etc.] of the day, reckoned as beginning a t
sunrise (cp Acts2 15 Mt. 20 3 5 6 27 45 46 etc. ). The hour
was thus with the Jews a variable quantity, a s it was
also with the Babylonians, the twelfth part of the day
ranging from forty-nine to seventy-one minutes according
to the season of the year. The division of the day into
twelve parts and the further development of the sexa-
gesimal system as a whole had commended itself to the
Babylonirlns from their observation that, at the vernal
equinox, the time between the appearance of the first
direct ray of the sqn and that of visibility of the entire
disk above the horizon amounted to a 360th of the
whole time during which the sun was visible in the
heavens, or the 720th part of a full day reckoned from
one sunrise to another.
Equal divisions of the night were of older date than
equal divisions of the day. Three night-watches were
recognised: the first (niy@y id>; Lam.
~~~~~~ 21g), the middle ( q i m q n p + q ; Judg.
719 ; within which, of course, midnight fell,
Ex. 1 1 4 ) and the last ( i @ ~ n$k$ ; Ex. 1424 I S. 1111).
From the N T we learn that, in the first century of
our era at least, the Roman division into four watches
had in common use superseded the old division into
three (Mk. 1335 d q h , ~ ~ U O V ~ K T L O dhen'ropo~wv~u[r]
V,
and a p w t ; Mt. 1425 Mk. 648 Lk. 1238, cp Acts124).
From the division of the day into twelve hours the
step to a similar division of the night was easy (so,
certainly, in Acts2323 ; cp also Acts1633 Lk. 1239 and,
for the last-cited passage, see the parallel in Mt. 2443
'
which speaks of 'watch,' not 'hour').
' D a y ' is sometimes used in a half-metaphorical sense. ThFs
in Hos. 2 15 7 5 it means 'high day' ; in p h 3 I ' birth-day ; in
Jer. 50 27 Job 1820 15 23 Ps. 37 13 etc. day of doom ' ; in Is.
9 3 [4] 'day of battle.' On the ex&ess;bn 'day of Yahwi: ' (Joel
IO37
DEACON AND DEACONESS
115 Ezek. 13 5 Is. 2 12) and 'day of Judgment ' (2 Pet. 3 7
@@a K ~ ~ U S W Ssee
) ESCHATOLOGY, i. Paul uses the expression
av%pomvq $ p i p a (I Cor. 43) in contrast to +pipa703 K V ~ ~ O(Lk.V
3
17 24 I Cor. 1 8 [see Var. Bib.] ; r v p r a r i ) qpe a Rev. 1IO. see
LORD'S DAY) to mean an ordinary 'day o! [rial' (GridmR
compares Landtag Reichstag). See art. ' T a g ' in Winer's
HWB, as also in b R E , and Riehm's HWB; Bencinger, H A
202 f:; Nowack, H A 1214 f: : Herzfeld, GVZ ('57) 2 184 f: and
Schiirer, GVZ2234 3rd ed. 2 290. K. M,
DAY'S JOURNEY (niv y>?., NU. 1131 ; H ~ E ~ A C
oAoc, Lk.244). See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.
For ' sabbath day's journey,' see S ABBATH, 4, n.
DAYSMAN (n'?b), Job 9 33 EV ; EVmg. U MPIRE
(see Murray under ' daysman ' ; Davidson quotes
Spenser, F a ~ Qucen, e ii. 8 28). @BNA renders by peulqs
Kal BhQy~wv. See LAW AND JUSTICE, IO.
DAY STAR. I . (\I?'? ; ~ w c @ o p o c )Is.
, 1412 RV;
2. ( + ~ c + o p o c ) , 2 Pet. 119. See LUCIFER.
DEACON and DEACONESS (AIAKONOC).
I. The Word-We may consider first the use of
I n the Gosnels the word G ~ ~ K O V O is C used (I) literallv. of a
servant who 'prepares or serves a meal Mt.'22 1 3 Jn.'i5 9'
(2) metaphorically (Mk.'935 1043 II Mt. 231;
1. usage ill 2026, Jn. 12 26). It is never used hy Lk. who,
Gospels. in what seems a parallel to sayings in Mk,,
prefers the participle b &LaKOV&V (22 2 6 3 ) ' in
one place (loqo), however, he uses GraKovia of the preparition
of
.~ a ~~...
~. ~. The verb (8raKOVEb) is likewise used (I) literallv. of
meal. ~ ~~
preparing or supplying food (Mk. 1 1 3 1 I Mt. 4 IT ;(the angkjs).
131 (11 Mt. Lk.) Lk. lo40 1 2 3 7 178 Jn. 1 2 2 Mt. 2544 (rathe;
more widely); add again somewhat more widely(Mk. 1541 /IMt.
.. ..
journeyings in Galilee ; (2) metaphorically (Lk. 22 26f; ; Jn.
18 26).
The ordinary word for a servant in the Gospels is doirhos, a
bond-servant or slave; but a GoirAos may he called upon to
GcaKovdv (Lk. 17 7 3) and in discharge of this function may
he termed G L ~ ' K O V O S(Mi. 228 1 0 12). AoirAos emphasises relation
to a master . G&avo~, performance of service. The latter word
is free fro; the associations of slavery which belong to the
former. I t was thus fitted for adoption as the desciiption of
any form of Christian service rendered to Christ or to his
Church.
Accordingly in Acts we find GLamvia frequently in this sense :
Acts 117 25, the & a m v i a of apostleship ; 6 I , the daily G r a ~ o v r a
by which the needs of the poorer brethren we,-e
2. In Acts. supplied ; and, in contrast to this, the GraKovia
of the word (64). In 1129 and 1225 GiaKovia
is used of the help in the famine rendered by Antioch to the
brethren in Judma (a sense which recurs In Paul's epistles). In
20 24 Paul speaks more generally of fulfilling the GlaKovia which
he has received of the Lord Jesus; and in 21 19 he declares
what God has wrought among the Gentiles through his GraKovia.
The word G L ~ ' K O Y O Sdoes not occur at all in Acts (as it does not
in Lk.) ; but G ~ b ~ o v e is i v used in a literal sense in 6 2 of serving
the tables ; and metaphorically of Timothy and Erastus, who
'ministered ' t o Paul (19 2 2 ) .
In the first of the four chronological groups of the Pauline
epistles, the only instance of the word or its cognates is I Thess.
3 2 where Timothy is called 'the G ~ K O V O S
3. In Epistles. [a: uuvqy5s, DD" arm.] of God in the gospel
of Christ. In the second group the words
are freely used. Paul and'Apollos are 'dr&xovo~ through whom
ye believed ' ( I Cor. 3 5). Differences of BtaKoviaL ' are spoken
of in 12 5 ; and 0'; the household of Stephanas the remarkable
phrase is used, they appointed (or 'set') themselves unto
GraKovia to the saints' (16 15). This passage aloie would show
that the words were not yet limited to an officialuse. I n z Cor.
the most noteworthy passages are 8 4 19 20 9 I 1213, where the
words are applied to the collection in the Greek churches for
the poor saints in Jerusalem, a service on which Paul laid the
greatest stress as being a means of cementing the union between
the Jewish and the Gentile portions of the Church. l h e Epistle
to the Romans (15 25 31) shows us his anxiety on this matter,
and his fixed resolve t o carry out his project in person a t any
risk to liberty or life. Here again, then, 6raaovs;v and Gratcovca
are used of the ministration to temporal needs. In the samp
epistle (11 13) occur the notable words ' I glorify my & a m v i a
(as apostle of the Gentiles); and the wide range with which he
uses the term is seen when he speaks of the temporal ruler as
'the G L ~ K O ~ OofS God' (13 4). The application of the word t o
Phoebe of Cenchrere (16 I ) will be considered presently (# 4).
In the third group Paul himself is twice styled a 'Gra'aovos
of the gospel ' (Eph. 3 7 Col. 1 23) and once ' a SC~'KOVOS
of t h e
church' (Col. 1 2 4 f.). Tychicu; is twice described as 'the
beloved brother and faithful didrovos in the Lord' (Eph. 6 2:
Col. 4 7 ; in the latter place the description 'fellow-servant
. 1038
 DEACON AND DEACONESS
also is inserted). similarly ‘Epaphras, who i s a faithful S L ~ K O U O S
on our behalf, i f Christ’ ’(Col. 17). ‘The work of GLaKovia i;
referred to in the widest sense in Eph. 412; and in Col. 417
Archippus receives the message : ‘Look to the SLaKavia which
thou hast received in the Lord that thou mayest fultil it. In
Philemon Paul says of Onesidus the runaway slave, ‘that on
tKy behalf he may minister to me’ (GcaKouj, 2,. 13). In Philip-
pians the only instance is of special importance ; for the epistle
. .
is addressed ‘ t o all the saints . in Philippi, together with
~ - & T K O ~ O L and SLC~KOVOL’
(1 I).
The fourth group consists of the Pastoral Epistles; and here
the general sense of the words is still the most frequent. The
apostle thanks God (I ‘rim. 1x2) for having appointed him unto
6LaKovkL. Timothy is to he a good SLC~KOVOSof Christ Jesus
(46), ,and is charged to fulfil his GLaKouia ( z Tim. 4 5). Of
Onesiphorus the apostle recalls how he ‘ministered’ in Ephesus
(1 18); and of Mark he says ‘he is useful to me for SraKovia
(4 11). On the other hand, ;he passage of most importance for
our purpose is the code of regulations laid down in I Tim. 3 8-13
for a class of persons who are definitely designated SL~’KOVOL.
Before considering these regulations we may return to Rom.
16 I , ‘I commend to you Phaebe our sister, who is [also] ~ ~ K O V O
of the church which is in Cenchreae. I t is
4. Case Of possible t o interpret the word here either in the
PhQbe. general sense in which Paul uses it so often
or in the official sense which we find in th;
later epistles to the Philippians and to Timothy. It is no
objection to the official sense that the person so designated is
a woman ; for we shall presently see that a t Ephesus the Order
included deacons of either sex.
On the other hand, since there is not in the two earlier groups
of Paul’s epistles any other indication that GLaKovia is a special
office in the Church, this, which occurs in the second group,
would he a solitary and somewhat puzzling exception. More-
over, as Cenchreae was the E. port of Corinth, this case practi-
cally belongs to the Corinthian church. In that church special
mention is made of the G r a m v i a of Stephanas and his household
the word Gca~oviabeing used in its broadest sense. There alsg
Chloe and her household were of note. I t may he, therefore,
that Phaebe was another woman of influence who held a corre-
sponding pre-eminence of service in the neighhouring port, a
pre-eminence that earned for her a t the apostle’s hands the
honourable title of G L ~ K O U W of the church; for she had been
a helper (perhaps we should render it ‘a patroness ’ cpdurans)
of many and of the apostle himself. If we could 8ssume that
the diaconate was formally established in the Corinthian church
a t this time, we should certainly conclude that Phaehe was one
of the women who served it ; but this assumption is in sharp
contrast with the silence of Paul‘s epistles as to any kind of
definite ecclesiastical organisation a t Corinth.
Of Phaehe, then, we may say with security that she is a
wifness to the important services rendered by women in the
primitive Church : but in tracing the history of the diaconate
it will not he wise t o assume that the word G L ~ K O V O Sis used of
her in the strictly official sense. As a matter of historical
evidence this passage must he left out of the connt as baing, a t
any rate, uncertain testimony. For a technical diaconate in
P a n r s writings we are thus reduced to two passages, Phil. 1I
and I Tim. 38-13.
11. Origin andfunctions of the Dimonate.-The first
recognition of any need of organisation in the Christian
of community occurs in connection with the
5. O r i ~ i n
Diaconate. daily meal in Jerusalem (see CHURCH,
11). The word deacon is not applied
in Acts to the seven men who were on this occasion
appointed to the service of the poor ; we have already
noted that BidKouos does nor occur in Lk. or Acts.
Nevertheless, by the later Church tradition, they were
constantly regarded as the earliest deacons; and so
strong was this feeling that the number of deacons in
some churches was limited to seven. Names apart,
they truly represented the essential feature of the
diaconate, as the Church’s organ for service to her
poorer members. In other communities, especially in
the Greek world, this service was destined to take a
different form ; but the deacons of the Pauline epistles
at Philippi and Ephesus had a similar function, though
the circumstances in which they discharged it were very
dissimilar. The definite title is met with first in the
Greek churches, and here the order from its commence-
ment is found to include the services of men and women
alike. The admission of women to the diaconate
could scarcely have arisen in the Jewish communities ;
but it was probably felt to be natural in places where
women were in general accorded a larger liberty.
Whilst then we recognise the germ of the institution
in the appointment of the Seven in Jerusalem, we must
1 Cp Hatch, Ear@ Christian CRuvches, 49.
1033
DEAD, THE
look to the Greek churches for the developm$nt of the
definite and permanent order.
As the personal ministry of Paul drew to a close, and
as it became evident that the (return’ of Christ was
indefinitely postponed, it was natural that ecclesiastical
organisation should assume a new and increasing im-
portance. It is in harmony with this that we find the
apostle in a later epistle recognising expressly ‘the
bishops and deacons’ at Philippi, very much as he
had recognised the ‘episcopate’ of the presbyters of
Ephesus, when he thought that he should see them
again no more (Acts 2028). ‘Those who ruled,’ and
‘ those who served ’ under them, were coming to form
definite classes, to which the natural designations of
overseers (MuKorroi) and servants (BidKouor ) were be-
ginning to be formally appropriated. Accordingly, in
S 6. Functions. the first epistle to Timothy the apostle
lays down regulations for the two
classes under the& titles. ‘?he differences in the
regulations help to show us the nature of the functions
to be discharged in the two cases ( I Tim. 3 1-13). The
rules which should govern the choice of deacons must
be cited in full :-
‘Deacons in like manner must be grave, not double-tongued,
not given to much wine, not eager for petty gains holding
the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. And’they too
are first to he tested, and then to minister, if they he irreproach-
able. Women in like manner must be grave not slanderers,
soher faithful in all things. Deacons are td be husbands of
one dife ruling well their children and their own houses ; for
they t h i t have ministered well acquire a good standing for
themselves and much boldness in the faith which is in Christ
Jesus.
The essence of these regulations is that, deacons,
whether men or women, must he persons of character,
who can rule their tongues and are temperate in the
use of wine. Trustworthiness is demanded of the
woman, as strict honesty is of the man : this doubtless
points to the fact that Church moneys would pass
through their hands. Deacons are to know what they
believe, and to live in accordance with i t ; but no
aptitude for teaching is demanded of them, nor any
qualifications for exercising discipline. The service
of the deacons is the house to house service, which
deals primarily with temporal wants.
In the AV the women spoken of here are represented
as the wives of the deacons. This interpretation puts
a serious strain on the original Greek, and it is now
generally abandoned. It finds no parallel in any
demand for special qualifications in the wives of bishops,
It belongs to a period when the diaconate of women
had been wholly lost sight of; and it cannot be m’ain-
tained in face of the fact that women were undoubtedly
admitted to this office in the early ages of the Church’s
history.
For the later confusion between deaconesses and widows
see W IDOW . and for a full historical account of the female dia-
conate see ?hc Ministry of Deaconesses hy Deaconess Cecilia
Robinson (‘98). J. A. R.
DEAD, THE, and DEATEI. The preliminaries may
first he briefly considered. T o kiss the dead (Gen.
1. Disposal of 501) and to close their eyes (Gen.
4 6 4 ) and mouth (Mishna, Shah 2 3 5 )
the dead. immediately after death was looked
upon as a deed of natural piety. In N T times the body
was washed (Acts 9 3 7 ) , anointed with sweet-smelling
ointments (Mk. 16 I Lk. 24 I Jn. l 2 7 ) , and wrapped in
linen cloth (Mt. 2759 Mk. 1546 Lk. 23 53), or the hands
and feet were bound with grave-clothes and the head
covered with a napkin (Jn. 1144). The age of these
customs must remain uncertain, as they are not alluded
to in O T ; but the old belief that in ShB61 the dead
would be known by their dress, the king by his diadem,
the soldier by his sword, the prophet by his mantle ( I S.
28 14 Ezek. 3227), leads to the inference that the dead
were buried dressed as in life. In later times, delicate
foods, ornaments, gold and silver, and all kinds of
valuables were placed with the body in the graves of
1040
 DEAD, THE
princes and nobles (Jos. Ant. xv. 34). If what we read
(Jos. Ant. xiii. 84 xvi. 71) as to the plundering of David‘s
grave by Hyrcanus and Herod is to be accepted, this
custom also is very old. E MBALMING [P.v.] was not in
use. On sacrifices to the dead, cp ESCHATOLOGY, 3.
The usual niethod of disposing of the dead was by
burial (Gen. 2319 259 358 Judg. 29 832 etc. ). In I S.
318-13, wiiere we read of the burning of the body of
Saul, the text is corrupt (see Klost. ad Zoc.), as is also
the case with Am. 6 1 0 . ~Burning was looked upon as
something abominable, as an injury to the dead (Am.
21) ; it was used, by priestly law and old custom, only
in a few cases, to render the death sentence more severe
(Josh. 7 2 5 Lev. 2014 219) ; cp L AW AND J USTICE, 112.
The aversion to the burning of the body was con-
nected with the belief that the soul even after death was
bound to the body. Not to be buried was a terrible
disgrace which one could hardly wish even to one’s
greatest enemy (Am. 21 I K. 1322 1411 164 2124 z K.
910 Is.3312 Jer.732 8 2 922 [ZI] 1416 164 Ezek.295).
The spirits of the unburied dead wander restlessly about,
and in Shb61 are condemned to lie in the corners (Ezek.
3223 Is. 1415 etc.). Burial alone so bound the spirit
to the body that it had rest and could harm no one. It
was therefore the sacred duty of every one who found a
corpse in the open field to give it burial ( I K. 1411 164
21 24 Jer. 7 33 2 S. 21 IO, and especially Tob. 118 28). In
cmes of death by stoning the pile of stones took the
place of a regular grave (Josh. 7 26). Cp the Greek idea,
as given, for example, in the Antzgone of Sophocles.
Rapid interment was necessary on account of the hot
climate, and even without express biblical authority we
may assume that then, as now, in the East, it usually
took place on the day of death (cp Dt. 21 23). The body
was carried to the grave on a bier (2S. 331 [ n ~ n;] Lk.
714 [ u o ~ ~ s ] )Coffins
. were not used by the Israelites
(2 I C 1321) ; Joseph’s bones were placed in a coffin
(pit; uop6s) in conformity with the custom of the
Egyptians (Gen. 5 0 ~ 6 ) The. ~ stone coffin (sarcophagus)
was adopted by the Jews (as also by the Phoenicians) from
the Egyptians long after the exile, but only by the wealthy.
The procession of friends, who would of course often be
mourner^,^ was accompanied by hired mourners singing
lamentations (2S. 331 ; cp M OURNING C USTOMS ).~The
place of burial was determined by the belief that the unity
of the family and tribe continued after death. The bodies
of those who wished to be reunited with their parents and
family in ShEM had to be buried in the family sepulchre
(see TOMBS, ESCHATOLOGY).
See Benzinger, Arch. (‘94), $ 23; Nowack, H A (‘94),8 32;
and Bender in JQR, 1894f: I. B.
‘Death’ (RIP,@&N&TOC) can mean, not only the
Drocess or state of death, but also the realm of the dead,
‘Death-land.’ See Is. 2815 Hos. 1314
a’ Ps. 65 [6] 913 [14] 2215[16] 6820[21] 89
.
references* &rdnl 10718 - Prov. 218 727 Tob28223817
Rev. 118 68 2013f: In Rev. 68 RV prihts Death, to
correspond to Hades. Both are personifications ; cp
the later Jewish representations of ABADDON[q.v.]
and Mriweth ( ‘ Death‘) as two of God‘s chief angels
(cp DESTROYER). ‘ T h e dead’ in AV corresponds
not only to o.nn;l (often) but also to o y m ? (Ps. 8810
1 On Job 3 15, where some plausibly find an allusion to the
treasures in royal tombs see TOMBS.
2 See, however, the ’ingenious suggestions of W R S R e l .
Sem.12)372. Wellh. is fully conscious of the difficulty of Am.
610 (Die KZ. Pro#h.lS 87); also Schwally, Das Le6en nach
don Tode, 48.
3 I n Job2132 uop6s (bier, coffin) is used in @A to render
~ $ 7 2‘tomb’
, or ‘sepulchral mound’; hut uwpiuv [BC] or uwp@
IN1 is the better readine. See TOMBS.
4 Cp BED $ 3.
5 Cp Lk. ? 12. Whether we may compare Job21 336 is un-
certain. Di. denies, Duhm affirms this. The whole passage is
obscure and not very coherent.
6 On the mourningwomen in primitive Babylonia see Maspero,
Dawn of Civ. 684. They also washed, prepared, and arranged
the dead body.
1041
DEAD SEA, THE
[ II ] Prov. 218 9 18 21 16 Is. 149 26 14 19 ; inconsistently
Job 265, ‘ dead things ’). RV sometimes has ’ they that
are deceased‘ ( e g . , Job 265) ; in mg. always ‘the
shades ; Heb. Rephaim.’
W e will examine the above passages, beginning with :
(a) Job 26 5, of which Schultens remarks Suhita nox diem
solemque adimit. RV, and virtually Davidson, render thus-
They that are deceased tremble
Beneath the waters and the inhabitants thereof.
Davidson comments ‘ This abode of deceased persons lies deep
down under the watirs of the sea and all the inhabitants of these
waters for the sea belongs to the upper world. Yet the power
of Godis felt even at this immeasurable distance from his abode
on high.’ To ns this may appear natural ; hut to those who be-
lieved that the ‘shades’ were ‘forgotten by God’(Ps. 885 [6]), it
wouldscarcely appear so. The Hebrew of 265 is also not worthy
of the context. Probably we should read (Ex#. Times, 10 382
[May ’991) :
H e makes the sea and its billows to start (in alarm),
H e terrifies the waters and the floods thereof.1
(6).In Ps. 88 IO [II] the shades are represented as incapable of
‘arising and praising God.’ In ‘arise’ Kirkpatrick sees a refer-
ence to the resurrection, an idea which the psalmist finds incon-
ceivable. (c) Prov. 2 ‘sf:, no return from the shades. (d)Prov.
9 18. Those who frequent the house of Madam Folly (v. 13)are
as it were, shades already (anticipating Dante). (e) Prov. 21 16:
Folly leads surely to the shades. (f)Is. 149. When the over-
thrown king of Babylon appears in ShEOI, the shades themselves,
especially the royal shades, are in excitement. Some tidings of
his greatness have reached them and they marvel to see one
who had claimed to sit with th; gods reduced to their own
miserable state. The poet takes some liberty with the popular
belief or else revives an earlier form of it. I n the legend of
IStar,’l. 19, we read, ‘I will raise up the dead to eat the Iiving.’2
(E) Is. 26 14 19. ‘The shades will not rise . .. to life shall the
earth bring the shades’ (SBOT). The resurrection hope. See
ESCHATOLOGY, 5 2 8 3
Bottcher (De inferis, § 112 8 ) derives the word
Rephri‘im (n-F?l) from Jnai, projicere. The giants are
‘ hurled ’ to Shb61, and then, as the chief
3* Origin inhabitants of ShEd, give their name to
R:igE. the whole population. Duhm (on Is. 1 4 g
and Job265) holds the same view as to
the transference of the title Rephi’im from the giants to
all other inhabitants of Deathland. This theory mis-
takes the meaning of the Rephi’im of Genesis, Numbers,
Deuteronomy, and gives a doubtful meaning to dnm.
It also assumes as correct a passage (Job 265) which is
certainly corrupt. It is an old view revived (see Schultens
on Job, 1737,p. 705): Most critics, however, hold that
Rephha’im= ‘ the flaccld, weak,’ a natural development
of Jnoi (cp Jer. 624 etc.). ‘Art thou also become
weak (n,.)?)as we?’ ask the shades (Is. 1410, RV). But
this is far too easy, and the Hebrews would hardly have
spoken of the spirits of the dead as ‘the weak ones.’
‘ I see a god coming up out of the earth,‘ says the wise
woman to Saul ( I S. 28 13 RV). The word ought to
mean ‘ the terrible,’ or ‘ the wise,’ or the like. In the
later O T books the condition of those in S h W is por-
trayed in very gloomy colours ; but these books do ndt
express the primitive popular belief. No doubt Re-
phf’ivz is a mutilated or modified form of some primitive
religious term. A sister-form is most probably TERA-
Cp Sayce, Hiddert Lects. 450, n. 5.
PHIM [q.v.].
§ I I. B., 2f: T. K. C.
DEAD SEA, TEE, the usual designation of the lake
in which the course of the Jordan terminates, occurs
1. Names. nowhere in O T or N T though it was not un-
common in antiquity (8dhauaa ~ ~ ; Paus. p d
v. 73 ; Galen 4 2 0 ; Justin xxxvi. 36 ; Ens. O S 26132),
and is found in Vg. of Josh. 3 IS? (mare soZitzddinis quod
nunc vocatur mortuum).
In the OT this lake is occasionally called simply ‘the sea’
(W, four times, and in the expression ‘from sea to sea’): also
‘the Salt sea’(&? ,D ; nine times ; t j Baauua 76” d W v [;A&,
t j AAumj], mare saris, m. saZsissimum) ; ‘the sea of the plain,’
RV ‘sea of the Arahah’ (ZzJz 02, five times; [$I Baauua
[ n i s i ’ADaBL: mare solitzldinis, 8 7 . desert?: in the three places
 DEAD SEA, THE
where both designations are employed ‘Salt sea’ is used to
explain the expression ‘sea of the Arabah’); and, in three
places, ‘the eastern [east, former] sea’ c)blCc D>> : $ Bu‘hauua
+ ~ p b dvasohhs
s BOLYLKQYOS, 3 8.4 rp&q ; mare on‘entaZe).l In
Diod. Sic. (248 1998) and in Josephns (often; see especially
B j i v . 64) it is ‘ A u + a h ~ i r ~A sl p ? ; so also in Phny (Lcus As-
jhhaltitrs; HNv. 1515). Josephus also has $ BOSOW~TLS hbvq
(Ant. v. 122) ; cp the Sodomitish sea’ (mare Sodomiticum) of
4 Esd. 5 7. This name occurs also in Edrisi (3 5 , transl. Jaubert,
1 @), who calls it the sea of Sodom and Gomorrah and the sea
of Za’rah (Zoar). Its name in Arabic (at least since the eleventh
century) is Ba/ir(or Btcheirat) La!; but this does not prove
the name of Lot to have remained attached to the sea in local
tradition for four thousand years. It arises simply from the fact
that Lot and the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah are men-
tioned in the Koran.
From the biblical point of view the Dead Sea is not
very important. The references to it in the O T occur
generally in topographical connections, especially in
definitions of the eastern frontier of the land of Israel.
There are two notable exceptions : ( a ) where it comes
into the story of the Cities of the Plain, and (a) where it
is referred to in the prophetic descriptions of Ezek. 47
and Zech. 148. The N T does not refer to it at all.
From the geographical point of view it is other-
wise : the interest of this lake is quite extraordinary.
2. Geogaphi- The Jordan valley, running from N. to
S . , begins to sink below sea-level as far
interest’ N. as a little below Lake Hilleh : the Lake
of Galilee is some 680 feet lower, and thence the ‘Ariibah
or GhGr continues to fall till the surface of the Dead Sea
is reached at a distance below the sea of some 1 3 0 0 ~
feet. At the opposite extremity of this lake ends
another valley, coming from the S., formerly called the
ARAUAI-I [q.a.]. Thus the lake constitutes the deepest
portion of what is the most strongly marked depres-
sion (unconnected with the sea) on the surface of the
globe.’ It has no effluent. Should the question be
asked, whether in former times the Jordan, after passing
through the Dead Sea, may not have flowed on soutb-
ward falling at last into the Ked Sea (Elanite Gulf or
Gulf of ‘Al+bah). it may suffice to point out how much
below sea-level the Dead Sea is, and further, that the
valley to the S. of the Dead Sea is really two valleys.
One runs N., the other S . , and the intersection or water-
shed is at a height of 650 feet above the level of the
Red Sea and of the Mediterranean (according to the
PEF survey).” Thus the two basins are hydrographic-
ally distinct, which is confirmed by a stratigraphical
study of the sedimentary deposits on the valley floor
(Lartet).
The geological investigation of Palestine and of the
Dead Sea, carried on mainly by Fraas, Lartet, Hull,
3. Geological and Blanckenhorn, has proved, con-
trary to previous ideas, that the Dead
Sea cannot possibly date from the
historical epoch, and that it must have presented, at
any rate from the beginning of the quaternary epoch,
practically the same aspect and configuration as at
present. Traces can still be.seen, however, of a past
time when the water stood as much as 1180feet above
its present level, as well as of another phase in which
the difference was only 348 feet ; in short, the waters
have gradually subsidcd to their present position.
The actual level is that a t which the evaporation exactly
counterbalances the daily influx of water from the Jordan and
the other affluents. Of these last, the chief, including certain
1 Notwithstanding the continued advocacy of the wrong view
in PEFQ, 1898, 112.13, it is certain that (hqEg ?:O in Dt. 34 z
(AV ‘the utmost sea’ ; RV ‘the hinder sea,’ mg. ‘the western
sea’) is not the Dead Sea but the Mediterranean ; cp Dt. 1124.
2 The (not very wide) variations from this figure can for the
most part be explained by differences between one season and
another, which can cause the level of the lake to rise or fall some
TO or 15 feet. I t is at its highest in April and May.
3 The discovery of the great depth of the surlace of the Dead
Sea below sea-level helongs to modern times ; it was made in-
dependently and almost simultaneously Ly Schubert on the one
hand, and Moore and Beek on the other, in 1837 ; and afterwards
confirmed by Russegger and by Symonds.
4 The distance from the watershed to the Red Sea is about
46 m., and to the Dead Sea over 73 m.
1043
vinter torrents are: (a)on the eastern side reckoning from N.
o S., the Wady Ghnweir, the Wadys Zer!&Ma‘in (Callirrh0e)-
Nojib (Arnon) Beni-Hamrid ed-Derii‘a (Kerak) Numereh el-
%hsri(or es-Sifiyeh); @)on ;he S the Wadys Tufileh, el-jeib,
:l:Fikreh (t6ese three traverse ;’marshy plain, the Sebkhah,
vhich stretches immediately southwards from the Dead Sea and
s bordered by gigantic thickets ofreeds) ; (c) on the western side,
going from S. to N., the Wiidy el-Muhanwac, the Wiidy S e y d
to the S. of which lies Sebbeh, the ancient fortress of Masada),
:he spring of ‘Ain-Jedy (Engedi), the Wiidy en-Nrir (Kedron),
md the spring of ‘Ain el-Feshkhah (cp BETH-ARABAH), to the S.
if which is the headland known as Ras el-Feshkhah.
The amount of daily evaporation has been estimated
it 139 millimetres, and the daily contribution of the
lordan alone at 6,000,000 tons (the volume of the
Rhone at its influx into the Lake of Geneva is 22,000,000
igns). Another feature of it is its great density, which
wises from its salinity (the mean is I. 166). At a depth
3f 1000 feet the solid matters contained in the water
represent 27 per cent of the total weight. These sub-
stances are mainly chlorides of sodium, magnesium, and
calcium, also certain derivatives of bromium. The
chloride of magnesium gives the water ‘ a very dis-
agreeable taste ; the chloride of calcium gives it its
slightly oily consistency. The eyes, and some assert
also the skin, are powerfully affected by contact with it.
Garments receive from the evaporating water a saline
deposit, with indelible spots of an oily appearance.
The salt encrusts also the many trees and pieces of wood
which lie stranded on the shore ; so much so that they
form a characteristic feature of the landscape, and recall
the striking antithesis in Jer. 175-8.
A bath in the Dead Sea at once proves its difference
in densitv from other seas or from fresh-water lakes.
4. Character- Eggs float on it. The human body
istic features. being lighter than the water, swimming
becomes difficult. the head alone of the
~~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~
swimmer tending to sink. The boiling point of the water
is 2 2 1 ~F. It is remarkably limpid, and has a beautiful
colour, now blue, now green. To think of this lake as
sombre and sad is quite an illusion ; i t s intense colouring,
its varied effects of light, its scarped overhanging slopes
broken by deep gorges, produce a picture of wild and
sublime beauty. ‘ T h e scenery round the sea is very
fine,’ says Conder ; ‘ it is compared, by those who have
seen both, to that of the Lake of Geneva.’ The present
writer, whose home is in Geneva, agrees with this com-
parison, it being understood that it is between the
northern portion of the Dead Sea and the eastern end
of the Lake of Geneva towards the embouchure of the
Rhone. Another common error about the Dead Sea is
that its waters have no motion ; on the contrary, it is
constantly agitated by the winds, and storms sometimes
drive huge billows to the shore. It does not owe its
name to this imagined immobility, but rather to the fact
that no sort of living creature-fish, crustacean, mollusc,
etc.-can subsist in its waters, the only exceptions being
certain inferior organisms and microbes, as shown by
the investigations of Ehrenberg and of the zoologist
Lortet (not to be confused with the geologist Lartet).
This fact-which is conclusively proved by the death
not only of the fish carried down into it by the Jordan
(their bodies serve as food for numerous birds which
frequent the neighbourhood), but also of salt -water
fishes-has given rise to various incorrect ideas. Thus
it has been said that birds attempting to fly over it drop
down dead ; this is a mere imagination-a fable which,
like a host of earlier witnesses, the present writer is able
to contradict from ocular testimony-or perhaps it may
be the result of a confusion with some other lake (see
Reland, 2448). It is equally false to say that the
shores of the Dead Sea derive their barrenness from the
pernicious action of its waters. What hinders the
growth of plants in its vicinity is not the presence of the
lake itself, but the absence of fresh water whether from
affluents or by precipitation. Wherever there is fresh
1 The evaporation produces whitish or bluish clouds which
float above the water. Hence ‘a smoking waste’ (Wisd. 107).
Cp NIBWAN.
I044
 DEAD SEA, THE
running water, as at Engedi, where there is a thermal
springj79° F. ), vegetation flourishes (cp Cant. 1 1 4 ) and,
as elsewhere throughout the Gh6r, exhibits a com-
bination of tropical plants with others belonging to the
Mediterranean region. Finally, the scant population
of its shores is to be accounted for more by the torrid
temperature (above 100"F. in the shade) than by any
infertility or positive insalubrity.
In fact, the lake has not always been so deserted : witness, for
example, the town of T A M Aat~ the
Z SW. extremity. Even the
shores of the Sea of Galilee have gradually come t o be wholly
abandoned except in three or four localities. The shores of the
Dead Sea too had once a very different aspect. Both in
antiquity (we learn this from Tac. Hist. 5 6 and also from the
Madeha mosaic) and so recently as the time of the Crusades
when Kerak and other fortresses had such an important position
the waters of the Dead Sea were enlivened with passing vessels:
Nor were the curative qualities of the water of the Dead Sea
unknown in the Roman period. Julius Africanus speaks of
these baths as wholesome (Reland, 253 J),as also does Galen
(ib. 241J), who(wrong1y) adds that an artificial substitute could
be obtained by the simple expedient of saturating ordinary sea
water with added salt. Mention is often made of the mephitic
odour exhaled by the Dead Sea (see NIBSHAN) ; but it has not
been shown that the lake itself is the cause of this. I t may be
occasioned either by the marshy lagoons by which the lake is
bordered, or by the mineral springs of the neighhourhood. The
sulphurous odoiir, which reminds one of that of rotten eggs, is
particularly noticeable near 'Ain el-Fesbkhah.
The lake, as we have seen, lies N. and S., with a
maximum length of 476 m., a maximum breadth of I O
(Josephus gives 66 and 17 m.
5* Dimensions' Espectively) and a superficial area of
360 sy. m. (the Lake of Geneva being 224 sy. m.).
It is divided into two unequal portions by a peninsula,
11-12 m. in length and about 40-80 ft. above the level
of the lake, flat for the most part, but with a range of
hills rising 300 ft. This peninsula, formed of white
calcareous marl, with deposits of salt and gypsum,
projects from the E. shore ; it is separated from the W.
shore by a channel about 3 m. in breadth. The name
of the peninsula is el-Mezra'ah or el-Lisiin; the last
designation, meaning ' the tongue,' has been brought
into connection with the mention of the pi ( E V ' the
bay [mg. : ' Heb. tongue '1 that looketh southward ') in
Josh. 152 5 ; but whilst the modern Arabic term is
applied to the land in the middle of the lake, the two
biblical passages refer to the water at the two ends of
the lake (cp Is. 1115 ; ' the tongue of the Egyptian sea').
The N. promontory of the Lisan has been named Cape
Costigan and the S. Cape Molyneux in honour of,two hold
explorers who navigated the Dead Sea in 1835 and 7847 respec-
tively. We ought also to mention the expeditionsof Moore and
Beek in 1837 and of Symonds in 1841, and especially that of
Lieut. Lynch of the U.S. navy in 1848 and that of the Duc de
Lnynes in 1864, both of which were of great importance.1
The portion of the Dead Sea to the N. of the Lisiin
is much the larger, and reaches a great depth (1278ft. ).
The S. smaller portion is quite shallow (10-18ft.), and
in parts even fordable. Possibly this portion is of less
ancient date than the rest of the lake, and may have
arisen within historic times in consequence of some sub-
sidence of the land. The shores immediately bordering
on this section are the most saline of the whole country.
There are salt marshes in the neighhourhood, and it is
there that, running parallel with the W. shore, the
curious ridge of rock salt, a veritable hors dauvre as
Lartet (p. 87) picturesquely calls it, occurs. It is
called Jebel Usdum or Hajar- Usdum or Khasm-
Usdum,-thus echoing the name of Sodom,-and rises
to a height of 600 ft., with a length of 32 m. and a
breadth of over half a mile. In its immediate vicinity
can be seen, occasionally at least, detached pillars of salt,
suggesting some resemblance to a rudimentary colossal
statue.
Another peculiarity is the presence of asphalt in the
Dead Sea basin (see BITUMEN). whence the Greek name
6. Its asphalt. of Asphaltitis (cp Tac. Hist. 56 ; Str.
162 42 ; Dioscor. 199 ; Diod. Sic. 1 9 ~ 8 ) .
1 Since 1893 rowing boats, sailing boats, and, more recently
even steam launches have occasionally been a t the service 2 1 The well-known geologist von.Hoffmann has adopted this
travellers.
1045
Near the lake are found beds of a whitish chalky niarl,
tnd also of bituminous marl. It is not, however, from
.hese deposits on its shores that the water of the Dead
Sea derives its bituminous constituents, but rather, no
cloubt, from deep subaqueous beds ; there i a been
sbserved a marked coincidence between the appea ance
3f considerable bituminous masses floating on the surface
and the occurrence of the earthquakes which at intervals
desolate the whole of that region. When these take
place quantities of bitumen are broken loose and come
to the surface; the natives are diligent in collecting
them, but hitherto no methodical exploitation of these
mineral resources on a commercial basis has been
attempted. The existence of bituminous constituents
in small quantity in the water can always be shown.
Notwithstanding the presence of this bitumen, of
sulphur springs, and of masses of sulphur which are
met with here and there, as also of certain igneous
formations, the region of the Dead Sea must not be
included in the category of volcanic territories properly
5 0 called. On the contrary, in opposition to the asser-
tions of certain travellers too richly endowed with
imagination (e.g., Russegger and van de Velde), the
very competent geologists already named agree in
doubting whether any large part in the formation of
this region ought to be attributed to igneous f0rces.l
The cretaceous beds rise in regular stages on rhe W. hank
from the margin of the lake. On the other shore the arrange-
ment is no less regular; but under the cretaceous beds there are
Earboniferpus strata and beneath there are other formations still
more ancient. At the most it may be admitted that certain
volcanic agitations have made themselves felt in the depths of
the lake. Blanckrnhorn (ZDPY,1896, p. 59) recalls and
attaches importance to an observatiou made by Molyneux and
quoted by Ritter (705J) relating t o a whitish belt of foam
stretching from the NW. of ttAe lake towards the Lisin and
followiiig on the whole the median line of the lake above which
a whitish vapour lingered in the air. From thi;pbenomenon,
supported by certain other indications, he concludes the existence
of a fault in the floor of the lake which is prolonged in the
channel skirting the Lisan and terminates in the S. portion of
the lake near the embouchure of the W. Muhauwat. On roth-
12th March of this year (1899)the author of this artidle witnessed
the same phenonieuon as that seen by Molyneux in 1847.
In a general way we might describe the geological
formation of the Jordan valley and Dead Sea basin by
., The story the technical expression efondrement.
in Gen. 19. The phenomenon occurred at the time of
the transition from the tertiary to the
quaternary epoch. It is not possible, therefore, to estab-
lish any relation between the formation of the Dead Sea
as a whole and the catastrophe described in Gen. 19.
At most that narrative might possibly admit of being
connected with certain events of a niore local character
and of secondary importance, which might have occurred
within historic times (see LOT, SIDDIM, SODOM).
As we have not to deal with the historical side of the question
hut with the geographical only it will suffice to say (a) that t h i
text of Genesis speaks of a rain of fire and brimstone and a
pillar of smoke rising to heaven, hut neither of an earthquake
nor of an igneous eruption, nor of an inundation ; (6) that ther;
is nothing to show that the cities of the Pentapolis were in the
plain of Siddim ;, (c) that the remark in Gen. 143 'the plain of
Siddim which is the Salt Sea' may he a conjectnre of the
narrator or even the gloss of a copyist or late reader. (d) that
account must be taken of the meiition of the kikkcir df Jordan
(Geu. 13 t 0 - m 19 17 25 28 29) ; (e) that posihly a distinction must
be made between the actual position of the Pentapolis and the
position assigned t o it by later writers, inasmuch as these
entertained perhaps divergent opinions as to this point ; (f)
that the position of Zoar is as problematical as that of the other
four cities ; finally (E) that scholars are divi'ded into two canips
-those who place the Pentapolis in the N. of the Dead Sea,
and those who place it in the S.
In complete contrast with its sombre narratives
regarding these doomed cities, the OT, in two propheti-
cal passages of Ezekiel and Zechariah already cited,
describes the transformation of the waste and barren
regions of the Dead Sea by a life-giving stream issuing
from the temple, fertilising all that it touches so that
fish and fruit-bearing trees abound.
view.
1046
 DEAL
Reland, Palmtina, 238-258 ; Seetzen, Reisen, 1405-430
22r7-274 293.385 37-16 4352-365 367-389 401-403 ; v. Schubert
Reise in A s MorgenLand, 384-94; Robin!
8. Literature. son, Bi62. Res. 201-253 463.501 601-608;
Phys. Geogr. of the H o b Land, 187-216(‘65);
Ritter, Vergl. Erdkwnde der Sinai-HaLbimel, von PaalcestiFia,
etc. ii. 1553-780 ; Der Jordan und die Beschiyung des Todten
Meeres (‘50); Tobler, Topographie von Jerusalem, 2 906-952 ;
de Saulcy, Voyag-e autour de la Mer Morte (‘53). Rey Voyage
dans le Haouran et aux bords de la M e r dorte,’215-306.
Fraas Aus denr Orient : GeoZogiische Betrachtungen (‘67) 62-6;
73-78 f Das Todte Meer (‘67); Tuch, Ueber d& Urspru;tg des
Todten Meeres nach dem A T (‘63); Lynch, Nawafive of the
US Expedition to .. . the Dead Sea (‘49); Oficial Report of
the US Expedition etc. (‘52). Duc de Luynes Voyage 8 E x -
ployation a la Me; Movte (‘;5, seq.), see esgcially v o ~ .iii.,
GkoZogie, par M. Louis Lartet ; A. Stoppani, I2 Mare Morto
C75) ; E. Falcucci, N Mar Mort0 e la Pentajoli del Giordano
.
(81); Hull, Mount Seir (‘89), chap. 13 f Memoir on the
Geology and Geography ofArabia P e t m a , kckestine, etc. (‘89);
Gukrin, Description de la PaZestine (‘74): Saman2, 160.96;
Lortet, La Syn2 d’au~hnrd’hui(‘84), 389.442 ; Tristram, The
Land of rsrael (‘84, 255-360; G. A. Sm Hist. Geog. of the
H o b Land (‘94), 497-516 ; Blanckenhoru, “Entsteh. U. Gesch.
d. Todten Meeres,’ ZDPY, 19 1-59 (‘96); ‘ N o c h einmal Sodom
U. Gomorrha,’ ib. 21 65-83 (‘ 8); ‘ D a s Tote Meer u. der Unter-
gang von Sodom u. Gomorrga’ (‘98). Diener ‘ D i e Katastrophq
von Sodom u. Gomorrha im Lich;e geologkcher Forscbung,
Mitth. d e r K . - K . Geogr. Ges. in Wein, 1897, pp. 1-22). LU. G.
DEAL, TENTH (jikq),Lev. 1410. See WEIGHTS
AND MEASURES.
DEATH, ( 8 A N a T O C ) , see D EAD , THE.
DEBIR (7’37; AABEIN [B*l, -p CALI, AABEIN [Bbl),
king of Eglon, defeated and slain by Joshua (Josh. 103
CP 23).
DEBIR ( l ’ l q ; A a B ~ l p[BAL]). ( I) A place in the
S. of Judah (Josh. 10385 etc. ) ; see KIRJATH-SEPHER.
2. In Josh. 157, nn! is by AV taken as a place-name
on the N. boundary of Judah ; it has been identified by
some with the present Thoghret ed Debr near Tal‘at
e d - D a m (Adummim) on the way from Jerusalem to
Jericho.
The text, however, isuncertainand the word maynot beaplace-
name. 0 3 renders : to the fourth part (n.px3 of the vF1e of
Achor.’ Di. suggests the translation ‘hackwards’-i.e., west-
wards’->*xT meaning ‘ behind’ ; but there is no other-instance
of its geographical application.1
3 Josh. 1326 ; RVmg. L I D E B I R . G. A. S.
DEBORA, RV Deborah ( A e B B w p a [BK], A E M B ~ ~
[A], the grandmother of Tobit (Tob. 18).
DEBORAH (3$27,,‘ a bee,’ 68 ; cp W R S in
3ourn. P h i l 14 [‘E351 n o $ ; A a B B w p a [BAL]). I . A
1. Occasion heroine who, with the aid of Barak, de-
livered the Israelites from their Canaanite
of her The victory is celebrated in
leadership. theoppressors.
triumphal ode, Judg. 5. The Israelites,
particularly the tribes which had settled about the plain
of Jezreel, had been reduced to great straits by the
Canaanites, who, holding the fortified cities along the
plain (Judg. 1 2 7 ) . blockaded the main roads and cut
off communication, while from their strongholds they
harried the country so that the unwalled villages were
deserted (56f.). Incited by DebBrah, the Israelites at
last took up arms against their oppressors. Under
Barak as their leader, Ephraim, Benjamin, and Manasseh
united with Issachar, Zebulun, and Naphtali, and gave
battle to Sisera and the confederate Canaanite kings
in the plain not far from Taanach and Megiddo.
The Canaanites, notwithstanding their formidable iron
chariots, were put to rout ; the waters of the Kishon
completed their ruin. Sisera, seeking refuge in flight
at a nomad‘s tent, was killed by a woman, Jael.
The history of the struggle is related somewhat
differently in chap. 4,2 according to which Barak, at the
summons of Deborah, raised ten thousand men of the
tribes of Zebulun and Naphtali, occupied Mt. Tabor,
and from that position attacked Sisera as the latter was
advancing against him. A more serious difference is that
1 Read m?!p, ‘to the wilderness’-i.e., of Judah. Beth-
arahah (cp 156) was one of its cities (15615).
2 On the relation of chaps. 4 and 5 in general, see JUDGES,# 7.
1047
DEBT
in chap. 4 the oppressorof Israel, fromwhomitis delivered
by Deborah, is Jabinltingof Hazor, acityinUpperGalilee;
whilst Sisera is only Jabin’s general. In the action, how-
ever, Jabin plays no part ; and we can only surmise that
the story of Sisera has, by mistake, been connected
with a tradition of a conflict between some of the
northern tribes and the king of Hazor (cp also Josh. 11).
From chap. 4 we learn that Deborah was a prophetess
-an inspired woman; that her husband‘s name was
Lappiddth ; and that her home was between Bethel and
Ramah, whither the Israelites resorted to her for judg-
ment. Chap. 515, however, seems to prove that she
was of the tribe of Issachar ; and other considerations
would incline us to think that she lived in or near the
plain of Jezreel. (For a conjecture on this subject see
DABERATH. ) That her home was in Mt. Ephraim may
have been inferred by the author of 4 5 (an editorial
addition to the narrative) from the existence of a tomb
of Deborah under a tree below Bethel, where, according
to the patriarchal legend (see below, no. z), the nurse of
Rebekah was buried (Gen. 358).
Barak, who shares with Deborah the glory of the
victory, was from Kedesh in Naphtali (46). This city
2. Barak. is somewhat remote, and in the account of
Sisera’s flight seems impossible. It has
been conjectured by Wellhausen ( C H 221)that the name
of the more famous Kedesh in Galilee has here sup-
planted an obscure K EDESH (q.v., z) in Issachar ( I Ch.
672 [57]-mentioned with Daberath not far from Mt.
Tabor) ; a suggestion which is .the more plausible that
5 15, if the text be sound, connects Barak also with
Issachar (cp B EZAANANNIM, K ISHION). I t is possible
that Kedesh in Naphtali, in the immediate vicinity of
Hazor, comes in some way from the story of Jabin.
The Song of Deborah bears in itself the evidence that
it is the work of one who had lived through the great
3. The song struggle which it celebrates, and is for
of Deborah. that reason of inestimable value as an
historical monument. It is also not only
one of the oldest Hebrew poems which have come down
to us, but one of the greatest. On its date cp SISERA
and POETICAL L ITERATURE, 4 (iv.). See also HIS-
TORICAL L ITERATURE , § 2.
A ’ Few odes in the world‘s literature, indeed, can be
compared with this triumphal Te Deum. Unfortunately,
the text, especially in vv.8-15, has suffered grievously
from the injuries of time.
Until very recent times, Deborah has been universally
believed to be the author. It is ascribed to her in the
title ; and this testimony was thought to be conclusively
confirmed by v. 7, ‘ Until I, Deborah, arose.’ The form
of the Hebrew verbs in this verse, however, is ambiguous,
and the clause might equally well be interpreted, ‘ Until
thou didst arise, Deborah ‘ (cp v. 12) ; whilst 65 and Vg.
render in the third person (cp u. 15). On the other
hand, the natural inference from v. 15, and especially
from v. 12, is that the heroine is not the poet.
On the subjects of this article see, further, Moore,
Judges ( ’ g ~ )and
, cp J AEL. On the Song of Deborah,
cp H ADRACH , KADESH(z), K ISHON, MEROZ,and see
A. Muller, Das Lied der Deborah (‘87); G. A. Cooke,
The History and Song of Deborah (’92); additional
literature in Moore, op. cit., 127,136.
More recent studies, chiefly in the text, are : Grimme ZDMG,
’96, 5728:; Marquart, Fundamente isr. u. ~ 2 d Ges)ch. . (‘96);
Budde, Actes d. Xme Congr?s d. OrientaZisistes,2 z o f i (‘96);
Ruben, / Q R , ’98, 541 5: Riess, Prruss. Jahrb. 91 295 fi ;
D . H. Muller, Actes d. I Xlme Congr2s d.On2ntaZistes,4 2 6 1 s
(‘98). G. F. M.
2. Rebekah’s nurse who, according to J died and was buried
below Bethel under the oak known as ALL~E-BACUTH (Gen. 35 8
peppopa [E], Scpoppa [L]). She is alluded to, but unnamed, i<
24 59, where she accompanies Rebekah on her departure from
B e t h e l [J]. To connect these two traditions would make her
about 150 years old at the time of her death. [For a radical
emendation ofthe text which removes this difficulty, see DINAH.]
See, further, DEBORAH (I).
DEBT (’@a, 2 K. 47 ; AANION. Mt. 1827), DEBTOR
1048
 DECALOGUE
(2h?Ezek. 1 8 7 ; XPEOQIAGTHC, Lk. 7 4 1 ) . See LAW
AND J U S T I C E , § 16, and T RADE AND COMMERCE.
DECALOGUE (H AsKahoroc, sc. BiBAoc; d m - the commandments against foreign gods and image wor-
Zogus, sc. Zider), a term adopted from Patristic Greek and .
Latin, and meaning what we commonly call the ten com-
mandments. Ultimately, the name comes from the LXX
which in this case adheres closely to the original Hebrew
’ 1. Meaning and speaks, not of ten commandments,
of the term. but of ten words (&a h6yoi or $ ? ~ ~ u T u ,and Lutherans), treats the prohibition of serving other
Ex. 5428 Dt. 413 104). The decalogue,
according to the biblical narrative, was uttered by God
from Horeb and written by him on two tables of stone
which he had prepared. Afterwards, when Moses had
broken the tables in indignation at the idolatry of the
people, he was bidden to hew other tables on which God
again wrote the ten words. They were the foundation
of a covenant (bci-iih) between Yahwk and his people
(Dt. 413) and were placed in the ark as the ‘ testimony’
(‘Zddsth) or revelation of YahwB‘s will (Ex. 25 16) ; see
COVRNANT, 1 6 (ii.).
The two parallel texts of the decalogue, one in Ex. 20
the other in Dt. 5, present striking points of difference. shalt not steal, Thou shalt not murder,’ and in Deutero-
2* Tt:h:y In Exodus the sabbath is to be kept, be-
cause Yahwk made all things in six days
and rested the seventh ; in Deuteronomy,
because the slave as well as his master needs rest. Here,
too, as in the command to honour parents, there are
amplifications of language peculiar to the recension in
Deuteronomy. In Exodus the Israelite-is forbidden to
covet his neighbour‘s house, and then wife, slave, and
cattle are specified as possessions included within the
Hebrew idea of house or household. In Deuteronomy
the commandment is adapted to a later and more humane
view. First, the Israelite is not to ‘covet’ his neigh-
bour’s wife. Next, he is not to ‘ desire ’ his neighbour’s apparently unknown to Elijah and Elisha ; the refine-
house, land, slaves, etc. The separation of the wife from
mere property is very significant (see FAMILY, § 6).
How comes it that the parallel texts vary so seriously? view that the decalogue is grounded on the teaching of
The answer now generally given is that originally the
decalogue was composed of concise precepts, which were
expanded in different ways by later editors. The deca-
logue was incorporated in his work by the Elohist ; it
was repeated by the Deuteronomist and lastly by the
Priestly Writer. No wonder then that, in the final
redaction of the Pentateuch, each text of the decalogue
offers clear marks of the Deuteronomical style, whilst in
Ex. 208-11 the Deuteronomic motive of humanity has
been supplanted by the example of G o d s rest after the
week of creation-evidence of a super-redaction in the
“spirit of P (cpEx. 31 176 Gen. 226). Commandments 6-9
preserve their primitive form. We may therefore on that
analogy restore the decalogue to its original form thus :- reconstruction is a s follows :2-
DECALOGUE OF EXODUS 20
I. Thou shalt have no other gods beside me.
z Thou shalt not make unto thee any (graven) image.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of Yahwi: thy Gpd for a vain
end.1
4. Remember the sabbath day to hallow it.
5. Honour thy father and thy mother.
6. Thou shalt do no murder.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
9. Thou shalt not hear false witness against thy neighhour.
IO. Thou shalt not covet thy neighhour’s house.
(u)In their arrangement the commandments fall into
two pentads, or sets of five each, corresponding to the
3. arrange- two tables. The first table sets forth
the law of piety in the pure worship of
merit. Yahwk and in reverence to parents, the
second table exhibits the law of probity or duty to fellow
Israelites, conceived, however, in an exclusively negative
form. This is the scheme known to Philo (De DecuZogo,
12) and Josephus (Ant.iii. 55), adopted by the Greek
and Anglican churches, as also by the Scottish and
other churches of the Calvinistic type, and approved,
among recent scholars, by Dillmann.
1 Perhaps for purposes of sorcery.
1049
DECALOGUE
Another arrangement (adopted by Knobel and, in
1869,by Kuenen) is to count the opening statement, ‘ I
am Yahwb thy God,’ etc., as the first ‘ word,’ and bind
ship into one. This is the Talmudic division, which is
still in force among the Jews, and is also of greater
antiquity in the Greek church than some have supposed.
Augustine, too (and he is followed by Roman Catholics
gods and worshipping images as one commandment.
He makes this the first, however, not, like the modern
Jews, the second ‘word.’ Hence he has to divide the pro-
hibition of coveting into two commandments, viz. : one
against coveting aneighbonr’s wife, the other against covet-
ing his goods. The objection to the Talmudic scheme is
the awkwardness of alaw which makes up the number ten
from onestatement of factand nine precepts. TheAugus-
tinian scheme cannot be fitted to the text in Exodus and
canscarcely havebeenintendedeven bythe Deuteronomist.
The order given by the Vatican text of the LXX
in Exodus is ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou
nomy ‘ Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not
murder, Thou shalt not steal.’ Probably the variation
arose from the feeling that the prohibition of adultery,
as the destruction of family life, should be immediately
connected with the injunction to honour parents.
W e come next to the question of date. The Elohist
document (perhaps a later edition of it) is our earliest
4. Date. external witness, and that does not carry us
back beyond the middle of the eighth century
B. c. Nor does internal evidence point to a much earlier
time. The character of the decalogue, which is not
ritual but almost purely moral ; the prohibition of images,
ment which forbids thoughts of covetousness (the Hebrew
cannot fairly be taken otherwise); all lend support to the
the great prophets of whose discourses we have written
records. It has been compared with the loftier teaching
in Micah66-8, and may belong to the same age, i . e . , at
earliest that of Manasseh (see, further, MOSES).
The reasons against a date very much earlier are
clinched by the modern discovery that there was another
5. Second decalogue older in character. True, we
and older cannot say for certain how each particular
Decalogue. r p t of this older decalogue ran. We
o know, however, that reference is made
to it by the Yahwist in Ex. 3428, and further, that the
decalogue itself is imbedded in 10-26. and there is, there-
fore, no doubt about its general character. Wellhausen’s
DECALOGUE OF EXODUS 34
I. Thou shalt worship no other god.
2. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
3. The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep.
4. Every firstling is mine.
5. Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks.
6. And the feast of ingathering a t the year’s end.
7. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven.
8. The fat of my feast shall not he left over till the niorning.3
9. The best of the firstfruits of thy land shall thou bring to the
house of Yahwh thy God.
IO. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother’s milk.4
The Yahwistic legend which encloses this decalogue
is simpler and more natural, for here it is Moses, not
1 Geffken (Eintlreilung &s Dekulogs 1838) found it to occur
first inSyncellus(circu7goA.D.)and Cedkenus(1130). but Nestle
has shown that it is to be met with in the Codex Vahcanus and
the Ambrosianus. See Nestle, Ex). Times, 8426f. (July ’97),
and cp Redpath, ‘Codex Zittaviensis,’ Ex). Tieus, 8383
(May ‘97).
2 C H 3 3 1 f : ; cp Stade, GVZl51o; Staerk, Dewtevonomium,
30f:
3 According to the more original text in Ex. 23 18.
4 The number ten is gained by omitting the command of the
seventh-day rest (which is out of place in the cycle of annual
‘feasts) and tlfe command that all males should appear before
Yahwd thrice in the year (which is merely arecapitulation of the
three preceding laws).
I050
 DECAPOLIS
Yahwb, who hews the tables and writes the words. The
decalogue represents that ritual of outward worship
which was essential to the early stages of national
religion, but was subordinated to ethical monotheism
by Amos and his successors. Yet even this decalogue
must be put long after the time of Moses. The feasts
mentioned imply an agricultural life, and must have been
adopted by the Israelites after their settlement.
See Oehler Old Testament Theology, 1 2 6 7 8 (0%85 86). and
for the late; criticism, Kuenen, Hex. 244; Smend, A)TRei
2733, 2783 ; Rothstein, D m Bundesbuch,
6. Literature. ('88) ; Budde in Z A W ('91), pp. 993, 2 2 0 3 .
Bantsch, D m Bzcndesbuch (92); Meissuer(
Der DekaZoz ('93) ; Montefiore, 3QR 3 2 8 6 8 ; Addis, Th;
Docynents of the Hexateud, 1 1 3 6 8 Robertson Smith (EBM
art. Decalogue') in 1876 held that the decalogue, as a system
of 'ten words, was as old as Moses, though the original fourth
commandment must have had a much simpler form. He also re-
jected the hypothesis of asccond decalogue. How largely he had
modified his views in later years on both points may he gathered the central road joins the great trunk road from N. to
from OTJCP) 3 3 4 3 See also EXODUS, ii. B 4. w. E. A.
DECAPOLIS ( A E K A I T O ~ I C [Ti. WH]) is the name the junction of this road with the northernmost of the
-,
- -
eiven in the gospels (Mt. 4 zii Mk. 5 201 to a territorv in
Bashan &Gilead cokered, or affected,
and Greek ci
I confedera- ies
t by the power of a league of ten or more we have-Pliny's in HN 5 16 [18]. Other cities were
Greek cities (called in Mk. 7 21 7 b d o ~ a added. Ptolemy gives eighteen, omitting Raphana, and
Decapolitana re&). Josephus calls the league itself
both ACKLTOXLS (BJiii. 97) and ai ev 7i ZupLp ~ C K U either the modern Kerak or el-Kuneiyeh in en-Nukra ;
~ 6 h e r s (Vita,65 74). Other early instances of the
name are Ptolemy v. 1522, and CZG, no. 450, of
the time of Hadrian. Eusebius describes the Deca-
polis of the Gospels as a region (see below, 5 2).
The first Greek cities in Syria were founded by the
veterans of Alexander, and from his time their numbers
were rapidly increased by the immigration of Greeks
under the patronage of the Seleucids and Ptolemies.
On the west the Greeks settled in ultimately Hellenised
Phcenician and Philistine towns ; but beyond Jordan
many of their settlements were upon fresh sites. Among
the oldest were Pella, Dion: Philadelphia (on the
site of Rabbath-Ammon), Gadara, and Abila-all strong
fortresses by 218 B.C. (Polyb. 5 71 ; 16 39 ; Jos. Ant.
xii. 3 3 ; Stark, Gaza, 381). Bosra had become largely
Greek in the time of the Maccabees ( I Macc. 5243).
Gerasa and Hippus are not mentioned till the first
century B.C. (Jos. Ant. xiii. 1 5 3 4 ; BJi. 48).
As the Hellenic world came under Roman sway,
,various confederacies of Greek cities were formed, both
for purposes of trade, like the Hanseatic League, and
for defence against alien races (Mommsen, Prow. of the
Rom. EliZp., Eng. ed. 1 264f.). Such confederation
was nowhere more necessary than in Syria, where, after
the success of the Maccabees, and especially under the
Jewish king Alexander Jannzeus (104-78 B . C . ) , the
Greek cities must needs have combined against the
common danger of overthrow and absorption by their
Semitic neighbours. Such combinations, however, if
they were formed, proved a failure till the Roman legions
led by Pompey reached Syria in 65. Then the Greek
cities took a new lease of life. Several called themselves
after Pompey, and several dated their eras from the
year of his Syrian campaign, 64-63 B. C. Among these
were Gadara, Hippos, Pella, Dion, Abila, Kanata,
Kanatha, and Philadelphia. Pompey gave them, or
after this time they gradually received, municipal free-
dom, the rights of coinage, asylum, property in the
surrounding districts, and association with one another.
They were, however, put under the Roman Province of
Syria (Ant. xiv. 4 4 B3i. 7 7), and taxed for imperial pur-
poses ; their coins bore ' the image of Czsar ' ; and
they were liable to.military service (BJ ii. 1819). Some
of them, certainly with the reservation of their rights,
were afterwards transferred from the Governor of Syria
to the, direct authority of Herod.
From Pompey's time to Hadrian's (106A.D.), Rome's
grasp of Eastern Palestine was neither constant nor
effective. It was during this time, and in this region of
1051
DECAPOLIS
unsettlement, that the League of the Decapolis arose.
The precise year we are unable to fix ; it may not have
been till after Herod's death in 4 B.c., but probably
a. The Deca- was soon after Pompey's campaign.
politan league. At first, as the name implies, the League
comprised ten cities. Onlv one lav W.
of Jordan-Scythopoiis, the ancient Bethsgean. kom-
manding the approach to the others, by Esdraelon, from
the Greek cities of the coast and the Levant, Scythopolis
remained the capital of the league. All the other nine lay
either upon the three great roads which, crossing Jordan,
traversed E. Palestine, or on the trunk road which these
ultimately joined : Pella, Gadara, and Hippos on the
E. edge of the Jordan valley, and the Lake of Galilee ;
Dion, Gerasa (modern Jerash), and Philadelphia on or
near the S. road ; Raphana, somewhere near the central
road; Kanatha (now Kanawiit, see KENATH),where
S. at the foot of the Jebel Haur2n ; and Damascus, at
three roads. All the sites are certain except those of
Raphana and of Dion. These form the earliest list that
adding other nine, mostly towards Damascus,-Abila, on
a branch of the Yarmfik 12 m. E. of Gadara ; Kanata,
Kapitolias, probably the modern Beit er- RHs, near
Irbid ; and some of the Semitic towns incorporated in
the extension of the Empire in 106,such as Edrei and
Bosra. Each of these cities held sway over the territory
in its neighbourhood. Round Hippos was Hippene
(BJiii. 31); round Gadara the country of the Gadarenes
(Mk. 51 according to one reading), which, if we can
judge from the trireme on some Gadarene coins, extended
to the Lake of Galilee. In the fourth century Jerome
calls all Gilead the ' region of Gerasa.' These suburban
properties or spheres of influence must have touched
one another, and the remains of the long aqueduct from
the centre of Haui-gn by Edrei to Gadara is one proof
of how far they extended. The ' Decapolitan region '
(coasts of Decapolis) was, therefore, a wide and solid,
if loosely defined, territory lying on the E. of the Lake
of Galilee and stretching across a large part of Gilead.
Eusebius (OS) defines the Decapolis of the Gospels
as lying in Perzea round Hippos, Pella, and Gadara.
Pliny, however, describes it as interpenetrated by the
Jewish Tetrarchies ( N N 5 16) ; and in particular the
territories of Herod Antipas in Garlilee and Perzea were
probably so joined across Jordan as to cut off, from the
E. Decapolis, the suburban territory of Scythopolis.
Within this region of Decapolis Hellenism was pre-
dominant in the time of the ministry of Jesus, and thence
3. Civilization. it flowed out upon Galilee. This is
proved by a trace or two in the
Gospels themselves ( e . 8 , the presence of a large herd
of swine in Gadara), by the ample ruins, still extant, of
Greek architecture (the most glorious period of which,
however, was not till the time of the Antonines), and
especially by the constant communication between the
Decapolis and the Mediterranean ports and Greece,
and by the flourishing state of Greek literature in the
Ten Cities. T h e Decapolis had, in each city, temples
to purely Hellenic deities, theatres, amphitheatres, and
various athletic institutions. Yearly were the TCtyKp&TLU
celebrated-games in which every form of physical
strength was exhibited. There was a vigorous
municipal life of democratic constitution. Gadara was
the birthplace or home of Philodemus the Epicurean (a
contemporary of Cicero), Meleiiger the epigrammatist,
Mlnippus the satirist, Theodorus the rhetorician (the
tutor of Tiberius), and others. The Greek writers of
Damascus are still better known. Gergsa had a school
famous for its teachers. Besides, the League, being
largely a commercial union, pushed the Greek methods
of trade across W. Palestine ; the result is seen in the
1052
 DECK
many commercial and travellers’ terms and names for
objects of trade and human consumption which, in the
centuries immediately before and after Christ, passed
from Greek info Hebrew, See T RADE AND COMMERCE.
Besides the ancient authorities already cited, see EpiphaniuS,
Heres. 29 7 ; De Mem. et P o d . 15 ; Stephanus Byzant. De
Uy6ilus (Basil., 1568, ed. Dindorf, Leps., 1825)
Literature. especially the art. I‘qaoa ; Reland, Palmtinu
198, 2 0 3 , 5 0 6 . E. de Saulcy Nunzismatipue de la
Tewe Sainte, Paris, 1874 Schiir. Hist.’ 3 9 4 8 ; GASm. HG
chap.28 ;andvariousworksoftravelinE. Palestine.
G. A . s.
DECK (dl&),Ezek.276 RVmg.; EV BENCHES.
See S HIP.
DEDAN (I??,oftenest AAIAAN [BKADEQ]), ason of
R AAMAH (see G EOGRAPHY, 5 23), son of CUSH, Gen.
1 0 7 (P), or of Jokshan, son of Keturah, Gen.253 (J),
I Ch. 132.
SaSau [ADEQL] Se. [NL],6ai6ap [BDQJ, GapSav [L I C ~ .
1321, S a d a . [ D ] , Sa‘“ [r],KQL Sav [Qa], pdcap [E], ~ouSaSav[ B ] .
As the name of a people it also occurs in Is. 21 13
( I caravans of DEDANITES ‘ [so RV ; AV DEDANIM], in
connection with the ‘ land of Tema’ ; 6ai6av [BKAQ], but
in Aq. and Sym. GwGavip ; and in Theod. and Orig. 8ai8.
[Qmg.]), Jer. 2523 (with Tema and Buz), 4 9 8 (where it
is thought of as adjoining Edom), Ezek.2513 (where
@BAQ reads G L W K ~ ~ E V;O cp eBAFL
L for im in Lev. 26 17 ;
Pesh. @), Ezek. 2720 (with Arabia, Kedar, Sheha,
and Raamah, as trading with Tyre), 3813 (with Sheba),
but not 2715 (see R ODANIM ). These passages (to
which add Gen. 253 I Ch. 1 3 2 ) all point to Arabia, but
some to the southern, some to the northern region.
pi occurs in Min. and Sab. inscriptions (see especially
Glaser, SIzizxe 2397). Probably Dedan was a tribe with
permanent seats in S. or central Arabia (Glaser, Z. c.,
locates N. of Medina) and trading settlements in the
NW. F. B.
DEDICATE, DEDICATION. For dpp, kiddif (lit.
’ to separate,’ more usually rendered ’ to consecrate,’
‘ hallow,’ or ‘ sanctify ’) see CLEAN AND U NCLEAN ,
13 For mn, g d m m , see BAN.
$>Q,gdnak, q - K A l N ~ z e i N , meansprop. toinitiate’;
see CATECHISE, and cp BDB, S.V. Various dedication
ceremonials are described, mostly in late documents.
There is the dedication of the temple in I K. 81-63 (see 1,. 63 :
B Y F K ~ ~ V L U IIC Y2 ) Ch. 52-75 (75 : Bvexaimoev), a ‘dedication’ of
the altar being separately referred to in 2 Ch. 7 9 (BvKawcup6v).
that of the altar of the tabehacle is described in Nu. 7 r o d
(Pz B Y K U L V L U ~ ~that
V ) ; of the walls of Jerusalem as rebuilt by
Nehemiah in Neh. 12 2 7 8 (Bv GyKarviocs T E ~ X O U S ) . No special
rite is prescrihed for the dedication of a new house referred to in
Dt. 20 5 (GvwaivLow).-On the dedication of temple and altar in
the Maccabean period, see the following article.-The dedication
or ratification of a covenant with blood, and the dedication or
inauguration of a new and vital way of access to God are
alluded to in Heb. 9 18 (see COVENANT) and Heh. 10 20.
DEDICATION, FEAST OF THE. . On the 15th of
Chislev of the year 145 of the Seleucid era ( =Dec.
168 B.C.), during the religious persecution under
Antiochus Epiphanes, a pagan altar was set up on the
altar of burnt offering at Jerusalem, and on the 25th
of the same month sacrifice was for the first time
offered upon it (I Macc. 141-64 z Macc. 61-11 ; Jos.
Ant. xii. 54). Three years afterwards (165 B .c.),
Judas the Maccabee had recovered Jerusalem and the
temple. The temple was then cleansed, the altar of
burnt offering displaced by one entirely new, new
sacred vessels made, and the temple reconsecrated with
great festivities. These lasted for eight days, beginning
on 25th Chislev 148 of the Seleucid era (Dec. 165 B.c.),
-that is, on the very day on which, three years before,
the altar had been desecrated (I Macc. 4 36-39).
In commemoration of these events, the feast of the
dedication (mxn [Megilla, iii. 4 6 ; Bikkurim, 1 6 ; Rosh
hashana, 1 3 , &.] ; 7 b Pyrtaivia, Jn. 1022 ; ai +&pac
dyKaiviupoG 700 O U U L ~ U ~ ~ I~ Macc.
~ O U , 4 5 9 ; Kab’aprapbs
TOO k p o O z Macc. 118),lasting eight days from the 25th
of Chislev, was celebrated ‘ with mirth and joy ‘ (pe7’
drq5pouhp KaL Zapas) annually. According to 2 Macc.
1053
DEGREE
106 it was observed after the manner of the feast of
Tabernacles, and in another passage it is even called
the feast of tabernacles of the month Chislev (4pLepaL 7 % ~
mqvoagylas TOG Xaaeheu, z Macc. 1 9 ) . The special and
distinguishing peculiarity in its celebration was the
illumination of synagogues and houses.
At the door of each house one light, at least-in the case of
those who could afford the expense, as many lights as there were
persons in the house-had to be displayed ; on the second day the
number of lights must be doubled, on the third trebled, and so on.
Jewish tradition explains the eight-days’ duration of the feast,
and the custom of displaying lights by the assertion that Judas
found only one small cruse of cons;crated oil, but that it lasted
for eight days instead of only for one.
The probability is that the illumination, like the dura-
tion and other features of the feast, was taken over from
the feast of tabernacles andreferred to the relighting of the
golden candlestick ( I Macc. 450). See CANDLESTICK.
N o mention of this cnstoin of illumination is made in the
hooks of Maccabees or by Josephos ; the description of the feast
by Josephus as ‘the feast of lights’ (+&TU), however doubtless
has reference to them (Ant. xii. 7 7), and his explandion of the
name as coming from the unexpectedness of the restoration of
religious freedom to the nation (BK 703 rap’ Bhri8os oTpar ~ a h q v
$ p ; v + a v + a ~ . ~ v B.$ovuiav [sc. 6 s Bpqo~ecasl)also may be safely
taken as having the same reference. In both of the letters pre-
fixed to 2 Macc. the observance of this feast is urgently pressed
on the Jews in Egypt (2 Macc. 19 18 2 16); it is natural to pre-
sume that when, in the second of these (on the text of n hich see
Ball in Var. Apocryplta), the story of Nehemiah’s miraculous
discovery of the sacred tire is referred to, the writer saw a parallel
to it in the relighting of the altar-tire by Judas and desired to
associate the commemoration of both events kith one feast.
From the time of year and the employment of lights and green
branches in the celebration, Wellhausen ( I j G z r o [3rd ed. 2561)
conjectures that the feast originally had reterence to the winter
solstice, and only afterwards came to he associated with the
events recorded in Maccabees.
The proper psalm for the Feast of the Dedication is
Ps. 30 ; hence its inscription, n‘sp nxn-i’?, #ahpbs
(r)G+js TOO 8yKawrupoG TOG OLOU,‘ Dedication-song of
the house (temple).’
See the commentaries on I Macc. 459 and Jn. 1022 also
A. G. Wahner, d e ajl>n sive Jest0 Encaeniorunz judaico,
oit’gine nativifatrs Christ;, 1715 ; Oehler, in PREP) 4 5 4 3 s
[3rd ed. 7151; Che. OPs. 1 7 3 , 3 4 3 , 247; Nowack HA (‘94)
Pzoof: ; Schiirer (;rY 1 162 n., with its references t; literature
on the post-talm;d:c feasts. Cp also articles by Krauss and
Levi in REJ3124-43, Z O ~ - Z220-231 T ~ , (‘94).
I. B.
DEEP, THE (Dt??, Phbm; always without art. except
in Is. 6 3 1 3 Ps. 1 0 6 9 ; Ass. tidmnlzr, h?mtu, tdmdu, the
sea ‘ ; upur~aos,in Job 38 30 corruptly daepoGs [gen.] ;
in Prov. 8 2 7 ea’civLepwv [?] ; Prov. 8 28 77js h’oirpaviru.
Ecclus. 4 3 2 3 a?? [apuuaov ; in b Heb. gives oinnl, 48
a h $ v ; but the clause is corrupt]).
Originally W b m was feminine; note the phrase ilz? Dim,
Gen. 711 ; Is. 5110 Am. 7 4 Ps. 367 and the plur. ending atA.
See also Gen. 4825 (y<s 6 @ q s T ~ V T Dt. ~ ) 3313 Ezek. 31415.
But, at first apparently with the plur. form, the original view
came to he disregarded, and t c h d n z treated as a synonym of D;
(plur. ; Ex. 155 [ I F ~ Y T OSS[] ~ < p a ]Ps. 7717 10726. Sing. ; Ezek.
314 Jn. 26 Hah. 8 I O Ps. 428 [not 1046, but cp B a . ] , Job % 14.
On Dt. 8 7 see KBn. Syn. 467).
See ABYSS, D RAGON, end.
DEER, FALLOW (YiDv?), Dt. 1 4 5 I I<. 423 [513]
A V ; see R OE, 4.
DEFILE, DEFILEMENT (KDQ),Lev. 1824f. See
C OMMON, and cp CLEAN, 14.
DEGREE occurs in a passage of some interest with
reference to early church offices. What is the ‘good
degree ’ (AV) or rather, ‘ gdod standing ’ (KV) which is
assured to those who have ’ served well as deacons ’ ?
paepbs KaX6s isthe phrase. According to Hort (Chv.E d .
102) it means the vantage-ground of influence and moral
authority won by theexcellent discharge ofdiaconal duties.
Theodoret, de Wette, etc., however, find a reference
to a divine reward at the great judgment ; whilst Jerome
and other Fathers, Baur, Holtzmann, and von Soden
think it is promotion to the episcopate that is intended.
Observe that the qualities required of an P ~ U K O ~ OinS
vv. 2-7 are analogous to those required of a deacon.
On ‘songs of degrees’ (a purely conventional rendering) see
PSALMS ; M the ‘ degrees ’ of z K. 20 g (=Is. 38 8), see DIAL.
1054
 DEHAVITES
DEHAVITES, RV Dehaites (Hl!?JT, Kt., but H!.:?,
Kr.; A A ~ A I O I[A], -hi01[L], but A omits ' Elamites'),
generally regarded as one of the peoples represented in
Saniaria among the colonists of ASNAPPER(Ezra 49).
They stand apparently between the Susanchites (Susi-
anians) and the Elamites. No plausible identification
has yet been offered (see Schr. KA 7W 376, 616).
The reason is plain, as soon as it is mentioned. If we point,
with G . Hoffmann ( Z A 2 54), Uln.1, and take this with the follow-
ing word K.:Q\&', we shall get the phrase ' that is, Elamites' (@B
already has o'l c k n v $hapahi) : which is an explanatory gloss on
the preceding word ' Susanchites. So Marti, Gram. de? 6i6.
d y a m . Spy. 40".
DEKAR (TRY), I K. 4gAV ; RV BEN-DEICER, AVW
(4.u.).
BEN-DEKAR
DELAIAH (q?&?, ;I:$perhaps
?, 'God hath drawn
out,' § 30 ; AAAAI,A [HA], -AC [BQLI, Some compare
AE),&IACTAPTOC in Jos. c. Ap. 118, which is more
correctly given by Niese as AEACTAPTOC).
I. Son of Shemaiah, a prince of Jehoiakim's court ; Jer. 36
(65 43) 12, SaALas [Kl, -haas [AI); 25 (-hama [Nc.cmg. SUP.],
yoGohLar [BA?]).
2. Head of one of the priestly courses ; I Ch. 24 18 (SaAara
'"2 aGahhar v. 77 [Bl).
(AV DALAIAH),a descendant of Zerubhahel (Aaaia [B],
-hca [Ll) I Ch. 324.
4. Th; B'ne Delaiah were a post-ex:lic family who were un-
able to prove their pedigree; Ezra260 (Aaxcu [Bl, Gahaca [Ll)
= Neh. 7 62 (&a [E])= D ALAN , I Esd. 5 37 (auau [Bl, Gahav [A]).
5. Father of Shemaiah (-hsa IS], -Maras [Ll), Neh. 6 IO.
DELILAH ("$7, 'delicate?' 67 ; Aah[s]lAa
[BAL] ; b?, DALILAH), Judg. 164-20. Whether the
name has, like SAMSON [p.~.],any mythological counec-
tion we cannot at present say. Delilah dwelt in the vale
of SOKEK(g.n. ), and we may presume that the tradition
regarded her as a Philistine. Her temporary relation
to the Philistine princes hardly warrants us in calling
her a 'political agent' (Smith's OB2)s . w . ) . See
SAMSON.
DELIVERER, THE (0 PYOMENOC [Ti. WH])
Rom. 1126 11 Is. 5920(5&!3); see GOEL.
DELUGE. Postponing the various interesting ques-
tions, as well of comparative folk-lore ($5 18-20) as of
biblical theology (I§ I O 8 17), which are connected
with the title of this article, let us confine ourselves at
1. Babylonian present to the reZation between the
Flood-story. Hedrew FZood-story and ihut of Buby-
Zonia. Of all the parallel traditions of
a deluge the Babylonian is undeniably the most import-
ant, because the points of contact between it and the
Hebrew story are so striking that the view of the de-
pendence of one of the two on the other is directly
suggested even to the most cautious of students. The
account in the Berossiau excerpts will be referred to below
(see 1 6 ) ; but we may state here that the genuine
Babylonian character of the Berossian story has, since
1872, been raised above all doubt by George Smiths
discovery, in the remains of the libraryof ASur-bani-pal,
of a copy of a very ancient cuneiform Deluge-story
derived, it would seem, from the city of Surippak
in Babylonia, and by a more recent discovery by Scheil
2. Epic of (see 6). The former story fills the first
GilgameS. four columns o! the eleventh tablet of the
epic of GilgameS,l a cycle of legends to
which, in studying the early narratives of Genesis, we
have so frequently to refer (see, e.g., CAINITES, 6).
A paraphrase of its contents is all that we can give
here : translations of recent date and critical in character
will be found in K A TC2)5 5 8 (by Paul Haupt) ; Jensen's
Kosm. 367 j? ; A. Jeremias's Zzdudar-Nimrod, 3f 8 ;
Muss-Arnolt's essay in BidL World, 3 109 8 ( 9 4 ) ;
[The exploits of this hero are celebrated in the twelve chants
1 Pay. 10;).
or lays of the epic. The text of the Deluge-story was published
in 4 R (1st ed. j o J , 2nd ed. 43J) and most recently by Haupt,
D m Bab. iVivwodejos, 95-150('91)l.
1055
DELUGE
and Gunkel's Schiipl: 4 2 3 3 (by H. Zimmern).l The
gods, more especially Bel, wroth at the sins of men,
determine to bring upon them a judgment consisting in
a great all-destroying flood. One of the gods, however,
namely Ea, selects a favoured man, named PBr(?)-
napi6ti,2 of the city of surippak, for deliverance. This
is the Xisuthrus of Berossus, and be it observed that the
name Xisuthrus is found, in all probability, by transpos-
ing the two component parts of Atra-basis-i.e., ' the
very wise,' or, still better perhaps (so Haupt), ' the very
pious '-one designation of the hero of the cuneiform
account. P%r(?)-napiStiis in a dream acquainted by Ea
with the purpose of the gods, and commanded to build
a ship (elippu, cp Arain. N&), the form of which is
prescribed, as a means of saving his life, and to take
with him into it 'seeds of life of all kinds' (Z. 25).
Accordingly, the ship is built ; its dimensions3 are
given with great precision by the poet, who mentions
that it w-as coated within and without with bitumen
(Kupru),and that cells were made in it. Into this vessel
PBr(?)-napiStibrings gold and silver and ' seeds of life of
all kinds,' besides his family and servants, beasts of the
field, and wild beasts of the field (ZZ. 8 4 6 ) . Shortly
before the Flood, the beginning of which is made known
to him by a special sign, PBr(?)-napiHtihimself enters the
ship and bars the door, while his steersman, named
Puzur-Bel, takes over the direction of the vessel (2. 94).
Upon this the deluge begins : it is thought of as an
unloosing of all the elemental powers, torrents of rain,
storm and tempest; together with thick darkness. T h e
waters rise higher and higher, till the whole land be-
comes a sea ; all men and animals, except those in the
ship, perish. Six days and nights the flood rages ; on
the seventh day a calm sets in. Then PBr(?)-napilti opens
the air-hole (Z. 136 ; nuppu~u=nanpas'u,cp aai), and
sees the widespread ruin. At the same time land
emerges, and the ship grounds on the mountain of
Nisir (Z. 1 4 1 ) . ~ After seven days more PBr(?)-napisti
sends out successively a dove, a swallow, and a raven.
The dove and the swallow, finding no place of rest,
return to the ship; but the raven is seen no more.
Upon this PSr(?)-napiSti clears the ship and offers a
sacrifice on the summit of the mountain. ' T h e gods
smelt the savour, the gods smelt the sweet savour. The
gods gathered like flies about the sacrificer' (ZZ. 160-
162). As for Bel, however, he is at first displeased at
the deliverance of P%r(?)-napiStiand his household ; but
on the representations of Ea,5 who points out the rash-
ness of his act in causing a universal deluge, and
recommends the sending of wild animals, famine, and
pestilence, as a more fitting mode of punishing human
sins, Bel becomes reconciled to the escape of PBr(?)-
napilti, and even gives him and his wife a share of the
divine nature, and causes them to dwell ' afar off, at the
mouth of the rivers' (ZZ. 1g9:205)..
Before attempting to explain this Deluge-story, and
comparing it with the corresponding Hebrew account,
we must consider the position which it occupies in Baby-
lonian literature. It stands at present, as we have seen,
in close connection with other traditional stories, and
particularly with the cycle of GilgameS-legends. The
hero, GilgameS, who, after his various adventures, is
visited with a sore disease, sets out on the way to his
1 The references here given to lines of the Deluge-story accord
with Zimmern's numeration.
2 [Cp 5 f j d. The reading of the first part of the name
is uncertain ; PSr.napiSti ('sprout, or ,offspring, of life'), Sit-
napigti ('the escaped one'), kamag-napiSti ('sun of life'), urn-
napiHti ('day of life'), and Niih-napizti (see N OAH ) have found
their respeciive supporters.] - .
3 [See Haupt Amer. /ourn. of PhA 941gfiI
4 On the la& and mountains of Nisir. CD AnnaZs o f A&w-
;ox).
xZs;r.fi,z/, 2 y4-39 (KPZJ 2 I The) &re: nituatedbetween
the Tigris and thc Lower Zab, between 35' and 36" N. 131. (Jlel.
fi [Jastrow sees herc traces of a collisioii between the cultus of
&I and that of La.]
6 [See below $ 15 (end), and, for a lcgcndnry p3rdlel D 14.
1056
 DELUGE
ancestor PHr(?)-napiSti,whose dwelling is remote from
that of all other men, beyond the river of death (cp
C AINITES , Q 6, ENOCH, 5 2). From this fortunate
possessor of eternal life, GilgameS hopes to learn how to
obtain, not only the cure of his disease, hut also the same
supreme felicity. PHr(?)-napisti answers by a detailed
description of the Deluge, in which he was himself so
prominent a figure, and at the end of which he was
admitted to the life of the gods. Obviously, the present
connection of the Deluge-story with the GilgameS-tradi-
tion is secondary in character, and it becomes all the
more reasonable to maintain that the Hebrew Deluge-
story too has only an artificial connection with the frame-
work in which it now stands. Noah may originally
have had no more connection with Nimrod than Par(?)-
napiSti with GilgameB (see NIMROD, NOAH).
The secondary character of the present connection of
the Babylonian Deluge-story being granted, can we
3. Hint from venture to indicate a more original connec-
B ~ ~ ~ s s u tion?
s . According to B&r6ssus,lXisuthrus
(the hero of the Deluge) was the last of
the ten primitive Babylonian kings, whose immensely
long lives so forcibly remind us of those ascribed to the
antediluvian patriarchs in Genesis, and, as has been
repeatedly pointed out,2are closely related to the theory
of an artificially-calculatedcosmic year. The Berossian
cosmic year had the enormous duration of 518,400
ordinary years, and each of its twelve months consisted
of 12 sari-ie., (12x 3600), 43,200 ordinary years.
According to this system, ten cosmic months are equiva-
lent to 432,000 years, and this is exactly the number of
the years assigned by BEr6ssus to the ten antediluvian
Babylonian kings (cp C HRONOLOGY, Q 4, end). The
theory of the Babylonians appears to have been that
these ten primitive kings reigned during the first ten
' cosmic months of the great cosmic year (each king for
a cosmic month), and that the Deluge fell at the end of
the tenth month. Now, the eleventh month was for
the Babylonians (who began the year with the vernal
equinox) the time from the middle of January to the
middle of February-in other words, the middle of the
rainy or winter season.
It is also to the winter season that the position of
the Delnpel narrative in the GikameS- eDic uoints-
Y Y I .
more particularly to the eleventh month
4.
Sebiif (Jan. -Feb. ). For, as Sir Henry
by epic' Rawlinson saw. the twelve tablets of
the adventures of Gilgame: stand in relation to the
passage of the sun-god through the twelve months of
the year, and the principal event on every tablet has its
analogue in the corresponding one of the twelve signs
of the zodiac, which, as is now certainly known, had
their origin in Babylonia. Now, it is the eleventh tablet
that contains the Deluge - story, and the eleventh
zodiacal sign is Aquarius. The conclusion is obvious.
Lastly, it is also probable that the Assyrian name of the
eleventh month, Sabatu (probably ' destruction '), and
its ideographic designation as ' (month of the) curse of
rain,' both have reference to the Deluge. Clearly the
connection of the Deluge-story with the story of the ten
primitive kings is much more close and original than its
present connection with the GilgameB-legends. The
fixing of the great catastrophe in the eleventh month is
a fact of importance with reference to the question,
which will shortly ( Q 8) claim to be answered : Has the
Deluge-story a historical kernel, or is it simply and
entirely a nature-myth?
The elaborate account in the Gilgameg-epic is not
the only cuneiform record of the Babylonian Deluge-
Peiser has published ( Z A 4369J
5. 3rd Bab. s p y .
document [ 891) a mythological text, with a map,
giving a primitive picture of Baby-
(Peiser)' lonia at the time of the Deluge under
1 For the Berossian story see below $16.
2 See especially Marcud v. Niebdbr, Gesch. Asszlrs m d
Ba6eJsC57L w.iZ
34 I057
DELUGE
Par(?)-napiSti. The text is very fragmentary ; but
as far as it can, with the help of the map, be under-
stood, this is the notion of the Flood which it suggests.
-The Persian Gulf was conceived of as encompassing
Babylonia, and round about this ocean lay seven islands.
The mountain of the Deluge was due north of Babylon,
but still within the tract enclosed by the ocean. It is
noteworthy that the time of the Deluge is apparently
designated in this text-'the year of the great serpent.'
[Further, among the tablets in the Constantinople
museum Scheil has recently discovered a mutilated frag-
6. Scheil,s ment of a new Deluge-story, containing
part of columns I$ 7 3 In the twelfth line
occurs the word bibif ( ' effaced I ) , which,
according to Scheil, suggests that our tab1et.k but a
copy of a much older original which had been injured.
The date of the tablet itself, however, is sufficiently
ancient : 'month of Sebat, day 28, the year in which
Ammi-zaduga built the fortress of Ammi-zaduga at the
mouth of the Euphrates'-not much later than 2140
B.C. By whom the story is told, is not evident. The
complaints of mankind are spoken of first : the god
Ramman appears to be angry with them. Thereupon
a god pronounces sentence upon mankind ; reference
is made to a destroying rain-storm. In the seventh
column the god Ea speaks. He expostulates with the
other god for wishing to destroy men. Some men at
least, Ea will save; 'let them come into [the vessel ..
.],
.. the oar (?) ... let him come ... let him bring
. .. let him ... .' That the great Deluge is re-
ferred to is now clear: the occurrence of the word
ab1idu must dispel all doubt. In the eighth column
only two lines are complete ; but these contain a refer-
ence to Atra-basis (Xisuthrus), who is introduced
speaking ' to his lord'-Le., to the god who has proved
himself a friend to the human race. The name of the
scribe suggests to Scheil that this version of the Deluge-
story is that which was current in the city of Sippar
(see 16).]
W e have also a list of royal names which bears the in-
scription, ' These are the postdiluvian kings of Babylon,'
thus implicitly confirming the Berossian
7. Other
between kings before and
references. kings
distinction
after the Deluge (cp C O T 161).
The word here used for Deluge is n6Ubu (cp below, Q 13),
which elsewhere is of frequeiit occurrence,* the Deluge
being referred to as an event of hoary antiquity-e.g.,
when it is said of old inscriptions that they go back to
the time before the Deluge (adzibu). See TEL-ABIB.
W e have now to take up the question, What was
probably the true origin of this Babylonian Deluge-
*. Origin of story, looking at it by itself, without
Deluge-story. comparing the Hebrew records ? The
first thing that strikes us is the harmony
between the narrative and-the local conditions of Baby-
lonia, which justifies us in regarding that country as the
native place of the story. It is more difficult to deter-
mine whether any real historical event lies at the founda-
tion of the narrative, or whether we have to do with a
mere myth. In itself it would, of course, not be incon-
ceivable that in days of yore an unusually extensive
flood from the Persian Gulf, combined with continuous
rain, hurst upon the Babylonian lowlands, and destroyed
countless human lives ; that a dim tradition of this event
was preserved ; and that the Babylonian Deluge-story
was a last deposit produced by this genuine occurrence.
Judging, however, from what is known of the growth of
myths and legends, especially among the Babylonians,
1 The reason is that one element in the name of the scribe is
Aya (Aa). Now it was chiefly at Sippar that the goddess Aya
was honoured in conjunction with S a m J (the sun-god): her name
was borne by the inhabitants.' Scheil, 'Notes d'bpigraphie e;
darch6ologie assvriennes. Tirage - B -part du Recueil de travaux,
etc., vol. xx. ('93.
2 [Ab,Zw, Storm,' is also used as a title for the god Marduk's
weapon in the Creation-story, Tab. iv. 49, and King Ijammu-rZbi
calls himself a6226 tukrcnzatitlr,'tempest of battles,' KB 3a 115.1
1058
 DELUGE
we think that this is far from probable. The entire
character of the narrative, and the connection with other
myths indicated above, are much more favourable to
the view that we have to do, not with a legend based
upon facts, but with a myth which has assumed the form
of a history (cp below, col. 1063, note 3). The colouring
may have been partly supplied by the cyclones which,
in an alluvial country like Babylonia, frequently make
their appearance from the s e a ; but the origin of this
myth will have to be sought in quite another direction.
W e noticed above that the great catastrophe is placed
by the Babylonians in the middle of the winter season,
in the eleventh month1 ($ebHt= Jan.-Feb.), which was
regarded as specially the time of storms, and had for its
patron the rain-god and storm-god RammHn. To the
present writer it seems most probable that the Deluge-
story was originally a nature-myth, representing the
phenomena of winter, which in Babylonia especially is
a time of rain. The hero rescued in the ship must
originally have been the sun-god.2 Thus, the Deluge
and the deliverance of PHr(?)-napi6tiare ultimately but a
variant to the Babylonian Creation-myth (see C REATION,
§ 2.3).Now we can understand the very peculiar
designation of the Deluge-period mentioned already.
T h e ' great serpent ' is no other than the personified
ocean, which on the old Babylonian map (see above,
5) encircles Babylonia, just as ' leviathan the wreathed
serpent' (Is. 27 I) is the world-encircling ocean personified
as a serpent : it is the same monster that is a central
figure in the Creation-story.
The question as to the relation of the Babylonian to
the Hebrew Deluge-story can now be satisfactorily
9. answered. If, as we believe, the
former had its origin in Babylonia,
story. and ,is fundamentally a myth of winter
and the sun-god, the Hebrew story must have been
borrowed from the Babylonian. In this case, Dillmann's
theory of a common Semitic 'tradition, which developed
among the Hebrews in one way, and among the
Babylonians in another, is once more put out of court
(see C REATION, 4). H. Z.
The Israelitish story of the submergence of the earth
. -
( L e . . of the Dart known to the narrators), bv- a Deluge is
I
depend- found in the Book of Genesis (6 5-9 19)
on J2. in two forms, belonging respectively
to 1, and to P. which have been welded
together (see GENE&, § 8). 'There are also allusions
to the story (all late) in Ezelr. 14 14 20 Is. 549 Ps.29 IO
Is. 245 18 Job22153 (?). It remains to be seen, how-
ever, whether the two forms of the tradition in Genesis are
really independent ; it may be that, as in the case of the
Creation-story (see CREATION, § IZ), P has only given a
somewhat different setting to data which he has derived
from Jz It is no objection to this view that P s account is
longer and in some respects less fragmentary than that of
Jz The editor (or editors)natTxally preferred the former,
because P s work was systematically adopted as the
framework of the combined historical narrative. The
three principal points in which P is fuller than Jz are
( I ) the announcement of the coming deluge to Noah,
and the command to build an ark (or chest), the
measurements of which are prescribed ; ( 2 ) the notice
of the place where the ark grounded; and ( 3 ) the
appointment of the rainbow as the sign of the covenant
between God and man. On all these points, we may
1 The fragments of BL'r6ssus mention Daisius (May-June)
as the month of the Deluge. This notice is suspicious on
several grounds. The writer who excerpted BL'rosws probably
identified the eighth Babylonian month Arah-samna= Marl>eHwin
(=Oct.-Nov.) with the eighth Syro-Macedonian month Daisius.
The biblical recension alsomakes the Deluge begin in MarbeBwin.
On this view, both BSrossus and the O T laced the beginning
of the Deluge early in the winter, insteatof in the middle of
that season-an easily intelligible variant.
2 [The same view is given in Che.'s art. 'Deluge,' ZB(Q).
See below.]
3 Gunkel .SchZ#J 46. See BEHEMOTH and LEVIATHAN, 5
3 sERPIENT, 5 3w).
1059
DELUGE
safely presume, information was given in the original
Jz To suppose that the latter began with the words,
' And Yahwe said to Noah,Go thou with all thy house
into the ark,' would be absurd, and Rudde seems to be
right in supposing that the measurements of the ark
in Gen. 715 come from J,, who on his side may have
derived them from some form of the Babylonian myth
(cp GOPHER-WOOD). Budde has also made it probable
that J, gave a statement as to the resting-place of the
ark, which he placed among the mountains E. of Ur-
Kasdim. P knew that there were higher mountains
than these in the N., and transferred the locality to
A RARAT ( q.n., 3) ; though it is probable that he had
the support of the later Babylonian tradition (cp
Beressus).
Nor need we doubt that the episode of the rainbow
also was told by . -To,
- to whose delicate iinagination it
I
Rainbow would be in a high degree congenial. It
episode. is true, there is nothing like it in the
Deluge-story given in the GilganieS-epic :
but we do not know all the-variants of the-Babylonian
myth. Most probably, however, J, may claim the
honour of having invented this exquisite sign of the
covenant. The covenant is distinctly Israelitish, and
the sign should be Israelitish too. A probable point of
contact for the rainbow episode is suggested by these
words of the Babylonia pqet (U. 92-102,Jensen) :
' A dark cloud came up from the foundation of heaven ;
RammHn (the storm-god) thundered therein. ...
The
noise of Ranimgn penetrated to heaven ; it turned all
brightness into obscurity.' The flashes of lightning are
the storm-god's arrows (Ps. 763 [4] 7848 Hab. ~ I I ) ,
and when the storm ceases, the god lays aside his bow
(this is said, e.g., of the god Indra, after his battle with
the demons). If the Hebrew story in its original form
referred to the thundering of YahwB, we can well
believe that when J, appended the account of the
covenant he said to himself that the bow which Yahwb
had laid aside could be no other than the rainbow.
There is, at any rate, no exact mythic parallel elsewhere
to the use made of the rainbow in Gen. 9 12-17.
There are also other points of difference between J2
and P. (,a,) The latter is without the vivid details of
the sending out of the birds (Gem 86-12,
12. p,s
deviations. J,) ; such a prosaic writer would probably
think these suuerfluous. (6) A more
important point is P's non-recognition of the distinction
between clean and unclean animals (Gen. 7 2 8 J2), and
his not mentioning the sacrifice which, according to J2
(Gen. S z o ) , Noah offered after leaving the ark. The
cause of these deviations of P is obvious. His historical
theory of the origin of the cultus imposed on hini the
necessity of harnionising the tradition with it.
( 6 ) Not less remarlcable, is the difference between Jz
and P as to the duration of the Deluge. According to
Jz, seven days elapsed after the command to Noah to
enter the ark ; then the rain-storm came, and it lasted
forty days and forty nights ; then in three times seven
days the waters disappeared. The computation of P
gives more occasion to debate.
I t is stated in M T (7 11) that the deluge began on the seven-
teenth of the second month, and that on the twenty-seventh of
the second month in the following year the earth was dry (8 14).
If this is coi-rect, the flood lasted I year 11 days; i.e., if the
lunar year forms the basis of the computation,, 354+11;da,ys
which make a solar year. This looks very much like an editonal
correction ; the flood really lasted a lunar year. @ however,
reads in 7 I T ' twenty-seventh' (BADEL) instead of ' se;enteenth.'
I n this case the solar year would be meant,, and the duration of
the deluge (365 days) would be the same as that of the life of
Enoch (365 years). We also learn that 'the waters prevailed
on the earth 150 . (7
. davs' . 8 .q).. This ought to be eaual to
. 2 4. CP
--
1 Cp Ps. 2910. P (711) ascribes the deluge partly to rain,,
partly to the breaking up of the 'fountains of the great deep
@ e . , of the waters under the earth, cp Gen.4925). This
approaches more nearly to the Babylonian account which
speaks of the sea as being driven on the land by a hdrricane.
Possiblv To. in its orieinal form. made some reference to the sea
or to thk sgbterranean waters. .
2 On P's year cp alno YEAR.
1060
 DELUGE
flve months 84). But 150 days are more than five lunar
(711
months. it is clear that solar months must be meant (see
howeve: Di. Gen. 129f: and his dissertation on the CFlendar:
Monafs&r. der Berl. ALad., 1881, pp. 9 3 0 3 ; Bacon, Chron-
ology of the Account of the Flood in P,’ Hebraica, 8 (‘92)
79-a8 : Nowack, H A 2 220).
W e are thus enabled to some extent to reconstruct
the Deluge-story of Jz No doubt some archaic incidents
have been lost, but P has preserved three
13.
narrative. of the most important details which were
found in the earlier narrative, though he
has moved the Mountain of the Ark northwards. H e
has also retained sqsp ( K ~ T U K X U U ~ ~JSi )s, term for the
Deluge : 1 outside of Jz and P in the Deluge-story, the
term occurs only in Ps. 2910 (post-exilic), and in Geu.
6 17 7 6 an editor has glossed it by the word p:g ‘ waters’ ;
also ”!?, ‘ chest ’ a ( K ~ ~ w v ~Vg.
s , urca), used elsewhere
only of Moses’ ark of Nile-reeds (Ex. 2 3 5 , f?[c]rpis
[BAF] O T J ~ T[L]), and we may presume that the words
122 (see G OPHER- WOOD) and i g b 3 ‘bitumen,’ both
occurring in 6 14 and nowhere else, were retained from
the lost narrative of Jz
But what of Jl? Did his narrative of the origin of
-~
man contain any Deluge-story? No-at any rate, if
14,J1 had no the theory ably propounded by Budde
J i s narrative contained
Deluge-story. be Gen.accepted.
246-3 412n 16b-24 61 f: 4 920.27
(but on ZJ. 27 see JAPHETH) 11 I-a : it inciiidedno’Deluge:
story. In this record Noah appears as the first agri-
culturist, and the inventor of wine. A corruption of
the text, and perhaps editorial convenience, led to h i
identification with the hero of the Deluge, who (it is
held) had originally the name of Enoch, but had now to
take that of Noah in exchange (see N OAH ). W e need
not, however, suppose that the Deluge-myth was uu-
known to the Israelites before Jz wrote. It is in reality
a pendant to the Creation-story : we should naturally
have expected both stories to reach the Israelites at the
same time. W e have, indeed, no direct evidence of
this ; but the expression 5i-.~ghas a very archaic appear-
ance. At one time $ 3 must ~ have had a meaning in
Hebrew, and that time must have been long anterior
to J2. But the Deluge-myth, like the companion-story
which underlies Gen! 1, did not, it seems, take a firm
hold on the Israelitish people : when J2, or (more prob-
ably) the earlier writer from whom he draws, shaped
his story, the Deluge-myth had passed out of mind, and
needed to be revived by the help of some one acquainted
with cuneiform documents (cp C REATION, § II$ ). ( a )
Of the earliest Israelitish Deluge-myth
15. Other
Semitic Del.- and of its Canaanitish original we know
(6) Lucian (160 A.D.), laugh-
stories lost. nothing.
ing m his sleeve, gives the Syrian Flood-
story of his day ; but it has been partly Hellenised, and
probably Judaised (a ‘great box or chest,’ Xdpvag, is
spoken of), and we can lay no stress upon it. Its origin
was no doubt Babylonian. ‘ Most people,’ says Lucian,
‘ relate that the founder of the temple (of Hierapolis)
was Deucalion-Sisythes.’ ( c ) The Phcenician version of
the myth, if there ever was one, has p e r i ~ h e d . ~( d ) The
1 h D , ‘destruction’ :hence ‘deluge’ from Bab.-ass. nabah,
‘to destroy’ : cp n.$a~, n.5~1,a softened form of &,,,
Nu. 1333. The word was chosen probably as a synonym for
Gen.64
Bab.-ass. adlilu (deluge) on account of the assonance when the
Bab. Deluge-myth first decame naturalised in C a n a d . On the
etym. cp Frd. Del. Par. 156; Haupt, in ICATP) 66; Cheyne
PsaZnls(l),380;Nehmica, 3 175; Jensen, Ezp. Times, 9 (‘98j
284 (derives from 5?a ‘to rnin’ (against which see Del. Gmesis
r871 172, and cp Khnig, Leh& 2 153). On the form of the
Syriac loan-word mdnzzil cp KBnig 1495. Such a notable
mythological word as a6& was ceriain to be naturalised in
Canaan m some form (cp BELIAL).
a >?? may be of Egyptian, but can scarcely be of Bah.
origin, as Jensen ( Z A 4 z73A) represents. The word +ditim
in the phrase inn eZipPz’ ;eAif&z is most naturally connectec
with z/yla.
3 Cp KupVi in the parallel passage in the Gilgameg-epic.
4 De Dea Syra, chap. 1 2 5 : cp Jos. Ant. i. 3 6.
5 Gruppe’s opposite v(ew ( Z A T W 9 1 3 5 8 1’891) is unsatis
factory.
1061
DELUGE
k a b s , like the Egyptians,l certainly never had any,
hough the legendary el-Hidr (see col. 1064,n. I); wrho
n the Alexander-legend conducts the hero to the waters
)f life, and in the Koran, according to the commentators
Sur. 1859), is found by Moses ‘ a t the confluence of
wo seas (rivers ?),’ may be a reflection of Piir-napisti, or
,ather Hasis-atra (from a shortened form of which el-
2ie may be derived).
Outside of Babylonia, therefore, the only extant
jemitic tradition is that of Jz and P. This is obviously
msed on the Babylonian myth, for the substitution of a
chest ’ for a ‘ship ’ is due either to reflection or to a
:onfusion between two Babylonian words, and in any
:ase not to independent tradition. J i s account is the
ypical one ; P s statements as to the length of Enoch’s
ife and the duration of the Deluge seem to rest on
rewish Aggada.
The typical Babylonian myth is that in the GilgameS-
:uic (see above), which appears to be the local tradition
- \
16. Berossiad of the ciG of Surippak (see Frd. Del.
Par. 224; Jensen, Kosmol 387); but
variant‘ the variant discovered by Peiser ( 8 q\,
and the much fuller one transmitted byeBi?r6ssus,f-ais’o
are valuable. The Babylonian king, Xisuthrus, is the
Ilero of the Berossian Deluge-story ; in this way Berassus
3isguised the name of Atra-basis, transposing the two
parts of the name or title.4 Xisuthrus, he says, was
accompanied on board the ship ( CJK&+OS, nXoiov, vaFs) by
wife, children, friends, and steersman, and took with
him quadrupeds and birds. He was ordered to turn
the course of his vessel ‘ towards the gods.’ How long
the flood lasted we are not told. When it went down,
he sent out birds three’ times ; the third time the birds
did not return. Then he discovered that the ship
had grounded ‘ o n a certain mountain.’ With wife,
daughter, and steersman, he disembarked, erected an
altar, sacrificed, and then passed out of sight with his
companions. Those who remained heard a voice which
announced that Xisuthrus had been taken to be with
the gods as a reward for his piety ; also that the land
in which they were was Armenia (cp Gen. 84 P). They
were, further, commanded to dig up the sacred books
which Xisuthrus, before embarking, had buried at Sis-
para to transmit them to mankind. This form of the
story was, therefore, the local tradition of the ancient city
of Sippar, on the left bank of the Euphrates (the Abzr
e u b b n of to-day). W e may plausibly assume that the
fragment discovered by Scheil (see 6) also belonged to
the story current a t Sippar. Here, however, we find,
only Atra-hasis as the name of the hero of the
Deluge. This name, however, is perhaps to be regarded
rather as a title than as a personal name.
The epic narrative fills np the lacuna in the Berossian
story. It presupposes a division of the period of the
l,. The Epic, Deluge into an (at present) uncertain
number of weeks. The same predilec-
Jz,and tion for the number seven is visible in
Gen. 523. J i s account (see Gen. 7 2 4 8 [6]1012).
Similarly the epic agrees more definitely than BErassus
with Jz in its notice respecting the birds. Seven days
after the calming of the waters, Par-napixti sends out
first a dove, then a swallow, then a raven. Jz less
naturally puts the raven before the dove : probably he
did not draw directly from a Babylonian source (see
above, § 11, e n d ; 14, end). The other details of
the Deluge have been simplified by Jz (or his prede-
1 There is no Egyptian Flood-myth. I t is hardly allowable
to quote the myth of the Destruction of Man (see Maspero,
Dawn of Ciu. 164-168)as a ‘dry deluge-myth,’ for the story has
a ritual purpose.
2 Cp Jeremias, Izduhar-Nimmd, 3 6 3
3 See Miiller, Fragnl. Histor. GIIPC.2 501 (Eus. Chron., ed.
SchBne, 1 ~ g s ) ,and c Eus. P~lpp.E71. 9 12 (Abydenus)
where the hero’s name is gisithrus. Lucian (see above, 5 15 (A))
had heard the name Sisythes.
4 Probably, according to Haupt, the adverbial accusative atra
was affixed in the later period of the language (Proc. of Amer.
Or. Soc., March 1894).
1062
 DELUGE
cessor). The rather grotesque polytheistic setting has
disappeared : P , who retained the plural form ( ' Let us
make man ') in Gen. 1 2 6 , found nothing corresponding
to this in the old Deluge-story. I n Gen. 821 ('And
Yahwe smelled the sweet savour ') we find a reminiscence
of the mythic description in the epic (see above, § z ) ;
but the most startling part of the description has
vanished. The cause assigned to the Deluge is nobler
in Jz ( P ) than in the epic. In the latter (ZZ. 168-175)
Ea reproaches Be1 with having punished the innocent
with the guilty : the offence consisted, it appears, in the
neglect of the accustomed sacrifices to the g0ds.l In
Jz (P), on the other hand, no special stress is laid on
sacrifices, and no limitation is made to the sweeping de-
claration that < the earth is filled with violence' (Gen.
6 13), whilst the injunction laid upon the survivors after the
Deluge is not that they should be ' reverent' in a ritual
sense, but that they should not deface the image of God
by shedding man's blood (Gem 96). The close of the epic
narrative, however, redeems the character of the poet,
and irresistibly suggests the theory, supported elsewhere,
that ' Noah ' should rather be ' Enoch.' It was for the
children of the Hebrew Xisuthrus to re-found a human
race of finer quality than that which had perished.
Xisuthrus himself was too great and good a man to
encounter once more the ordinary trials of humanity.
Atra-hasis was transported to the earthly Paradise, ' afar
off at the mouth of the rivers (the Euphrates and the
Tigris).' The Hebrew Xisuthrus, like his model in the
Berossian account, 'was not (=disappeared), for God
had taken him ' (Gen. 5 24).
Both BErdssus and the priestly writer represent a period
later than Ah-bLni-pal's epic. The earthly Paradise
18. Primitive was no doubt the original home of the
ether-myth. translated Xisuthrus, though we cannot
suppose that it was always placed ' a t
the mouth of the &ers ' : mythic geogriphy is notori-
ously fluctuating. The earliest location of Paradise was
on the slopes of the mysterious mythic mountain which
reached upward to the sky (cp CHERUB, i. 7). When
the ides of an earthly Paradise had worn out, men
thought of Xisuthrus as in heaven, and this is really
more in accord with the earliest form of the myth.
For, though the theory offered above by Zimmern (18)
probably does embody the interpretation of the most
cultured Babylonian priests, we can hardly regard it
as a complete explanation. I t is more like the after-
thought of a semi-philosophic age than like the sponta-
neous imagination of primitive men. There would be
more plausibility in the notion that some definite his-
torical catastrophe lies at the root of the story, if we
could only believe. that tradition could preserve so
remote an occurrence. The truth is that a definite
occurrence does lie at the root of the story : only, it
is an imaginary, not a historical occurrence.
The Deluge-myth in Babylonia and elsewhere seems
to have grown out of an archaic ether-myth, akin to
that prevalent in Egypt. Originally the sun was im-
agined as a man voyaging on a boat in the heavenly
ocean. When this story had been told and retold a
long time, rationalism suggested that the sea was not
in heaven but on earth, and observation of the damage
wrought in winter by incessant rains and the inundations
of great rivers suggested the introduction of correspond-
ing details into the new earthly Deluge-myth. This
theory is supported by the Polynesian Deluge-myths
collected by Ge14and,~the origin of which is still plainly
visible. In these, the sun and the moon were imagined
sometimes as peaks emerging out of a flood, sometimes
1 Throughout the epic-story the sacrificial interest is pro-
minent. BBrBssus, too, relates that a voice from heaven bade
the friends whom Xisuthrus left behind be reverent towards the
gods (Bsomcpak)-i.e., punctual in sacrifices.
2 Probably an island in the Persian Gulf is meant (Jensen,
KosmoL 213).
3 Waitr-Gerland Ant7zropoZoe.e der NaiumoZker, 6 296-373.
See also Schirren: Wanderungen der NeuseeZ$nder ('56), p.
193.
1063
DELUGE
as canoes, sometimes as a man and his wife ; the stars,
sometimes as ships, sometimes as human beings-the
children of the sun and moon ; the clouds too were
described as ships-the 'ships of Tangaloa' (the
heaven- and air-god). The flood itself was called
sometimes 'flood of the moon' (so at Hawaii), some-
times ' flood of day's eye,'-ie., the sun (so at Tahiti).
This accounts for the strongly mythological characters of
PBr-napizti in Babylonia and of Maui in New Zealand,
who are, in fact, solar personages. Enoch too must be
classed in this category ; his perfect righteousness and
superhuman wisdom1 now first becomeintelligible. More-
over, we now comprehend how the goddess Sabitu (the
guardian of the entrance to the sea) can say to GilgameS
(himself a solar personage) ' h n a H the mighty ( L e . ,
the sun-god) crossed the s e a ; besides (?) SaniaS, who
can cross it? ' For, though the ' sea' in the epic is
no doubt the earth-circling ocean, it was hardly this
in the myth from which the words were taken.
The transference of the Deluge from heaven to earth
had two effects, First, it produced a virtual duplication
of the C r e a t i ~ n - n i y t h . ~This points
19. Its
transformation. the way to a probable explanation of
the appearance of the raven, the
swallow, and the dove in-the Babylonian account, and
of the dove and the raven in the Hebrew account. An
authentic and striking Polynesian parallel to the descrip-
tion in Gen. 1 2 ( ' ... brooding over the face of the
waters ') has been given already (see CREATION, 0 IO).
N. American tribes, too, frequentlyconncct the emergence
of the earth from the primordial ocean with the descent
of a raven, and their flood-myths, according to Brinton,
connect the rebuilding of the earth with the agency of
birds4 In the Algonkin account, however, the musk-
rat succeeds, when the raven fails, in finding a portion
of the submerged earth. In the primitive Babylonian
myths of Creation and Deluge a bird (whether raven or
dove), or birds, probably had a share in the process of
creation and re-creation.
The second effect of the transference spoken of was a
new speculative theory. It occurred to the early men
that the idea of a second construction of the world
lightened the problem of the origin of things. How the
primeval world arose might be difficult to explain satis-
factorily : various mythic stories were current ; but it
was not so hard to conceive of a world once destroyed
being reconstructed. Thus, in course of time, sys-
tematisers devised schemes bearing some resemblance to
the cycles of the Stoics. It seemed to them as if the
Creator were constantly being baffled in his experiments
by physical or moral perversity in the materials. Thus
the priests of the Aztecs spoke of four antecedent ages,
separated by universal cataclysms, the present being the
fifth and last,Gand a similar belief, in rudimentary forms,
1 Enoch like P~r-napi~ti,mightbecalled Aira-hnsis, 'thevery
wise. O&niscience is an attribute of the sun-god. The same
title appears to be given to the young eagle in the myth of Etana
(see E T € I A N ) - a supernatural bird (Beitr. ZIY. Ass. 2 444).
Notice, too, that the old eagle in the Etana-myth and PSr-
napigti are both mentioned in connection with magical plants.
The legendary el-Hidr of the Moslems, whom Guyard and
Lenormant (Les ot?>i&s, 2 12s)identify with Hasis-atra was
also the wisest of beings. Cp above, $ 15. On this inte&sting
parallel cp Lidzharski Z A 7 104 8 8 263 .f and Dyroff,
ZA 7 3 :
0
& ; also ClerAont Ganneau,'Rm. Ar&ool. 32 3 8 8 8
See also ELIJAH $ 5.
a See Masper;, Dawn of Civ. 584 ; Jeremias, Izd..-Niwzrod,
31. Sabitu, it has been remarked, has some slight affinity to
Circe.
3 Was the Akitu-festival at Babylon a commemoration of the
Deluge? It is referred to in the epic narrative, 2. 71. From
an inscription of Nebuchadrezzar we learn that it was 'in
Zakmuk' (Jensen Z<os~~ol. 85). Now Zakmuk, the New Year's
festival, commembrated Creation. See COI. 941, n. I.
4 Brinton, il/lyt/is of the New WorZd, 2 0 4 ; cp Macdonell,
JRAS 189j, p. 189.
5 Brimon (op. cit. 2 0 9 8 ) gives the 'authentic form' on the
authority of Father Le Jeune (1634). It appears that the
Algonkins supposed all mankind to have perished in the Deluge.
This is against deriving this Delugemyth from a previous ether-
myth. The Algonkin view, however. is not largely represented.
6 R&ville, RaZi"ons of Mexico and Peru, 114.
1064
 DELUGE
is still prevalent throughout the American-Indian tribes.
The Zoroastrians believed in six ages of the world, with
a final catastrophe issuing in a renovation. The six
ages are of late origin (see CREATION, 9 ) ; but the
renovation, as. Darmesteter admits, goes back to the
Achaemenian period. Not without stimulus from Zoro-’
astrianism, the Jews in later times advanced to the same
belief.‘ They were assured that the present world
would be destroyed and that a new heaven and earth
would take its place (Is.24418-20, 5 1 6 2 6517 6622
Mt. 1928 2 Pet. 312J Enoch 454f: Apoc. Bar. 326) ;
in harmony with Gen. 9 15 fire was to be the destroying
agency ( z Pet. X c . ) . These beliefs were naturally
fostered by the moral idealisin of the best men, as we
see, not only from the biblical writings (e.g.,Gen. 6 5 11
2 Pet. 25 K ~ C , U O S daea&, 37), and from the Babylonian
story, but also from an American (Quiche) story, which
says, ‘ They did not think or speak of the Creator who
had created them, and who had caused their birth.’3
The intense moral fervour of the ancient Zoroastrian
hope of world-renovation is well known (see P ERSIA).
If it were possible to believe in a primitive tradition
resoectinc earlv human historv.
L - - ,. and to acceut all
mythic narratives as independent tradi-
20. Other
Deluge-myths. tions, we should have a weary waste of
Deluge-stories still to plod through.
There are, however, only three more such accounts
which have any special interest from our present point
of view. (a) The Indian Deluge-story is the first.4
This can hardly be a genuine Aryan myth, for there is
no clear reference to it in the Rig Veda.
The Sufapatha Brahmana, where it first occurs, was written
(Weber) not long before the Christian era. Another version, in
which the lacunte of the earlier one are filled up, is given in the
MahdJhrirata; but this poem though it existed in part before
the Chrictian era did not ,‘,surne its present form till long
afterwards. A tdird version, still more decidedly Indian in
character, hut with some suspicious resemblances to the Semitic
accounts, is given in the Bhdgavafa Purrina: but the earliest
possible date of this work is the twelfth century A.D which
deprives its account of the deluge of all claim to origindity. .
The principal characteristic of the older Flood-story is
the part assigued to the fish which warns Manu of the
Deluge, and ultimately saves him by drawing his ship to
a northern mountain. This is surely out of character
with Aryan mythology. The horned fish, in which
Brahma appears, reminds us strongly of the Babylonian
fish-god Ea. It was Ea who gave notice of the
coming Deluge to P5.r-napisti. Zimmer (AZtindisches
Leben, I O I ) , Jensen (/<ososmol 497) and Oldenberg
(Rel. des Veda, 276) consider the Babylonian origin
of the Indian Flood-story to be certain ; but on the
other hand cp Usener, Untersuch. 3240-244.
(6) The second account is a Zoroastrian myth in the
Avesta ( Vendidad, 2 4 6 8 ) . In its present form (even
after the prosaic additions have been removed; see
Geldner, in Usener, 3 209 8 )it seems to have been
influenced by the Hebrew Deluge-story.
The Var, a square enclosure constructed by Yima (=Yama
the Vedic god of the dead), had a door and perhaps a window,$
like Noah’s Ark, and it was designed to preserve men, women
and animals. Apart from this, it reminds ns of the bihlicai
Eden, and the calamity which was to be averted was, not a
flood, but a terrible winter’s frost, connected, however, with
the end of the world.6 The myth seems to he a recast of
elements from more than one source.
(c) The third is a Phrygian myth. Possibly there
was a primitive native Deluge-story ; but, if so, it was
vitalised from a Jewish source, some time during the
third or the second century, B .c., when (as Ramsay has
1 Che. OPs. 4 0 4 8
2 Is. 51 16 is a late mosaic of phrases, and irrelevant (see Du.
ad loc.).
3 Brinton, op. cif. 207f: This is of course a later addition,
as in one of the forms of the Tahitian myth (Waitz-Gerland,
6 271).
4 See Muir, Sanskrit Texts, 1 196.201 ; Burnouf, Ehagdvafa
Purrina 2 191. Weber Indische Siudien 1 161.232.
5 ThiZend 4ord renhered ‘window,’ hdwever, is said to he as
obscure as the Hebrew (lqk, Gen. 6 16 ; see LATTICE).
6 Cp. Kohnt, /QR,1890, pp. 225-227.
1065
DELUS
pointed out) many thousands of Jews from Babylonia
were settled as colonists in the cities which the Seleucid,
kings had built. This was the period of the inter-
mingling of religions, when Judaism too made conquests,
especially in Asia Minor. Even those who were not
otherwise judaized were influenced by Jewish legends
(cp SODOM AND G OMORRAH). Important cities ex-
hibited on their coins biblical symbols, and harmonised
their old traditions with biblical narratives.”
Thus Apamea (formerly Kelainai) adopted the Noah-legend ;
Iconium that of Enoch whose name was connected with the
Phrygiah name of R ’ a v u k x or AVVUKOS.This king (for such
tradition made him) was said to have lived more than 300 years
t o have announced the coming Deluge, and to have prayed fo;
his people. The mountain bard by Apamea was said t o he
that on which Noah’s ark grounded ; the city therefore assumed
the title K L P W T ~(Ark).
S
The references already given are almost sufficient
(they may be supplemented from Dillniann’s Genesis) ;
21. Appendix but at least a brief mention is due to
OnLenormant. Lenormant’s study in Les origines
de I’histoire, 1 382 3 The conclusion
arrived at is that of Franz Delitzsch and Dillmann,
that the Deluge is no ‘myth,’ but a historical fact.
Lenormant, at any rate, holds that the three great
civilised races of the ancient world preserved a dim
recollection of it. This implies a self-propagating
power in tradition which the researches of experts in
popular traditions do not justify. Lenorniant died, a
martyr of patriotism, in 1884. Would he have changed
his mind had he lived? At any rate, he would have
respected the honesty of those who regard the Deluge-
story as a precious record of the myth-forming imagina-
tion which has been made subservient to a high moral
idealism. See ADAM A N D EVE.
Lastly, the writer would call attention to Jastrow’s
two articles on Scheil‘s Deluge-story (5 6 ) in the New
York Zndependent, 10th and 17th Feb.
22. And On 1898 (cp his ReZ. of Bab. and Ass. 502
Jastrow’s 506). It is here maintained that a local
theory’ tradition of a rain-storm which submerged
a single city has been combined in the GilgameS-epic
with a myth of the destruction of mankind based upon
the annual phenomenon of the overflow of the Euphrates.
Pir-napisti or P%r-napiSti (as Haupt in KA7V31 and
Jastrow prefer to read the name) is the hero of the
local tradition, while Hasis-adra ( =OT? Gen. 69,
according to Jastrow) is the hero of the larger nature-
myth. The present writer admits that the version in
the epic is of composite origin, and that the names
Pir-napisti and Hasis-adra may perhaps come from
different sources ; but he holds that all the Babylonian
deluge-stories, whether simple or composite, have a
mythic basis. Moreover, he does not recognise that the
simplicity of the oldest Hebrew version of the Delnge-
story heightens the probability that the Hebrews carried
that story with them when they left their Euphratean
settlements. The account given above of the origin
and development of the Hebrew story has surely not
lost any of its probability in consequence of Scheil‘s
discovery.
[See, in addition to works already cited, Noldeke,
‘Der Mythus von der Siindfluth,’ Zm neuen Reich
[172], pp. 247-259 ; R. Andree, Die Hutsagen; ethno-
gmphisch ktrarhfet (‘91) ; H. Usener, ReZ. -gesch.
Untersuchungen,pt. 3 (‘99). especially $ 7, ‘Ergebnisse’ ;
M. Jastrow, ‘ Adrabasis and ParnapiStnm,’ Z A 1899,
pp. 288-301. On the chief questions arising out of
the Babylonian Deluge-story, cp Jastrow, Rel. of Ba6.
and Ass. (’98), pp. 493-508, which, as also Usener’s
work, appeared after this article had been written.]
n. 2. 1-5, 7-9 ; T. K. C. $$ 6, 10-22.
DELUS, RV DELOS (AHAOC [AKV], DeZus), the
1 See Bahelon, ‘La Trad. phryg. du Deluge,’ Rev. de Z’hist.
des reL (‘SI), pp. 174f. ; Usener, op. cii., 48-50; and, on
Apamea- Kelainai, Ramsay, Ctties and Bishoprics of Phrypia,
chaps. 11, 12.
1066
 DEMAS
smallest of the Cyclades, regarded by the ancients
as the centre of the group-a confusion of the geo-
graphical and religious points of view (cp Str. 485).
Delos was both a shrine and a commercial centre, and
‘her whole destiny is explained by her religious traditions
and her geographical situation.’ Though nominally
free, the island was really subject to the dominant
power for the time being in the Aegean. It was a free
port as early as 168 B.C., and attracted a great part of
the Rhodian trade (Polyb. 317). After 146 B.C. it
entered upon the heritage of Corinth (Str. 486). The
acquisition of the province of Asia by the Romans in
133 B. c. added greatly to the wealth and importance of
Delos. Now began the most brilliant epoch of its
history : the inscriptions show that its commercial
relations were with the Levant, chiefly Syria and Egypt.
So Pausanias calls the island r b Kolvbv ‘Ehhfivwv
Zprdprov (viii. 332). For long it was the chief emporium
of merchandise from the E. to the W., so that the fine
bronze or copper wares of Greece were called indiffer-
ently Corinthian, or Delian, from the place of export
(PI. H N xxxiv. 2 9 ; Cic. Very. ii. 283). The island
became especially a great slave mart, where the Asiatic
slave dealers disposed of their human cargoes to Italian
speculators ; as many as ten thousand were landed and
sold in a day (Str. 668). Naturally such a spot attracted
large numbers of Jews (Jos. Ant. xiv. 1 0 8 ; Philo, Le$.
ad Cui. 36 ; cp I Macc. 1523): According to a Greek
inscription, a company of Tyrian merchants was settled
there as early as the second century B.C. (CZG 2271).
At the altar of Delos Antiochus Epiphanes set up statues
(Polyb. 261), and an inscription to Herod Antipas has
been discovered in the island (cp Schur. GVZl3j8). In
88 B.C. ao,ooo men, mostly Italians, were massacred in
the island by Archelaos, admiral of the Pontic fleet of
Mithridates, a blow from which it partially recovered,
only to be finally ruined about twenty years later by the
systematic and wholesale destruction wrought by the
pirate Athenodorus. The resurrection of the island
was rendered impossible by the rapid growth of Puteoli
and the revival of Corinth (for its decay, cp Paus. viii.
332 ix. 346).
See the articles by M. Homolle in the Bull. de Cory. Hell.
especiallyLesRomains ri Delos ofl. cit. 875f: A good acconni
in Diehl’s Exncrsions in Greeci ET, 1z8J w. J. w.
DEMAS (AHMAC [Ti: WH]) is enumerated by the
apostle Paul as among his ‘ fellow-workers ’ at the time
of his (first) Roman captivity (Philem. 24 ; see also
Col. 414). In a Tim. 410 he is thus alluded to :
‘ Demas forsook me, having loved this present world,
and went to Thessalonica.’ Nothing is known of him
beyond what may be inferred or conjectured from these
allusions.
H e is enumerated in the ‘list of the seventy disciples of our
Lord’ compiled by the Pseudo-Dorotheus of Tyre (Chr. Pace.,
Bonn ed 2 121) and is stated to have become a priest of idols In
Thessaldkca. Along with Hermogenes, he figures prominently
in the apocryphal Acts of Paul and Tlzecla as a hypocritical
companion of the former, and to Hermogenes and Demas is
assigned the particular heresy about the resurrection which in
z Tim. 2 17 is attributed to Hvmenreus and Philetus.
DEMETRIUS (AHMHTPIOC [AKVI-ie., of, or
belonging to, Demeter, a proper name of very common
occurrence among the Greeks).
I. Demetrius I., surnamed Soter,l king of Syria,
son of Seleucus IV. Philopator, was sent in his
early youth to Rome as a hostage, the throne mean-
while being occupied by his uncle Antiochus Epi-
phanes (see ANTIOCHUS, 2). After some time he
effected his escape to Tripolis (chiefly through the aid
of the historian Polybius), and thence proceeded to
Antioch where he proclaimed himself king, securing
his position by putting to death his cousin Antiochns
Eupator (A NTIOCHUS , 3), and LYSIAS ( I Macc. 7 ; 162
B.C.). He lost no time in pleasing the Hellenizing
party by sending Bacchides to instal Alcimus as high-
1 H e received this honorary designation on account of his
delivering the Babylonians from the satrap Heraclides.
1067
DEMETRIUS
priest (see BACCHIDES, ALCIMUS). The disturbances
caused by the latter need not here be described ; the
Syrian general N ICANOR [p.v.] was defeated at
Capharsalama ( 7 2 6 8 ) ) and at Adasa ( 7 3 9 8 ) . A
warning was sent from Rome to Demetrius not to
interfere with the Jews; but it was too late. Less
than two months after the fall of Nicanor a fresh
invasion under Bacchicles took place ; the JudEan
power was seriously crippled (chap. 9, 160 B.C. ; see
further BACCHIDES). Seven years later Demetrius,
disputing the sovereignty with Alexander , Balas,
endeavoured, though in vain, to secure the suppoTt of
the Maccabean party (chap. lo), and after some
hostilities died fighting his rival1 (vv.49f. ; 150 B .c.).
See M ACCABEES, $ 5 .
a. Demetrins II., Nicltor, son of the above, who
had been living in exile in Crete, came over to
Cilicia to avenge his father’s ill success in 147 B . C . ,
and secured a powerful follower in the person of
APOLLONIUS (p.”., 2): An engagement took place at
Ashdod, and Apollonius was decisively beaten ( I Macc.
1 0 6 7 8 ) . Shortly afterwards, however, his hands were
unexpectedly strengthened by the secession of Ptolemy
VI. Philometor (see PTOLEMY, I ) , who transferred to
him his daughter Cleopatra, the wife of Alexander
Balas (see A LEXANDER , 2). Alexander was put to
flight and Demetrius became king in 145 B.C. (1119).
A treaty by which Jonathan obtained favourable
concessions was concluded (M ACCABEES, $ 5), and
Demetrius, believing his position secure, took the un-
wise step of discharging his regular troops, who at
once went over to Tryphon, the guardian of the young
son of Alexander Balas ( 1 1 3 8 8 ; see TRYPHON).
Profiting by the approach of a disturbance, Jonathan
obtained fresh concessions from Demetrius on the
understanding that Tryphon’s rebellion in Antioch
should be put down. This was successfully accom-
plished ; but when Jonathan saw that Demetrius showed
no signs of carrying out his promises he was easily
persuaded to transfer his allegiance to Tryphon.
Demetrius’ princes entered Judaea and after a temporary
success were routed in the neighbourhood of Hazor
( 1 1 6 3 8 ) . Another invasion was meditated in B.C.
144, but was successfully warded off by Jonathan’s
skilful generalship (12248). The scene suddenly
changed when Tryphon usurped the throne of Syria,
and endeavoured, with some success, to reduce Judaea.
Jonathan was dead and Simon busied himself in
strengthening the defences. An embassy was sent to
Demetrius II., who, to obtain Simon’s support, readily
granted all the Jewish demands including even a
complete immunity from taxation 2 ( 1 3 3 1 8 ) . Trusting
Simon to continue the struggle against Tryphon,
Demetrius marched to Persia, partly for conquest,
partly to acquire auxiliarics; but he was captured
by Mithridates I. (see P ERSIA) and imprisoned, his
place in Syria being taken by his younger brother
Antiochus Sidetes ( I Macc. 141’8 ; see ANTIOCHUS, 5).
From non-biblical sources we know that, at the expira-
tion of ten years, he resumed the throne (128 B .c.),
quarrelled with Ptolemy Physkon and his profkgt!
Alexander Zabinas, and was finally conquered at
Damascus, after fleeing from which place he was
murdered at Tyre in 125 B.C. (cp Jos. Ant. xiii.93).
3. A silversmith of Ephesus, who was the chief instigator of
the tumult in the interests of his craft which brought Paul’s
mission in that city to a close (Acts 19243). See D I ANA , 5 2,
EPHESUS. The conjecture that he figures again in 3 Jn.12
as a convert to Christianity, precarious at best becomes
singularly so when the commonness of the name is cinsidered.
4. A Christian mentioned with commendation in 3 Jn. (v. 12).
That he was the hearer of the epistle is sometimes inferred; hut
1 If we follow R V (after AN, etc.) and read ‘the army of
Alexander fled,’ it would seem that v. 49 and I, 5 0 must belong
to two different accounts. See more fully Jos. Ant. xixi. 2 4 and
cp Cnndr. Bible. ad loc.
2 This independence gained by the Jews was marked by the
introduction of a new era; cp CHKONOLOGY, $ I.
1068
 DEMONS
the inference has no more stringency than that mentioned in
no. 3. S. A. C.
DEMONS. Demons are a survival from an earlier
faith ; continued belief in them is due to the conserva-
1. General tive instincts of the ordinary religious
mind, and is thus particularly character-
swvey* istic of the popular religion. For this
reason references to demons scarcely occur in the earlier
O T literature, which is so largely prophetic. Such refer-
ences increase in frequency, however, in the later Jewish
writings, and are numerous in N T ; this is due partly to
the foreign influences (Babylonian, Persian, and Greek)
under which the Jews camein exilic and post-exilic times,
and partly to the fact that the earlier beliefs, after being
transformed, lent themselves as explanations of some of
the religious problems that were arising.
For the Gk. (Hellenistic) term Garp6viov or Gulpwv
(see below, 0 6), whence the English term 'demon'
is derived, Hebrew possesses no clear
2. Terns equivalent. 4urpbvtov occurs in the LXX
in OT' only in Dt. 3217 Ps. 906 955 10637 Is.
1321 3414 653 11 [BA] and in Tobit ; yet it re-
presents no fewer than five Hebrew words, viz.,
'ZliZ, gad, SE'ir, sirri, and Gd (Dt. 3217 Ps. 10637. cp
916, where 6 reads iv! for iid;). Of these the first is
a general term for false gods ; details as to the second
and the third will be found in the articles FORTUNE and
SATYR, and as to the fourth in W ILD BEASTS ; only the
last is translated ' demon ' in RV.
Similar objects of popular superstition are LILITH,
A ZAZEL, ASMODEUS(in Tobit), and probably the
' horse-leech ' of Prov. 3015 (see HORSE-LEECH). For
details of these also reference must be made to the
separate articles. Closely connected with the present
subject is the practice of consulting the dead,]. to which
we have reference in the earliest narrative literature
( I S . 2 8 ) . See D IVINATION, 5 4.
Jewish demonology, then, is the result of the survival
of primitive Hebrew (Semitic) beliefs, which, having
l,APrimitive been neither suppressed by, nor wholly
assimilated to, the prophetic religion,
survivals' were quickened by contact with Baby-
lonia, Persia, and Greece (cp W s h s e of Bu~phviov,a s
above, $2). The chief primitive survivals in the Jewish
belief are the quasi-divine character of these beings as
shown by the sacrifices offered to them (Dt. 32 17, cp Bar.
4 7 I Cor. 1020 Ps. 10637 Lev. 1 7 7 ; cp-further, in 6,
Is. 6 5 3 11, and the sacrifice to ALAZEL[4.v.] described
in Lev. 16),their undefined yet local character shown by
their association with waste places (Is. 1321 34 14, cp Rev.
1 8 2 Bar. 435, and [Vg.] Tob. 8 3 ) . and their connection
with animals, indicated by their sharing the waste places
with wild beasts (foregoing references, and Mk. 1 1 3 ) ,
and the meaning of such a term as Si'irim (hairy ones,
goats) ; on the similar character of the Arabianjinn,
see Robertson Smith's ReZ. Senz.B) 120f.
T h e term that is most generic in character is certainly
SZdim. Unfortunately the etymology of the word ir
doubtful, for the view that it signifier
**' sgdTm* ' lord ' (Miihlau and Volck's Gesenius:
cannot be said to be well supported. The cognate
word in Assyrian ( f i d u ) denotes the gods or geni
who, in the form of huge winged bulls, guard the
entrances of the temples ( C O T 140). In both passage:
(exilic or post-exilic) where Sidim occurs in O T it is usec
quite generally of illegitimate objects of worship (Dt.
3217 Ps. 1 0 6 3 7 ) . . and in the Pesh. Sidri is the equivalen
of 8urp6vrov. In the later Jewish writings the 5 d i n
are frequently referred to as noxious spirits (see Buxtorf
Lex., S.V. ) ; this they have not definitely become in thc
1 [In the age of the Gospcls and of Josephu? thc spirits of thc
(wickcd) dead were ccrtninly da.icribcd a i Gaifiovas or S a t p 6 u ~ <
= & d f ~ .While the worship of dead :rnceator, w s ilt its hciqht
however the wicked dead were disregarded, and the spirits of tht
good w,' honoured as elahint (I S. 26 13 ; cp. Is. 1 9 3 @), I
IS best therefore to treat necromancy - separatelv
- : see DIVINA
~
1069
DEMONS
IT (on the Gdim see further Dr. and Di. on Dt. 3217 ;
[i., Now. on Hos. 1212 (read a.ia$ for iyiw) ; Che.
'snhnns, 258; OPs. 3 3 4 ; G. Hoffmann, Ueder einige
Ionikische Znschriften, 55, n. I ) . See S HADDAI, 5 2,
nd cp S IDDIM, VALE OF.
When angels came to be differentiated as helpful and
armful, and, later, as good and bad ( s e e A x ~ ~ L8s5),
,
5. Demons the harmful or bad angels closely re-
and angels. sembled demons ; the difference between
the two became, in consequence, less and
:ss. Speculations on the difference may be found in
Snoch ; the same uncertainty prevails in Mohammedan
heology, where, e.g., it is disputed whether Iblis was an
.ngel or a demon. G . B. G.
The classical inferiority of Galpwv (and Garp6vrov)to
kbr finds its lowest depth in the Old and the New
restaments, most plainly so in the New.
Even as early as Homer the general equivalence of the two
vords (Ud. 2 1 195 ZOI) was varied by the frequent distinction
between Beds as the pemonaliiy (deus), and
6. NT usage. Splpwu as the more abstract, less nameable
znflunce (nunzen),and by the sense of b c k -
issssness in the adjective 6aLpdvios (Ud. 18 406) as well as by
uch epithets for 8ai+wv as KRK& and u~u;ep6s. In post-
lomeric Greek the inferiority grew in distinctness and degree,
md gathered round itself more and more a sense of evil ' and
vhile Gaipwv (demon)never altogether ceased in profane %reel:
o be a zox mediu the tendency to degradation overwhelmingly
revailed. Thus ;he word that stood to Hesiod (UpP. 17.1) for
he benignant souls of heroes of the golden age, served Plato
Lys. 223) for an evil apparition, and the tragedians (Bsch. Ag.
569, Soph. U T 1194)and the Attic orators (Lys. 2 78) for gloomy
;enii of misfortune, often attached to families or to individuals ;
ind finally Plutarch (probably under the influence of Eastern
md Alexandrian dualism) included in its category the GaIpovep
baGhoa, to whom he attributed all that was barbarous and cruel
,De defeciu orac. 14).
The sense of evil spirit for Guipbviov is in the N T
$e unmistakable.
Aaipwv does not occur in the LXX, except once in N, and,
Iccording to the best authorities, appears hut twice in the NT,
riz. in Mt. and Mk.'s accounts of the Gerasene demoniac (Mt.
1 3 1 Mk. 5 12; not in Ti. W H in the second passage). Perhaps
faqdvwv-neut. of adj. Ga~p6vios(cp ~b B&v)-supplanted
Saipwv as representing even more fitly the abstract and unname-
ible. Cp 8acp6via K G L U ~ , Plat. A$oL 26e and f&a 6aLp6via,
Acts 17 IS.
The word 6acp6vrov (used in the N T about sixty
times), best reproduced as ' daemon,' is almost entirely
confined to genii in the worst form, evil spirits possess-
ing buman beings, though it is used occasionally of evil
spirits in general (Ja. 2 1 9 ) , and once (as above, Acts
1718) of heathen gods of an inferior order, as well as
three times in one passage ( I Cor. l O z o J ) of evil spirits
working in the background of idolatry. (See The
Thinker, May 1 8 9 5 . ~ )
The identity of drenzon and eviZ spirit is obvious from such
passages as Lk.8 2 and I Tim. 4 I , and from the comparison of
such passages as Mk. 126 and Lk.4 35, Mk. 3 30 and Jn. 10 20,
Rev. 16 13 and 14.
The accounts of evil spirits as possessing are confined
to the Syuoptists and Acts, though the idea crops up
also in Jn., only however in 720 848J 52, and lOzof.
(Garpovl~ooparand ~ ~ ( X EGarpbvrov,
LY said of Jesus himself),
and never as actually posited by the writer.
The period immediately embracing the Christian era
saw a vast development of the idea of, daemons or, genii,
*. on- which
temporary
may be traced to the survival of
early animistic conceptions in a higher
stage of culture (see Tylor, Prim. Cult.,
chap. 14f.). For our present purpose it
is most important to refer to the Persian, the Hellenistic-
Jewish, and the Talmudic beliefs. We shall, however,
here limit ourselves to the second of these classes of
evidence, which appeals most to ordinary educated
readers (see also below, XI, and cp PERSIA).
On the philosophic basis of the Platonic Zdeai or Forms, and
the Stoic Logoi or Reasons, combined with the Hebrew con-
ception of angels, Philo had bridged over his dualistic gulf
between God and the world, with intermediate beings, some
'blessed' aiid others 'profane ; the incorporeal souls being pure
1 An articp by the present writer on ' St. Paul's view of the
Greek Gods.
1070
 DEMONS
and hovering in the air, which was full of them, some of them,
however descending into bodies and 50 becoming impure.
These ‘ ~ o u l s ’ a r eidentified by him with the ‘angels’ of Moses
and the ‘daemons’ of ‘other philosophers‘ (de Con6 Ling. 35 ;
de Cigant. 2-4). A kindred belief in daemons as good and evil
rzediu of divine action pervaded the cosmology of the Pytha-
corean5 and Neo-Platonists towards the close of the first
century A . D . (Hatch, NiW. Lect. 2 1 6 8 ; Zeller, Die Phil. der
Gnich. iii. l(4291) ; and Epictetus, about the same date, held
that ‘all things were full of gods and dzemons’ (ZcUer,
iii. l(3) 745). Josephus also (seeking, like Philo; to conciliate
r!ewish and heathen views) testifies to the prevalence of a similar
.’ among his countrymen, but in his descri tion makes the
elief
dzemons exclusively z o v q p ~ vi v ~ p i r r w vrv+aTrxP
( ~ n tviii.
Blvii. G 3). On the Talmudic evidence for the contemporary
Jewish acceptance (doubtless developed under Parsee influence)
of a countless number of spirits, good and bad and legions of
dzemons lying in wait for men, see F,dersheim,’Ljfe of/esw,s,
Ap. xiii., and cp Weber, Altsyn. Theol, 2 4 2 8
The number, prominence, and activity, therefore, of
evil spirits in the N T is in general harmony with the
views of the times.
Germinal ideas of possession are to be found even in
Homer (Od. 5396, where a Gaipwv uruyepp6s causes a
s. Possession. wasting sickness). The verb GarpovBv
representsinsanity in Bschylus ( Choeph.
566), Euripides ( P h ~ n .8 8 8 ) , Aristophanes (Thesm.
1054)and Plutarch ( ViL.MnrceZZ. 20) ; whilst Herodotus
(479), Euripides (Bncch. 2 9 8 3 ) , and other writers attri-
bute to divine possession the frenzy of the Bacchantes
and Corybantes. T o a sense of the same mysterious
power may be traced Herodotus’s name ipil voOuos
for epilepsy (Hippocrates, 400 B.c., attriboted the
disease to natural causes), and the phrase of the
Greek physician Aretaeus (1st century, A . D. ), 8aipovos
CIS rbv ffvopwirov d‘uoSos. That the nations- with whom
the Jews in later times were brought into contact held
similar views in systematised forms has often been
shown (see below, § 11), and we cannot doubt that,
though not originating in any one of these forms, the
popular belief of the Jews was largely influenced by the
beliefs of their neighbours. That belief, as reflected in
the NT, regards the daemons (which are spirits entirely
evil) as a definite class of beings, injuriously affecting,
mostly internally and by possession, the human, and
(in the case of the Gerasene swine) the animal person-
ality, the subjects being usually described as Garpout-
{ ~ , u E ~ o L‘ daemonised
, ’ (all the Gospels, though only
once each in Llc. and Jn. )-the less classical form of
Gatpov6pcvor, and the equivalent of Josephus’s oi dirb
T&P Garpovlwv Xappavbpevor,by which phrase is justified
the rendering ‘ possessed.’ The moral connexion of
daemons in the N T is subordinate. Without doubt
they are regarded as diametrically (though by no means
with dualistic equality) opposed to the work of Christ,
and their subjugation is looked upon (especially by
Llc.) as his primary healing function and as the sign
above all others that the kingdom of God had come
(Lk. 13 32 1120). Their moral and spiritual influence
is recognised in Jesus’ parable of the unclean spirit
(Mt. 1243 Llc. 1124) ; in what Paul says of the ‘ table of
daemons ’ ( I Cor. 10 zof: ) ; in the ‘ doctrines of daemons ’
of I Tim. 4 1 , and in Rev. 920. where the worshipping of
daemons (cp Dt. 3 2 1 7 a) is another expression for
idolatry. This moral and spiritual evil in the daemonic
world is also certainly kept in view whenever the N T
writers speak of the opposition of God and the devil
(Ja. 4 7 ) ; of the subjugation thenceforth by Christ of
the kingdom of evil (Lk. 1 0 1 8 , f I Jn. 3 8 Rom. 1620) ;
and of the final destruction (Mk. 124 Mt. 8 2 9 ) of the
devil and his angels in the lake of fire (Rev. ~ O I O )after
, Mt. 1243. Accommodation is just admissible in the
a period of relative independence which finds its counter-
part in the moral and spiritual freedom of man.
The effects ofdaemonic possession which are constantly
1 [On this second theory relative to the demons viz that they
are the spirits of the (wicked) dead see S c h w h y >as Leben
nach de% Tode 191f where on thb ground of thbir residence
in the tombs a d of th:passagrk from Josephns referred to above
it is maintained that the two demoniacs in Mt. 8 28 were (though;
themselves) possessed by spirits of the dead.]
1071
DEMONS
prominent in the Synoptists, however, Bppearingoccasion-
9. Common ally in Jn. and in Acts ( 8 7 1 6 1 6 1916),
effects. are physical and psychical, and must be
distinguished from Satanic influence such
as that upon David in I Ch. 21 I , or upon Judas in Jn. 13
z 27. It is not a mere influence : it is a besetting internal
malady. This form of possession, which presupposes
a large development of the belief in daemons, is dis-
tinctive of late Jewish times, as we see not only from the
. 25;
Gospels, but also from the references of Jpsephus (especi-
ally Ant. viii. 2 5 ) , and from the quasi-professional statns
of Jewish1 (as previously of Egyptian and Persian)
exorcists (Acts19 13 [mpr~pxopCvwv]Mk. 9 3 8 Mt. 12.27 ;
Justin, ApoZ. 2 6 Trypho, 311 ; Pliny, HN ~ O Z ) as , well
as from the many methods of expulsion recorded in the
Talmudic writings (Edersheim, Life oflesus, Ap. xvi. ;
cp Jos. Ant. viii. 2 5 B/ vii. 6 3 ; Solomon’s ring and the
root dnnms).2
One point to be carefully noted is that, whilst at times
disease is attributed to daemons, possession is not a
comprehensive word for disease in general. The practice
of the Synoptists in this respect is not quite uniform.
They all, in their suiiznzay records of healings, agree in
distinguishing the dzemonised from the sick (Mt. 108 Mk. 1 3 2
Lk. 6 17,f), while Mt. (424) expressly distinguishes them
also from the lunatic (odqvLa<6pevot). They all likewise, in the
mention of individual cases, agree in speaking of maladies
without making any reference to possession (Mt. 9 27-31 Lk.
17 TI-19 Mk. 7 32-37). Out of twelve individual cases which
Mk. records, eight are so presented; and, in the six of these
recorded by Mt. and Lk., as well as in cases peculiar to them
reference to possession is also absent. Mk., in the fouriemain)
ing cases, confines possession to psychical maladies, such as
insanity and epilepsy; Mt. and Lk. add cases in which posses-
sion takes the form of purely b02ily disease-dumbness, Lk.
11 14 Mt. 9 3 2 3 ; dumbness and blindness, Mt. 12 zz ; curvature
of the spine, Lk. 13 10-17. The comparison of these agreements
and differences suggests that the tendency to account for purely
bodily disease by possession was a tendency, not of Mt. and Lk.
themselves, hut of a source or sources used by them but unknown
to Mk. (see Schiir. JPT,vol. xviii., 1892). .
The drift of the evidence seems to carry us to the
conclusion that the idea of possession was associated, in
the main, with psychical disease (cp also Mlc. 5 1 5 Lk.
7 3 3 Jn. ~ z o ) and
, this is confirmed by the hints thrown
out here and there that this affliction was of all afflictions
the direst and most impracticable. The peculiar em-
phasis laid by Jesus upon the power given to the
missionary disciples to expel demons (Mt. 10 T and
parallels) ; the special exultation of the Seventy upon
their return, ‘ Even the daemons are subject unto us ’
(Lk. 1 0 1 7 ) ; the intense amazement at the ease with
which Jesus cast out the spirits (e.g., Lk. 436), dispens-
ing with the more elaborate incantations and manipula-
tions of the professional exorcist ; the helplessness of
will in the possessed ; their identification of themselves
with the damion, their aversion to deliverance (Lk. 939).
and the wrench with which the deliverance was some-
times effected (Mk. 124) ; the fact that Jesus never in
these cases called for faith, but seems to have felt that
only some external force, acting in spite of the subjects
of the disease, could free them from it ; all these con-
siderations point to psychical, nervous disorder, which
could, of course, manifest itself in various forms.
There is no sign on the part of Jesus any more than
-
on the part of the evangelists, of mere accommodation
Attitude of to the current belief. It is true that
Jesus’ ‘ Satan ’ is used metaphorically in the
rebuke of Peter (Mt. 16221 and that
I ~~ -I
‘ unclean spirit ’ ( m 4 p a 8KdOaprou) is figurative in
1 Gebhardt and Harnack Texte, viii., last part, 107.
2 The plant which gave Ase to the fable of Baaras was prob-
ably a strange-looking crucifer described by Tristram, Land of
Moab, who found it near Callirrhoe.
3 In one instance, that of the Gerasene demoniac, Jesus
appears to have found it advisable to follow the precedent of
Jewish exorcists (Jos. Ant. viii. 2 5 ) and give the demoniac a
visible proof of his deliverance though in a way not suggested
by them. It may be observed, ’in passing, that the word exor-
cism is never applied to Jesus’ method of expulsion, though the
Jews in Acts 19 13 are called exorcists.
1072
 DEMONS
commission to the iisciples (Mt. 108), in Jesus’ exulta-
tion at their success (Llc. lO17f:), and his reproof of
their failure (Mt. 1720) ; or the phraseology may pos-
sibly have been coloured by the belief of the writers (as
also in Mlc. 134, where the knowledge of the daemons is
described as superhuman). Acceptance of the current
belief is clearly at the basis of Jesus’ argument with the
Pharisees-in Lk. 111 6 8 , however, and this is quoted by
Keim as irrefragable evidence. On the other hand, the
indefinite multiplication of spirits, and the grotesque
functions ascribed to them in contemporary and later
Jewish literature, and the wholesale belief in possession
in the second century A. D., find no favour’with Jesus or
his biographers or in N T literature generally. While
the existence of Satan’s ministers is recognised, the
tendency is rather to concentrate the influences for evil
in Satan himself. Finally, that Jesus believed in the
power of others besides himself and his disciples to
expel demons in some sense, at any rate, seems clear
in the presence of such passages as Mt. 1227 Llc. 1119,
where he attributes the power to the disciples of the
Pharisees ; he recognises also the fact that similar suc-
cess was attained by some who used his name without
actually following him (Mk. 938), or without being more
than professed disciples (Mt. 722). J. M.
The chief foreign influence- on Jewish demonology
was no doubt Babylonian. It was, partly direct, partly
For though Iranian superstition
11, Other indirect.
nations. had an internal principle of development,
it was early fertilised from Babylonia. For
instance, the seven devas or arch-demons of Zoroastrian-
ism are a reflection of the seven evil or destructive
spirits who play such a part in Babylonian mythology
(see Maspero, Rnwn of Civ. 634, 776), and who in a
famous incantation are called ‘ the Seven ’ (see Zimmern’s
translation of the text. Vuter, Sohn ZL. ZUmprecher, 7f.
[‘96]), and the supposed capacity of the formula of the
Ahuna-vairyn to drive away the devas is but a snb-
limated form of the Babylonian belief in the recitation
of the hymns to the gods. Hence, even when a Jewish
belief, such as the grouping of seven demons, char-
acteristic of Jewish popular superstition (Mt. 1245 Lk.
1 1 2 6 Mk. 1 6 9 Lli. 82), appears to be shaped by Persian
influences (for names of demons of Persian origin
besides ASMODEUS[q.v.]. see Hamburger, RE ii. 1
& I ) , it is very possible that Babylonia gave the first
impulse to Persia. The doctrine of ‘ disease-possession ’
among the Jews may very well have been taught in pre-
exilic times ; but it is probable that it was when the
Jews were conscious of the displeasure of their God, and
when they became more and more exposed to foreign
influences, that this doctrine attained its full dimensions,
as we see it in the NT. I t is not so much from Persia
as from Egypt and Babylon that the stimulus for its
development was derived. The Egyptian view described
in Orig. c. CeZs. 858 (Schurer), that the human body
was divided into thirty-six members, and that with each
of these was connected a separate demon, by rebuking
whom a member could be cured of disease, is but a
more specialised form of the doctrine of the Book of the
The doctrine of disease among the ancient
Babylonians was that the swarming demons could enter
a man’s body and cause sickness. On a fragment of
a tablet Budge has found six evil spirits mentioned by
name. The first attacked the head; the second, the
lips ; the third, the forehead ; the fourth, the breast ;
the fifth, the viscera ; the sixth, the hand.3 It was the
duty of the exorcist to expel these demons by incanta-
tions, and the Zoroastrians believed that Zarathustra,
1 [The sacrifices to the S c ‘ i ~ i w r [2 K. 288 as emended by
G . Hoffmann, Z A TW2 175 (‘82) ; Lev. 17 71 L a y have been in
part designed to avert diseases (cp the Arabian belief in jinn
described by We. AY.Heid. 138,2nd ed. 154 ; W R S ReZ. Senz.P)
120). c p also the rite of AZAZEL.]
2 For the ancient Egyptian belief, cp Maspero, Dawn ofCiv.
a1
t. TSBA 6 422 [’781;‘ cp Maspero, Dawn OfCiu. 683, 780.
7073
DEPOSIT
by reciting the formula called the Ahuna-vairya, ‘ caused
all the devas to vanish in the ground who aforetime
flew about the earth in human shape.’ The Zoroastrian
religion, therefore, gave its adherents some rest from this
baleful belief. Fidelity to its law could avert the danger
which arose from the existence of the devas created by
Angra-mainyu. That was also a part of the mission
of the Law as. consolidated by Ezra, and above all of a
greater than either Moses or Ezra. The ‘authority
and power ‘ with which Jesus Christ ‘ commanded the
unclean spirits ’ (Lli. 436) astonished his contemporaries,
and contrasts even with the comparative facility ascribed
to Zarathustra. I t is hardly necessary to add that
similar phenomena to those described in the Gospels
are still to be niet with, not only in savage districts, but
also in countries of an ancient civilisation such as India
and China.
On this subject see J. L. Nevins, Demon Possession and
aZZied Themes; 6 e i q an inductive St&y of Phenomena of ow’
o w n Times (Chicago, New York, and Toronto, 1895). Of
Babylonian demonology we still lack an adequate presentation.
Among the older books Lenormant’s La ?nasie chez Zes Chnlddens
(1st ed., 1874) bears most directly on the subject. For evidence
of the long-continued influence of Babylonian on Jewish super.
stition, see Stiibe, / z i ’ ~ i s c h - 6 a ~ y Z o nZau6ertexk
ie (‘95).
On Zoroastrian beliefs, see the translation of the Zendavesta in
SBB. The reduction of the heathen gods to mere Ga~pdv~a,
which we find accomplished in the later biblical writings finds
its parallel in the conversion of the ‘bright’ beings of t i e old
Aryan mythology into the evil demons of, the Persian (see
PERSIA) ’ see further the articles ‘ Geister ‘ Magie,’ ‘Zau-
berei,’ ‘kberglaube’ in Hamburger’s RE,’also F. C. Cony-
beare ‘TheDemonologyof the N T ’ in/QK, 1894-1897; W. I<.
Newdold, ‘ Demou Possession and Allied Themes,’ New WGYZ~,
Sept. 1897, PP. 4 9 9 8
G. B. G. $5 1-5 ; J. M. $16-10; T. K. C. 11.
DEMOPHON (AHMO&ON, [AVl), one of the com-
mandants ( r ~ p p a ~ v ~ofo ia) district in Palestine in the
time of Judas the Maccabee ( z Macc. 122).
DEPOSIT. The OT law of deposit is laid down in
E (Ex. 227-13 [6-12]; cp the paraphrase in Jos. Ant.
iv. 8 38).
With the exception of v. g [8] the law is clear. Two
kinds of deposit are specified : ( a )money (qm), or goods
(n$z n?N\n),I(&) ass, ox, sheep, or any beast. (6) T o take
the second group of cases first : if the aeposit be stolen
the depositary must make restitution (12 [II]). Should
it be torn by wild beasts the production of a piece is
sufficient witness, and a man cannot be called upon to
make good that which was torn (13 [I.], cp C ATTLE, $9).
Where culpability cannot be made out the depositary
swears that he is innocent and the depositor is bound
to accept his word (IO$ [gJ]). , , ( a ) I n cases of the
first description, should the deposit be stolen, the thief,
if found, must restore twofold 7 [ 6 ] , cp v. 4 [3]) ; if the
culprit be not found the depositary must come before
the El6him and swear that he has not put his hand to his
neighbour’s property ( 8 C7]). The result must have
been as above in w. 116 that the depositor was bound to
accept his word. Verse g [SI alone remains and is not
easily reconciled with the foregoing ; it may be a later
law added to cover general cases (both a and 6) involv-
ing alleged gross carelessness, false accusations, and
libel.
The later law of Lev.62-7 [521-261 applies the law of the
‘guilt offering’ to sin and trespass in ‘ a matter of deposit’ (so
RV ; filz? : rrapaO+q, dejositwm). The only case here con-
templated, however, is that in which voluntary confession is
made. the penitent depositary is to make restitution in full, add
the fifih part more thereto, and offer a ram to Yahwh. Cp L AW
A N D JUSTICE, $ 17.
The use of the words rapaOrjq, lrapaiiObac rrapaKaiaOijtq
and rapaKaradbaL in @ (Lev. 6 2 4 Tob. 10 13 [;2] [‘I commit rn;
daughter unto thee in special trust ’I 2 Macc. 3 IO 75 9 2 5 Jer. 40 7
41 TO) sufficiently explains the expressions in I Tim. 6 20 2 Tim.
112 14 (RVmg. ‘ deposit ’ in all three cases). At Jerusalem (as
a t Rome, Olympia, Delphi, and elsewhere) a large amount of
1 YasnaQ15, in Mills’ translation (Zenduav.3 235).
-2-r~:&> in vv. 8 9 [7 81, as in Ex. 21 6 I S. 2 25, means the
divinity as represented by the priestly exponents of the law at
the sanctuary.
1074
 DEPUTY
wealth (‘which did not pertain to the account of the sacrifices,’
but was in fact private property) was consigned to the safe
custody of the temple (see the story of Heliodorus in z Macc. 3,
where in w. 15 etpress reference is made to the ‘ law concerning
deposits’). See EARNEST, PLEDGE. Cp D IANA , S 3
DEPUTY. I. ]?l3, s Q i n , Ass. Saknu,l lit. ‘one
appointed,’, ‘set over’ ( 5 B N A Q L H r e M a N , etc.), the
official title ( a ) of a certain officer of high grade under
the Babylonian empire (Jer. 5 1 2 3 28 57 Ezek. 2 3 6 IZ 23 ;
see also Is. 41 25T ; AV usually ‘ ruler ’ or [Dan. 3 z etc.
1*!?~, ~;?-l;o] ‘ governor,’ RV or RVmg, ’ deputy’ ; Q87
irrrd~ous), frequently mentioned in conjunction with
6 governors ’ (pa~zf~‘h).(6) Of certain administrative
officers in J u d z a in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah
(Ezrabz Neh. 216 414 19 [8 131, 5 7 17 7 5 1 2 4 0 1311);
mentioned sometimes in conjunction with ‘ princes
( S L i ~ i m ) . See G OVERNMENT , 0 26.
2. im?, pe&h (Esth. S 9 93 AT). See G OVERNOR , T.
3. ZW,ni?gZb, I K.2247 [48] [IClzse QBL] ( W + . O ~ Y O F [A]
vau[e]r/3[BL]). 5 7.
Fee E,DOIM,
4. &vOJrraras, Acts137 etc. KV PI%~CONSUL
[f.v.].
CvPnus, g 4.
DERBE (AEPBH [Ti. W H ; Str.], AepBqi [Hier.
Syizec. 6751). Paul visited. Derbe at least twice (Acts
1420 161), and probahly once again, in his third
journey (Acts 1823 ‘went over all the country of
Galatia and Phrygia in order ’). From the fact that
the name does not occnr in the list of places in which
he had suffered persecution ( 2 Tim. 3 r r ) , it may perhaps
be inferred that the work of evangelisntion encountered
no obstacle there. That snccess attended the apostles
at Derbe we learn from Acts 1421. Gains, one of
Paul‘s companions from Corinth to Asia, was a native
of the town (Acts 204).
From Steph. Byz. we learn that the town was called
also A&h,Be~a, ‘which in the Lycaonian tongue signi-
1. Site. fies a juniper-bush.’ The site was approxi-
mately discorered by Sterrett, who put it
between Bossola and Zosta (or Losta), villages two
miles apart ( W d f e Eqbed. 23). Ramsay, however,
says that the ruins at Bossola are merely those of a
Seljulc khan, whilst those at Zosta have all been trans-
ported thither from some other site. The great site of
the district is the mound of Gudelissin in the plain
about 3 m. NW. of Zosta, and 4 5 m. S. of Konia,
(Iconium) at the foot of the Masallah Dagh. The
mound is of the class called by Strabo (537) ‘ mounds
of Semiramis,’ which are largely artificial, and of
Oriental origin. I t contains numerous traces of
Roman occupation. The earliest city of Derbe must be
sought in the mountains to the south.
This situation agrees with the notices in Strabo. After
describing the ten Strategiai of Cappadocia, he adds that in the
first century B.C. there was an eleventh Strategia consisting
of part of Lycaonia, Cilicid, and Cappadocia (k35, $ r e p i
K a u ~ L j 3 a A d7 6 K a t K J p r u r p a & p ~ ’ A V T L ~ TTOG
AipPpqs). H e refers to the same district (537) as the addi’rional
( h n i r c ~ q ~ a sStrategia.
) Derbe is further described as lying on
the frontier of Isauria (Str. 569, T ~ s’F Iuaupr+ &TLY ZY rAsupak
$ A6ppSq) ; the words which immediately follow (ydhLuTa T$
XaaraSoKIv & L I T F + U K ~ F TOG ’Avr~rrL~pou w p a v v s i o v ) refer to the
fact that it was also on the frontier of the eleventh Strategia,
an external addition to Cappadocia as above described. I t is
clear that Strabo’s eleventh Strategia is identical with Ptolemy’s
‘Strategia Antiochiane, in which he enumerates Derbe
(Ptol. 56).
Derbe was the stronghold of the brigand chief
Antipater (Cic. E$. ad Pam. 1 3 7 3 ; Str. 5 3 5 , 5 6 9 , b
AEpP+r]s). When, however, Icing Amyntas
2* slew Antipater, he added the town to his
o w n Lycaonian and Galatian dominions (29-27B.c. ).
On the death of Amyntas himself in 25 R.C. the larger part of
his kingdom was made by the Romans into the province Galatia ;
hut apparently Derbe along with Cilicia Tracheia (Le. the
eleventh Strategia), a;s given to Archelaos king of Cdppa-
docia (circa 20 B.C.). When Archelaos diad in 17 A.D. the
Cappadocian part ofhis kingdom was taken over by the Romans;
but the Lycaonian part was left to his son Archelaos II., who
1 Whence Gr. <moydqs (Ges. Lex.W). On its relation to
].?b see TREASURER, 2.
io75
DESERT
vas still reigning in 36 A.D. (cp Tac. Ann. 2 42 6 41). Two years
ater the region described by Strabo as the eleventh Strategla,
ind by Ptolemy as the Strategia Antiochiane, was assigned by
laligula to Antiochus IV. and Iotape Philadelphos. Soon
ifterwards Antiochus lost favour, and was deprived of his
iingdom. I n 41 A.D. Claudius restored the territory t o
Antiochus and Iotape, who ruled until 72 A.D. I t appears,
nowever that on this restoration the Lycaonian section of the
realm of‘Antiochus was detached and permanently assigned to
Galatia. Derbe therefore became part of that province. T h e
transference was due to the importance of the town as a frontier
post in the SE. of the Roman province. Claudius remodelled
its constitution and honoured the place with the title Claudio-
Derhe (see Rams. Hist. Geug. of AAC, 336, 371,f, and Chnrclt
in Eom. Em$. 54).
Thus we can understand how at the time of Paul’s
visit (46 or 4 8 A. D. ) Derbe could be correctly described
as a city of Lycaonia (Acts146), for so it was from the
point of view of geography or ethnography. Politically,
however, Derbe belonged to the province of Galatia,
and it is argued by Ramsay that in the language of
polite address its inhabitants must have been llvspes
I’ahdTar (Gal. 31). not A U K ~ W EwhichS, latter teqm
signified the population of the non-Roman part of
Cp
Lycaonia (see, however, G a L A n i ) . w. J. w.
DESERT. The English word desert ’ ordinarily
means a sterile sandy plain without vegetation and water
- a ‘ sea of sand,’ such as, e&, parts of
*’ Genera1 the Sahara. This is not the meaning of
the Hebrew words. No desert of this
kind was known to Israel either before or after the oc-
cnpation of Canaan. The districts to which the term
‘desert’ is applied in EV are, at the present day.
frequently covered with vegetation, and were probably
even more prosperous in the past (see more fully the
articles on the place-names enumerated in 3).
‘Wilderness,’ by which the Hebrew terms are some-
times translated, is a somewhat better rendering ; but
it is not always adequate. It will be convenient here
to record the Hebrew words, and to indicate other terms
of analogous meaning.
(1) &urbrih(from zin ‘ t o lay waste,’Zpqpos; also l p q y l a ,
Ezek. 35 4,hp<)107~s, Jer.,734 [YAQ] 22 5 ; o k f r s S o v Ps. 102 6 [7l?
desert RV waste places . so EV ‘ waste
2. Hebrew Lev. 2431 Is. 61 4 ;or desola;ion,’ Jer. 442 ;p:
terms. Ezek. 3812 AV only), used of cities and regions
formerly inhabited but now lying waste or in
ruins from war or neglect ; cp Jer. 442 ‘the cities are a desola-
tion and no man dwelleth therein’ ; heice in threats (q., Lev.
Z.C.), or in promises (with a??, Dpip)-once with reference to
the wilderness of wanderings (Is. 48 21).
(2) (lD’@:, y e h z J n ( J o p , ‘be desolate’; for cognates see
below, 7), [$ d v d p o s , used of a district riverless and un-
inhabited (Is. 43 ‘9, E V ‘desert,’ I] iym), of the wilderness of
wanderings (Dt. 32 IO, E V ‘wilderness’; Ps.7840, ETr ‘desert,’
1I 12Tn) ; otherwise, a geographical designation; cp 8 3, z, 3, and
see BETH-JESHIMOTH, JESHIMON.
(3) 7?1?, nzidbrir (Zpqpos, etc.; once [Is. 41 191 dvvSpos $;
AV ‘ desert ’ RV ‘wilderness ’ . but in Gen. 14 6 etc E V ‘ wilder-
ness’; on&, Ps. 756 [7] E d ‘south’ [RV& “ h d e r n e s s of
~ O Aqrrou
U the inountains’l]). Th; idea of ‘desert’ IS totally foreign to
this word (on its derivation see CATTLE, 5 5). MidZzir 1s a
district possessing pastures (Joel 222, Ps. 65 12 [I$) and cities
(Is. 42 ,).I but occupied by nomads, not by settled tlllers of the
soil (cp esp. Nu. 1433). I t is commonly employed to denote
the wilderness of wanderings, which itself is a mountainous
region, not without pasture grounds, and so devoid of sand
that the one tract which forms an exception has the character-
istic name Debbet er-Ranzleh, ‘plain of sand’ ; see below, 5 3, I.
(4) ?i?!y, ‘dr~&ih(;papa [$ apbs Suupak, Josh. 1116, etc.]),
in poetical literature often occurs in parallelism with mid&Z,~
(Is. 35 I [ < p ~ + o 40~ ] 3 41 19 EV ‘aesert ’). I n @. 50 IP I t
approximates more closely io the modern idea of desert ’ (cp
Is. 35 I Jer. 51 4 3 ; 11 :)a
:; but in historical writings (early and
late) it is a geographical term (see 5 3, n, below).
( 5 ) ?s, siyyii/E (‘dry land’ [so Ps. 63 I (2), EV], Job 303,
AV R V w ‘wilderness,’ RV ‘dry ground’: cp p:,: ‘ dry place,’
Is. 25 5 32 z), used of the wilderness of wanderings, Ps. 78 17
(AV ‘wilderness,’ RV ‘desert,’ RVnw ‘dry land ’). For tl’?:,
dwellers of the ‘desert’ (Is. 13 21 34 14, E V ; also 23 13, AV ;
referring to wild beasts) or ‘wilderness’ (Ps. 72 g 7414, E V ;
referrina to human beings), see CAT, W ILD BEASTS.
1 The passage is obscnre(see Ba., Del.), and, according to Che.,
deeply corrupt.
1076
 DESIRE
A still more forcible term is-
(6) rnk, z%ha (Ps. 107 40 Job 12 24 ; E V ‘wilderness ’), used
of the wilderness of wandering,’Dt. 32 TO (with iiDe; si;,
‘howl-
ing waste ’). The word (cp af-Tih)suggests the idea of waste-
ness and confusion (Jer. 4 23 Job 26 7 Is. 24 10’ cp Ecclus. 41 IO
[Heb.]), such as existed before the creatidn (Gen. 1 2 , see
CREATION, $ 7). For the sake of completeness mention may
be made also of :-
(7)?!e, ”e??
b-z?nEh(Is. 5 9 Jer. 42 IS), nlpW (Is. 1 7 6 II),
( p e k . 35 7), all of which involve the idea of a devastation, not
a natural state (v‘cnw ; cp no. 2).
(8) 27$, XdrE6, Is. 357 (6 i;uuSpos), RV ‘glowing sand,’
R V w . M IRAGE ( q . 7 ~ ) . AV ‘parched ground’ is preferable ;
c p Aram. &a6, ‘to be burnt or dried up,’ and see Che. Intr.
Is. 269. The N T terms to be mentioned ar,e :-
(g),bpqpla ( e g . . Heb. 11 38 E V ‘desert Mt. 1633 ‘wilder-
ness R V ‘ desert place’) akd Zpqpos (eg., Mt. 2413, E V
des’ert ’).
The chief districts and regions to which the above
terms are applied may be here enumerated.
I. The most prominent is that which was the scene of
the wanderings of Israel. It is commonly called ham-
midbnr (Dt. 1I , etc. ) ; but other geo-
3. graphical terms(Shur, Sinai, etc. ; see
G EOGRAPHY, 5 7) are added to indicate
more particularly the region intended. On the char-
acter of this tract, which stretches from the S. border
of Palestine to Elsth and forms the W. boundary of
Edom, see S INAI. The only part which can fairly be
described as a desert is the bare and parched district
of et-Tih, and it is here that I)and (more elaborately)
P place the forty years’ wanderings (see W ANDERINGS ,
§§ IO$ 16), and with this agrees the circumstance that
it is only in the later writings that the horror and lone-
someness of the ‘ wilderness ’ is referred to (e.g., Dt.
8.5).
2. The great crack or depression which includes the
Jordan valley, and extends N. to Antioch and S. to
the gulf of ‘A&zbnh, is the second great ‘desert.’ To
the N. lay the midhar RibLuh (Ezek. 614), midhar
Damascus ( I I<. 195) ; cp perhaps the gpp?lpLlaof Mt. 1533.
The well-known geographical term ‘ArZbrih (see above,
§ 2, 4) is confined chiefly to the lower half (cp midbar
M o d , Dt. 2 8 Nu. 21 IT ; midhar Kedemoth. Dt. 226 ;
midbar Bezel,, Dt.443), see ARABAPI.~T o the NE.
of the Dead Sea is applied also the term ‘ JPshim6n’
(see J ESHIMON). Allusions to the Arghah on the W. side
of the Jordan are found in 2 S. 152328 17 r6, and in it we
should perhaps include the midbar Beth-Aven (Josh.
181z), midbar Gibeon ( z S . 224 ; but see GIBEON), mid-
dor Jericho (Jos. l61), and the references in Jndg.
2 0 4 2 3 I S. 1318. Here, too, was probably the #pp?lpor
of the narrative of the Temptation (Mt. 4 I ). See further
D EAD S EA , § 2.
3. The third tract is the midbar Judah (Josh. 1561,
Judg. 116), the E. part of which, along the Dead Sea,
is called JEshim6n (I S. 23 1924 26 I 3) ; special limita-
tions are the midbar itfaon ( ‘ in the Argbah ’ I S. 2 3
24$), midbar Ziph (2‘6. 2314), and nziabnr En-zedi
( I S. 242 [I]). T o the N. it approached the Arghah.
Here are found the midhur Tekon ( z Ch. 2 0 2 0 ; cp
mid6ar Jerzd, i6. 16), and probably the midhar of
I K. 234 (Bethlehem? cp z S. 232, and see ATROTH-
BETH- J OAB). T o the S. lay Tamar ‘ i n fhe midha?,’
( I I<. 9 18, Y’INZ is a gloss), probably forming part of
the great midhar in no. I above. On the ‘desert’
(epp?lpos) of Acts 826, see GAZA. See, further, D EAD
SEA, J UDAH , PALESTINE, § 11.
4. For the desert-like tracts to the E. of Jordan
(stretching to the Euphrates, I Ch. 59) see BASHAN,
PALESTINE, 12. S. A. C.
DESIRE (?I$!‘??), Eccl. 125 AV, RVmg.; RV
CAPER-BERRY (8.v.).
DESSAfi, RV LESSAU (AEECAOY [Vvid.], Aeccaoy
[A]), a village (in Judaea) where NICANOR ( p . v . ) appears
to have fought with Judas (z Macc. 1416). Possibly
1 On Am. 6 14 see ARABAH,BROOK OF.
1077
DESTRUCTION, MOUNT O F
ADASAis meant (Ew. Hist. 4321) ; but the Greek text
is here’not free from corruption.
DESTINY (’?p),IS.65 11 RV. See FORTUNE AND
DESTINY.
DESTROYER, THE (n9n@D?, Ex.1223, T O N oh&-
p s y o ~ ~Cp a ,Heb. 1128 ; 0 OhoepsywN; Wisd. 1 8 2 5 ;
0 OhO€lPEYTHC, 1 Cor. 1010).
In his account of the last plague, J implies that the
death of the first-born was the work of the Destroyer.
In the light of 2 S. 24r6, where the angel of Yahwt! is
described as ‘ the angeI that destroyed the people’
(oy2 pnwnn), and of 2 I<. 1935=Is. 3736, where the de-
struction of the Assyrian army is attributed to the ‘ angel
ofYahwt!,’we shonldbe ready to infer that the.‘Destroyer’
of the firstborn is not a being distinct from YahwB,
but rather ‘ the angel of Yahwk ’ himself; ;.e., the term
denotes a self- manifestation of Yahwt! in destructive
activity (cp T HEOPHANY, § 4). This conclusion is
confirmed by the fact that the narrative speaks of ‘ T h e
Destroyer’ or Yahwi: (v.z g ) indifferently, just as other
narratives use the terms ’ angel of Yahwk ’ and ‘ Yahwk ’
interchangeably. Cp also Ex. 1227 (Rd). T h e ‘de-
stroyer ’ is clearly identified with Yahwt! by the author
of the Wisdom of Solomon, who attribntes the death
of the firstborn to the word of God (Wisd. 1814-16).
The meaning attributed to the term by the author of
the epistle to the Hebrews (1128) is less clear.
The death of the Israelites in the plague recorded in
Nu.1641-50 [176-151 is attributed directly to God. In
Wisd. 1825 it is said that these people perished by the
‘Destroyer’ ; but here, again, the Destroyer seems to
be identified by the writer with God (cp Grimm on the
passage, vv. 20-25) ; and the same identification is
possibly intended by Paul ( I Cor. 1010). On the other
hand, in 4 Macc. 7 IT the executor of death appears as a
distinct angel ; and generally1 in later Jewish literature
the angel of death ( NniDi K J N ~ C )has a well-marked and
distinct individuality (cp Weber, AZtsyn. Theol (%)
2 4 7 8 ) and is identified with Satan or the Devil (cp
in N T Heb. 214J I Pet. 58). All this is quite foreign
to the belief underlying Ex. 1223.
It is quite in accordance with the general character
of the Priestly Code, which avoids reference to angels
or to the theophanic ‘angel of Yahwt!’ (cp A NGEL,
§ 6), that n*nwD, which is used in the personal sense
of ‘destroyer’ by J (Ex. 1223), is used as an abstract
term-destruction-by P (12 13 [RV”C. ‘ a destroyer ‘1 ;
cp Ezek. 516 2136[31] 25x5). A plurality of beings
who accomplish the death of men is referred to in
Job 3322 by the term pn’nn (‘slayers’), which is
rendered in RV ‘destroyers.’ According to some
commentators, such angelic ministers of death form
the unnamed subject of the plural verb in Lk. 1220.
G. B. G.
DESTRUCTION ( ~ B ~ A A u N ) , 911 ; RV ABAD-
Rev.
DON (P.I..).
DESTRUCTION, CITY OF (D30;1 VY), IS. 19 18 ;
see H ERES, CITY OF.
DESTRUCTION, MOUNT OF (nvyp;I-Tn ; TOY
OPOYC TOY MOCOAe [Bl, T. 0. T. M O C O 8 [Avid.], T.
~ z I<. 23 13, RVIng,),a name so read by
0.A M B C C ~[L],
the later Jews on account of the idolatrous ‘ high places ’
spoken of. Tradition identified the mountain with the
Mount of Olives (so Tg., followed by AVmg.), and the
name has been supposed to have a double meaning--
‘ mount of oil ’ (cp Aram. nr?,?)and ‘ mount of destruc-
tion ’ (so Rashi, Buxtorf). A much better explanation
can be given.
Hoffmann ( Z A TU7 2 175) and Perles (Analekfen, 31) prefer
t o read n;~!3~-1~,‘mount of oil,’ with some MSS; n’nBD will
then he a deliberate alteration of the text. Considering, how-
ever, that we have no evidence for a Heb. word nnwD ‘ oil,’ it is
1 I n Targ. Jon. to Hab. 8 5, however, where Nnln i,y\n is parallel
to a*yyn(?.e., ** 9 1 Nin3n) the distinction is not so manifest
1078
 DEUEL
better to suppose that the ‘mount which is on the east of, Jeru-
salem’ ( I IC. 117) was anciently called not only ‘ the ascent of
the olives’ (2 S. 1530), and in a late brophecy ‘the mount of
olives’ (Zech. 144), hut D ’ ! p h ? l ? (‘mount of those who
worship’), of which n’p?;??-l: would be a purely accidental
corruption. Cp z S. 15 32, ‘And when David had come to the
summit,.where men are wont to worship the deity’ (?innu,
o>&& @u),which comes near proving that this view is correct.
Observe, too, that the Mt. of Olives appears to be once referred
to as the ‘hill of God ’ (Is. 10 32 emended text). See NOB.
Brocardus (1283 A. D. ) gives the name il[o?zs Ofen-
sioizis (cp Vg.) to the most southern eminence of the
Mt. of Olives, because Solomon set up there the image
of Moloch ; on the northern summit, afterwards called
Mons Scanduli, he placed the idol of Chemosh. Quares-
mius, however (circa 1630 A . D . ) , calls the southern ridge
Mons Ofensionis et Scnndali. Gratz, after a full dis-
cussion, pronounces in favour of the northern summit,
i.e., the ‘Viri Galilzi’ (MGPVJ, ‘73, p. 97.f); so
also Stanley ( S P 188, n. 2). No doubt this view is
correct ; Solomon would certainly prefer an eminence
already consecratecl by tradition.
The phrase ‘mount of destruction’ is found also in Jer. 51 25
as a symbolic term for Babylon (EV ‘destroying mountain’).
T. I<. c.
DEUEL ( h y ? ) , NU. 1 1 4 ; see REUEL(3).
DEUTERONOMY. The name conies ultimately
from the Greek translation of Dt. 1 7 1 8 , in which the
words RK’J;? i7Qhq il!?@, ‘the
l ’ ~ duplicate
~ ~(i.e . , a~copy)~of thisdlaw, ’ are
rendered r b ~ E U T E D O T ~ U ~ OTOOTO.
V As a
title of the book, A E I J T E ~ O T(without ~ ~ C O ;the article)
occurs first in Philo.2 Philo takes the word to mean
‘ second or supplementary legislation,’ and more than
once cites the boolias’Errtvo,uls.3 Others, withTheodoret,
explain the name, ‘repetition, recapitulation of the law.’
Criticism has shown that Deuteronomy is neither a
supplement to the legislation in Exodus, Leviticus, and
Numbers, nor a rdsnsunzd of it ; but to modern critics
also it is the Second Legislation, an expansion arid
revision of older collections of laws such as are preserved
in Ex. 2 1 - 2 3 34.
Deuteronomy contains the last injunctions and
admonitions of Moses, delivered to Israel in the land
of Moab, as they were about to cross the Jordan to the
conquest of Canaan ; and, with the exception of chaps. 27
31 3 4 , and a few verses elsewhere, is all in the form of
address. It is not, however, one continuous discourse,
but consists of at least three distinct speeches ( 1 - 4 4 0 ,
5-26, 28, 29 f.),together with two poems recited by
Moses in the hearing of the people (32 f:). The
narrative chapters record doings and sayings of Moses
in the last days of his life, and are more or less closely
connected with the speeches. Besides this unity of situa-
tion and subject there is a certain unity of texture ; the
sources from which the other boolcs of the Hexateuch
are chiefly compiled (JE, P ) are in Deuteronomy recog
nisable only in the narrative chapters, and in a few
scattered fragments in the speeches; a strong an?
distinctive individuality of thought, diction, and style
pervades the entire book
It was observed by more than one of the fathers tha
Deuteronomy is the book the finding of which in the
2. Book found temple gave the impulse to the reform!
inTemple.4 of the eighteenth year of Josiah (622-
6 2 1 B.C.).5 In conformity with the
prescriptions of the newly discovered booG, the king
not only extirpated the various foreign religions whicl.
had been introduced in ancient or recent times, togethei
with the rites and symbols of a heathenish worship o
1 Cp also Josh. 8 32.
9 Le<. Alleg. 3, $5 61 ; Quod Deus imnzrt. B IO. See Ryle
Philo and Holy Scrzpture, xxiiif: The corresponding Hebrev
title, mm n u n 150, is found occasionally in the Talmud am
Midrash as well as in the Massora.‘
3 Quis r e r w n diu. heres, 5 33. See Ryle, as above.
4 Cp H EXATEUCH , LAW LITERATURE, ISRAEL, 373
6 Athanas., Chrysost., Jerome.
I079
DEUTERONOMY
‘ahwk, but also destroyed the high places of YahwB,
esecrating every altar in the land except that in the
2mple in Jerusalem ( 2 I<. 22f. ). In Deuteronomy, and
here alone, all the laws thus enforced are found ; the
iference is inevitable that Deuteronomy furnished the
eformers with their new model. This is confirmed by
he references to the book found in the temple as ‘ the
xw-book’ ( z K . 2 2 8 1 1 ; cp 2324f.1) and ‘the covenant
)oak' (23zf. 21).
The former of these names is found in the Pentateuch only in
he secondary parts of Dt. (28 61 29 20 30 IO 31 24 26), and, like
he phrase ‘this law’ (48 2 7 3 8 2 9 ~ 9 )signifies
~ Ut. or the
leuteronomic legislation exclusively ; ‘ covenant book is an
ppropriate designation for a book in which the cotenant, of
lahwi: with Israel (see COVENANT, $5 6) is an often recurring
heme (5 zf: 17 z 29 I 4 13 23 29 g 12 14 ZI 25, etc.).l
That the book read by Shaphan before Josiah was
3euteronomy has been’ inferred also from the king’s con-
iternation (z I<. 2211 #), which seems to show that the
aw was accompanied by such denunciations of the con-
jequencesof disobedience asare found especiallyin Ut. 28.
The opinion, once very generally entertained, that the
3ook found by Hilkiah was the whole Pentateuch, is no
onger tenable. In addition to arguments of more or less
neight drawn from the narrative in Kings,-that the
#hole Pentateuch would hardly be described as a law-
30oli ; that a book as long as the Pentateuch could not
>e read through twice in a single day ( z K. 2 2 8 I O ) ;
:hat, with the entire legislation before him, the king
vonld not have based his reforms on deuteronomic,
aws exclusively,-recent investigation has proved that
:he priestly legislation in the Pentateuch was not-united
Kith Deuteronomy till long after the time of Josiah.2
Modern critics are, therefore, almost unanimous in the
>pinion that the law-book, the discovery and the intro-
3uction of which are related in z I<. 22f. (see next s),
IS to be sought in Deuteronomy ; and they are very gener-
illy agreed, further, that the book was written either in
the earlier years of Josiah, or at least under one of his
next predecessors, Manasseh or Hezekiah (see 5 16).
The soundness of these conclusions has recently been im-
pugned by several French and German scholars (Seinecke, Havet,
d‘Eichtha1, Vernes, Horst),3 on the ground,
3. Account in partly of sweeping doubts concerning the
2 I<. 22f. trustworthiness of 2 IC.2 2 3 , partly of peculiar
theories of the composition of Dt. These
theories cannot be discussed here; but the great importance
sf z K. 22 3,in the modern construction of the history of
Hebrew literature and religion, makes it necessary t o examine
briefly the historical character of those chapters. It is senerally
agreed that the account of Josiah‘s reforms as it lies before us,
is the work of an author of the deuteronomic school who wrote
after the destruction of Jerusalem. If this author’had drawn
solely upon oral tradition, he might well have derived his informa-
tion from eye-witnesses of the events of 621 ; but it seems to be
demonstrable that in 22 3-23 24 he made use of an older written
source, a contemporary account of Josiah‘s reign, which was
probably included in the pre-exilic history of the kings. This
narrative was wrousht over and enlarged by the exilic writer ; in
particular, the origmal response of Hnldah, which was not con-
firmed by the event, was superseded, after the destruction
of Jerusalem in 586 B.c., by a wholly different one, in which
the judgment is represented as inevitable (22 15-20; cp 23 26J);
23 15-20 also, is generally recognised as a legendary addjtlpn ;
hut, noiwithstanding these changes, the outlines of the orlglnal
account can be reconstructed with reasonable confidence, and I t
appears to be in all respects deserving of credence.4 See KINGS.
The historical evidence proves only that the law-hook
which was put into force by . Josiah contained certain
*. .
Josiah,s Dt.deuteronomic laws concerning religion,
not that it comprised the whole of the
=chaps. 5-26 28 DreSent Booli of ~euteronomy. A super-
ficial examination of the book shows that the latter can-
not have been the case.
Chaps. 31-34 are composite. Besides the two poems, 32 1-43
and 33, they contain the links which connect not only Dt.
1 Ex. 21-23 often called by modern scholars ‘The Covenant
Book’ (see 247) cannot be meant ; for, so far from putting the
high places undkr the ban, these laws assume the existence and
legitimacy of many local sanctuaries (see 216 2314 8 ; cp
20 24).
2 See CANON, $3 233, and the articles on the several books of
the Pentateuch ; also H EXATEUCH , L AW L ITERATURE .
3 For the titles see below 5 33 (2).
4 See St. GVI i 6 4 9 8 ; Kue. Ond.(? 1 .+ITA, cp 407.
IC80
 DEUTERONOMY
but also the narratives of JE and P in Nu. with Josh. Chap. 27
also in narrative form, may, 60th on external and on internai
grounds, with equal confidence he set aside.1 What remains
(1-26 28-30) is all in the form of address; but even this is not
a unit, as is shown by the fresh superscriptions in 5 I 12 I 29 z,
and the formal closes in 26 16-19 and 29 I [28 691 ; in particular,
11-4 and 444-49 are completely parallel introductions which
strictly exclude each other. Chaps. 5-26 contain no allision to
a former discourse such as 1-440 ; nor do the latter chapters form
a natural introduction to 5-26 or 12-26. Chaps. 1-4 are dis-
tinguished also by slight but not insignificant, peculiarities of
style, and more decisive differences of historical representation.
The short prophetic discourse, 2 9 3 , hears all the marks of a
later addition to the hook ; 29 I [28 691 is a formal snbscription ;
the following chapters have their own brief superscription ; the
tone of 2?J is noticeably different from that of the exhortations
and warnings in the body of the hook.
Most recent critics conclude that the original Deuter-
onomy contained only the one long speech of Moses,
5-26 28, to which 445-49 is the introduction and 291
[2869] the conclusion.
Others, urging that the book put into the hands of
Josiah is uniformly described as a law-book, infer that
5. Not simply it is to be sought in Dt. 12-26 alone ;
chaps, 12-26. 5-11, as well as 1-4, is an intro-
duction subsequently prefixed to the
original Deuteronomy by another ha&. -This conclusion
is confirmed by the way in which the author of 5-11
dilates on the motives for keeping the laws, as though
the laws themselves were already known to his readers.2
Against this view, which would limit the primitive
Dt. to 12-26. it is argued that the law-book itself pre-
supposes some such introduction as is found in 5-1 1.
I n 1Z12G there is nothing to show when or by whom the law
was promulgated ; 5 I supplies precisely the information which
12 I presumes ; 5 2-22 recites the covenant at Horeb, with the
Decalogue, its fundamental law ; 5 2 3 8 ex lains the relation of
the laws now about to he delivered to ,fat former law and
covenant. To this answers 29 T [2S 691, which is the subscription
not to 28 alone hut to the whole law-hook : 'These are th;
words of the co4enant which Yahwe commanded Moses to make
with the Israelites in the land of Moab, besides the covenant
which he made with them a t Horeb.
The situation supposed in 12-26 is throughout the
same as that described in 5-11. The language and
style of the two portions present just that degree of
resemblance and of difference which, remembering the
difference of subject matter, we should expect to find in
the writing of one author ; nothing indicates diversity
of origin.3
In regard to chap. 28 also, critics are divided. Well-
hausen finds in 2858 61-where, as in 30 IO, the law is
already a book-evidence that 28, as well as 29 f:,is
secondary ; these three chapters formed the conclusion
of an enlarged edition of the law-book, to which 5-11 was
the introduction.4 On independent grounds, however,
2847-68 is to be recognised as a later addition to the
chapter, and with these verses the only reason for con-
necting 28 with the two following chapters disappears.
Not only are they separated by 29 I f: [286g and 29 I], but
also the whole attitude and outlook of 29f: are different
from those of 281-46. On the other hand, it would be
natural for the author of 12-26 to conclude his book by
urging as strongly as he could the motives to obedience,
and solemnly warning his readers of the consequences of
disobedience. Similar exhortations and warnings are
found at the end of the so-called Covenant Book (Ex.
2 3 2 0 8 ) , and at the end of the Law of Holiness (Lev.
26), the latter passage being strikingly parallel to Dt. 28;
and such a peroration was the more appropriate in Dt.,
because its laws are all in the form of address. The
profound impression made upon the king by the reading
of the book is most naturally explained if it expressly
and emphatically denounced the wrath of God against
the nation which had so long ignored his law.
T h e Deuteronomy of 621 B. c. has not come into our
1 See below 5 21.
2 See w e d . CH 191-195 ; Valeton, Stud. G 1 5 7 8 ; St. GVI
I- &.. f
9 See I h e . Hex. 7, n. 5-11; Di. Comm. 2 6 3 3 ; Dr. Di.
"fkH 192 195. Chaps. 1-4 and 27 were the introduction and
conclusion, respectively, of another edition.
1081
DEUTERONOMY
hands unchanged.
. Not only have the exhortations and
warnings been amplified and heightened,
6' Later pieces but also, in all probability, many ad-
inchaps' 12-26' ditions have been made to the laws.
At the very beginning of the code in 12, and in con-
nection with the most distinctive of the Deuteronomic
ordinances-the restriction of sacrifice to Jerusalem-
there are unmistakable doublets ; cp 125-7 with I I ~ . .
and especially 15-19 &th 20-28. In the following
chapters a good many laws are suspected, because of their
contents, or the unsuitable place in which they stand.
Thus the detailed prescriptions of 143-20 are foreign to the
usual danner of Dt. (cp 248J), and appear to be closely related
to Lev. 11; the law of the kingdom 17 14-20, represents the law
as written (thus anticipating 31 g 26$, is in conflict with the legiti-
mate prerogatives of the monarch, and is clearly dependent on
I S. 8 4 8 10 25 ; the rules for the conduct of war in 20 are not
reconcilable with the necessities of national ,defence, and can
hardly have been dreamed of before the 'exile. To others, how-
ever, the utopian -character of these laws seems not a sufficient
reason for excluding them from the primitive Deuteronomy.1
While many of the instances alleged by critics are in
themselves susceptible of a different explanation, there
seems to be sufficient evidence that the Deuteronomic
code received many additions before the book reached its
present form. Certain supplementary provisions may
have been introduced soon after the law was subjected
fo the test of practice ; others in the Exile ; while still
others probably date from the period of the restoration ;
cp HIST. LIT. 6 5
In 5-11 also, it is evident that the original contents
7, In chaps. of the chapters have been amplified, and
their order and connection disturbed by
5-11 28, later hands.
The story of the sin at Horeh in 9 3 is a long and confused
digression. Chap. 7 16 25 f: repeats I-; ; 1-5 is separated from
12-15 by 6-11 which has no obvious appositeness in this place;
17-24 intrude)s in the same way between 16 and zjf: Similar
phenomena may he observed in the following chapters.$ Nor
has 28 come down to us unaltered. Verses 45f: lainly mark
what was, a t one stage of its history, the end of t f e chapter of
comminations. The two pieces which follow, 47-57 and 58-68,
are shown by internal evidence to he additions, presupposing the
destruction of Jerusalem and the dispersion of the miserable
remnant of the people the consequence of neglecting 'the words
of this law which aie written in this book' (58 ; cp also GI).
Verses 36J'aalso, which threaten the deportation of the king and
people in phrases derived from Jeremlah (with 35, which repeats
273, are probably glosses.3
In the Hebrew legislation three strata are to be re-
cognised : the collections of laws incorporated in JE
8. D,s laws : (Ex. 21-23, often called the Book of the
Covenant ; Ex. 34) ; the Law of Holiness,
to contained (in a priestly recension) in Lev.
and JE' 17-26 and cognate passages ( H ) ; and
the rest of the laws in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers,
predominantly liturgical, ceremonial, and sacerdotal,
which, though not all of the same age or origin, may
here be treated as forming a single body of priestly
law (P). The result of modern criticism has been to
establish. more and more conclusively that P, as a whole,
is later than D e u t e r ~ n o m y . ~On the other hand, it is
1 For a list of passages in 12-26 which have been challenged
by critics, see Holz. Einl. 263 8 ; cp also Horst, Rev. de
?Hist. des ReZ.27 1 3 5 3 ['g3]. Analyses of the legislation have
recently been attempted by Staerk, Das Deut., 1894, and
Stenernagel, DieEntsteh. d.dent. Geseizes, 1896. For a sketch
of these theories see Addis, Docziments o f f h e Hexateuch, 2 15-19
['98]. The substantial unity of the laws is maintained by Kue.
Hex. 8 14 nn. 1-7. Against Horst see especially Piepenbring,
Rev. a?e Phist. des ReZ. 29 1 3 6 8 [?g41.
2 Valeton (Stud. 6 157-174) and Horst ( R w . de PHist. des
RcL 16 39 8 18 320@., cp 27 174) have gone farthest in
the attempt to eliminate the secondary elements in 5-11, See
Kue. Hex. 5 7 n. 6 ' Piepenbring Rev. de PHist. des ReL
29 1 6 5 8 A firmal &lysis has iecently been attempted b y
Staerk (see the last note). and Steuernazel,_ .Der Rahmen des
Deut., ;894.
3 For attempts to restore the primitive brief form of the bless-
ings and curses see Valeton Stud. 7 4 4 3 (cp Kue. Hex. $ 7,
n. 21 121); HorSt, R w . de '?Hist. des EeL 18 327 8, cp
16593: ; Staerk, 71f:; Steuernagel, Rahmen, 40.44. See also
Steinthal, Zeit. f: Vdkerpsych. 111 4 3 The substantial unity
of the chapter i s maintained by Kue. and Dr.
4 Cp. HEXATEUCH. It is not hereby denied that many
of the institutions and customs embodied in P are of great
1082
 DEUTERONOMY
agreed by all that the little collections of laws 'in J E are
older than Deuteronomy. The most convincing proof
of this is given, of course, by tlie Deuteronomic laws
restricting the worship of Yahwb to the one temple at
Jerusalem. It may confidently be inferred also from the
prominence given throughout Deuterohomy to motives
of humanity, and the way in which old religious customs,
like the triennial tithe, are transformed into sacred
charities, as well as from the constant appeal to the
memory of G o d s goodness as a motive for goodness to
fellow-men. Where the provisions of Deuteronomy
differ from those of the Book of the Covenant, they
sometimes appear to be adapted to a more advanced
stage of society; as when the old agricultural fallow-
year is replaced by an experiment in the septennial
remission of debts. The many laws dealing with con-
tracts of one kind or another also are to be noted.
Most recent critics are of the opinion, further, that
the author of the Deuterononiic law--book was not only
9. To Ex. 21-23. acquainted with Ex. 21-23, but also
made this code tlie basis of his own
work ; Deuteronomy, it is said, is a revised and enlarged
Covenant Book, adapted to some extent to new con-
ditions, but with only one change of far-reaching effect,
the centralisation of worship in Jerusalem. It may he
questioned, however, whether the evidence mill sustain
so strong a statement of the dependence of Deuteronomy
on the Book of the Covenant.
Verhally identical clauses are very few and in some instances
at least, have probably arisen from sul&equent conformation:
There is no trace of the influence of the Covenant Book either
in the general arrangement of Dt. 12-26 or in the sequence of
particular laws. T o fully one half of the Covenant Book (after
the subtraction of the reliqions precepts), viz., the title Assaults
and Injuries, Ex. 21 18-22-17, there is no parallel in Dt. ; while
the subject of Authorities in Dt. 1 6 1 a - E has no counterpart in
Ex. 21-23; of thirty-five laws in Dt. 21 10-25 16 only seven
have parallels in the older code. Finally, in the corresponding
laws 1 the coincidences are hardly inore frequent or more nearly
exact than we should expect in two collections originating at no
great distance in place or time, and based upon the same religious
customs and consuetudinary law ; the evidence of literary de-
pendence is much less abundant and convincing than it must be
if Dt. were merely a revised and enlarged Book of the Covenant.%
Certain laws in Deuteronomy have parallels also in
H ; but, whilst the provisions of these laws are often
lo. To H. closely similar, the formulation and phrase-
ology are throughout entirely different.3 In
some points H seems to be a stage beyond Dt. ; but
the differences are not of a kind to imply a considerable
interval of time so much as a diversity of dominant
interest, such as distinguishes Ezekiel from Jeremiah.
Dt. 14 3-21, compared with Lev. 11, has been thought to prove
that Dt. is dependent upon H ; but the truth seems rather to he
that both are based on a common original a piece of priestly
Torah, which each reproduces and modifies'in its own way.4
References to the history of Israel are much fewer in
Dt. 12-26 than in 1-3 4 ; they are of a more incidental
"*E: y!py zzc:s:i
a usive character, and the author
some freedom in the use of
his material ; but, as far as they can
be certainly traced, they appear to be all derived from
JE, or from the cycle of tradition represented by that
work. That the author did not have before him J E
united with P is proved by his reference to the fate of
Dathan and Abiram (116) ; if he had read Nu. 16 in its
present form, in which the story of Datlian and Abiram
(JE) is almost inextricably entangled with that of Korah
( P ) , he could hardly hnve failed to name the latter, who
is the central figure of the composite narrative (cp Nu.
2 6 9 J 273 Jude TI, and see K o ~ a and a D ATHAN A N D
antiquity ; nor that in particular instances they may be more
primitive than the corresponding titles of Dt. ; nor that some of
them may have attaioed, a comparatively fixed form, oral or
written, before the 'exile.
1 They may be conveniently compared in the synoptical table
in Dr. Deut. p. i v x , or in Staerk, Deut. 48-8, where they are
printed side by side.
2 See also Steuernaqel Eittsteltung 8 , s
3 Dr. Deut. p. i v d ; baentsch, 0;s HeiZ&-keitsgcsetz, 7 6 2
io See also LEVITICUS.
Q ' K U ~ . Hex. 5 14, n. 5 ; Paton,/BL 14 48-8 ['95]. .
1083
DEUTERONOMY
ARIRAM). But even if he had possessed P separately,
it would be almost inexplicable that lie so uniformly
follows the representation of J E where it differs from
P or conflicts with it. The instances which have been
adduced to prove that he was acquainted with P are too
few and uncertain to sustain the conclusion ; moreover,
they are all found in the long digression, 99-10 11, which
probably was no part of the primitive Deuteronomp.l
The traditional opinion among Jews and Christians,
that Deuteronomv was written bv Moses shortlv before
his death, though resting on the testi-
'
12' Date not mony of the book itself ( 3 1 9 8 z + J ) ,
pre-monarchic*is contradicted bv both the internal and
the external evidence ; the contents of the book and the
entire religions history of Israel prove that Deuteronomy
is the product of a much later time. The legislation of
J E (in the main, doubtless, merely the booking of an
ancient consuetudinary law) is without exception the
law of a settled people, engaged in husbandry. Deuter-
onomy reflects a still inore advanced stage of culture,
and must be ascribed to n time when Israel had long
been established in Palestine. The fundamental law
for the Hebrew monarchy, Dt. 17 14-20, presumes not
only the existence of the kingdom, but also considerable
experience of its evils. Solomon appears to have sat
for the portrait of the Icing as he ought not to be.2 In
the prohibition of the multiplication of horses and
treasure we may recognise the influence of the prophets,
to whom the political and military ambition of the kings
seemed apostasy (see, e.g., Is. 2 7). The constitution of
thehigh court in Jernsalem(Dt. 178-13, cpl917) is thought
to he modelled after the tribunal which Jehoshaphat
(middle of 9th century B.C.) established ( 2 Ch. 198-11).~
More convincing than the arguments derived from
these special laws are the ruling ideas and motives of
13. Idea of one the whole book. The thing upon which
Deuteronomy insists with urgent and
sanctuary. unwearied iteration is that Yahwe shall
be worshipped only at one place, which he himself will
choose, where alone sacrifices may be offered and the
annual festivals celebrated. Although no place is named,
there can be no doubt, as there was none in the minds
of Josiah and his counsellors, that Jerusalem is meant.
Jerysalem was not one of the ancient holy places of Israel. I t
owed its religious importance to the fact that in it was the royal
temple of the Judaean kings; hut this was far from putting it
u on an equality with the venerable sanctuaries of Bethel and
Sgechem, Gilgal and Beersheba. The actual pre-eminence of
Jerusalem, without which the attempt to assert for it an ex-
clusive sanctity is inconceivable, was the result of the historical
events of the eighth century.
The fall of the kingdom of Israel (721 B. c. ) left Judah
the only I people of YahwB. ' The holy places of Israel
were profaned by the conquerors-proof that Yahwe
repudiated the worship offered to him there, as the
prophets had declared. A quarter of a century later
Sennacherib invaded Judah, ravaged the land, destroyed
its cities, and carried off their inhabitants ; the capital
itself was at the last extremity (see HEZEKIAH,I ;
ISRAEL, § 3 3 J . ) . The deliverance of the city from this
peril seemed to be a direct interposition of Yahwb, and
Jerusalem and its temple must have gained greatly in
prestige through this token of Gods signal favour.
This of itself, however, would not give rise to the idea
that Yahwh was to be worshipped in Jerusalem alone.
The genesis of this idea must be sought in the mono-
theism of the prophets. At a time when monotheism had
not yet become conscious of its own universalism, men
could hardly fail to reason that if there was but one true
God, he was to be worshipped in but one place. And
that place, in the light of history and prophecy, could only
be Jerusalem. The way in which Dt. attempts to carry
1 See Dt. 103 6 2 % ; and, on these passages Kne. TkT.
9 533f: r751 ; Dr. Deut. p. xvi. On 99-1011 dp also below,
5 18 (small type).
2 Cp Dt. 17 16f: with I K. 4 26 10 26 s8,6 111-89 28 10 14-8
3 A critical examination of the history of the reign of Jehosha-
phat in aCh. 1 7 3 does not, however, inspire ns with much
confidence in the account of his judicial reforms.
1084
 DEUTERONOMY
out this principle, by simply transferring to Jerusalem
the cultus of the local sanctuafies with their priesthoods,
was only practicable within narrow territorial limits, such
as those of the kingdom of Judah in the seventh century.
We have the explicit testimony of the Books of Kings
that there was no attempt to suppress the old local sanctu-
aries in Judah until the reign of Hezekiah; the most
godly kings left the high-places unmolested ( I K. 1514
2 2 4 3 2 I<. 1z4 1 4 3 1 5 4 35). The deuterononiist author
of Kings, to whom thc temple in Jerusalem was, from
the moment when Yahwi: took up his abode in it ( I I<.
S ~ o f : )the
, only legitimate place of sacrifice, condemns
this remissness as a great sin ; but there is no evidence
that the religious leaders of Israel down to the end of
the eighth century so regarded it. Elijali is in despair
over the sacrilege which threw down the altars of Yahwi: ;
when he goes to meet God face to face, it is not to
Jerusalem, but to Horeb, the old holy monntain in the
distant S., that he turns his steps. Amos and Hosea
inveigh against the worship at the holy places of the
Northern Kingdom because it is morally corrupt and
religiously false, not because its seats are illegitimate ;
nor is their repudiation of the worship on the high-places
more unqualified than Isaiah's rejection of the cultus in
Jerusalem (Is. 1108). The older law-books, far from
forbidding sacrifice at altars other than that in Jerusalem,
formally sanction the erection of such altars, and promise
that at every recognised place of worship Yahwi: will
visit his worshippers and bless them (Ex.2024).
According to z K. I S 4 zz 21 3 Ilezekiah removed the high-
places, demolished the standing'stones, hewed down the sacred
posts.1 The false tenses prove, however that 1 8 4 has been in-
terpolated by a very late hand ; the origh.1 text said only that
Hezekiah removed the bronze serpent which was worshipped in
the temple (see NEHUSHTAN); nor can much greater reliance primitive Dt. was a produ'ct of the seventh century.
be putupon the reference in the speech of the Rahshakeh(18m).
I t may well he,that Hezekiah after the retreat of Sennacherih
took vigorous measures to suipress the idolatry against whicd
Isaiah thundered in both his earlier and his later prophecies
(2 8 18 20 30 22 31 7), perhaps including the sacred trees and
other survivals of rude natural religion (Is. 1q ) . 2 In any case, years of I-Iezekiali, perhaps in connection with the
the reaction of the iollowing reign swept away all traces of his
work. Cp HEZEKIAH, T ; I SAIAH , i., 15.
Another very distinct indication of the age in which
Dt. was written is found in the foreign religions which
The worship of ' the whole
14. Foreign it combats.
host of heaven' (Dt. 1 7 3 cp 4 r g ) , an
Assyrian cult frequently condemned by
the prophets of the seventh century (Jer. 8 2 1 9 1 3 3229
Zeph. l ~ but ) , not~ mentioned by any earlier writer,
was probably introduced by Manasseh, during whose
reign Assyrian influence was at its height in Judah.
T h e sacrifice of children, 'sending them through the
fire' to the King-God (Dt. 18x0 1 2 3 r ) , also belongs to
the seventh century (see MOLECH); neither Isaiah nor
any of the other prophets of the eighth century alludes
to these rites.
A relatively late date has been inferred also from the
laws against the erection of steles and sacred poles ( m q -
jdhith and &hdrGz) by thealtars of Yahw&(Dt. 1621f.).
The older laws only enjoin the destruction of the Canaanite
holy-places with all their appurtenances (Ex. 34 13 23 24 ; cp
Dt. 12 3). The prophets of the eighth century, especially Hosea
and Isaiah, assail the idols of Yahwi: but not the more primitive
standing stones and posts ; the pole& against the latter begins
with Jeremiah.
The age of Dt. may be determined also by its relation
to other works of known date. From the time of
15. and Jeremiah, the influence of Dt. is un-
other writers. mistakably to be recognised in the
whole prophetic and historical literature,
whilst we look in vain for -any trace of this influence in
1 Cp the much more extended account of these reforms in
z Ch. 29-31.
2 If it were established that Hezekiah put down the high-
places, it would not follow that Dt. is older than Hezekiah ; the
more probable hypothesis, in view of all the testimony of the
prophets and the historical books, would he that the Deutero-
nomic law was in the line of the measures adopted by the king.
3 Cp also the worship of the Queen of Heaven, Jer. T 13 44 17.
See Q UEEN OF HEAVEN.
1085
DEUTERONOMY
the prophets of the eighth century ; neither the impressive
ideas nor the haunting phrases of Dt. have left their
mark there1 The inference that Dt. was unknown to
the religious leaders of Israel before the seventh century
is hardly to be avoided.
On the other hand, in all its ruling ideas, Dt. is
dependent upon the prophecy of the eighth century.
We have already seen that the deliverance of Jerusalem
from Sennacherib prepared the way for the belief that
the temple on Mt. Zion was the only sanctuary at which
Yahwi: should be worshipped, and that the monotheism
of the prophets was the theological basis of the same
belief. T h e lofty theism of Dt., which exalts Yahwk,
not only in might and majesty, but also in righteousness,
goodness, and truth-the moral transformation of the
old conception of ' holiness ' (see CLEAN! 1)-is of
the same origin, whilst the central idea of the book,
that the essence and end of true religion is the mutual
love of God and his people, is derived from Hosea.
In general, the theology of Dt. is an advance upon
that of the prophets of the eighth century, whose
teaching it fuses and assimilates, and approximates to
that of Jeremiah and Isaiah 40-55.
To the same result we are led by the literary character
of Dt. Its style is more, copious and flowing than that
of earlier writers ; but it lacks their terse vigour, and is
not free from the faults of looseness, prolixity, and
repetition, into which a facile pen so easily glides. In
these respects it exhibits the tendencies which mark the
literature of the seventh century and the Exile. The
diction, also, is distinctly that of the same period,
closely resembling that of Jeremiah.
Evidence of every kind thus concurs to prove that the
Result as The fact that it combats foreign cuits
to date of D. which were introduced by Manasseh
militates aqainst the opinion entertained
by some scholars, that it-had its origin in the last
reforms of that king. A hypothesis which commends
itself to many critics is that Dt. was composed in the
reign of Manassch as aprotest against the evils of the
time and as a programme of reform. Its authors died
without being able to accomplish their object, and the
book was lost, until, many years after, it was accident-
ally discovered in the temple by Hilkiah. T o others it
seems more probable that Dt. was written under Josiah,
shortly before it was brought to light, by men who
thought the time ripe for an attempt to introduce the
reforms by which alone, they believed, Judah could be
saved, and had intelligently planned the way in which
this should be effected.3
Everything points to Jerusalem as the place where
Dt. was written : a work whose aim was to exalt the
17. Place. temple to the position of thc sole sanctuary
of Yahwi: can hardly have originated any-
where else. The Torah of the priests is thronghont so
intimately united with the religious teachings of the
prophets that we are constrained to believe that both
priests and prophets were associated in its production,
or at least that it's priestly authors were thoroughly
imbued with the spirit of the prophets. Who these
authors were cannot be more definitely ~Ietermined.~
That the authors of the primitive Dt. freely used
older collections of laws has been eenerallv
0 i recomised.
u
17a*27 Beside Ex.21-23 (on which see above,
$j g), remains of another collection
found in Dt. 22-25. Staerk and Steuer-
are
nagel have recently undertaken to show by minute
1 This is equally true of the older historians : but their works
have been preserved only in deuteronomistic recensions.
2 On the diction of Dt., see the commentaries of Kn. and Di:
Kleinert, Deut. 214 3 ;,, Kue. Hex. 7 n. 4 ' Holz. E i d
~ 8 2 8 ;Dr. Dt. p. Ixxvm 8 On the &le, 6i. 611; Holz.
2 9 5 8 ; Dr. p. l x x x v i 8
3 S o D e Wette Reuss Graf Kue. We. St Che. andothers.
4 The s u g g e s t k tha; J e r e h a h &as the &thor'of Dt. (von
Bohlen, Coknso) is for various reasons untenable.
1086
 DEUTERONOMY
analysis that both the hortatory and the legislative
parts of Dt. are in a stricter sense composite.
According to Steuernagel the hook discovered in the temple
in the eighteenth year of Jgsiah (Dt. 5 26 28) was the work of a
redactor, who combined with considerable skill -but meihanic-
ally, and without substantial addltions-two older works of
like character, each consisting of a hortatory introduction and a
body of laws. One of them (Sg.) is marked by the direct
address to Israel in the second person singular ; the other (PI.)
uses the plural. The older of these works (Sg.) is assigned to
the early years of Manasseh’s reign (shortly after 700 B.c.) the
other (PI.) was composed ahout 670. The union of the twb by
the redactor (I),) falls in the middle of the century, twenty-five
years or more before the discovery of the book ih the temple.
Both Sg. and PI. made use of older .collections of laws and
these sources can still in part be recognised. One of the’chief
sources of Sg. (the ‘ Grundsammlung ’) was put out in support
of Hezekiah‘s reforms, probably not long after 7 2 2 B.C.
Chaps. 1-3, in the form of an address of Moses to
Israel, contain a review of the principal events of the
18. Additions : migration, from the departure of the
Israelites from IHoreb to the moment at
chaps, 1-3
related to E. which he is speaking to them.l This
retrospect throughout follows thehistory
of JE, from which its material is drawn and many
phrases and whole clauses are borrowed.2 Upon closer
examination it appears that the chief sonrce of the
chapters is E, which the author had before him
separately ; whether he made use of J is doubtful ; of
dependence on P there is no trace.
The retrospect begins abruptly with the command to remove
from Horeh (1 6-a), and it has been conjectured that 9 1011
(or a t least 9 25-10 11) which recites the transgression a t l$oreb, connected 26 with 2 8 . In 1-8, where there is much
and brings the narraiive to the precise point where it is taken
up in 1, once stood before 1 7 . More probably however
9 9-10 11 is not a misplaced fragment of the retrospeh but th;
product of successive editorial ampliiications.3 The re;iew ends
as ahruptly as it begins; the words, ‘And we abode in the
valley in front of Beth-peor ’ (3 z9), must originally have been
followed by an account of the sin a t Baal-peor (Nu. 25 1-5 ; cp
Dt. 43.73.
The chapters (1-3)are not by the author of 5-26.
The resemblance in language and style is unquestionably
very close, though there are some noticeable differences ;
but the diversity of historical representation is decisive ;
cp 2 2 9 with 233-6 7 5 , 1 3 5 8 214-16 with 1 1 2 3 52f.
The opinion of some critics, that 1-4 was prefixed to
the primitive Dt. to connect it with the history in Ex.
and Nu., is improbable ; for such a purpose a recapitu-
lation of the history was more than SuperRuous. Others,
with better reason, suppose that the historical n ? ~ r ~ n t C had before him the denteronomic law, with its blessings
was intended as the introduction to a separate edition
of Dt. The way in which it begins and ends (see above,
small type) suggests that it was not composed for the
purpose, but was extracted and adapted by the editor
from some older source. Conclusive marks of the age
of the chapters, further than their dependence upon E
and the general affinity to the deuteronomistic school,
are hardly to be discovered.
Chap. 41-40 has generally been taken with 1-3, as a
19.Chap, hortatory close to the historical introduction.
exilic. There is, however, neither a formal nor
a material connection between them.
The historical allusions in the exhortation are to events
related, not in 1-3, hut in 5 8 ; 41of: 32-35 differ from the
retrospect (139f: etc.) and agree with 5 2 3 1l.a: 2 0 2 f i , in
making the speaker’s audience witnesses of the scenes a t Horeh ;
the greater part of 4 is onlya homiletical enlargement on 5 2 5 8
In other points 4 goes beyond 5-11 ; its monotheism
takes a loftier tone, like that of Is. 40-55 (see 4 3 5 3 9
15-19). I n 425-31 deportation and dispersion are inevit-
able ; the prediction that in the far country Israel will
retnrn to Yahwi: and find forgiveness takes the central
place which it has in the exilic prophets.
The language resembles 5-11 more closely than 1 - 3 ,
but has peculiarities of its own : 417f. are full of words
and phrases which remind 11s of Ezekiel, H, and P (cp
1 Chap. 11-5, which now forms the iiitroduction to the speech
is not homogeneous, and glosses have been pointed out in th;
discourse itself.
2 See particularly Dr. Dt. on these chapters, where the rela-
tion is well exhibited.
3 Cp above, f IT.
1087
DEUTERONOMY
also 32) : 28 seems to be directly dependent upon
Jeremiah (16 13 ; cp a). Chap. 4 thus appears to be a
secondary addition to Dt., composed in the Exile, and
closely akin to 29, if not by the same hand.”
Chap. 441-43, the designation by Moses of three
asylum cities east of the Jordan, has no connection
either with what precedes or with what
20. Chap,
follows. I n phraseology the verses agree
441-43 44-49’ closely with Dt. 19 I j?,after which they
are probably modelled. They may originally have
stood after 3 1 7 or 20, or perhaps after 29.
Chap. 444-49, the title and superscription to 5 3 . , like
the corresponding superscription 11.5, appears to be
the product of successive additions and redactions by
scribes or editors ; the oldest form of the title may have
been simply, ‘ This is the law which Moses laid before
the Israelites on the other side of Jordan, in the land
of Moab’ (cp 1 5 ) .
Chap. 2 7 , in narrative form, stands entirely dis-
connected in the midst of the speeches of Moses,
21. Chap, 27 separating 28 from 2 6 . Graf, accordingly,
four pieces. regarded it as an interpolation, introduced
when Dt. was united with the older
historical book (JE), whilst Wellhausen sees in it the
conclusion of a separate edition of the Deuteronomic
lawbook ( 1 - 4 4 0 12-26 27). The chapter (27)
consists of four distinct parts : viz., 1-8 9f. 11-13 14-26.
Vv. 9 f. may, as many critics think, have originally
repetition, 5-7n has long been recognised as a fragment
of the ancient sonrce to which Ex. 2 0 2 4 - 2 6 [ z I - ~ ]
belongs. Vv. 12 f. seem to be the sequel of 11 29$,
the whole being a liturgical embodiment of 1126-28,
and plainly secondary. Vw. 14-26 cannot be by the
author of 11-13: the things on which Dt. lays the
greatest stress are lacking in this decalogue, which is a
cento gathered from all strata of the legislation, especially
from Lev. 16-20,
Chap. 291.: contain a new address of exhortation and
warning, introduced, like 5 8 ,by the words, ‘And
22. Chap, 29f: Moses convoked all Israel.’ The stand-
point of the writer is similar to that of
4 1-40, and differs in the same way from that of 5-26 28
1-46 ; cp in particular 301-10 with 425-31. The anthor
and curses, in a book (29nof. 27 3010, cp also 29 g
28 58 6r). The diction differs considerably from that of
5-26, and approximates more closely to that of Jeremiah,
upon whom the author is evidently dependent. Chaps.
29 f. are, therefore, like 4 , an exilic addition to Dt. T h e
movement of thought in these chapters is far from being
orderly or coherent : 29 16-28 [15-27] does not naturally
follow 10-15 [9:14], and the latter verses have no obvious
connection with 2-9 [1-8] ; 30 1-10 cannot originally have
stood between 29 and 3011.20. The position of
these chapters is difficult to explain. Chap. 28 1-46
is the proper conclusion of the long speech of Moses,
5-26 ; 291 [2869] is a formal subscription, marking the
end of the book. The only natural place for fresh
admonitions to observe the law would be after the law
had been committed to writing (319-13 ; cp 24-27) ; and it
has been conjectured, not without probability, that this
was the original position of the parting charge.3
Chap. 3 1 , which takes up the narrative again, is
composite, and presents to criticism most difficult
problems.
Verses 1-8 are not the sequel of 29f: or of 25 ; they take up
the story at the point which the historical introduction reaches
in 3 2 3 8 ; they are deuteronomistic in colour,
23. Chap. 31. and Dillmann surmises that once they followed
3 28 immediately. A parallel to 1-8 is found in
14f: 23, in which Yahw; himself gives the charge to Joshua a t the
sacred tent ; these verses are probably derived from E. T h e
intervening verses 16-22 are an introduction to the ‘Song of
Moses,’ 32 1-43, to’which $244 is the corresponding close. This
1 On this point see further below, § 23.
2 See next section (23), on 31 24-29.
1088
 DEUTERONOMY
introduction is not deuteronomic, as the language proves ; it is
equally clear that it is not by the author pf 14f: 2.3. The
question of the source of the verses will recur In connection wlth
the age of the poem itself (next s, second par.). Vu.9-13,
relating how the law was committed to writing and preserved,
form an appropriate conclusion to the account of the giving of
the law and are by many critics connected with 5-26 28. The
preserdtion of the law is the subject of 24-27, which the
repetition and the'different motive prove to b e b y another hand;
28f: seems to he a preparation for the recitation of the ' S m g
(30), and is as much out of place after 19-22 as 24-27 after 9-13 ;
the whole passage 24-29 (30), is therefore ascribed to a redactor.
Dillmann conject& that 2 8 i (in snbsiance) originally consti-
tuted the introduction, not to the Song of Moses, but to a speech
the close of which is to he found in 824,5:47. This speech,
containing the last exhortations and admomtlons of Moses, was
removed from its place after 819.13 to make room for the Song,
and is preperved, though worked over and extensively inter-
polated, in 4 29f: For reasons which have already heen indicated,
we should not, however, with Dillmann, attribute this speech to
the author of 5-26 28, hut to a later deuteronomistic wriler.
Chap. 32 1-43 ; The Sonf of Moses.l-The theme of
the Ode is the goodness of Yahu.6, the sin of Israel in
24. Song of rejecting him, and the ruin which this
Moses. apostasy entails. The poem contains no
definite allusions to historical events by
which its age may be exactly determined. The conquest
of Canaan evidently lies for the writer in a remote past
( 7 3 ) ; and he has had ample experience of the pro-
pensity of Israel to adopt foreign religions, and of the
national calamities in which the prophets saw the
judgments of Yahw6 upon this defection. The language
has been thought to indicate that the author was a
native of the North; and many scholars believe that
the situation reflected in the poem is that of the kingdom
of Israel in the reign of Jehoash (797-783 B .c.) or the
early years of Jeroboam 11. (782-743), when, after the
long and disastrous Syrian wars, Israel was beginning
to recover its former power and prosperity.2 Others,
understanding by the ' n o people' (oy &), the 'foolish
nation' (521 3 1 3 Z I ) , the Assyrians, to whom such ternis
would he applied more naturally than they could he to
theSyrians (cp Is. 3 3 1 9 , ~5 2 6 8 ) , ascribethe poem to the
latter half of the eighth century. The words may, how-
ever, with even greater probability, be interpreted of the
Babylonians (cp Jer. 5 1 5 3 6 2 2 $ , especially Hab. 1 6 8 ,
Dt. 2 8 4 9 8 ) . In the vocabulary of the Song there are
several words which are not found in writers of the eighth
century, but are common in the literature of the seventh
and sixth; the Aramaisnis in word and form which
have been looked upon as evidence of Ephraimite origin
niay eqnally well be marks of a later age. The poem
contains many reminiscences of the older prophets,
especially of Hosea and Isaiah ; hut in its whole spirit
and'tone, as well as in particular expressions, it is much
more closely akin to Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Is. 40-55.
It has a'strong resemblance, also, to the exilic additions
to Dt. ( 4 2 9 j ) ; its theology is that of these chapters
and of Is. 40f. Its affinities to the Psalms and the
products of Jewish Wisdom are to be noted.4 It is,
in fact, a didactic poem, embodying in lofty verse the
prdphetic interpretation of Israel's history from beginning
to end. Icnenen and others ascribe the Song to the
end of the seventh century (say 630.600 R. c. ) ; but the
considerations last adduced, and others which might he
mentioned, point rather to an exilic or post-exilic date.
It has commonly been assumed that the introduction
to the Song (31 16-22) is pre-deuteronomic (J or E) ; 5
not so mnch, however, upon internal evidence as in
consequence of general theories about the age of the
poem and the composition of the last chapters of Dt.
It is intrinsically at least equally .probable that the
1 On the Song of Moses see Ew. / B W 8 47-65 I'571;
Kamph. ?as Lied Noses, 1862; Klo. Das Lied Mose's u.
das Deut. St. Kr. 44 249 8 ['711, 45 230 8. 450 8 ['72l;
reprinted in Der Peat. 223-367 ['g3]; St. Z A T W 5 297-30C
['851. For the older literature see Di. Comm. 395; Reuss,
GA T , $ 226.
2 See 2 K. 1823-25 1425-27.
3 This verse is, however, probably not from the Assyrian
period.
See ~ f 3: 3 6 28$, etc. 6 Kue. attributes it to Rje.
35 1089
DEUTERONOMY
ntroduction is post-deuteronomic ; and this hypothesis
s strongly commended by the fact that the Song itself
ias apparently been put in the place of the last discourse
If Moses ( 2 9 $ ) , which is itself a product of the 'exile.'
Chap. 3 2 4 4 is the closing note to the poem, cor-
wponding to 3 1 3 0 at its beginning. Verses 45-47
ire the close of the speech, answering to 3128f: ;'
hcy contain no allusion to the Song; their literary
tffinities are to 31 2 8 5 , not to 31 16-22 or 3244. Chap.
$248-52 belongs to the priestly stratum : the Same
:onimand is given somewhat more briefly in Nu.
17 12-14 (P).
Chap. 33 : ' The Blessing wherewith Moses the man
If God blessed the Israelites before he died. ' Beyond
~~. Blessing. this superscription. no attempt is made to
connect the poem with the history of
Moses' last days ; from which it niay be inferred that it
vas not introduced by a deuteronomistic editor. The
Ipening verses (1-5), which are very obscure, in part
.hrough corruption of the text, describe the coming of
Yahwi: from Sinai, the giving of the Law, the acquisition
if the territory of Jacob (?), and the rise of the kingdom
n Israel. Thereupon come, without any transition,
Blessings on eleven tribes, following a geographical
irder from south to north, and differing greatly in
ength and in character.
The Blessing of Moses is a composition of the same
Lind as the so-called Blessing of Jacob (Gen. 49 1-27),
~~
26. Its date. though not a mere imitation of it. The
historical situation reflected in the Blessings
If the several tribes in Dt. is that of a time considerably
ater than that in Gen. ; cp particularly Levi (Gen.
195-7 Dt. 338-11) and Judah (Gen. 498-12 Dt. 3 3 7 ) . On
.he other hand, the situation is entirely different from that
pepresented in the Song of Moses, Dt. 3 2 . While in
the latter, apostasy has drawn upon Israel the consuming
mger of YahwB, and the very existence of the people is
ihreatened, the Blessing breathes from end to end a
national spirit exalted by power and prosperity and
unbroken by disaster. The author was a member of
one of the northern tribes, or a Levite at one of the
northern sanctuaries. The blessing of Joseph (13-17)
was written at a time when the kingdom of Israel, in
the pride of its power, and perhaps flushed with victory,
was thinking of foreign conqiiests (17). Recent critics
have generally followed Graf in ascribing the poem to
the time of Jeroboain 11. (782-743 B.c.), when for a
brief space Israel seemed to have regained all its ancient
power and glory; 20 is then referred to the recovery
of the territories of which Gad had been stripped by
the Syrians of Damascus in the disastrous period which
preceded.
The prayer in 7, ' Hear, 0 YahwB, the voice of Judah, and
bring him to his people,' has heen understood as the wish of the
Ephraimite poet that Judah might be reunited to Israel, and is
thought by many to point to a time soon after the division of the
kingdom, when the desire for the restoration of the national unity
was still stronz. This obscure verse. however. cannot he allowed
to outweigh &e clearer testimony of other parts of the chapter.
The Blessing of Levi (8-11)describes the privileges and offices
of the priesthood and the fidelity of Levi to its sacred trust.
There is nothing ;o indicate that the author was a priest of the
temple in Jerusalem3-the priests of other temples also were
Levites,-nor any cogent reason for thinking that g 11 are
Jewish interpolations. Verse I T , however, is hardly a blessing
for the priesthood, and would unquestionably he more appropri-
ate to one of the other tribes ; hut that it was the original sequel
of 76, as has heen conjectured, is not evident.
On the whole. the age of Jeroboam 11. seems best to
satisfy the implications of the Blessings. Verses 2-5,
1 See above 5 23.
2 On the Bfessing see Hoffm. in Keil and Tzschirner's Ana-
Zehten (1822)) iv. 2 1-92 continued in a series of Jena Pro-
grams, 1823-1843 ; Graf;Ddr Segnz Mose's 1857 ' Volck Der
S e p n Mose's, 1873 ; A van der Flier, De'ut. 38,' 1895 ;'Ball,
'The Blessing of Moses,' PSBA 18 118-137 ['g6]. See also
St. G V I 1 1 5 0 8 The older literature in Di. C07z7it. 416;
Reuss, G A T , I 216.
3 The meaning of these verss is much disputed.
4 In 12 it is not certain that Jerusalem is meant (cp BEN-
JAMIN, $ 8).
1090
 DEUTERONOMY
26-29, have no connection with the Blessings, and it is
not improbable that they are fragments of another poem.
Whether the Blessing of Moses was contained in J or E
is a question which we have no means of answering :
neither the short introduction, nor the titles of the
several Blessings (which alone can be attributed to an
editorial hand), offer anything distinctive ; nor do the
reminiscences of the earlier history.
Chap. 34. The story of the death of Moses is highly
composite, elements from JE and P, as well as the
hand of more than one editor, being recognisable in it.
Deuteronomy is the prophetic law-book, an attempt
to embody the ideal of the prophets in institutions and
2,. Religious laws by which the whole religious,
social, and civil life of the people should
character
-f T\L be governed. W e recognise this aim
VI U U .
in the treatment of the older right and
custom of Israel, and more clearly in those provisions
which are peculiar to Deuteronomy, above all in the
fundamental law, chap. 5 3 It seeks, not to regulate con-
duct by outward rule, but to form morality from
within by the power of a supreme principle.
The dominant idea of Deuteronomy is monotheism.
The first sentence of the older Decalogue,' repeated
28, Mono- if 5 6 $ , expresses, indeed, only a rela-
tive monotheism ; but the fundamental
theism. deuteronomic law, ' Yahwi: our God is
one Yahwb ' (64f: ), declares, not only that there are not
many Yahwks, as there are many Baals, but also that
there is no other who shares with him the attributes of
supreme godhead which are connoted by his name.
H e is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the
great, mighty, and awful God' ( l O 1 7 ) , to whom belong
' the heavens and the heavens of heavens, the earth and
all that therein is' (1014), 'the [only] God in the
heavens above or in the earth beneath; there is no
other' (439, cp 35).2 The unapproachable majesty of
Yahwi? ( 5 1 3 zj? 49$), his constancy to his purpose,
and his faithfulness to his word are often recurring
themes ( 7 8 - r o 1 2 3 95, etc.). He is a God who re-
quites his enemies to the full (7 m) ; yet a compassionate
and forgiving God to those who under his judgments
turn to him again (429-31, cp 3 0 1 3 ) .
Idolatry is strictly forbidden. The images and
emblems of the Canaanite - pods are to be totally de-
29. Objects of stroyed (122f: 75 25). The Decalogue
prohibits the making of images of
worship. Yahwi: in the likeness of anv obiect in
, <
heaven, or on the earth, or in the s e a ; and in 4 1 5 3 ,
where this prohibition is emphatically repeated, Isracl
is reminded that at Horeb, when Yahwi: spoke to them
out of the midst of the fire, they saw no form-a lesson
to them not to image him in any form. The more
primitive standing stones and sacred poles are inclnded
in the prohibition (l621f: 1 2 3 3 ) . All kinds of
divination, sorcery, and necromancy are condemiicd as
heathenish (189.14) ; YahwB's will and purpose are made
known, not by such signs as are interpreted by the mantic
art, but by the mouth of his prophet (1815fl).
YahwB is to be worshipped, not at many sanctuaries,
but at one only, in the place which he chooses to fix
30. Exclusive: his name there (12pass., 1423 1520 I 6
pass., etc. ). The unity of the sanctu-
ary is a consequence of the unity of
God. The suppression of the gigh-places, which is so
strenuouslyinsistecl on in Dt., was primarily dictated, not
by practical considerations, but by the instinctive feel-
ing that their existence was incompatible with niono-
theism : as long as there were many altars there were as
many local YahwBs. It is doubtless true that, for the
religious consciousness of the great mass of worshippers,
the YahwA of Dan was not just the same as the Yahwb
1 On the various forms of this code see DECALOGUE.
2 See also 3 24 47J 32$: I t has been observed a b x e that
the theology of 41-40 approximates more nearly to that of
Is. 402.
1091
DEUTERONOMY
,f Bethel or of Beersheba. But the great doctrine of
Dt. is, ' Yahwi: thy God is one Yahwb.' The exdlusive
xinciple, ' Thou shalt have no other gods beside me,'
s stronglyreaffirmed (612-15 l o n o - z z 1116f: 28, etc.) ;
'he worship of othcr gods is punished by death (172-7,
jce also 13), the apostasy of the nation by national ruin
:614,f 7 4 819f: 425-28 3 0 1 7 3 , etc.) ; for Yahwb is a
lealous God (615 424). Not only in Israel, which is
YahwB's people, but also ia Canaan, which is his land,
there shall be no other god or cult. Every trace of the old
religions of Palestine is to be obliterated. The Canaan-
ites themselves mnst be exterminated, lest, in intercourse
with them, Israel be infected with their religion ( 7 1 8
16 93, cp 1229f: 2 0 1 6 3 ) . ' Alliance and intermarriage
with the heathen are stringently prohibited (73f:, etc. ) ;
and many special laws are directed against heathen
customs and rites : see, e.$., 225 23 17;f: No less urgent
warnings are given against the religions of remoter
peoples (136f:).
The essence of the religions relation between
YahwB and his Deoule is love. He has loved Israel
31. Principle honi the beginning (1015 7 7 f: 23 5).
and if they keep his commandments
of love. he will love and bless them in all the
future (713. cp 4 3 7 J ) . They are the children of YahwB
their God (141) ; his discipline and his care are parental
( 8 5 131). All good things are from him; but the
signal proofs of his love to Israel are the deliverance
from Egypt (passinz, e.$. , 8 1 4 8 ) , and the law which he
has given them (45-8328). The love of Yahwb to his
people demands, as it should inspire, their love : Thou
shalt love YahwB thy God with all thine heart, and with
all thy soul, and with all thy' might ' (65) is the first
commandment of the law, the first principle of religion
(101zf: 1 1 1 1 3 1~ 3~4 199 3 0 6 1 6 ~ 0 ) . LovetoGodcon-
strains to do his will; to love God and to keep his
commandments are inseparable. His commandments
are not remote or incomprehensible : they are in men's
hearts and on their lips (30~1.14,cp Jer. 3131-34) ; nor
are they difficult and burdensome ( l O r z f : , cp Mic. 68) :
to keep them is for maii's own good (624 1013). It is a
religion of the heart, not of outward observances or
of formal legality. Observances are not rejected; a
religion without worship and distinctive ceremonial is
not contemplated ; but festivals and sacrifices are only
the expression of religious feeling-above all, of loving
and joyful gratitude for God's love and goodness.
The relation of YahwA to Israel is not a natural and
indissoluble relation, such as subsists between a tribal
32. Moral god and his people; it is a moral rela-
tion, which has its origin in his choice of
basis. Israel to be his people. He chose it, not
for any good in it (7 7 9 4 8 ), but because he loved its
forefathers (101s); and love and faithfulness bind him
to their descendants (78 95). The electioii by which
Israel alone of all the nations of the earth is made the
people of Yahwi: is Isracl's glorious distinction ; but it
imposes the greatest obligation. Sin, in this light, is
more heinous, judgment more necessary and more
severe ; but in Gods constancy to his purpose and his
promise faith finds the assurance that the severest
judgment will not be utter destruction.
The bond between YahwB and Israel is the covenant
which he made with them at Horeb ( 5 2 3 ) and renewed
on the plains of Moab (29 I [2869]). The deuteronomic
law sets forth the obligations imposed by YahwB and
accepted by Israel (172) ; strict observance of the law is
the condition of the fulfilment of the promises of Yahwb,
the obligations which he voluntarily took upon himself
in the pact (79-13 l l z z f l , etc.).
Israel is to be a holy people ( 7 6 14221 26rg)-that is,
one set apart to YahwB in a11 its life. The stringency
of the laws which are to preserve the purity of the
1 At the time when Dt. was written this sanguinary proscrip-
tion of the native population can hardly have had much practical
significance.
1092
 DEUTERONOMY
people and the land from false religion and immorality
is thus explained and justified : ‘ Thou shalt exterminate
the evil from the community’ (135 and puss.; see 22
13-30 21 78-21 19 16-21 etc. ).
Notwithstanding the sanguinary thoroughness with
which it demands the extirpation of heathenism, and the
severity of many of the special laws, the distinctive note
of the deuteronomiclegislation is humanity, philanthropy,
charity. Regard not only for the rights, but also for
the needs of the widow, the orphan, the landless Levite,
the foreign denizen, is urged at every turn.l The in-
terests of debtors (2320 2410-13 ~ ~ I - I I slaves
) , (514
1512-18), and hired labourers (244 J : ) are carefully
guarded. Various provisions protect the rights of the
wife or the female slave (241-4 2213-19 2110-1415-17).
Nor are the animals forgotten (254 226J). The spirit
of the legislation is seen,not least clearly in the laws
which appear to us altogether utopian, such as 20 (cp
245 1714-20 151-6).
In conformity with its prophetic character, Dt. pre-
sents itself not merely as a law-book, but also as a book
of religious instruction. Its lessons are to be diligently
remembered, and not forgotten in times of prosperity
(66-12 811-18 etc.). Its fundamental precepts are to
be repeated daily, to be worn as amulets, to be inscribed
in public places (67-9 1118-21). They are to be’taught
to children, that each succeeding generation may be
brought up in the knowledge of YahwvB‘s will (6720-25
111 9 . 4 9 ) ; and every seven years the whole law is to be
publicly read in the hearing of the assembled people
(319-13].
Taken all in all, Dt. will ever stand as one of the
noblest monuments of the religion of Israel, and as one
of the most noteworthy attempts in history to regulate
the whole life of a people by its highest religious
principles.
I. Conznzenfa&s.-Of the older works Drusius (1617) Ger-
hard (1657)~and Clericus (1696) may ofien be consulted with
profit. The principal modern commentaries
33. Literature. are Vater Pent. iii., 1805 ; M. Baumgarten
1843,184;; F. W. Schultz, 1859 ; Kn., 1861
Schroeder 1866 (Lange’s BibeZwerh), E T with additions by
Gosman, :E79 ; Keil, 1862,nnd ed. 1870, ET 1867 ; Espin, 187r
(Sjeaker’sComm.);Di., 1886 ; Montet, L e Deut., 1891 ;Oettli,
1893 ; Dr., 1895 ; Steuernagel in Nowack‘s H K , 1898.
2. Criticism-Vater, Contment. iiber den Pent. nzit. Einl. 3,,
‘Abhandlung iiber Moses und die Verfasser des Pentateuchs
391 3 ; De Wette, Dissert. cmt. - sxeget. (1805); Beitr. i.
EinL in d. A T 1 (180j),., 168 3 2 6 5 8 , 2 (1807)~385 8.
d. A T 504 3 (‘3j); Eiul 384 3
J. F. L. George, Die dZt.jud, Teste (‘ 5) ; W. Vatke, Die ReL
Gesetzge6. Mos., etc. (‘54); St. Irr. 1 G j - &
(‘66). E. Riehm, Die
(‘73) (review of
Kleinert); Colenso, Pent. andJosh., Pt. 3 (‘63), cp pt. 7 App.
85-110; Graf. Die gesch. B&h. d. A T (‘66); Kosters, Die
historie6eschouwingvan dfu Deuteronoinist ’68) ’ Klo D.as
Lied Mose’s 11. d. Deut. St. Kr. (‘71, ,720; “Beitrzge zur
Entstehungsgesch. des Pent.’ Neua KirchL Zf., 18go-gz, re-
printed in Der Pent. (‘93)’ Kleinert Das Deut. u. d.
Deuferonomiher (‘72) ; Reinlie ‘ Ueber das nnter dem Kanige
Josia anfgefundene GesetzbuAh ’ Beiir. zur ErhL d. A T
8 (172), 131-180; Kayser, Das horexil. Buch der Urgesch.
Iw. I . seine Enueiteruitgen (‘74) ; J. HollenbeTg, ‘Die deut.
Eestandtheile d. Buches Josua’ St. Kr., 1874, pp. 462-506;
We. CH, J O T , 1876, 1877 ; reprinted separately, under the
same title, 1885, and with Nachtrage, Die Conrp. des Hex. 21.
d. hist. Bucher des A T (‘89); GI (‘78) and ed. called Prol.
8. G I (‘83), 4th ed. 1895, ET, Prolegknena t o the Hist. of
ZsraeZ(‘85); S. J. Curtiss, The LeviticaZ P?iests (‘77); WRS,
Additional Answer t o the Li6el (‘78);,Answert o the Amended
Li!eZ (‘79); 0,TJC (‘81; 2nd ed. y); E. Renss, L’hist.
saznte et Za (02. 1 1 5 4 3 (‘79); Die z e d . Gesch. n. d. Geseiz,
1 0 6 3 , (‘93), (Das A T , Bd. 3 ) ; Steinthal ‘Das fuufte Buch
Mose Zt. f e r VJZkerpsych. n. Sjmchwisiens 1879, pp. 2-28;
‘ Die’erzahlenden Stucke im fiinften Buche MLse,’ i6. 1880, pp. specially thick on the mountains, is yet abundant
253-289, also separately (Berlin, ’80); Valeton, Theo. Stud. 5
(‘79), PP. 169-206,291-313: 6(‘80), pp. 133‘174,303-pp; 7(‘81), PP.
39-56, 205-228 ; F. Del. ‘ Pentateuch-kritische Studien,’ ZKWL
1 (‘So), 4 4 5 3 , 5 0 3 3 5 5 9 8 : Castelli, + a ZegRe delpopolo Ebreo
neZ suo svo&zmento stonco, 207-320 ( 84) ; Cheyne, Jeremiah,
his Z ~ eand times (‘88), chaps. 5.7 ; Baudissin, Gesch. des
A T Priesterthums (‘89); A. Westphal, Les sources du Pent.
2 32 3 (‘92): Staerk, DUJ Dent. sein Inhalt U. seine
literamkche Fortn (‘94) ; Stenernagel, Der Rahmrn des D p u f .
(‘94) ;Entsteh. desdent. Gesetzes(‘g6); Havet, Le Christianisme
1 See 10 1 8 j 16 18-20 17 8.13 24 17f: 27 19 1 2 12 18 f: 1 4 27-29
16 IT 14 24 19-22 26 1 1 8
I093
DEW
et ses omgnes, 3 32 3 (‘78); d’Eichthal, 2462. de crit. K6.
(‘86) and &de sur k Deut. 8 1 - 3 0 ; Vernes, U7~enouv. hypoth.
sur ’la c0ni.b. et lorigine dy Dsut. (‘87), reprinted in Essais
biblipes (‘91): L. Horst Etudes stir le Deut. Revue de
1’Hist. des ReZig. 16 28-6; (‘87), 17 1-22 (‘88), 18 qzo-334 (‘88),
23 184-zoo (‘g~), 27 119-176 (‘93); ,cp Kuenen De jongste
phasen der Critiek van den Hex. ?AT, 351 8 (‘e@;, C.
Piepenbring, Reo. de PHist. des Relzg. 24 2 8 8 . 37 fi (g!),
‘La reforme et le code de Josias,’ i6. 29 123-180 (‘94); Addls,
Docunzrnts of the Hex. 2 (‘98).
See also Introductions to the OT :-Eichhorn, 4th ed. (‘23)-
De Wette (‘17 th ed. ’52, 8th ed. by E. Schrader, ’69); Bleei
(‘60) substan&ly unaltered in later edd., E T by Venables
(‘69)); S. Davidsoii (‘62) ; Kuenen, Hisf. hrif. Ond. (‘6i ; 2nd
ed. entirely rewritten ’85). ET by Wicksteed, The Hexateuch,
(‘86); Reuss, Gesch. ’des 2 T (‘81 ; 2nd ed. ’go) ; Cornill (‘91 i
znded. ’92); Driver, Introd. (‘91; 6th ed. ’ g ~ ) cp
, ‘Deuteronomy
in Smith‘s DBP) Konig (‘93) ’ Wildeboer De Letterhunde
des Oaden Verbon$ (’93) ; Holzii;ger, EiuL i; den HEX.(‘93).
On the relation of Dt. to Jeremiah, see Kueper, Jeremias
li6romm sacro~uminterpres et vindex, 4-45 (‘38). Kdnig
‘Das Deut. und der Prophet Jeremiah,’ A T Stud&. 2 (‘3y) f
Zunz, ZDMG 2s 669-676 (‘73) ; Colenso, pt. 7, App. pp. 85-110,
cp K 563fi 5 7 2 3
In defence of the Mosaic authorship : Hengstenberg,
Authentie des Pent. 2 1 5 9 8 (’39), ET Genuineness of the
Penfateuch 2 1 3 0 3 (‘47)’ Havernick EinL iu das A T
1 601 3 (‘A6) E T Introd. ’ t o the Pentheuch 41oJ (‘50) ;
Keil, Einl. i; das A T , 1853, 3rd ed. 1873, E? by G. C. M.
Douglas, Introd., etc. 1869 ; Bisnell, The Pentateuch, i f s
O n g i ~ zand Structure (‘85); G . Vos, The Mosaic On’gi?~of
the Pentateuchal Codes (’86); Martin, Zntrod. ri la crit. gen.
de 1’Anc. Ted. 1 2 9 5 8 (‘87) ; A. Zahn, Das Deut. (‘go).
G . F. M.
DEVIL. For Dt. 3 2 1 7 etc. (n-wj), Llc.433 etc. (6ai-
p d v ~ o u ) Mt.
, S 31 etc. (sa&v),
see DEMONS, $ 4 : for Lev. 17 7 etc.
(l‘)$), see S A TYR ; and for Mt. 4 I etc. (6 Gr&/3pohos),see SATAK,
§ 4f:
DEVOTED, AV sometimes, RV usually, for Ql,
@re?n (Lev. 2721 EV, I I<. 2 0 4 2 RV, etc.). See B AN ,
I2.
DEW (yv; hpococ). ‘Dew’ is a theme which
kindles the enthusiasm of the O T writers ; but what
does ‘dew’ mean in the OT? and are the common
explanations of the biblical references altogether correct ?
During the spring and autumn the phenomenon which
we call dew is, at least in the intervals of fine weather,
1. Meaning as familiar in Palestine as in western
of the term. countries : the moisture held in suspen-
sion in the atmosphere during the day is
deposited, in cloudless nights, owing to the cooling of
; the surface of the ground, in the form of ‘ dew.‘ It is
not, however, simply this phenomenon of spring and
autumn that excites the enthusiasm of the Hebrew
writers ; for it is not the dew but the former and the
latter rains that are in these seasons of vital importance
to the agriculturist (see R AIN ). During the summer
season, however, from the beginning of May to the
latter part of October, there is an almost unbroken
succession of cloudless days, when vegetation becomes
parched, and would altogether perish but for another
phenomenon which has a prior claim to the descriptive
Hebrew name taZ ( ‘ sprinkled moisture ’ ) uniformly re-
presented in the EV by the word ‘ dew.’ During the
summer, but more especially (when the need is greatest)
in the latter part of August and during September an&
October, westerly winds bring a large amount of mois-
ture from the Mediterranean (see W INDS ). This moisture:
becomes condensed by the cool night air on the land
into something not unlike a Scotch mist, which, though
enough everywhere to sustain with its moisture the
summer crops, and to keep some life in the pastures of
the wi1derness.l
Coming only in the night, and being so much finer than
ordinary rain, this beneficent provision of nature received a
special name f a &to which the Arabic falllr*c,‘fine rain ’ come-
sponds. Tb; Greek poetical terms 6p6uos rrovn‘a and Baiamda,
8pouepdL ve+ihar, seem more adequate than the simple Spdqos,
1 The true meaning of i p is most clearly set forth by Neil,
Palestint ExpZored (‘82)) pp. 129-151,to whom this article owe*
its central idea.
109-1
 DEW
and but for the shock to our associations, ‘ night mist ’ 1 would
be d preferable rendering to ‘dew.
This explanation clears up certain otherwise obscure
passages. It also enables us’to identify with consider-
able probability the season to which any important
passage mentioning tal refers. The miracle of Gideon’s
fleece, e.s., was presumably placed by the writer in the
summer. At the same time, when perfectly general
language is used respecting ;aZ ( ’ dew ’), it may be open
to us to suppose that a confusion exists in the writer’s
mind between the genuine ’ dew ’ of winter (spring and
autumn) and the ‘ night mist ’ of summer, which is not,
in our sense of the word, dew at all. since the vapour be-
comes condensed in the air before it reaches the ground.
I n illustration, see Lane’s Aradic Lexicon S.V. tdZa. One
example given is ‘ The sky rained-small-rain ’(;aZZa>) upon the
earth.’ TaZZlrrt h defined as ‘light or weak (Le., drizzling) rain,
or the lightest and weakest of rain ; or dew that descends from
the sky in cloudless weather.’ Cp also Koran, Sur. 2 267 ‘And
if no heavy shower (zuribilu,l) falls on it, the mist (gaZZ+)does.’
( a ) Where Lhe ‘ dew’ comesfrom. -Job38 28 is, prob-
ably enough, a scribe’s insertion (Bi., Duhm) ; but, if
2. Biblical so, the scribe gives an invaluable early
and other summary of what precedes. H e states
references. that what is said of the rain in YY. 25-27
refers not only to the winter rains or to the
occasional thunderstorms but also to the ‘ night mist.’
Has the rain a father?
Or who has begotten the streams2 (not ‘drops’) of ‘dew‘?
T o this question a wise man replies (Prov. 320))
By his (God’s) knowledge the depths were opened (i.e., at
creation),
And the sky drops down ‘dew.’
So Gen. 2728 Dt. 3 3 2 5 Hag. 1IO Zech. 812 ; cp also
J u d g 54 (BBand Theod.).3 Amore complete answer
is given m Enoch, where the ‘ treasuries’ of snow and
bail (Job 38 z z ) and also of dew and rain are described.
If Job did not ‘ come to those treasuries ’ Enoch did,
according to the current legend. The statements are
important : ‘ The spirit of the dew has its dwelling at the
ends of the heaven, and is connected with the chambers
of the rain, and its course is in winter and summer ;
and its clouds, and the clouds of the mist are connected,
and the one passes over into the other’ (6020, Charles).
In chap. 76 the twelve portals of the winds are described. From
eight of them dew and rain are said to proceed ; the winds are
not, however, always beneficial. The author is by no means a
good observer, and his statement is of value only as confirming
the statement of GO 20 that ‘ dew’ and ‘ rain ’ are connected.
(a) Preciousness of ‘ dw.’-The land of Israel is called
‘ a land of corn and wine ; yea, his heavens drop down
dew ’ (Dt. 33 25). The blessing of Jacob says : ‘ God
give thee of the dew of heaven, and of the fatness oj
the land ’ (Gen. 27 28 ; contrast v. 39, RVmg.). Yahw6
himself resembles ‘ dew’ ; ‘ I will be as the dew for
Israel ’ (parched up, desolate Israel), Hos. 145 [ 6 ] . The
preciousness of the ‘ dew’ is shown by its effects, whick
axe next described.
Perhaps, however tal‘ here includes rain. Dew is ar
emblem of resurrectidn i ‘ A dew of lights is thy dew, and to liff
shall the earth bring the shades’ (Is. 2619, SSOY). From tht
world of perfect light where Yahwi: dwells a supernatural ‘dew
will descend on the dead Israelites. ‘The dew of resurrection
(nvnn 5~ $a) is a Talmudic phrase based on this prophecy. II
the Koran, also (eg., Sur. 41 39). rain is referred to as a sign o
the resurrection. Probably, too, Micah 5 7 [6] also should hc
mentioned here. The traditional text, as it stands, is unin
telligible. The ‘ remnant of Jacob ’ among the nations canno
be at the same time like showers of night mist on the earth an(
like a lion. The upright line (Pasek) placed after ‘And shal
3e’ (pili)warns us (as so often) that there is something douhtfu
i n the text. Possibly S?, ‘upon’ has dropped out. The passag,
1 This is the first rendering 0 f . k in BDB. It had beel
Bdopted by Che. in his Projhecies of Zsaiah and Book
psaZms(l1, who followed Neil, o j . cit., 140.
3 M T reads $!f, generally rendered ‘drops’ (65 p&hous:
Keservoirs ’ would be more defensible ; hut this does not sui
‘begotten.’ The obvious emendation is ’a\?. Rain is callei
IJ,~$K ?ST) in Ps. 65 IO. The scribe is thinking of the ‘ channel
‘$
n yn) In 7’. 2s.
Heb. text has only ‘ dropped.
109.5
DIAL AND SUN-DIAL
ien reads thus, ‘ And there shall be on the remnant of Jacob
.. . .
as it were “dew” from Yahwi: . which tarries not for
ian,’etc.-Le., which ii independent ofhuman effort. Reluctant
s one may he to deviate from an unquestioned tradition, i t
mecomes necessary to do so, when even the acute Wellhausen
dmits that the point of the comparison in the present text is
inintelligible to him.
( c ) Other iZZustm~ivepussu,~es.-The dew (night mist),
ike the rain, comes by the word of a prophet ( I I<. 17 I).
t falls suddenly ( z S. 171z), and gently, like persuasive
:loquence (Dt. 322) ; it lies all night (Job 2 9 1 g ) , but
:arly disappears like superficial goodness (Hos. 64).
Such a night mist is to be expected in the early summer,
ti the settled hot weather of harvest (Is. 1 8 4 ; but, on
ext, see V INE, I). It bas a healing effect on vege-
.ation (Ecclus. 1816 4 3 2 2 ) ; but for a man to he exposed
.o it is a trying experience (Cant. 5 :). It is all-pervading ;
ience Gideon asks, as a sign of his divine mission, first,
:hat the fleece which he has put on the threshing-floor
may be wet with a night mist ( t a l )when the floor itself
IS dry, and next, that the fleece may be dry when the
floor is wet. ,So abundant is the moisture of the night
mist that in the morning after the first experience
Gideon is able to wring out of the fleece a whole bowlful
of water (Judg. 6 36-40).
(a Two rEou@inZjassages.-In Ps. 1103, if the scribes have
zorrectly transmitted the text, there is a condensed comparison
3f a king’s youthful army to the countless drops of dew: a
highly poetic figure, adopted by Milton in speaking of the angel;
hosts. The words however, ‘thou hast the dew of thy youth
(‘dew’ is not atte‘sted by the LXX, though the other Greek
translators all have 6p6ms), are probably corrupt (see Che.
PsaZ7nsPI). The other passage (Ps. 133 3) appears to state
that it is the dew of Hermon that comes down on the moun-
tains of Zion. Some (so Del.) have thought that a plentiful
dew in Jerusalem might he the result of the abundance of
vapours on llermon ; others (so Baethg.), that ‘dew of Hermon
is a proverbial expression for a plentiful dew. Robertson Smith
[OT/C(? 21.) suggests that the expressions may he hyperholical;
the gathering of pious pilgrims from all parts at the great feasts
at Jerusalem was ‘as if the fertilising dews, of great Hermon
were all concentrated on the little hill of Zion : but the passage,
as it stands, is incapable of a natural interpretation. The text
came into the editor’s band in an imperfect condition. Hermon
and Zion can by no posqibility he brought into connection either
here or in the equally corrupt passage, Ps. 426 [7]. T. K . c.
DIADEM. Strictly SidSvpa (GraGCw, to bind round)
is no more than a rich fillet or head-band. It was
worn around the Persian royal hat (see M ITRE, 2 ) ,
and, as distinguished from UT&$UVOS (see C ROWN ), is the
badge of royalty; cp I Macc. 1 9 615 814 etc., Rev.
1 2 3 131 1912 (RV, AV ‘ crown,’ and so EV in I Esd.
4 30). It is probable that fillets of a more or less ornate
character are referred to in the Heb. VJ, m y (see
C ROWN ) and y‘y (see M ITXE).
I. Ar&Sqpa is used by 03 to render 7nJ kefher, Esth. 111,
and VI, nszer, 2 S. 1IO [L, Sym. Theod.] (see CROWN, 8 z), 3’7J3,
takrilz, Esth. 8 ~j (see MANTLE), and l’ls,
. . . pZnijh, Is. 6 2 3 (cp
Ecclus. 47 6): see 4,helow.
Diadem in EV represents the following words :-
2. p i ~ ~ :Bar.
, E; 2 (EV, in Judith 10 3 168, E V ‘tire,’ AVmg.
‘mitr,”
-.-----’).
I.
3. ng;rg, mi!nejheth, Ezek. 21 26 [31l AV ; see MITRE, I.
4. 135,rrinijh, Is. 62 3 EV, Zech. 3 5 RVmg. (EV ‘niitre’),
Job 29 14 E V (RVW. ‘turban ’) ; see T URBAN , 2.
5. il?’??,Tijhirrih (properly ‘ a plait ’ ; I/to weave), Is. 25 5
(11 niaY b ?rharsk or VhaKek, etc. [EUAQr], ~rh&ypa [Aq.
Theod.]’ri6ap~s[Sym.]). In Ezek. 7 7 IO (RV ‘doom’), according
to Co., &jhirrih means ‘crown’ (cp RVmg. ‘crowning time’);
text perhaps faulty, see Co., Bertholet. ,
DIAL and SUN-DIAL (nh&, literally ‘steps,’
a ~ a B a e ~;oTg.
l K’YV ]IN,‘hour-stone’ ; Syni. in
IS. 388 wpo,brioN ; h t o r O Z o ~ k Z ) ,2 K. 2011 IS. 388.
The term occurs in the account of Hezekiah’s illness.
I n point of fact, however, the narrator says nothing of a ‘ dial’
and of ‘ degrees ’ but only of ‘ steps ’ ; where AV says, ‘ The sun
returned ten degrees,’ RV mnre correctly says, ‘The sunreturned
ten steps,’ though immediately afterwards it uses the Incorrect
term ‘dial’ (with a marginal note, ‘Heb. steps’). Hence both
in AV and in RV the account is more obscure than it need have
been. It is true, the parallel accounts in z K. 20 and I s . 38 differ,
which produces some difficulty.
1036