Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 28


Rezin himself, who is surely the chief speaker in Is. 7 5f. the assembly’ or ‘ tabernacle of the congregation ’
Marti, however, suggests that the name of the father of (Biihr, 1136f:, Ewald, 168) is incorrect ; moreover in
Rezin’s nominee may have been Tdhe’el or ”abi’el, so point of fact the sanctuaries of the Semites never were,
that he would have b,een a Judahite (but see T OBIAH) ; primarily, places of meeting for the community; they
he declines, however, to speak positively. If, however, were places where the deity dwelt and revealed himself
theview referred to elsewhere ( REZIN,TIGLATH-PILESER)(see TEMPLE, 1 I ). So also the tabernacle (see below,
he correct, and the invaders of Judah were Rezin (Rezon), $8).
king of Aram, and Pir’Hm(?),king of Ishmael, it becomes The tabernacle is expressly spoken of (Lev. 174 [cp 1531 mg.
at once probable that the title of the pretender’s father ‘tabernacle’], Nu. 16 9 19 13 31 203047 Josh. 22 ‘9) as miSkan
was Ben-TBbal, T UBAL ( q . v . ) being an ethnic name of Ykwk (nl? ]?h)-a phrase which on the other hand, it is true,
the N. Arabian border-land. According to this view, is also used to designate the holy of holies, the dwelling place
proper of the deity as distinguished from the rest of the structure
the invasion was from the S., and the news brought to (Ex. 26 I 6f: 35 TI 36 13f: 3933f: 40 igf: Nu. 3 25 ; cp also Ex.
Ahaz may have e n ‘Aram has encamped against 3932 402 6 29). Another name for the tabernacle is * 6 h ~ l
Ephron ’ ; Ephron (jiisy), corrupted in Is. (2.c.) into h&-%dritk(n!pp 57k ; Nu. 9 15 17 22 f: 17AI 182), or nriSKan
‘ Ephraim’ ( O T ~ D N )was
, the name of a town of Jerahmeel hi‘ZdriU(nlp9 pe;; E x . 3 8 ~ 1Nu.150 53 1011), ‘tabernacle’
which became Judahite, according to z Ch. 13x9, under or ‘dwelling place’ of the ‘testimony‘ or ‘witness’ (cp
king Abijah ; it may also have been Judahite under Ahaz, ARK OF THE COVENANT, 5 3). This after the analogy of ‘BhzC
and if so have been on the frontier of Judahite territory m&d is taken by Riehm and others as meaning ‘the dwelling-
towards the S. There are parallels enough in corrupt place where God hears witness to himself and to his will,’ in
other words a s equivalent to ‘tent of revelation. I t seems
passages elsewhere to warrant our reading in Is. 7 6 , more probable howeixer that here as in the expression ‘ark
‘Let us go up against Jerusalem ... and let us appoint of the ‘Zdzith’(Ex. 2 5 2 ; 2633) the word ‘&&th means the two
a king in the midst of it, namely, the son of Tubal (the tables of the law and the whole expression the tent in which
the two tables aie deposited (cp @ uxqv;l TO; prnprupiw Vg.
Tubalite). ’ tdemaculum iestimonii orf&deris: cp also Ex. 31 18 34 &).I
2. A Persian official in Samaria, Ezra47, who in The details of the tabernacle and its furniture have
I Esd. 216 is called Tabellius ( T U ~ ~[BAL]). U~OS It been preserved to us in two-fold form-once in the form
is very possible to read the name -$y, ‘ Tubalite ’ (Le., a. Description of a divine instruction to Moses in
a man of the N. Arabian Tubal). This is connected
.with a critical theory on the original narratives in Ezra,
UL r.
which all the measurements and sueci-
fications to the smallest detail are
for which see Crit. Bib. It involves holding Shobal given (Ex.25 10-27~ g ) and , again in that of a narrative
(Gen. 3820, etc.) to be the original of Bishlam, and relating how this instruction was carried out, when
perhaps Ramathi ( I Ch. 2727) of Mithredath in the same practicallyeverything is repeated (Ex.368-3631). These
passage, the present readings being due to a later editor. two sections belong to different strata of P.
T. K. C. The whole description leaves at first sight such an
TABEBAH (;I?vqq,‘burning’ of RVmg.;€MITYPIC- impression of painstaking precision that the reader
MOC [RAFL]), a locality in the wilderness of Paran
might be tempted forthwith to take for granted its
(presumably near Kibroth-hattaavah), which is said to historical truth. As soon, however, as he begins to
have derived its name from the ‘ burning’ which took examine more closely, and on the basis of this descrip-
place there (Nu. 11:: Dt. 9 z z t ) . See KIBROTH-HAT- tion proceeds to attempt to form for himself a definite
TAAVAH, WANDERIXGS, §§ 7, IO. picture of what the tabernacle was, he finds that in
spite of the multitude of data supplied, or rather pre-
cisely because of their multitude, it is impossible to
TABERNACLE arrive at any clearness on the subject. As Wellhausen
Traditional view (B I). Symbolism (8 9). very trulyremarks (ProlCl, 353,cp E T 348): ‘without
Descri tion in P (& 2). Unhistorical character of re- repeating the descriptions of the tabernacle in Ex. 2 5 3
The tagernacle: its wall!j($3). cord (s IO). word for word, it is difficult to give an idea how circuni-
Its coverings ($4). Impossible in the wilderness
Curtains (0 5). (I 11). stantial it is ; we must go to the source to satisfy onr-
Court (8 6). Sacred tent in E ( 8 12). selves what the ‘ ’ narrator ” can do in this line. One
Furniture ($ 7). Tabernacle non -existent in would imagine that he was giving specifications to
Significance of tabernacle in historical times ($ 13).
P (0 8). Literature (8 14). measurers for estimates or that he was writing for
According to the traditional view, which goes as far weavers and cabinetmakers ; but they could not proceed
hack as to P. and even to the period of the exile. the upon his information, for the incredibly matter-of-fact
1. Traditional temple in Jerusalem had its prototype statements are fancy all the same.’
in the portable sanctuary-the taber- The tabernacle consists of two parts : ( I ) the
view’ nacle-set UD in the wilderness by ’ dwelling-place‘ (miJkin), and ( 2 ) the enclosing court
Moses. I n accordance with directions received oh 3. The (bifFy).
I. The ‘ dwelling-place * is spoken of
Mount Sinai (Ex. 2 6 1 8 , P ) he constructed for Yahwk
and the ark a sumptuous tent which accompanied the ’ in the narrative as a a tent ’ or tabernacle
Israelites as their only sanctuary during their forty its walls’ (’&el). On closer examination, however,
years‘ wandering in the wilderness. Though never this accords very imperfectly with the detailed descrip-
anything but a ‘tent,’ a provisional and temporary tiom2 For the so-called ‘tent’ forms an oblong with
house of God, designed for the journey from Sinai to upright walls made of thick ‘ hoards ’ (EV, ti:?, &+e.(
Palestine. it continued long after the settlement in 1 [Other words rendered ‘ tabernacle ’ in EV, hut only in the
Canaan to be Israel’s sole legitimate sanctuary-set more general sense of that word, are : mD, sukkch, see TABER-
up, now here now there. in various parts of Palestine NACLES, FEAST o r ; $b, s&, Ps.762 ( R V w . ‘covert’), or
until at last Solomon built his temple, to which the qb, sak, Lam. 2 6 (RVmg booth or hedge’); n?>D, sikktitk,
ark of Yahwk was firlally transferred. Am. 5 26, AV ; RV ‘Siccutb ’see CHIWN ; v~qvvj,Mt. 174 etc. ;
The most usual designation for this tabernacle in P is u r j v o r 2 Cor. 5 14 ‘ cxfvwpb Acts7 46 2 Pet. 113. See TENT.]
2 I t :s clear that ;he writer 1s at great pains to make it appear
’Melmci‘&f(i@ioi k ; e.g., Ex. 2721 2843 2 9 4 X O J , etc. ; that the structure is a tent. Only in this way can we explain
see ASSEMBLY, z ; col. 346). According to Ex. 29423 the surprising circumstance that in both cases-hoth when the
Nu. 1719[4] this expression denotes the tabernacle as instructions are being given and when the construction is being
descrihed-he begins with the roof. Plainly he feels that the
the place where YahwB meets with Moses and the people walls, etc., as he is about to describe them, do not give the
and communicates io Moses from the kapph-eih (see impression of a tent. Therefore he gives to the curtains-the
~ ~ E R CS YEAT ) between the cherubim his messages roof-the place of chief importance, which of course they would
have in the case of a tent, and treats all else, the walls, etc.-as
to the children of Israel. On this view the usual inter- secondary and merely as necessary accessories for the curtains
pretation of the exFlression as meaning ‘ tabernacle of ius[ as tent-polesare.
4861 4862
@ urhXor, Philo and Josephus K L ~ Y ~ E ) .These boards improbably correct. For according to Ex. 2619 two
are each I O cubits high (thus quite rightly designated bases (mTt, ddznim, E V 'sockets,' pdaets) are pro-
in the Greek : ' pillars ' or ' posts '), the wall itself some- vided in each case for the two pivots. They are of
what more, as the 'feet' (see below) of the boards silver, and each weighs a talent (95 lbs.) ; Ex. 3827.1
have to be added in. In all there are 48 boards, 20 Interpreters differ widely as to the purpose and the
on the N. and 2 0 on the S . side (the structure facing form of these sockets. The most natural view seems to
eastward) and 8 forming the western (rear) wall. The be that of Josephus, according to which the tenons and
front has no such wall ; it is closed merely hy curtains. sockets were placed at the lower edge of the boards in
The boards themselves are (as Ex. 2 6 1 6 8 expressly such a way that the function of the tenons was to con-
states) each I* cubits broad. From this, their arrange- nect the boards with the sockets. For throughout the
ment and the thickness of each can be easily calculated. whole description 110 word is said as to the manner in
The long side of the oblong (interior measurement) as is ini. which the boards were set up on or, as it may be,
4 lied in Ex. 26 1 5 8 , is to he 30 cubits, and that of the rear wall
; ' .measurement also) is iocnhits. This last measure-
thiis interior
ment indeed IS not expressly given, hut it is clearly implied by
fastened into the ground. As to this, some interpreters
think of the sockets as having been wedge-shaped and
the whole context ; the holy of holies a t the west end of the as being driven into the ground, the boards then being
structure is conceived of as a cube of IO cubits, just as that of fitted into them by means of the tenons. Against such
the temple of Solomon is a cube of 20. This being so, the
boards of the rear wall were so placed as to make it the exterior an explanation, however, must be urged the light weight
wall which covered the breadth of both the longitudinal walls. rf the silver ; 95 Ibs. of that metal (if the text be correct)
The eight boards of the rear wall together made a breadth of are not enough for a wedge large enough to carry a
8 X 1 f = 1 2 cuhits: as the interior measurement was only IO
cubits there remained a difference on each side of I cubit which pillar having a cross section of 30 x 20 in. and weighing
could only have served to cover the ends of the side walls. something like half a ton. Moreover the use of silver
These, therefore and the rear wall also were I cubit thick (so for any such purpose at all would be very odd ; silver
Bahr, Ewald Kamphausen, and others). and gold after all are best applied for the decoration of
Holzinger it is true supposes that these dimensions (IO
cubits and 30 cubits) argmeant to be taken not as interior hut a structure and are not usually buried under ground.
as exterior measurements. In support of this he points to the Other interpreters accordingly take the meaning to be
measurement of the curtain of goats' hair which is calculated that theydu'ith (tenons), were designed for driving into
for a framework d 1ox1oX30 cubits. This argument holds
good, however, only if we ignore Ex. 26 IZ (Holzinger eliminates the ground and that the iddnim were merely quite
it as a gloss) and double the curtain for 4 cubits in front whileat shallow projecting bases of the boards through which the
the rear it comes down to the ground (4+30+10=44 cubits). pivots passed. But not even thus is the object of fixing
The passage jiist referred to, on the other hand, clearly reckons the boards in position attained, for simple pivots would
11 cubits as hanging down a t the rear and z cubits in front as
doubled; thus leavlng 31 cubits to he accounted for (viz 30 have been insufficient, and the boards would have had
cubits as length of the exterior and I cubit as thickness of rear to be driven into the ground (see below). Thus we are
wall). I n Ex. 26 22, it is true, the two corner boards of the rear shut up to the view that the iddnim were quite shallow
wall are distinguished from the others; and from this the
inference has been drawn that theywereof slenderer pro ortions bases of the boards serving more for ornament than for
and thus the hoards altogether thinner than has been catulated stability. By the pivots in that case these bases were
above (so, for example, already Josephns, who gives their attached to the boards. It will be enough merely to
thickness as half a cubit). The motive for this is manifest ; a mention here the quite different explanation of Kiehm
structure formed of hoards z ft. 7 in. broad and 20.67 in. thick can
no longer in fairness be called a tent; heams of such a size are ( H W B , S . U . ' Stiftshiiue,' 1578J) according to which
no longer mere sup orts for a curtain roof; they are substantial each board consisted of two pieces which were held
walls, and it is also?mrd to say where in the wilderness trees together by the tenons at the sides and by the feet
capable of yielding such massive timber are to be found. Hence
the pains taken in the apologetic interest to reduce the heams. below.
Thus, for exam le, Knobel cites Ezek.276 where the same These boards were attached to one another by cross
expression KPrpspis used for panelling (EV RVmg. 'deck'), bars (EV ' bars ' ; n y i x , deii&m). Each board had
thus plain19 indicating thin hoards, not {hick heams. As
already observed, however, the writer's manifest object is to 3n its outer side golden': rings ' (E\' ; nip+ &266i'5tk),2
make the structure appear as a tent and therefore he may very through which were passed strong bars of acacia wood.
well have deliberately chosen thik word even although (or
rather because) it elsewhere means only 'plank.' Keil maintains To be precise, there were five such bars on each side
that the interpreter has no reason for magnifying. mere planks :Ex. 3 6 3 1 8 ) . Themiddle bar, half-way up the boards,3
into colossal beams such as can neither he obtained from the ran all the way along and thus was in the case of the
acacia tree nor be transported on wheels in the wilderness. rear wall 12 cubits long, and in the case of each of the
Nevertheless there is no getting past the fact that in Ex.
2G 158. i t is expressly stated of all the boards that they were Jther two walls 30 cubits, or, let us say, 31 cubits, since
alike. The text of Ex. 2G 2 2 8 , however, is hopelessly corrupt ioubtless we may safely assume that the boards of the
and unintelligible. The numerous attempts a t explanation that rear wall which covered the ends of the longer walls,
have been made a t various times cannot he discussed here;
some of them are in the highest degree artificial, as for example and thus the rear wall as a whole, were connected with
that of Riehm(1f lV5,s.u. 'Stiftshiitte,' p. 1578 6). Cp, further, the longer walls by these crossbars. From the state-
Dillmann and Holzinger, ad lor. : also Kiggenhach, 23 &, ment about the middle bar that it went right along we
Keil, 85f: [Starting from Stade's study of the construction of must conclude that this was not the case with the others.
Solomon's lavers ( I K. 7 2 8 8 ) in Z A T W ,1901, pp. 1 . + 5 8 where
nil; and m ? w are shown to have had the technical sense of These, accordingly, were shorter and we shall be jcsti-
' stays ' and ' cross-rails ' respectively, Prof. Kennedy holds that lied perhaps in supposing that each bar joined together
the the of P-which is found elsewhere only in Ezek. 276 in only one half of the total number of boards, and thus
the sense of ' panel'-is ' a frame of wood, such as builders '7 that each individual board had only three rings and
all countries have employed in the construction of light walls. xrs. The position of the bars as given in the figure in
He renders 7m. 1 5 8 thus taking the parenthesis last : 'And Riehm ( N W B 1579)is derived from the consideration
thou shalt make the frades for the dwelling of acacia wood, :hat the narrator plainly has it in his mind that five bars
standing up, two uprights for each frame, joined to each other
b y cross-rails-ten cubits thf height and a cubit and a half the ;odd be at once distinguished by simple inspection,
breadth of the single frame. The third dimension is not given, which would not so readily he the case if the upper and
because a frame has, strictly speaking, no thickness.]
Further, all the boards are uniformly furnished each 1 [This passage, however, belongs to a very late addition to
with two nil;, ydditk (EV ' tenons '), which are con- P based on the census in Num'hers.]
2' I t is not indeed expressly said in the text that the bars were
nected with one another by a slip of wood (Ex. 26 16f: ). upon the outer side: but this is the most natural and likely
Josephns understands by the expression 'pivots' ( u ~ p 6 - jupposition. Ewald, however, amongst others, thinks of the
q5ry-y~~)at the foot of each board, and this is not rings and bars a s on the inner side.
3 Riggenbach and others take Ex.2628 as meaning that the
middle bar went through the interior of the hoards themselves
1 [It is assumed throughout this article that the longer cubit and not through rings, hut such a construction can hardly be
of 20'67 in. i5 meant. see WEIGHTS A N D MEAWRES$ 1.1 put upon the expression o , w y g qina, apart from the improh-
3 So also A. R. S: Kennedy, 'Tabernacle,' in Haitings' DB
4661a. ability of the whole idea.
4863 4864
lower bars had each i'un at a uniform level and each first place he urges that the fine linen fabric would have taken
damagc if stretched over the wooden wall in contact with the
contiguous with the other. rough covering of goats' hair, would have been torn by the
Finally, the boards and bars are, according to Ex. nails and so forth. As against this, however it has to he
2 6 2 9 8 , overlaid with gold, that is to say, with thiu poin$d put that the whole structure is a &eation of the
gold plate so that the inner aud outer surface of the imagination, and that in any case the author ha5 not thought
out the details with such practicality and minuteness as
structure was golden.!' criticism of this kind would imply. (ii.) Holzinger's other reason
These walls formed a framework for the coverings- is that, in Nu. 45, when the tabernacle is being removed it is
the roof, which, as already observed, was regarded represented that the byssus covering Cali he applied as a cover-
by the narrator as the main thing, the ing for the ark without more ado ; this certainly could be done
4. The essential part of the structure, as indeed it most easily if it hung wholly within. The fact however, that
coverings. in striking an actual tent the first thing to he done is to take
would be in the case of an actual tent. It down the tent covering, is of course one that does not need
has four coverings, laid successively the one upon the to be particularly emphasised; and the im lied oversight of
the narrator thus becomes intelligible. d. On b o t h e r side there
other. are preponderating considerations against the theory that the
( I ) The innermost was of costly linen. It is de- covering hung within. (i.) In the first place, had it done so, this
scribed (Ex. 26 18 ) as the work of the cunning workman would have rendered necessary special arrangements for the
attachment of the covering to the upper edge of the wooden
(ma'&% &7.%), of fine-twined linen ( E ; see L INEN . 7) walls, but of any such, no mention is anywhere made. (ii.)
violet purple and red ipuple (tZMZeth and argdfmin;see Further, in the case supposed, the covering would have hung
COLOURS, 5 IS. P URPLE ) and scarlet (tiM'atlr &ini; down g cubits on each of the side walls, and as many as IO on
see COLOURS, § 14,S CARLET ). Cherubim were woven the hinder wall thus resting on the ground-an inequality which
in combination) with the great rotruding cornerpieces, would
into it. How the c~doiuswere applied we are not have greatly disfigured the Hog of Holies. (iii.) Finally, in
more precisely. informed. W e can imagine either a Ex. 26 I Z ~ : it is expressly said that the tent-covering pro er
patterned textile in four colours with inwoven cherubim which lay above this covenng overlapped it in all directions ; gut
this is meaningless unless the inner coveriug also hung down
or a white texture with cherubim inwoven in three the outside of the wooden walls. This last passage, it is true
colours. The latter a.ppears the more likely supposition. is regarded by Holzinger as a gioss ; it shows, however, in an;
The curtain of the enclosing wall of the court was also case a t least that from a very early date this linen covering was
white (see below). The whole covering was made up thought of as an external hanging. Nor is it by any means
necessary to treat the verses as a gloss. For on any construction
of ten separate ' curtains ' (EV ; yZrf*Cth); each of these it is impossible to give precision and accuracy to the descrip-
strips was 28 cubits long and 4 cubits broad, and five tion (see below). For all which reasons the majority of modern
of them were joined side by side to form one large interpreters (Dillmann, Riehm, Nowack, Kennedy, and others)
adopt the view that the covering was an external one. On
covering. No particulars are given as to the mode of this view, let it be added, the general effect was not impaired
their attachment. The two large coverings thus com- by the inequality of the hanging on the side walls (6 cubits),
posed, 28 cubits long and 20 cubits wide, had each of a s compared with the hinder wall (9 cubits), nor yet by the
them along one of ihe longer sides fifty loops ' (EV ; corner folds coming down to the ground with z cubits to spare.
ZziLiZh) of violet purple so placed that each of the loops (2) Above this inner covering came, as a second
was opposite a loop on the other curtain. In these loops 'roof,' a real tent covering (Ex. 2 6 7 8 ) like those in
were inserted fifty golden ' clasps ' (RV, AV ' taches ' ; ordinary use, made of black or brown goats' hair,I a
o'pmp, &Mrim), by means of which the two large cover- material that quickly felts in rain and allows no moisture
ings were held t ~ g e t h e r . ~The whole of the great cover- to pass through. This covering is also spoken of,
ing thus made up, 28 cubits by 40, was then laid over absolutely, as ' t h e tent.' Like the other, it also,
the wooden framework. On the outer side of each of the naturally, is made up of separate strips ; of which there
two longer walls it thus hung down to a distance of 8 are eleven, each of them 30 cubits by 4. Of these
cubits (the whole breadth of the structure, inc:luding the eleven, five and six respectively are fastened together so
thickness of the w:dls, being, as we have seen, 1 2 as to form two larger coverings. Uniformly uith the
cubits). T o the rear, on the other hand, there were linen covering both parts of the goats' hair covering
9 cubits to spare, as of course the covering was not have each on the longer side fifty loops exactly opposite
allowed to overhang in front. In this position of the one another and are fastened together by clasps ; only
covering, the joining of its two great sections, with its here the clasps are made of copper-a less noble metal.
loops and clasps, ran exactly along the top of the hang- The material and colour of the loops are not specified.
ing curtain which, :30 cubits from the front. separated It will be observed that if a covering of these dimensions
the holy place from the holy of holies. This arrange- were to be laid over the linen covering, it would overlap
ment was certainly designed. Nothing is anywhere it all round by a cubit, and this is expressly stated
said as to any special attachment of this great covering in Ex. 26 13. On the hinder wall, on the other hand,
to the walls; nor indeed was any such attachment the overlapping part was 2 cubits longer than the linen
required, its own weight combined with that of the two covering. For the hair covering was so adjusted that
others superimposed upon it being amply sufficient to of the eleventh (extra) breadth of 4 cubits only the half
keep it in position. This inner covering constitutes the hung over the back of the tabernacle (Ex. 2 6 1 z ) , that is
miJhin properly so-called, the wooden walls being to say, overlapped the linen covering.a The extra
regarded merely as supports for i t : and we find it portion over the entrance in front, 2 cubits in width,
accordingly in one place (Ex. 26 1 3 ) expressly so called. was not allowed to overhang but was turned back so
a. Kurz Keil Bahr, and others(inc1uding Holzinger) take it t!iat in this way the first strip to the front was folded
that this cbverhg hung down on the inner side of the stkctnre, along the medial line and lay double. According to
covenn the wall as with a hanging of tapestry. The reason Josephus ( A n t . iii. 6 4 ) there was thus made a sort of
grimarify alleged for ihis opinion-that otherwise the cherubs
etween the wall and the hair-covering would not have been gable and portal. A simpler explanation perhaps will
shown-disappears on the assumption we propose to make that be that of Riehm and others, that the weight of the
the hair-covering w2s drawn out (see below). Two other loubled front strip was intended to prevent the wind
reasons, adduced by Holzinger, carry more weight. (i.) In the
1 Biihr thinks that this covering was entirely white. The
1 The circumstance that the middle bar ran right along and text, however, does not say so, nor is the thing likely in itself.
thus must have heen 31 cubits in lengtb naturally caused diffi- Ordinary tent-coverings are black or dark-brown, often having
culty from very early times, and Josephus accordingly represents white stripes also (Cant. 15).
it as having heen made up of several lengths of 5 cubits apiece, 2 Holzinger (ad Loc.) it is true, holds this reckoning which
which were screwed together. brings out an excess to be a mistake and considers 26 12 to be a
2 Perhaps we ought with Holdnger to regard 3. zg as being !loss. The mistake arises according to him out of a false
in the main a gloss ; in Nu. 4 careful packing of the gold-plated riotion as to the manner in which the linen covering was placed
objects is enjoined, and this would certainly not he easy in the [see above). [Kennedy (op. cit.) follows Holzinger in regarding
case of the boards of the tabernacle. Yet an oversight such as v. rz as a mistaken ass, but holds that the whole of the
thic, on the part of the narrator, is not difficult to imagine. eleventh curtain hung i!mbled over the edge of the roof in front
:I Schick's suppositim, that one curtain had loops and clasps, lor which he claims the support of a Jewish treatise of th;
is contrary to the 1anp;uage of the text. third century.]
4865 48%
from catching it too easily. Behind and at the sides nails with which the curtain was nailed up-had thls
the covering was protected against this by the fastening been so they would have to be pulled out every time
with tent pins (see below). The effect of the arrange- the tabernacle was moved-but hooks to which the
ment was that the joinings of the linen and of the goats’- curtain was fastened somehow, with rings or otherwise.
hair coverings did not coincide ; and this is evidently From this outer curtain the inner, by which the
quite right. In like manner the places at which the structure is divided into two parts, is distinguished only
separate strips were fastened together by the loops and by its greater elaboration ; the materials are the same,
clasps were not coincident as Bahr, and recently but, over and above, it is adorned with cherubim, the
Holzinger and Kennedy, erroneously have held. In work of the skilled workman. The four pillars by
point of fact, since in the case of the goats’-hair covering which this inner curtain is supported, are of acacia wood
the larger portion (of six strips) was put in front, the completely overlaid with gold, and have silver bases, in
joining came to be over the holy of holies, 2 cubits this respect differing from the pillars of the outer
farther back than the joining of the linen covering apartment, which have bases of brass only, and only the
which as we have seen was exactly over the veil between capitals overlaid with gold. This inner curtain has its
the holy place and the holy of holies. place directly underneath the row of clasps which fasten
T o this tent covering pertain the ‘pins’ ( E V ; the two portions of the linen covering together, and
yZthZdc7th) and ‘ cords ’ (EV ; mZththririm) of which re- thus is I O cubits distant from the hinder wall. It
curring mention is made (Ex. 27 19 35 18 38 20 31 3940). divides the entire space into two apartments, the outer
The pins, unlike the ordinary wooden tent peg, are of and larger being 20 cubits long and the inner only half
brass (3831). From the mention of these pins and as much, having thus the form of a cube of I O cubits.
cords we must infer, although this is not expressly Nothing is said as to how this curtain is hung upon the
stated, that the hair-covering did not, like the under- golden nails. The curtain bears the designation of gartketh
covering, hang down over the outer walls, but, as (nzi?, Ex. 2631, AV ‘vail,’ RV ‘veil ’) or prir%efh h m m 6 s i h
would be the case with a regular tent, was fastened by (Teg?;?n$l?; Ex. 35 IO 39 34 40 ZI Nu. 4 5 , AV ‘the vail of the
means of ropes to the pins driven into the ground and covering,’ RV ‘the veil of the screen’). The meaning of the
thus spread out slantingly. Hence also it must in all word (@ K U T U ~ T U U ~ UV, p web?) is,uncertain. I t is generally
explained as ‘parting,’ separation. More probably it is a n
directions have been longer than the linen covering. original terminus technicus used in connection with worship,
By this supposition we also get over the other difficulty, and denotes the boundary of the cella of a sanctuary (see below,
otherwise hard to meet, that at the rear this covering and cp Ges.-Bu. and BDB s m. -pii. also Dillmann, ad Zuc. ;
hung down 11 cubits (z cubits more than the linen WRS, Journ. Phil. 13283 Halkvy,’MiZ. 187).
covering) and thus, since the wall was only I O cubits The. outer and larger apartment was ‘ the Holy’
high, would have had one whole cubit upon the ground !hak@deS, Ex. 2633, EV ‘the holy place’), the inner
unless thus drawn 0ut.l the Holy of Holies’ (&&e3 hukkdariiim, Ex. 2633, EV
(3) Above this tent covering were placed-obviously for a ‘the most holy’). The latter could be entered only
protection from the weather-two additional coverings ; one of once in the year on the great day of atonement, and
rams’ skins dyed red (O’t)! nlL 3 p ) , and over this another of that by the high priest alone (Lev. 1 6 2 8 ) ; the former
porpoise skims ( D ’ f p nib ZDJ!; hut see BADGERS SKINS). was accessible to the priests only, in the discharge of
As to the dimensions of these two coverings no details are their sacred duties.
given (see below, note I). Riehm (HWB) and others haw The sanctuary was surrounded by an enclosed court
supposed that they served the purpose only of a roofing, and IOO cubits long and so broad (Ex. 279-19 3810-20).
were not so large a s the coverings properly so-called. This:
however, cannot be deduced from the expression ‘covering G. The court. The enclosure was by means of curtains
2, -17.
(30?!) nor yet from the ‘above’( 3 &’D D)of Ex. 40 19 Nu. 4 a5 ; (EV ‘ hangings. +!Zri‘im) of white spun
linen (EV ‘ fine twined linen,’ FXmoSzrir). This curtain-
and all further conjectures based upon this, such as that the
roof ran to a point or to a ridge, and the like, are wholly wall which was s cubits high was supported by pillars
without solid foundation (see 5 IO end). of wood ; whether of acacia is not stated, but this is
In front the structure was closed in, as has already probably meant. The total compass of the enclosing
been said, not bv a wall of wood and a door, but only
The curtrtiis.by a curtain (AV ‘hanging,’ RV
‘ screen ; qgp, mEsik, Ex. 27 16,
wallwas(mo+ 10o+50+50=)300cubits. Thenumber
of pillars is given as 20 for each of the longer sides and
I O for each of the shorter. The view of the author
etc.), which like the inner covering was a textile fabric plainly is that there were sixty pillars in all at a uniform
woven in four colours : white spun linen, violet purple, distance from each other of 5 cubits.
red purple, and scarlet. This curtain formed a single The numher given for the pillars on each side is obviously
inexact if the total number is to he taken as 60. If we take t h e
piece IO cubits square, and was held up by five pillars statement quite literally and reckon all the pillars on each side,
of acacia wood. Whether the pillars were placed then on the given data we get a total of fifty-six pillars only, for
between the first boards of the longer walls, or so that of course each corner pillar is counted twice-nce as part of the
the two outermost were attached to the outer corners of longer side and again as part of the shorter. I t is in this way
that Lund, Bihr, Winer and others view the matter. I t is not
these walls is not stated. The pillars have copper very probable, however ; for in that case the distances of the
bases and according to Ex. 26 are overlaid with gold ; pillars from one another on the shorter sides (4p cubits) would
according to 3637, indeed, only the capitals were so. not he the same as those on the longer (yb” cubits). For this
reason other interpreters prefer to think that the describer in
How the curtain was fastened to these pillars is not giving his figures for each side did not count the last pillar in
explained. Besides the golden pegs or ‘ hooks ’ (so each row (so Keil, Dillmann, Riehm, Nowack and others).
EV ; wiwim, Ex.2637). rings (EV ‘ fillets’ ; &Eziikim, Thisdoubtless would be in itself quite possible if it did not so
Ex.2710) are also mentioned. By these some inter- happen that we are able to reckon exactly with regard to one
side-the eastern with the entrance-that it actually had only
preters (Ewald, Dillmann) understand rings which ten pillars neither more nor fewer. For this side bad in the
formed a sort of garland under the capitals and thus middle fo& pillars which carried the curtain of the door, and if
served for ornament. Others (e.g. Riehm) explain them we are to assume s y m e t r y at all in the structure, the door
as rods which connected the hooks and on which the must have been in t e middle, and thus to right and left there
must have been an equal number of pillars-namely three, as is
curtain was hung. At all events the wdw,im are not expressly stated in E x . 2 7 q f : Thus we shall doubtless be
justified in assuming that the author has allowed himself t q b e
1 Holzinqer (ad roc.) will have it that the cords and pins guided simply hy his scheme according to which the proportion
helonged to the upper coverings. In that ca%ewe should have of o :I is applied to the whole structure without caring very
to think of these as having been very large. T h e circumstance minutely about details.
however, that the hair-covering is actually called the tent (‘6hd:
see above) permits the inference that just as in its material it Each pillar has a base of bronze and a capital overlaid
resembled an ordinary tent, so also in its use it is thought of as with silver. The diminution in the value of the
such-that is to say was spread like an ordinary tent. [Kennedy, materials in proportion to the distance from the Holy of
on the other hand, finds the ‘cords’ mentioned only in the
latest strata of P, and thinks the hair-covering was pinned to Holies is noteworthy. The curtains are fastened in
the ground all round after the manner of the Ka‘ha a t Mecca.] their places by means of silver nails which here also.
4867 4868
doubtless served as hooks for hanging (3817 2717). In ‘the ure candlestick’], Ex. 316 39 37 Lev. 244. see CANDLE-
S T I C K ~ . As vessels pertaining f o the candlestick’are mentioned
the same connection mention is made also of silver the snuffers ( E V ‘ snuffdishes meZ&&&ihliyilanz)and little pans
hdSzi@?z). (EV ‘censers’. maltbfh) on wh&h according to some interpreters
The meaning of the word n*@? is disputed. Many under- (Dillmann Khobd, and’others) k y the snuffers. according to
stand by it silver bars, or bars of wood overlaid with silver, others (Nbwack, etc.) snuff di;hes are meant (ch Ex. 2 5 3 1 3
which reached from one pillar capital to another and rested 81 178). On the form of the candlestick see C A N D L E ~ T ;~S
upon silver nails, and to them the curtains were attached either on the custom of burning a light in the sanituary, cp L AMP , ar.5
directly or by means of rings (so Lund, Keil, Riehm, Knobel, see T EMPLE D 17. Between the shewbread table and thecandle-
and others). According to Ex. 3817 19, however, the hri+im stick facing) the entrance and pretty far back near the curtain
seem to have been integral parts of the pillars themsefves, and shuthng off the Holy of Holies stood the altHr of incense (Ex.
301 [EV ‘an altar to burn incense upon‘], miebab miktar
the expression ?ni&mYZ&im kiseph(7Dz D’??? ; Ex. 27 17 38 17, kitireth, m.4.hassummiin, Lev.47 [EV ‘the altar of sweet
EV, ‘ fille~edwith silver,’ can hardly mean ‘fastened with silver fncense ’I, or tnizdah hazzrihi6 Ex.3938 [EV ‘the goldenaltar ’I)
crossbars. Other interpreters therefore (such as Ewald, Dill- with regard to which, and its ’absence from the older strata
mann, Kautrsch Now,xck, Kennedy) understand by the P, see ALTAR, B 9.
expression ‘rings’ or fillets which surrounded the pillars above,
probably a t the base of the capitals (6$aAi&ss,explained by ( 3 ) In the court stood ’the altar’ KUT’ L~OX$Y
Hesychius as L$&s TGUcrrdhou ;Tg. &?I*?, a lacing or garland). (i7z?fm,hammis&d&, Ex. 27 I 30 18 40 7, etc.), ‘the altar of
The E. front differed from the other sides (Ex. humt offering’ (nzidu& hd‘dZZh Ex. 3026 31 9 etc.) or ‘the
brazen altar’ (miz6ah nEhZefh, ’Ex. 3830 39 39j cn which see
27 13f: ). From each. corner only 15 cubits were pIo- A L T A R 0 ga : TEMPLE 1 18; and cp below 5 10); To thealtar
vided with an enclosing curtain, in each case having of burit offering helon&d a multitude of aicessories : ash pans
three pillars. The middle space of twenty cubits was (AV ‘pans,’ RV ‘pots,’ sir8th), ‘shovels’ (EV,yd‘irn) for
left open for the entrance and had a special curtain of clearing the altar howls (EV ‘ basons ’ nrizrn‘kah) for sprinkling
the blood, forks (EV ‘fleshhooks,’ dizlZg8ti) for the sacrificial
violet purple and red purple; scarlet and white linen in flesh, various sorts of ‘fire ans’ (mahtath). The vessels, like
embroidered work (and thus exactly like the curtain a t the altar itself were all opbrass (Ex. 21 I 838 I&) as also
the entrance of the tabernacle itself) which was attached was the other ’main object in the court, the laver, usdd by the
to four pillars.1 priests for washing their hands and feet ; see SEA, BRAZEN.
In connection with this enclosure of the court of the As already mentioned above and as set forth fully
tabernacle, finally, are mentioned also tent-pins of under T EMPLE (I I J ), the tabernacle, like all the sanctu-
brass and cords ( E x 2 7 1 9 3518 302031 3940, etc.). 8. significance aries of the Semites, has in the first
Here also we see accordingly that the bases of the pillars instance the meaning not of a meeting-
are not designed for fixing them into the ground but Of ~ ~ ~ place
c forl thee community or congrega-
that the pillars are kept in position by pegs and ropes Iy A.
tion, but of a dwelling-place of the
which of course are applied on both sides. On another deity. It is the place where Yahwk dwells in the midst
view (Riehm, Nowack, and others), these ropes and of his people (Ex. 258 2945f. Lev. 1 7 4 Nu. 169, etc.).
pegs held the curtain itself taut and therefore close to When the tent is finished the cloud of Yahwk over-
the ground. shadows it and the glory (+ ka‘b6d) of Yahwk fills it ;
As for the position of the structure, the mifkrilz,
within the court we learn that the orientation of the by day YahwB‘s pillar of cloud and by night his pillar of
whole was eastward. As the altar of burnt offering fire overhangs it (Ex. 4037 8 ) . Thenceforward it is
stood to the E. of the tabernacle and thus the most
invariably from the holy of holies that Yahwk speaks
characteristic acts of’ worship, the sacrifices, were per- to Moses. More precisely, the kupp5retk (see MEHCY
formed here whilst the space behind the tabernacle to S EAT ) of the ark, beneath the cherubim, is the place
the W. was set apart for no special purpose, we must where Yahwk establishes his abode. It is from here
suppose that the structure was not in the middle but that Moses hears the voice of Yahwk (Nu.789).
stood more to the u’. On this point we may take it As YahwB‘s dwelling-place the tabernacle naturally
that Philo (1% &‘os. 37) hit upon the right con- becomes also the place where he is worshipped, for the
jecture when he supposed that the front of the taber- deity is worshipped in the place where he is (see
nacle was 50 cubits from the enclosing wall facing it, TEMPLE ; cp Ex. 2742 Lev. 1 3 5 ) ; and, in point of fact,
thus giving a free space of 50 cubits square before the
for P the tabernacle is the only legitimate place of
tabernacle. worship. This follows inevitably from his standpoint
According to P the portable sanctuary possessed throughout ; for him it is a self-evident proposition
already in the times before the settlement in Palestine that sacrifice can be offered and Yahwk approached
only at the place where Yahwk has his abode. So
7 , The the following sacred vessels :- much so that it is not found necessary in P expressly to
( I ) In the Holy of Holies stood the ark
say so; the centralisation of the worship is for him
of the covenant ( m y ? j h , ’drdnkd ‘ Z G f h )with
simply taken for granted.
the mercy seat (n?iS, hupp&eth) and the cherubim. See A RK , Nor is the tabernacle in P the centre of the worship
MERCY SEAT, C HERUB. merely; it lies also at the foundation of the entire
(2) ‘The Holy place’ contained the tableof shewbread, theocracy as the indispensable basis without which all
the golden candlestick and the altar of incense. The table of else would simply hang in the air. The instructions
shewbread according to Ex. 2635 stood on the N. side, and to it regarding it constitute the main contents of the divine
belonged various golden dishes (EV ‘chargers,’ &i‘rirdth, Nu.
7 13&) and howls (EV ‘ spoons,’ka#fl8fh, Ex.,25q Nu. 7 14fi), revelation at Sinai. Until it has come into existence
pots or cups (AV ‘covers RV ‘flasons REibflt) for the the whole organisation of the rest of the divine common-
wine and libation ‘bowls’) (so EV) for ;he’ wine offerings wealth must remain in abeyance. In this respect therc
(n&a&&zyybfh, Ex. 25 2 3 8 87 1 9 3 ) . For further details as to
the table see A LTAR , S 9, col. 126. Opposite the table, on the is an element of truth in the symbolical interpreta-
S. side ‘of the sanctuary, stood the seven-branched golden tion of many writers (such as Keil), that the tabernacle
candlestick (EV ‘candlestickof pure gold,’ m k i r a t h hazzn‘/d6 symbolises the kingdom of God, is the centre of
fiihiir, Ex. 2531 2 Ch. 13 11, or halanrinin6rZh hatfih&-&h [EV
the theocracy where the calling of Israel to he the
1 Here also, as in what is said as to the total number of people of God is realised. Its importance in this
pitlnrs (see above), one observes that the author has not
counted, or let us say drawn his plan, with exactness. H e has respect-as centre of the entire theocracy-finds its
simply assumed a regular interval of 5 cubits between the visible expression in the fact that in P the positiou
pillars, thus giving 20 cubits for 4, 15 cubits for 3. But this assigned to it is exactly in the centre of the camp and
does not work O u t ; the end pillaris forgotten. The whole side of the people. The order of encampment detailed in
requires eleven pillars ivhm such an interval is assumed ; for
the door five ought t(3 have been reckoned or at any rate for Nu. 2 starts from the tabernacle, immediately around
each side of it to right and left four pillars. If we are to which are placed the Levites as a sort of bodyguard;
calculate with precision from the data he supplies, we shall have then to the E. the tribes of Judah, Issachar, Zebulun
to reckon the distance from pillar to pillar of the doorway as
v=6$cubits and that between the pillars at each side of the pitch their camp : to the S . Reuben, Simeon. Gad ; to
doorway as 5 cubits. [Cp Kennedy, Hastings’ BD46576.1 the W. Ephraim, Manasseh, Benjamin ; to the N., Dan,
4869 4870
Asher, Naphtali. This too gives the order on the fabric bears indeed the name of ' tent ' and the author
march. Cp CAMP, 5 2. takes great trouble to produce in the reader's mind
In this attribute as Yahwb's dwelling-place the whole the impression that the sanctuary was such in reality,
arrangement of the tabernacle finds a ready explana- but in this effort has succeeded (and could have suc-
9. S&,bolism. tion in so far as this is not to be~found ceeded) but ill. Beams some 21 inches thick and 2 ft.
~. in its character as a portable
simply 6 in. wide cannot be fastened together so as to form a
sanctuary. massive wall by means of mere tent pins, and they are
The innermost chamber is the dwelling-plare proper of the purposeless if they are intended merely as supports
deity, the holiest part of the entire structure. Next come the for a light textile fabric. It is perfectly evident that
holy place and the outer court in descending degrees of holiness,
answering to the degrees of holiness attachiiig to high p-iest the model for this structure was not supplied by a
priests, andlaityin Israel, and to their respective rights of acced bedouin tent, a dwelling place made of (goats') hair, of
to Yahws. The holy of holies can be entered by the high which the essential part, the roof, is spread upon three
priest alone, and that only once a year ; the holy place is for the
priesthood and the court for the eople. This gradation of rows of poles, usually three in each row, 5 or 6 ft. high
holiness finds expresrion also as aEeady said, in the material and closed behind by a similar fabric of hair(see T E N T ) .
equipment : in the holy of hohes everythingis of gold ; nought On the contrary, the model was quite clearly a solid
save the bases of the hoards resting on the ground-though here house rendered portable only by the expedient of
an exception caiinot well be justified-and the bases of the
pillan which support the dividing veil and which perhaps breaking up the walls into separate beams. In this
stand rather in the holy place than in the holy of holies, is of respect the whole structure becomes a huge anachronism
silver. In the holy place only the furniture, and particularly when regarded as the workmanship of nomad hordes.
those pieces which stand in the neighhourhood of the holy
of holies-table of shewbread, altar of incense, candlestick-are This becomes specially prominent in the description
provided with 'fine gold'; elsewhere it is simply ordinary gold of the altar. I n view of the ancient practice of building
that is used. The exterior pillars of the entrance-curtain which altars of stone (Ex. 2 0 2 4 8 ) one reasonably asks how
doubtless are reckoned as belonging to the court hdve but the narrator could have arrived at an altar of brass,
brazen bases. Similarly in the court itself we find bras; only save
for the silver used in the nails and capitals of the pillar:. In and then one remembers that the temple of Solomon
like manner the clasps of the goat-hair covering are of brass also had such an altar. That this latter was the real
whilst those of the inner covering are of gold. The interio; model for the altar of the tabernacle becomes still clearer
covering which covers also the holy of holies, and the vail of the
holy of holies are the workmanship of cunning workmen out of from another point of view. The altar of the tabernacle
the four costly materials enumerated, with figured cherubim ; the is of acacia wood plated with brass, a construction which
curtain at the door of the holy place is without cherubim and the in itself considered must be characterised as utterly
curtains of the conrt are simplyof white linen. senseless if the explanation were not so manifest ; the
With these simple ideas, however, which find expression in
the equipment of the tabernacle in the manner just indicated, altar of Solomon must remain as it is, a brazen altar :
the whole symbolism of the structure is by no means exhausted. but it must be made portable.
A symbolical interpretation of the tabernacle that reaches A further detail may be singled out in this connection : the
much further is of ancient date. We find it already in Josephns whole fabric is internally pitch dark. The walls have no
(Ant. iii. 7 7) and Philo (De 7 r i t . Mus. 8 147&), who interpret windows nor openings of any kind; the roof in like manner is
the tabernacle as an image of the universe ; the holy of holies unpierced. This may serve well enough in the holy of holies.
inaccessible tomen is for them a figure of heaven, the holy place the Holy of Holies in the temple was also quite dark (seg
and the court represent the ocean, the four materials out ofwhich TEMPLE, f 7); but in the holy place it is impossible; there
the coverings and curtains were woven denote the four elements, the priests had their priestly duties to discharge-arrange the
the table of shewbread with its twelve loaves is the year with shewbread, offer incense, and the like. And it will not do to
its twelve months, and so forth. And from their time onwards call attention to the seven-branched golden candlestick (see
symbolical interpretation of this kind has persisted from century CANDLESTICK, 5 I).
to century down to our own time. In the Christian church the
typological view made its appearance very soon ; cp Justin Finally, there is the fundamental question: Is a
Martyr, Cohort. ad gent. zg ; Clem. Alex. Strum. 562 3.; structure of this kind capable of standing at all? Simply
Origen, No? g i% Exod. : Theod. Mops. ad He&. 9 1: as a technical question of architecture (see Schick, as
Athanasius Orat. in assumt. Christi,' op. 25, col. 1686: below, 5 14)this must be pronounced utterly impossible.
lheodoret,' Quart. 60 in Exod. ; Jeyome, ep. 64919 8 ad
Fadiolam. In modern times Bahr, Friedrich, Hengstenherg, Nor is the reason difficult to perceive. The weight of
Keil, Kurtz, Riehm have exercised great acumen upon the the heavy coverings and above all the pressure brought
symbolical interpretation of the tabernacle and in particular to bear by the spreading of the tent-covering by means
upon the symbolism of the numbers and dimensions (the
number 4 signifyingthe cosmos, IO completeness and perfection), of cords and pegs, must necessarily tend to make the
as also upon the significance of the colours of the coverings and walls lean inwards. No opposing pressure is anywhere
so forth. All such interpretations, however, are wanting i; any present. Even if we suppose that the bars connected
solid basis in the OT ; nowhere does the author hint even in the side walls with the rear wall, only the boards of
the remotest way that behind these externalities he is searching
for deeper thoughts. It is hardly worth while therefore to the side walls that were nearest the rear wall were thus
discuss the various attempted interpretations in any detail. supported ; but in any case it was impossible that weak
Can we now regard the structure thus described in bars should support the entire wall, 30 cubits long,
P as historical? X'ery great difficulties confront us in formed as it was of heavy beams. For this reason, and
the endeavour to do so, quite apart in order to relieve the walls of the weight of the cover-
10. Unhistori- from the fact that the description ings, Schick finds it to be absolutely indispensable to
cal character occurs only in P, the latest source provide the tabernacle with a sloping roof. This he
of record. of the Pentateuch. They have long obtains by changing the middle bar into a ridge-pole,
been urged-by Voltaire for example-and may be following the English architectural authority Fergusson.
summed up under the following four heads :- (I) the who first propounded this theory in the article ' Temple'
imaginative character of the account itself; (2) the in Smith's DB (1863). Such a construction, however,
physical impossibility of such a structure in the wilder- flatly contradicts the clear tenor of the text. The text
ness ; ( 3 ) the inconsistency with the older Pentateuch knows nothing of such a sloping or pointed roof-which,
sources ; (4) the want of evidence for any such tabernacle furthermore, would be wholly inconsistent with the idea
during historical times. of a bedouin tent.
( I ) The description itself from the outset presents (2) Over and above the inherent impossibility of any
great difficulties, and raises in the mind of the reader such structure, account must be taken of the incidental
the question whether any such structure can ever ll. Impossible impossibility of constructing and trans-
have really existed. It has already been pointed out porting such a fabric in the wilderness.
how in stating the number of the pillars of the court the in the T h e contrast between this sumptuous
narrator is plainly not describing something of which he wildernese. fabric-made of the costliest materials
has any clear picture in his mind's eye, not calculating of the best workmanship in wood and in metals which
and planning with practical preciseness, but only filling the East could command-and the soil on which it is
in figures according to a scheme of his own. Yet raised, the bare wilderness: the contrast too between
another point has also been noted already-that the this tabernacle and the peopleamongst whom it stands-
4871 4872
primitive uncivilised nomads-is too great not to have baetylia (see Selden, De Diis Syris 16) ; but what the Mosaic
excited doulits from a very early date as to the authen- tabernacle contained is not expressl; stated. The ordinary and
at first sight the easiest assumption is that the ark stood in ir
ticity of the account. 'lhey were raised by Voltaire, Hut neither in Deuterdnomy nor before it, are the ark and the
and Colenso and Nowack (see beiow, § 11) have tabernacle ever mentioned together, and of the two old
elaborately shown the impossibilities involved. First narrators it is not clear that the Yahwist ever mentions the
of all comes the difficulty as to the materials. According tabernacle or the Elohist the ark. The relation between the
two calls for further investigatioii, especially as the ark retains
to Ex. 3827 no fewer than 29 talents 730 shekels of its importance after the occupation of Canaan, whilst the 'tent
gold, 100 talents 17;'s shekels of silver and 70 talents of tryst' is not mentioned after the time of Moses, who, accord-
1400 shekels of copper are employed. T o see what ing to the Elohist (Ex. 12), enjoyed at it a privilege of direct
access to the Deity not accorded to later prophets (cp also A RK
these figures mean, let the reader turn to the articles OF COVENANT).
W E I G H T S AND h{EA:jUIKES, SHEKEL. The amounts in
(4) Lastly, the whole historical tradition from the
themselves are not very great when compared with those
which were applied iii the great Babylonian sanctuaries : period immediately following the settlement down to
but for wilderness nomads, poor to beggary as regards 13. The taber- the date of the building of Solon~on's
temple has no knowlege of any taber-
gold and silver, they are impossible. It is indeed re- nacle non-in nacle. True, apologists like Keil hare
plied to this that the gold is simply the gold which had
been obtained from the Egyptians ; but such an answer succeeded in writing to their own
times. satisfaction itscomplete history through-
becomes impossible in the case of the timber. Where
o n Sinai the cypremes grew from which beams over out the period of the judges arid the
17 it. long, 2 ft. 7 in. wide, and 20 in. thick could he first kings : at one time it was at Shiloh, at another at
obtained no one has yet been able to say.' The working Nob, finally at Gibeon, whence it was removed to the
of the timber, moreover, presupposes a knowledge of temple. The Chronicler has indeed much to tell about
arts which nomads do not possess ; that Israel did not in it, proceeding a s he does cn the-to him self-evident-
point of fact possess this knowledge is clearly shown by assumption that in every case where the older books
the fact that even a. Solomon had to go to Phmnicia made mention of sacrifice at all this must have been at
for his temple and workmen. A word may be added the tabernacle (I Ch. 1639 2129 z Ch. 1 3 55). The
as t o the difficulties of transport. Four waggons with older historical books, however (nith exceptions to be
six oxen apiece are assigned to the Merarites for this, mentioned immediately), know nothing of it. I K.

while each of the 48 beams weighs more than I O cwt. 3 15, in explicit contradiction of z Ch. 1 3 , states that
( 3 ) Decisive on tlie question, finally, ought to he the Solomon sacrificed on the great high place of Gibeon
observation, that the older sources of the Pentateuch, and excuses this proceeding, which from the redactor's
and E, know nothing of a tabernacle point of view of conrse seemed illegal, on the grcund
la' The sacredif this sort. that the temple was not yet in existence. But no
tent hl E' mention of this Not only is there no
central sanctuary, but temple was required for the purpose if the tabernacle
E in point of fact has a quite different sacred tent which was then at Gibeon. The sanctuary at Shiloh, on the
completely excludes any possibility of the tabernacle other hand, was not a tent at all but a solid house
of P. The tabernacle of E is a tent which Moses EV 'temple of the Lord,' ( n w S J . ~ ,hikaZ YahwL,
pitched outside the camp (Ex. 337 8 )and where I S. 19 33), with nz2xziaifh (AV 'door posts,' RV 'side
Yahwi: was wont to reveal himself to him in the pillar posts') and dt"ith5fh (EV ' d o o r s ' ) ; cp especially Jer.
of cloud which descended for the purpose and stood at 7 1 2 8 Moreover, the ark is spoken of in I S. 4-6 in
the door (Nu.112. 125 1410); it is on this acconnt such a manner as shows that there was no fixed place
called '$he2 ? d i d , ' the tent of tryst.' No description where it was kept, and thus no Tabernacle. After it
of it is given, nor is its origin spoken o f ; but part of the has been recovered from the Philistines, for example,
old narrative has obviously been lost before Ex. 337, it does not come to its proper house but first to Beth-
in which what is now lacking was probably explained. shemesh and next to Kirjath-jearim, to the house of a
It appears, however, that it was very different from the private individual, where it remains for years. Thence
tabernacle described by the priestly narrator. It was it is fetched by David, who, however, after the disaster
not in the centre of the camp but stood some distance to Uzzah brings it into the house of one of his generals,
outside it, and it was not the seat of an elaborate and that too a gentile, Gbed-edom of Gath (2 S. 7).
organisation of priests and guarded by a host of Levites, Not till later does he transfer it to his own city, where
but had a single minister and custodian-viz., Joshua, he sets up a tent for its reception plainly in remembrance
who w8s not a Levite at all but Moses' attendant 3f the fact that the ark had formerly also been so
(E X. 3311). housed. This tent was in time removed by Solomon
The existence of such a simple tent-sanctuary pre- to the temple ( I K. 84). for if these verses are old and
sents none of the difficulties that beset the priestly belong to the context it is only this tent that can be
narrative. Portable shrines were familiar to Semitic anderstood by the '8hd md'id (more probably, however,
antiquity, and tents as sanctuaries were known to the !he statement is of a later date ; see Benzinger ad Zoc.).
Israelites in much later times at the high places and in rhus the only remaining passage will be I S. 222, a
connection with irregular worships (see TENT). Such >assage which is already open to critical doubt owing
idolatrous tabernacles were probably relics of the usages :o its absence from 6. From all that has been urged
of the nomadic Semites, and it is only natural that @e may safely conclude that the tabernacle of P is
Israel in its wanderings should have had the like. And iimply the temple of Solomon carried back into the
it is noteworthy that the portable chapels of the heathen Ader time by priestly fancy and modified accordingly.
Semites were mainly used for divination (cp Jotlr-n. of [t was not the temple that was built on the model of
Phz'Z., 13283 f.), just as the Mosaic tabernacle is .he tabernacle ; it was the tabernacle that took its shape,
described by the Elohist, not as a place of sacrifice :haracter, and importance for worship and the theocracy
(such as the tabernacle of the Priestly Code is) but as a kom the temple.
place of oracle. Josephus, A n f . 9 6 - 8 ; Pbilo De vit. Mos. B q s S The
The heathen shrines of this sort contained portable idols or >Ider literature will be found 'more or less fully registered in
such works as those of Bahr or Riggenbach.
1 [Kennedy's novel theory (see above, # 3), that the so-called 14. Literature. Of later works we mention the following :
'boards' were in reality light open frames, would, of course, Bahr, Symbolik des Mas. KuZtusC4, 1 9 7 f i ;
meet this difficulty if it stood alone.] Friedrich Sym6oZik der Mos. Stiftshutte (1841) ; W. Neumann
2 Ezek. 16 16, 'thou didst take of thy garments and madeit Die SfifshrZtfe 1861' Ch. J. Riggenbach Die Mosaiscd
for thyself sewn high places'-i.e. shrines of curtains sewn Yt;fshfftfe (188;) : Poiper, Der 6idZ. Berich; &er die St@s-
together ; cp Hos. 96 and Syriac &akkZ, Assyrianjaarakku, a i&Vc (1862); articles by Winer in R WB 2 529 : Diestel in BL
small chapel or shrine, from the same root as HebrewpErbketh, ~ 4 0 5 8; Leyrer in PREP), 15 9 2 8 : Riggenhach in PREp)
the vail of the Holy of Holies. ,47123.; Riehm in H W B ; Fergusson, art. 'Temple' in
4873 4874
Smith's DB: Welte in Frei6urg.evKirchen-lexicon: Kurtz in Sf. 120 ; cp the same expression in Ex. 3422) to go in
Kr., 1844, pp.,315J? ; Knmphausen i6id. 1858, pp. 9 7 3 1859 pilgrimage with the whole family to the sanctuary at
pp. 1 1 0 3 ; Fries, ibid. 1859, pp. IO&, Riggenbach, ibid.', 1863:
p 361f. E n g e l h a r d t i n Z L r 1868,pp.409f'alsotheArchae- Shiloh, and there to sacrifice to Yahwe and hold a joyous
o&-iis G'Jahn (3 2 2 6 3 ) DeJWette-R5b1ge;'268 f l . Ewald sacrificial meal ( I S. 1 3 8 ) . The high importance
(3) 163y 3 6 7 8 (1)387) 4 2 0 8 . Saalsch&z 2 3 1 8 k ' K e i i attached to the festival is shown also in the fact that
FJ 8 2 8 ZT 1 9 8 k ' SchoIz"l233': Haneberg i 6 1 8 . S'chegg)
4 0 6 3 ; Bennnger, k A 395%, and Nowack, f f 22 538'; Schick: Solomon dedicates his temple at the same date ( I K.
Stlffsh?i:ileu. I'emjel, 1898; A. R. S. Kennedy, art. 'Tabernacle' 8265, cp z Ch. 7 8 3 ;on the passage cp also below,
in Hastings' DB. On the question of the historicity of the 5 3). Answering to the yearly observance of this feast
accounts of the tabernacle CD esoeciallv De Wettc. Beifr. at Jerusalem, Jeroboam, according to a thoroughly
1258 fl, 2 2 5 9 3 ; Vater, COMA.3 658f: ; t o n Bohlen, Genesis,
1 1 2 8 : George, Judische Feste, 4 1 3 ;Vatke, Bidl. Theol. 224f.; trustworthy statement in I K. 1232 (cp Benzinger,
Nddeke, Beitr. z.Krifik, 1 2 0 3 Graf, De fern L S i f o n m i , ad 206. ) instituted a similar solemnity in the northern
1855, and Die Gesch. B6. d. A T,'1866, 7 5 x ; duenen, G O A- kingdom ; here the only error of the author is in sup-
diensf, 2 75f: : Reuss, L'histoire sainte e t la bi, 240; Well-
hausen, Pmf.P),4 0 8 E T 3 8 8 I. B.
posing (from his Deuteronomistic point of view) that
before Jeroboam's time such a feast was observed only a t
TABERNACLES, FEAST OF. The Israelitic cycle the temple of Jerusalem, and not also at the sanctuaries
of festivals came to a close, in autumn, with the feast of the northern kingdom. Pilgrimages of the same
1. agricultural of Tabernacles. In the old legislation sort as those to Shiloh were in use also in other parts
character. ((Ex. 34 22 23 16) it is called hag ha'isiph
? the feast of ingathering,' aad
r p ~IF),'
of the country to the various famous sanctuaries. T h e
passages just cited show also at the same time that this
is to be celebrated '"at the turn of the year' (nzrpp autumn festival from the very beginning was celebrated
ny??). The very name shows quite clearly that the in common by wide circles of participants. This does
festival in its essential meaning is agricultural, a harvest not seem to have been the case in the olden time with
feast ; it is the autumn thanksgiving which no doubt has the two other harvest feasts ; if observed at all, it was
reference primarily to the fruit harvest and the vintage, enough that they should be observed in quite small
but from the outset was regarded as the great thanks- local circles; at least the complete silence of the histori-
giving for the whole produce of the year. cal books on the subject would be most easily ex-
Hence the general expressions 'when thou gatherest in the plained in this way. The special importance of the
produce of thy field' (Ex. 23 16, 33t?-]p $'kEp?
$3pFT), feast of tabernacles continues to show itself in the
'when thou gatherest in from thy threshing-floor gnd from thy Deuteronomic legislation. In contrast to what is re-
press' (Deut. 16 13, S??l@ $iWp 93D:p). quired at the two other haggim, it is enjoined that all
the days of this festival are to be observed at the central
Like the other harvest feasts, it is inrimately con- sanctuary in Jerusalem (Dt. 1615 ; cp a. 7).
nected with the possession of the land of Canaan, and In the older legislation no more precise details than
was celebrated for the first time there by the Israelites, those already indicated are given as to how and where
who in all probability took it over from the Canaanites. 3. Original the feast ought to be observed. Else-
I t is with regard to the autumn festival specially that where (FEASTS, § I O ) it is shown that
our information as to its having been a Canaanite festival c ~ ~the olden
~ time i had~ no thought
~ , at all of
is explicit ; of the people of Shechem we are told that fixing the three harvest festivals to any
they went out into the field, gathered their vineyards, definite day. This lies in the nature of the case.
trode the grapes, and held festival and went into the T h e great autumn thanksgiving was held as soon as
house of their god and did eat and drink (Judg. 927). the corn-harvest, vintage, and ingathering were finished.
Cp also FEASTS, 5 4. This happened, of course, in the various districts, and
As the closing harvest thanksgiving, and probably the in different years, at different dates. In the hill-country
oldest of the three feasts of harvest (see PASSOVER, 4 ; around Jerusalem the feast was held of old in the eighth
a. The most PENTECOST, 5 6), the autumn festival month. The completion of the temple was in the month
important of excels both the other great annual festivals of BEl, the eighth month, and its dedication was at the
the yearlJr (huggin, n m ) of the Israelites in im- time of the autumn festival ( I K. 638 : cp 8 ~ ) .It~ is
festivals. portance. In the law of J E , it is true, all evidently in order to bring it into accordance with the
three are already found on the same plane Jerusalem date of the feast on the fifteenth of the month
as equally necessary and equally important ; for all of that the autumn festival a t Bethel was fixed for the same
them attendance at the sanctuary is enjoined (Ex.3422 day by Jeroboam ( I K. 1232).
2316). Yet how great was the special importance as- For the observance of the festival the offering of gifts
signed in practice to the autumn festival as compared from the fruits that had heen gathered and of animal
with the others appears at once in its very designation sacrifices accompanied by a sacrificial meal were matters
as 'fire feast' (IF?,ire&) or ' f h t feast of Yahwb' of course (cp I S. 1 3 3).In the olden time the gifts
( n r r 15, hug Yahw?) KaT' @ox$v (I K. 82 1232 Judg. and offerings were left to the freewill of the worshipper
21 19 ; and even as late as Lev. 233941 Ezek. 4525 Neh. according as his heart impelled him to show his thanks
814). Even in Zechariah ( 1 4 1 6 8 ) it is to the to Yahwe (cp T AXATION, 5 8). S o also it is matter of
feast of tabernacles that the remnant of the heathen go course that the feast was observed as a joyous occasion.
up year by year to Jerusalem to worship the King, 1 [See also SHECHEM, and cp Crit. Bib.!
Yahwb SBbEi6th. In these circumstances it cannot be 2 In the present text of I K.82 it is indeed said that the
regarded as merely accidental that the feast of taber- dedication was ' a t the feast in the month Ethinim, which is the
seventh month.' T o reconcile this date with I K. 6 38 according
nacles and the feast of tabernacles alone is more than to which the temple was finished in the eighth monti, it would
once mentioned in the historical books when dealing be necessary to suppose that after its completion the dedication
with the more ancient period, and its celebration thus of the temple was put offtill the seventh month of the following
year-that is to say, for eleven months. This is in the highest
attested from the earliest period after the settlement in degree unlikely. Since, moreover, we learn from I K. 1 2 32
Canaan. At Shiloh, for example, the maidens celehrate that a t that period the festival was observed at Jerusalem in
it by going forth to dance in the orchards and vineyards the eighth month, we must suppose,the original text of I K . 82
to have read merely ' a t the feast. The name of the month
(Judg.2116).' So also we learn from the story of EthSnim is a later insertion easily explained by the consideration
Samuel that in wide circles it was customary year by that, on the one hand, the fixed tradition was that the temple
year at the ' revolution of the days ' (n;F? nieqn5, I S. had been dedicated at the feast of tabernacles, and, on the other
hand, that this feast, a t a later date, but before that of Deutero-
1 The narratives in udg. 19-21 are certainly in their present nomy (I 4), had been assigned to this month. The explanatlqn
form late Midrash. A t there need not be on that account any of the name of the month-< which is the seventh month '-1s
doubt as to the accuracy of this statement or of many other the addition of a still later hand, as is shown by its position ; it
touches preserved in them See DANCE, 5 6, and cp further, is also wanting in @BL [@A ha5 a curious reading ~ h b 6 s p$u
Budde, ad loc. L , ~ S O ~ ~ K O e,%opoc].
W~S C p further, Benzinger, ad ~ O C .
4875 4876
Compare what we read of the feast of the Shecheniites (Judg. It is shown elsewhere (FEASTS, § I O ) how the cen-
9 27) or of.the dances of the maidens (cp DANCE, s 6) at the tralisation of the cultus in Dt., even without any
feast of Shdoh (Judg. 21 19fi).
express intention on the part of the lawgiver, inevit-
When, then, in Dt. the feast is for the first time ably altered the character of the feasts. It became
designated (in our present texts) as the ‘ feast of necessary that they should be observed at one common
tabernacles ’ (Dt. 16 13 ; see below, 5 4 ) and the priestly definitely fixed date, they lost their intimate connection
law (Lev. 2342) expressly enjoins living in booths as with the life of the husbandman, and the tendency to
part of the ritual of its celebration, or when the Law of change them into historical celebrations was greatly
Holiness (Lev. 2340) orders the participants to take strengthened by this circumstance. No express refer-
(the fruit of goodly trees, branches of palm trees,‘ and ence to any historical event in connection with the
the like, we may be perfectly certain that these are not feast of tabernacles is met with as yet in Dt. The
newly invented innovations, but that very ancient custom bringing of the first-fruits at all is connected only in
lay at the foundation of the practices thus prescribed. a quite general way with the historical fact that it is
’The living in booths and the name ‘ feast of tabernacles ’ Yahw&who has delivered his people from the land of
or booths ’ are connected with the simple fact that at Egypt and given them the land of Canaan to possess.
the time of the olive and grape harvest it was usual to As thanks for the gift of the land the Israelite brings
spend days and nights in booths of this kind-a practice the first-fruits of its produce as a gift to YahwC (Ut.
which still holds its ground in those parts (see Robinson, 261-11).The bringing of the first-fruits enjoined in Dt.
BR 2717 ; cp Is. 1 8 ) . l If these booths at a later date in conjunction with a liturgical formula of thanksgiving
found a recognised place in the official ritual of the feast, is not indeed in the law itself (Dt. 261-11) expressly
this shows that, properly speaking, all these days of connected with any definite time. It is. however,
harvesting during which people lived in the open under exceedingly natural to assume that the author of the
booths were regarded as constituting a festal time, which injunction thought of it as to be carried out on the feast of
was brought to a close in, let us say, the pilgrimage to the tabernacles, for it deals with the offering of the first-
sanctuary. With this also we may connect the precept in fruits of the wine and oil-harvest as well as with the
Dt. (see below) to observe the feast for seven whole days first-fruits of corn, and contemplates this as being done
at the sanctuary. The other injunction, referred toabove, a t Jerusalem. For this the feast of tabernacles was the
to furnish oneself with fruits of goodly trees, branches of convenient opportunity, unless one is to read the precept
palm trees, and so forth (if the reference be not simply to as implying a special pilgrimage to Jerusalem for the
the branches needed for making the booths ; see below) purpose. In this connection a quite general reference
we ma); perhaps connect with what we read of the to the Exodus is implied for the feast of tabernacles.
festal dances in Judg. 21 xgj? I t would be natural for Lastly, in Dt. it is further laid down that every seventh
those who took part in these to adorn themselves with year, the year of release, ‘this law’-i.e., the Deutero-
sprigs and garlands. nomic law-shall be read before all Israel at the feast
In its festal legislation Dt. (1613-IS), as already of tabernacles (Dt. 31 1.8).
remarked, designates the autumn festival by the name Ezekiel is the first to give to this feast-designated
4, In Dt. of hug hu-suhhtth (nim? in), ‘feastof taber- the feast’ or ‘ the feast of Y a h d ‘-a definite date ; it
nacles ’ or ‘ booths ’-a designation which, ~. In Ezek. is to begin on the 15th day of the seventh
although not employed either in H or in P (see month, and to last for seven days (Ezek.
below, $8 5, 6), it continued to retain.2 As has and H. 4525). He orders for it the same offer-
already been said, it was not to any change in the ings as for the passover ; every day seven bullocks
significance of the festival or to any new ritual that this and seven rams as a burnt-offering, a he-goat as a sin-
new designation was due ; if Dt. had intended to offering, an ephah for every bullock and every ram, with
introduce something that was new when it spoke of the a hin of oil to each ephah as a meal-offering. The
celebration under booths, this piece of ritual would Law of Holiness (Lev. 23 39-41) in its present form has no
have been expressly prescribed. On the contrary, Dt. precept as to the offering. The date in u. 39 is hardly
simply assumes both name and thing to be already original. On the other hand it is here prescribed that
familiar ; thus the name also was already in use before the Israelites on the first day of the feast are to take to
the time of Dt. The duration of the feast is fixed a t them the fruit of goodly trees ( ~ rp7*la ; cp under
seven days, and in fact all the seven have to be observed A PPLE, § 2 [3]), branches of palm trees and boughs of
at the sanctuary in Jerusalem (see above, 5 3). T h e thick trees and willows of the brook, and rejoice before
joyous character of the feast is also thoroughly preserved Yahwh seven days. That the palm branches and the
in Dt., as well as the idea of its being a harvest feast ; and, boughs are to be used for making booths is nowhere
in full agreement with the general spirit of solicitude said. It is equally possible to suppose that they were
shown in the Deuteronomic law for the welfare of the carried by the participants in their hands (cp above,
poor and the like, it is expressly enjoined that the bond-
3). Such a custom is attested at any rate for the
man and the widow are all to take joyful part in the later post-exilic period ( z Macc. 1 0 6 Jt ; ]os. Ant.
celebration (1614). iii. 104, 5 245. xiii. 135, § 372). What could be the
application of ‘ fruit of goodly trees ‘ in the construction
1 For evidence of the ancient practice of spending the
festival under booths we cannot with confidence appeal to Hos. of booths is not easy to see, and it is more natural to
12 1o[9]. The expression there madense of--,yin, m8‘2d,instead suppose that the fruit formed part of the thyrsus which
of J!l, kag- is quite unusual. Still less suitable, it is true, is each participant carried in his hand (cp below,
the interpretation which (so Wellhausen) refers it to the passover § 7).
feast. In no other place do we read anything of a dwelling jn The laws of P concerning the autumn festival are
tents during that feast. In the prophetic threatening ‘ I wdl
yet again make thee to dwell in tents, as in the days of the 1 How much of Lev. 2339 belongs to the original law
(-,pin) solemn feast no reference to any joyous festival merely of holiuess is very questionable. As in what follows this
a reference to the wandering in the wilderness is reqdired by verse mention is always made of only seven feast days,
the connection. Hence Kautzsch’s rendering ‘as in the day Of 0. 396, which speaks of an eighth day, may he presumed to
the assembly, [at Horebl’ seems the hest. If the prophet IS be a later addition (see below, 0 6). The same holds good
really intending the fqast of tabernacles in this allusion, we of the time determination in v. 3 a The other festivals also
shall then have our first distinct trace of an assumed parallel
and connection between this ‘dwelling in booths’ at the feast
are not yet assigned to a fixed 8; in H. On this question
see further the various introductions, especially the tables in
of tabernacles and the dwelling in tents in the wilderness at the Holzinger.
exodus from Egypt. Cp further, Wellhausen and Nowack,
ad zoc. 2 nhx f‘p is explained by tradition as meaning ‘myrtle.’
2 In the NT and in Josephus it is accordingly spoken of as Occurring as it d w s between ‘ palms’ and ‘willows,’ the expres-
mqvomj+a, 3 as ;op* uqviiv, in Vg. as scmopagia, and in
in Q sion would certainly seem intended to denote some definite kind
Philo (2 297) as mqvai. of tree.
4877 4878
found in Lev. 2333-36 4 2 8 Nu. 2912-38. The name of quite natural had now in the capital no meaning.
6 , In p. the festival is there the same as in Dt. : feast When, however, the custom was brought into con-
of tabernacles or booths, hug hus-sukkcth nection with history and judged to be a reminiscence
(nim? JF : Lev. 23 34). The preference of P for this of the tents of Israel in the wilderness, it received a new
designation is not a mere accident; it is intended to meaning which gave it fresh significance as a part of the
denote, not a part of the ritual merely, but the meaning ceremonial of the feast and recalled it to new life. From
of the entire festival ; it conveys, not only that during the account in Nehemiah (8 16) we learn further that in
the festival it is necessary to live in booths. but also Jerusalem the booths were set upon the house roofs, in
that the festival commemorates the booths in which the house courts, in the courts of the temple (this last,
Israel lived at the exodus from Egypt. It is exactly to of course, only for priests and Levites) and in the broad
this that the peculiar usage of the feast is intended to places of the city gates. Olive branches, branches of
point (Lev. 23428 ). The change of meaning, designed wild olives, myrtle branches, palm branches, and
to give the feast a place in the history of redemption, branches of thick trees ( n i q yy, see above, 5 5 , n. z )
has thus been fully accomplished ; there is now no were employed for the purpose. The public reading of
longer present any trace of a reference to husbandry- the book of the law, a s required by Dt. (see above, $4).
a reference which, indeed, is absent also from the Law was also a feature of the festival. The Chronicler’s
of Holiness. As with all festivals in P, so also in the account of the feast of tabernacles at the dedication of
case of the feast of tabernacles, the chief emphasis is the temple ( z Ch. 7 8 8 ) is evidence of the observance of
laid upon the public sacrifices which are offered with the festival in accordance with P in the Chronicler’s own
lavish abundance, no longer a s in Dt. upon the volun- time in so far as the seven days’ feast of I K. 865 i s
tary gifts of individuals and the sacrificial meal arising altered into a feast of eight days. Finally, we read
from these. The public sacrifices consist, over and in the Maccabean period of the celebration of a feast
above the regular daily burnt-offering with the customary resembling the feast of tabernacles, immediately after the
meal and drink-offerings, of a sin-offering of a he-goat to purification of the temple ( z Macc. 1 0 6 8 ) . This
be offered on each of the seven days of the feast, with feast also lasts eight days; the participants carry in
in addition a daily burnt-offering of two rams and their hands ‘wands wreathed with leaves, and fair
fourteen lambs, and on the first day thirteen bullocks boughs, and palms also. ’
besides, on the second day twelve bullocks, and each The custom here referred to (perhaps already an old one ; see
succeeding day a bullock the less-thus, on the seventh above 5 5) continued in use during the later period. The order
day seven bullocks, two rams, fourteen lambs. In of the‘ feast is prescribed down to the minutest details in the
Talmudic tractate entitled Sukka (cp MYRTLE). There the
each case there are, of course, the appropriate meal- branches, etc., are not only used for making booths, but are also
offerings of fine flour mingled with oil-three-tenths for carried in the hands as the celebrants go to join in the worship.
every bullock and two-tenths for each of the two ranis. The ‘fruit of goodly trees’ (177 yg ‘77) was interpreted to mean
As compared with the offerings prescribed for the other the ethrig (fil?!), apple of paradise, or Adam’s apple, the
principal feasts, those here enjoined are enhanced to an 2~ ‘ri66ih (niar f’p) the myrtle. Accordingly, a palm branch
extraordinary degree-in some instances being more still in its ‘sceptre-like’ condition, that is, not yet expanded (the
than doubled. Thus down even to so late a date as
that of P we can clearly trace the continued operation
so-called ZziZri6,395) was fastened up along with a myrtle and
willow in such a manner that the myrtle was on the right and
of that pre-eminent importance which attached to this the willow on the left of the palm. This festal thyrsus (also
feast above all the rest in the oldest times. called I2ilri6) was held in the right hand whilst the left carried
There is yet one other point in which P goes beyond an etrtrig and thus equipped the celeLrants went in procession
with hosamas and waving of thyrsi round the altar of burnt-
Ezekiel and H ; to the traditional seven days of the offering, each day once but on the seventh day seven times, to
feast it adds yet an eighth as a closing festival, ‘&Lreth commemorate the s d n days’ encompassing of the walls of
Jericho. Joyphus calls the thyrsus (Ant. iii. l o 4 5 245)
( n y ) . As compared with the other seven days, this cipeuujq-which means properly the harvest wreath’of olive
has an independent character of its own ; it does not or laurel wound round with wool and decorated with fruit
simply continue the sacrifices of the preceding days, but which the Athenian singing boys carried ahout at the autumn
feast of Pyanepsia. Another Greek designation employed
there are offered a he-goat as sin-offering, a bullock, a
ram and seven lambs as a burnt-offering-in each case
is (tripuor (thyrsi 2 Macc. 10 7 ; Jos. Ant. xiii. 13 5,
properly the Bacch’ic wand wreathed in ivy and vine-leaves with

with the appropriate meal and drink-offerings, of course a fir-cone at the top which was carried by the worshippers at
in addition to the regular daily burnt-offering. This the feast of Dionysus. It is doubtless this whole custom that
Plutarch has in his mind when be represents the Jewish feast of
day, however, as can readily be understood, is always tabernacles as being a Dionysiacfestival.(Syn$. 46 :6 s p q i u q s
reckoned as part of the main festival itself, and in later rrai r e X e t o d n p iop+ rap? ‘Iodaiois 6 Karpis &-L xai A r p i m s
times it was customary to speak of an eight-days’ feast . ..
Acovvlriw 1 ~ p 0 ~ j . w ~e m i 62 Kai Kpaqpo+opia ris io@ rai
Bvpu+$ia vap’ ohois, i v 3 ~ p u o v sZXOYW cis rb repbv
( a Macc. 106 ; Jos. Ant. iii. 104, 5 245). This eighth eiuiauiv).
day, like the first, is celebrated by a great assembly and
by abstinence from every kind of work; for the inter- Another peculiar custom, with regard to the meaning
vening six days this is not demanded. and origin of which there is still great uncertainty (cp
In post-exilk times, just as in pre-exilic, it is pre- N ATURE-WORSHIP, 5 4),was in connection with the
cisely of the feast of tabernacles that we most often daily drink-offering which was offered during the seven
Later. hear ; it always continued to be one of the days of the feast. For this the water was taken from
most important festivals. Of the exiles Siloam. A priest drew it in a golden pitcher of a
after their return we forthwith read that when the capacity of three logs, and brought it amid trumpet-
seventh month came round they did not neglect the blasts through the Water Gate into the outer court
feast of tabernacles. And, as matter of fact, after the of the temple. ’There other priests received it from
introduction of the law in 444 B . c . , the feast was him with the words (Is. 1 2 3 ) : ‘Ye will draw water
regularly observed in strict conformity with the legal with joy from the founts of salvation,’ in which words
prescriptions. This is expressly emphasised in Neh. priests and people alike joined. The water was then
8 1 4 8 It is, however, very noticeable that here the mixed with wine, and, while the priests blew on the
legal innovation is the revival of a custom which had trumpets and the Levites chanted psalms, was poured
passed out of use: not, as might be expected, the into a silver basin standing at the south-western corner
sacrifices, but the dwelling in booths. From this no J f the altar, from which it flowed by a pipe into a
other conclusion is possible than that this dwelling subterranean channel and thence to the Kidron. W e
in booths was practised in the older time, not as a may, perhaps, bring this practice into connection with
festal rite, but as a harvest cnstom. After Dt. had the ancient custom of drawing water and pouring it out
transferred the observance of the feast to Jerusalem, the ‘cp I S. 7 6 ) which may possibly have been used and
practice had gone out of date ; what had formerly been :etained precisely a t the feast. Tradition has it that
4879 4880
abundant rain for the new seed-time and a fruitful year et-T&. Its dome-like shape as seen from the’s. or
are symbolised in the act. In all probability the words SW. (‘mira rotunditate,’ Jer. O S l S 6 ~ 3 ) , and its
of Jn. 737f: are to be read in this connection.l Yet apparent isolation, make it a striking feature in the
one other characteristic of the feast remains to be men- landscape of SE. Galilee. Hence it ranks with Carmel
tioned : the festal joy on the night between the first and among conspicuous heights : e.g., in Jer. 46 18, and the
the second day. In the court of the women four- Midrash, Bey. K . , § 99, ‘Tabor came from Beth-elim and
branched golden candlesticks were erected and lighted Carnie1 from Aspamya to attend the law-giving at
up. With music, psalms, and trumpets, a torch dance Sinai.’ A psalmist even implies that what Hermon is
was then performed by the most prominent priests and on the E. of Jordan Tabor is on the W., Ps. 8 9 r 3 (but
laymen. The offering of the festal sacrifices was cp the commentators). It rises from the level of the
accompanied, as in the case of the other great feasts, Great Plain to a height of 1843 ft. (1312ft. from the
by trumpet-blowing by the priests, as also by the singing base); the summit is an extensive platform, 3000 ft.
of the great hallel-Le., Pss. 113-118 (see HALLEL); from E. to W., 1300 ft. at its greatest breadth, a
when the Hosanna was reached in Ps. 11825 the 1fi18bs peculiarity which did much to determine the associations
were shaken. which have gathered round the mountain. Though
Outside of Palestine the Jews observed the festival in like from some aspects Tabor appears to stand alone, in
manner in booth5. As the determination of the month‘s com- reality it is a spur of the Nazareth group of heights,
mencement and of the whole calendar connected with it depended
on actual observation of the new moon, and thus was uncertain and is linked to them on its N. side. Its slopes, like
(see New MOON), it was customary for the Jews outside of the W. slopes of Carmel. are covered with vegetation
Palestine to observe the first and eighth days of the feast twice and stunted trees, oak, ilex, terebinth, beech, carob,
over on consecutive days, so as to make sure of observing the olive, etc., which afford cover to an unusual number of
common national feast quite simultaneously with their brethren
in Palestine. animals. From the top opens out a superb panorama,
After the destruction of the second temple arose the custom of often, however, veiled with mists in the spring-time.
adding yet a ninth day-the ~ 3 r dof Tishri-to the festival, The situation of the mountain, its imposing and
celebrated as the feast of ‘the joy of the law’ (>Ti??
npp). prominent outline, explain at once the part which it has
On the Sabbath preceding this day the reading of the l a b as played in history. In all ages Tabor has been famous
divided into 5 2 parashiyyeth or lessons in the synagogue service
came to an end ; on the following sabbath the reading was re- either for its sanctuary or for its stronghold. Com-
commenced. Cp Vitringa, De Syn. Vet., 1696, p. 1m3. manding the NE. quarter of the Great Plain and one of
See the literature cited under FEASTS; also the articles in the main outlets down to the Jordan, the W. esh-SherHr,
Riehm, HerzogPlitt, Smith, etc. 1. B. it has considerable strategic value, whilst to the instinct
TABITHA (TAB[E]leA [Ti. WH]),a Acts936 40t. of early religion it would seem to have been designed by
; cp GAZELLE. nature for a holy place.
The boundaries of Issachar, Zebulun, and Naphtali
TABLE. The words are :- meet upon Tabor :..ITosh. 1922 (Issacharl. 12 CHISLOTH-
I. &ai &&in rpbrre<a mensa. See MEALS, $3 3“; ALTAR,
# 1o;and’cp S A C ~ I F I 0C) 3E4,a . a.Let- TABOR-i. e. “flanks of! Tabor ‘ (Zebu-
and strong- hln),34 ’AZNOTH-TAROR-i.e. ‘peaks (?)
>DO, 7rrPsa6 & d r A r u r c (-l)uis [Cl),, a c d t w s , is taken by
E V in Cant. 1~ z ’ i nthe sense of ‘table : cp MEALS, 5 3a, and . .. of Tabor‘ (Naohtali\. I Ch. 6 6 2 1771
n. 2 ; also 0 3 6, n. z ; hut see also BDB, and Bu. ad Zoc.,
Haupt, J B L 21 (1902) pt. I , p. 54.
no‘a‘ (Zebulun ; kH &xd~). In the %f

3,. n>5 Itisih TAL$ (31 times) mtiov (thrice), fa6nZa, 6uxus.
Chiefly Af the‘ tables’ of the law Ex. 24 12, etc., hut also of the
tnhles or tablets on which the rophets wrote their prophecies
and the last of these passages Tabor is the name
of a town on or near the mountain. Long before
the Israelite occupation Tabor was a holy place;
(Is. 308 Hab. 2 2), and of tabEs for writing generally. Cp it naturally became the common sanctuary of the three
4. rpLm<a, Mt. 1527 I Cor. 1021 Heb.92, etc.; seeahove, I. tribes whose portions met there. So we may infer
5. ahkt 2 Cor. 3 3 Heb. 9 4 ; see above, 3. from Dt. 3319, ’they ( i e . , Zebulun and Issachar) call
6. .A& in M t . 7 4 [Ti. WH om.] is rendered ‘table’ in A V . peoples to the mountain.’ Though Tabor is not
RVom. RVmg. many ancient authorities add and couches.’
See above, z, and cp MEALS, 8 36 and n. 2. expressly named, as it is the mountain in which both
. r r r v a d r o v Lk. 163, A V ‘ table,’ RV ‘ tablet ’ ; dimin. from these tribes had an interest the allusion would be clear
d a $ , and so a)small tablet (for writing). to early readers. The passage seems to refer to some
TABLE LAND (7idW) a Ch. 2610 RVmg., EV kind of religious fair or gathering at the sanctuary
’ plain(s).‘ See JUDZA, P LAIN. of Tabor to which the neighbourhood was invited for
worship and barter (Stade. GVZ 1171 ; Driver, Deut.
TABLET. I . YpjS, R u m @ , Ex. 3522 Nu. 315ot. 409 ; see also Herder, Geist d. Hebr. Pdsie, 1508
RV ARMLET. See N ECKLACE, 5 4. ed. Suphan). In the days of Deborah and Barak these
2. p h , $Liyan, Is. 8 I, RV see DRESS,5 I [21, ROLL, 2. tribes had suffered most from the hostility of the
3. d??;r ’51, 6it2 (?) hn-n@&< Is. 3 20. See P ERFUME Canaanites ; accordingly upon Tabor, as the common
BOXES. rallying-point, Barak gathered his men for a descent
TABOR (7\25; BaBwp [BKARTL], raieBwp [B] upon the enemy in the plain below (Judg.4612 14).
Perhaps there was another reason for the muster on
ea+we [A] Josh.19~2,TO ~ T A B ~ ~ I O[BA]
N Hos.51 Tabor besides the obvious advantages of the position ;
phJrsicalJer. 46 [@ 261 18 ; A T A B ~ ~ I O NPOW. the holy war, as von Gall suggests, would probably
&=ader- V.706. CP l € P O N A l O C ATABYPIOY at begin with a sacrifice at the tribal sanctuary (Altisr.
Agrigentum and in the isle of Rhodes
istics. Kultstuffen,124f. ; cp I S. 139 12 Mi. 35, etc. ). From
ib. iX. 277 ; TO I T A B ~ ~ I O Nopoc JOS. ;
one account it appears that the battle was fought at the
ITABYPION Euseb. OS 26890 and B A B w p , ib. 26127 ;
Ztubyrium. Thabou, Jerome), the hill now called Jebel foot of the mountain (Judg. 4 r4f. ) ; the Song, however,
does not mention Tabor, and places the battle farther
1 The words are spoken on the ‘great’ day of the feast- off, by Taanach, along the left bank of the Kishon
$ i q L w $@ips $ pr/LAl) n j s loprijr. By this probably is meant ( 5 18-20). By this victory Tabor was secured to Israel ;
the seventh day, on which procession was made seven times
round the altar which on this day was decorated with branche: and, as a stronghold commanding one of the main
of willow. T h k day is in fact called by the rahbins the ‘great caravan routes across the Plain, it must have proved an
Hosanna day--x?? 7$-7yVl”ni-, or also the ‘willow’ d a y - invaluable possession during the times of conflict and
”?>! Di’. The eighth day, the ‘+rtfA, is not strictly speaking slow consolidation which followed (Judg. 7 I z z I S.
to be reckoned to the feast of tabernacles ; the special sacrifices 2 8 4 8 291 311). Of its fortunes in the daj-s when
and festal observances terminate on the seventh day (see above).
This day, therefore, cannot be regarded as that intended in Jn. 1 I n Talm. R. the extent of Tabor is given as 4 parsa, Rib.
’I B a t h 736 (Z&i&nr 1136 reads 40 parsa) ; the figures of Jos.
%7’CpT O S I ~ &(Wadd. zr55)and ra@ra&l,cited by Dussaud and BJiv. 1 (height 30 stadia, the a&ov on the summit 26 stadia):
Macler, Voy. Arch. 158 (Paris, 1901). a r of
~ course absurd.
4881 4882
Assyrian and Egyptian armies passed within sight of it Tlrabor, Paris, 19~0). But the difficulty was overcome in other
we know nothing (Is. 8 2 3 [91] 2 K.2329 Zech. 1211). situations of a similar character ; many remains of cisterns have
been discovered on the summit. and monasteries have managed
The sanctuary continued to serve the district. By to live there. T h e assage ib the Gosgel &:cording to the
Hosea's time it had become associated with the idolatrous Hc6rews quoted by Brigen (Comment. in Joan. t. 26 ; Migne,
form of YahwB-worship which was characteristic of the P G 14 col. 132)~where Jesus is made to say, ' Even now has my
mother, the Holy Spirit, seized me by one of my hairs and
N. kingdom : hence it incurred the prophet's denuncia- borne me to the great mountain Tabor,' can hardly be said to
tion; its priesthood, like that of Mizpah. the other support the Christian tradition ; hut it may have helped to give
typical 'high place,' is ' a net spread out' to catch rise to it. The context of the quotation is lost, so that we
deluded worshippers (Hos. 5 f). Nevertheless the cannot tell what event is alluded to; not improbably it was the
temptation. Cp T E L P T A T I O N , %$ 14,andsee Moulton, Bib/. am?!
sacred character of the mountain was not forfeited ; in Sew. Studies Yale Univ., 1901,p. 161, with the references.
the course of time no doubt it influenced the Christian At any rate Okgen himself accepted the tradition (Comment. in
tradition (I 5) ; it never quite lost its hold upon Jewish Ps 88 I; [89121 ; PG12 1548), ',Tabor is the mountain of Galilee
where Christ was transfigured. In the fourth century it is held
memory. In a late Midrash we find the opinion that Py Eusebius who speaks of Hermon along with Tabor as
'the Temple itself might well have been built in the mountains Lpon which the wonderful transfigurations and
portion of Issachar,' had it not been otherwise ordered frequent sojourns of onr Saviour took place'(Conznient. in Ps.
(Yalkut on Dt. 33 19 imv' $w $m> n i n s * w in i m n n.3). 88 13 [89121 ; PG 23 rc92); by Cyril of Jerusalem, 'Moses . .
and Elias .. . .
were present with him when be was transfigured on
The Tabor of Judg. 8 18 can hardly be the mountain ; Mt. Tabor'(Catech. 13 16,;'PG 33744); by Jerome? ' Itabyrium
it is too far from the seats of Gideon's clan : the scene et tabernacula Salvatoris, . .. montem Thabor in quo trans-
3. Judg.818of the murder was the neighbourhood of figuratus est Dominus ' (E# 46 and 108 ; P L 22 491 ; ib. 889).
Before the end of the fourth century, the tradition was widely
Shechem rather than the Plain of Jezreel current in the E., and pilgrims, such a s Paula (Jerome, E#. 46)
and s'103.(but cp G IDEON , 2). It is simplest to and Sylvia of Aquitaine, began to venerate the spot. I t is
suppose that there was another Tabor near Ophrah generally believed that the Empress Helena founded a basilica
(Budde, Ri. Sa. 114; but see also Moore, Judges, 228). on Tabor about 326 A.D. ; whether any remains of it can still be
traced may be doubted. The church with three apses excavated
The 'terebinth [RV 'oak'] of Tabor' ( I S. 1 0 3 ; @ L in recent years (plan given by Barnab& Z.C. r36), is'considered
74s Gpds 74s P K ~ E K T ~ is
E )probably to be placed, as the to show characteristics of fourth- or fifth-century work (de VogiiC
context seems to require, in Benjamin, hetween Rachel's Eglises de T.Saint(, 1860, 3;zfi); in 570 the three chapel;
were seen by Antoninus of Plaisance, and in 670 by Arculf, hiihop
Grave, on the N. border of Benjamin, and Gibeah of Eichstzdt, the earliest travellers who refer to them; their
(von Gall, Z.C. 88f.). Ewald's emendation n i i m p s ~ narratives are published by the Socz2ti de Z'Orienf Latin (194
and 185). The only dissentient voice in the early period is that
( = ni33 Gen. 35 8) is scarcely necessary ; there must of the Bordeaux Pilgrim (333 A.D.), who places the Transfigura-
have been more than one such sacred tree in later tion on the Mt. of Olives (Ifinerariunz [8th cent.], SOC.de
Jewish history. See, further, RACHEL'S S EPULCHRE. I'Or. lat. 1IS) ; otherwise, down to the time of the Crusades the
Christian tradition ie unanimous and constantly repeated. I t
In later Jewish history Tabor was the scene of three finds ,a place in the services of the Greek Church for Aug. 6th-
memorable engagements. e g . , E+88"my j GpJppq. mjs jv0dou a&+pomiys. dverurv s k ~b
The first occurred in the struggle between Antiochus 111. the Bpop 70 Baj3op o A r m o q s q s 0f6qros a h o G & a m I+aL r$v
Great (213-187 B.c.) and Ptolemy IV. Philopator (222-205 B.c.) i p a r d q r a (XlpoA6yrov r b &+a, Venice, 1876, 348); gut in the
for the possession of Palestine (Polyb. v. 70). After Western service-books it does not seem to occur.1
4. Jewish the surrender of Philoteria (S. of Lake of Galilee) In the history of the Frank kingdom Tabor maintained
history. and Scythopolis, about 218 ~.c.,Antiochusmarched its associations with religious devotion and hard fight-
into the hill-country and appeared before Ata-
byrium 'which issituated upon arounded hill(irirhd+oupamer- 6. The ing. In 1099 Tancred occupied the
6oGs), dore than 15 stadia in ascent,' and captured the place by Crueadem. mountain with European troops, and
a stratagem. Polyhins calls Atahyrium a d h r s standing on when he withdrew he endowed the church
such a' position. .
the toD of the hill. and the account of its camure aerees with and entrusted it to the care of Benedictine monks, who
In B.C. 53 the proconsul A. Gabinius, general of Pompey, restored the ancient basilica and built a monastery.
fought Alexander, son of Aristobulus., a t the foot of the Not long after, in 1113, the Turks under Malduk
mountain ( m p i ~b 'I~+<prov &poc), and IO,WO Jews fell in fought a battle with Baldwin I. on the plain below ;
battle (Jos. Ant. xiv. 6;).
The third episode is recorded in fuller detail. As governor of the Crusaders were severely beaten, and the monks
Galilee Josephus fortified Tahor against Vespasian in 67 A.D. massacred. But fresh monks soon took their place; the
Under pressure he built a wall round the summit in forty days, abbey received new donations ; the dignity of archbishop
and supplied the fort with water from below, for the inhabitants was conferred upon its Abbot Pons and his successors
( & o r x o ~ ) had been dependent upon rain. Vespasian sent
Placidus with 600 horsemen to attack the Jews by enticing them by a bull of Eugenius 111. (1145). Then came the
down to the plain; they were unwise enough to leave their advance of Saladin in 1183; his troops ravaged the
strong position in the hope of overwhelming the cavalry; it Greek convent; and in 1187,after the disaster at the
became inipossihle to retreat, and they were completely defeated.
Want of water compelled those who were left in the fort (oL Horns of Hattin, the holy place of Tabor was reduced
i m &pro&)to surrender the mountain to Placidus (Jos. BJ iv. 18 to ruins and abandoned by its Benedictines.
ii. 2%6, Vita 37). Remains of Josephus' wall were discovered Early in the thirteenth century, Melik el-'Adil, in order to
in 1898. attack the headquarters of the Franks at Acre fortified Tahor,
using part of the ruined church for his towers. ?he fortifications
Since the third century Tabor has been revered by were completed in 1213 by his son, Melik el-Mu'aqam ; several
Christian tradition as the scene of the Transfiguration. inscriptions commemorating the work have been found recently
II.The TrcLns-The Gospels themselves do not give a among the debris (Barnab&, Z.C. 15, roo). I t was this fortifica-
name to the I high mountain' ((ipos tion of Tabor that occasioned the Fifth Crusade. I n 1217
Andrew I1 kin of Hungary, and other Princes advanced
ir$vXb); but it was more likely against Tab& wit% a great host, and besieged the fort seventeen
Hermon than Tabor (see HERMON, I, M OUNT AIN). days ; the first assault was boldly delivered and as boldly re-
The Transfiguration is dated six (Lk., eight) days after pulsed ; delays and divisions in the Christian camp helped to
make the second attack fruitless, and the Crusaders were forced
the confession of Peter at Caesarea Philippi = BaniHs at to retreat. See the vivid narrative of Vincentius Bellovacensis,
the foot of Hermon. Nothing is said of a journey in SOC.de 1' Or. lat. serielrist., 398; Kugler, Gesch. d. KreuzzzZge,
the interval; the return to Galilee is placed after the 3 1 2 3 : Michaud, Hist. of Crusades, 2 ~ 2 6 s The fortress
was afterwards dismantled by Melik el-'Add in the hope of
Transfiguration (Mk. 930). Moreover, in Jesus' time, restoring peace ; and, in the years which followed, the church
Tabor was hardly a place to which he could lead the ~

three apostles ' apart by themselves ' ( K U T ' ldfuv pL6vous : 1 I n the fourteenth century the dogma of the Uncreated
Mk. Q z ) - K ( L T ' iGluv obviously refers to the apostles, Liqht of Mt. Tabor was promoted by Gregory Palamas Arch-
not to the isoZution of Tabor. The passages from bishop of Thessalonica(ab0ut 1349). He asserted that o i e light
of Tabor was visible and comprehensihle, the other invigible
Polybius and Josephus quoted above imply that the and incomprehensible: see Migne, P G 1507730: Gregory
summit was inhabited and partially fortified. became a patron of the curious sect of the bp6aAl$u O L drawn
E r e Barnab&, who bas written lately in support of the from the monks of Mt. Athos, who devoted themserve; to the
tradition argues that there never was, and never could have contemplation of the uncreated light of Tabor ; Migne, ib. col.
been, a town upon the summit because of the absence of water 899f: Nilles, KaZendarium nranuule, Innshruck, 1896, S.V.
and cultivable land sufficient to support a population (Le Mont Aug. 6.
4883 4884
was rebuilt and served by monks from Hungary (1229) ; for a that Tabor is a corruption of some other name, possibly
short time it passed into the possession of the Hospitallers of St. Bahurim (n*inx) : cp b L ’ s rendering ( ~ f s P K ~ E K Z ~ S ) ,
John. But Tabor was not left in peace for long. In 1263
Uibars, the Blanleluke Sultan of Eg pt, in the course of his which presupposes iq. See RACHEL’S SEPULCHRE.
campaign against Damascus, finally {urn, and devastated the T. K. C.
church, and the holy-place of Tabor was left a heap of ruins for
600 years. Franciscans from Nazareth conducted pilgnms to TABRET. I. qh,tciph, I S. 105 ; AV
has a slight
the summit from time to time, and celebrated, as well a s they preference for timbrel ’ : KV has ‘tahret in
Gen. 3 1 27 Is.
could, the Feast of the Transfiguration on 6th Aug. and the 512 2483032 Jer.314 Ezek.2813, hut ‘timbrel’ in Ex.1520
second Sunday in Lent. Not until 1858did the Franciscans begin Judg.1134 1S.105186 z S . 6 5 I Ch.138 JobZl1zPs.813[2]
to undertake the care and excavation of the ruins : Greek monks 149 3 1504. See Musrc, S 3.
followed soon after ; and in 1873 was built the modest Latin 2. n$ta, tipheih, Joh176. See TOPHETH.
convent which, with the Greek monastery close by, guards the
ancient sanctuary. Napoleon’s Syrian campaign brings Tabor TABRIMON, RV Tab-rimmon (flDl?l?, 5 44, as if
into general history for the last time; in 1799 the French troo s ‘ Rimmon is good,’ or ‘ wise,’ but see RIMMONii. 8 2),
under Klbber, afterwards reinforced by Napoleon himseff,
encountered the vast army of JezzBr, and the battle of Mt. father of B EN - HADAD (I K. 1518 : T A B ~ ~ ~ M[B], A
Tabor ended in the complete discomfiture of the Turks; see T A B ~ N ~ A H M A [AI. TABE~IZMMAN [L]). Cp TABEEL.
Lanfrey, Hisi. de NaPoZeon 1~7,1399f:
The derivation of the name Tabor is unknown. In
TACHE (P’PJ) Ex. 266, etc. RV ‘clasp.’ See
spite of its triliteral form, Winckler considers that the T ABERNACLE, $ 4 (I).
., Name. name has survived, like ‘Jordan,’ from TACWONITE (’XDgnn) I S.238, RV TAHCHE-
pre-Canaanite times, and therefore is not MONITE.
Semitic in origin. For B Semitic derivation he suggests TADMOB (1bTn; eehMop [AL], BOEAMOP
the Eth. dadr mountain,’ with d for i under influence
of fhe liquid ( A O F 1423). This interchange of dentals perversa.: lect.], P a h i r a m [Vg.]) ‘ in the wilderness,
is perhaps to be found in the name of the village at the a name given ( z Ch. 8 4 f ) to a city built by Solomon
NW. foot of Tabor, Df?bti&y&=DARERATK (g...). by the Chronicler. This late historian doubtless had in
possibly a formation from iim; the Arab. form has view the great city in the Syrian desert between Damascus
preserved the long vowel in the second syllable. One is and the Euphrates (iimn, isin of the Nabataean inscr.)
tempted to conjecture that the primitive form of i n n known to the Greeks and Romans as Palmyra (see
was i i m (cp i>?? Josh. 1121 1326 Judg. 111). WRS, 5.21. ‘Palmyra’ EBPI),* the mod. Tudmur,
Older etymologi& have a certain interest ; c.g. Syr.-Hex. mg. vulgarly Tudmir.* This appears from his bringing it
ad Ba+p Josh. 19 22 gives p+p, and explains 68th ‘& house
of light’: Jerome OS 312 496 ‘veuiens lumen, veniat lux into connection with Hamath and the N. H e is, how-
(11K Hl3fl!). ever, simply misquoting I K. 918, where the RV is
Among the Arabs Tabor has long been known as certainly right in following the Kt. (mn, L e . , THm2.r.
Jebel et-TFir--i.e., ‘ the mountain’-a name given also not as some have supposed Tammdr) in preference to
to Gerizim, Olivet, and Sinai. Sometimes the Arabs the harmonistic Kre ‘Tadmor’ (ibm) adopted by AV
call it Jebel Niir, ‘of the light,’ in allusion to the following the versions. For the context here clearly
Transfiguration, for the Christian tradition is accepted shows that not Palmyra, but some place in the S. of
by Moslems; Gukrin, GaZilie, 1 1 4 3 8 W e should Judah is meant (see T AMAR ), and we have no reason
expect Tabor to be mentioned in Egyptian documents ; to think that the boundaries of Israel ever extended so
but this is probably not the case. The ‘Dapura’ far N. The name Tadmor occurs nowhere else in the
in the country of ‘Amaura,’ so called to distinguish it OT, nor even in the cuneiform inscriptions, nor can
from another Dapura, among the towns conquered by Palmyra be traced in history till just before the Christian
Rameses 11. (temple of Karnak), is to be looked for era, 42-41 B.C. (Appian. BC 59). At that date,
on the Orontes in N. Syria; the Depunr mentioned however, Palmyra was a place of some importance (cp
next to Kadesh in the papyrus Anastasi I. (224, ARABIA, § 3), and it may very well have come into
Chabas, Voy. d’un Egyptien en Syrie, pp. 197,313), existence some centuries earlier-long enough for the
if not the same place, belongs to the same region. The real story of its founding to be quite unknown in Israel
situation of Tapru in the BiilSk Papyrus is not specified. in the time of the Chronicler. F. B.
The equivalent of these iiames would probably be irsg, TAHAN, TAHANITES (inn, ’?pn),Nu. 2635. See
’ hill,’ rather than iim. See WMM, As. u. Eur. zzo& below, TAHATH.
The name of the mountain has not been found in
Assyrian records.
In addition to the authorities referred to above may he men-
tioned the following : Survey of W. Pal. 1 3 ~ :8Robinson,
TAEASH (dnn)Gen. 2224, AV THAHASH.
BRP),2 351 8 ; GASm., H G 3 9 4 8 ; Buhl, TAHATH (nnn),
an Ephraimite name originating in
8. Literature. PaL p 68. Wre Barnab.6 gives a full and the Negeb, see SHUTHELAH (1Ch.720 6is v o o p e = p n ~ l [R
valuable collection of material (the point of only once], Baa@,vopee [AI, Baa9 [ L twice]). The name occurs
view is uncritical and the references are not always to he
trusted). For a r;cent Koman Catholic work which rejects the again in I). 25 under the form TaHaN (in!, Bacv [Bl, -av [L]
traditional site of the transfiguration, see Ahh.6 le Camus, L a . [A-ie., K d r e.]),and similarly in Nu. 2635 [PI (LXX v. 39
Notre voy. a r ~ xPays bib1. (Paris, 1899, 1 8 2 8 G. A. c. ravax), cp the family of the Tahanites (ib. ’!ni?O, b ~ava,y[e]r
TABOR, PLAIN OF, or rather (so RV), O AK OF [BAFLI). In the priestly genealogies in I Ch. 6 which are
intended to supply the great singers with a Levitical ancestry
TABOR (lilg I\%, THC Apyoc BaBwp [BAI, T. A. ’I‘ahath is twice mentioned among the ancestors of Samuel and
THC E K A ~ K T H C [L; see below]; puercum Thudor), a
Heman ( I Ch. 624 [91 77 [221, rad3 [R, hut 9. u. 371, 0. [AL])
and it is only reasonable to identify Tahath or Tahan (d
locality between the city where Samuel and Saul met Nahath?) with T O H U Iq.v.1, which is also an Ephraimite name
and ‘ Gibeah of God ’ (see GIBEAH,5 z [3]), I S. 1 0 3f. (cp EPHRAIM, 5 12).
It has been supposed by Ewald (Hisf.321) and Thenius TAHATH (nnn,note the a priestly’ name T AHATH
(without ancient authority) to be identical with the above). a stage in the wandering in the wilderness ;
‘ palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in Nu. 33261: (KATAAB [BAL], KaTBaae [FI). The
mount Ephraim ’ (Judg. 4 5 ) . This is certainly plausible.
On the other hand the descriptions of the sites of the 1 For the earliest exact modern account of Palmyra (by
Halifax, r69r), see PEFQ Oct. 1890,pp. 2 7 3 8 See also Post,
two trees cannot be said to agree. The city referred to ‘ Second Journey to Palmyra,’PEFQ, 7892-93 : Bernoville,Dix
in I S. 9 6 E is not said to be Ramah, and Bethel in ,burs en Palmy+znp (1868).
mount of Ephraim ’ and ‘ Gibeah of God ’ cannot be 2 On the connection between the names fadmrr and raApvpa
identified. It is much more likely that the ’ oak ’ (or see Lag. (U6crs. 125, note) who approves t h e conjecture of
rather, ‘ sacred tree ’) referred to in I S. l o 3 was uncon- Schultens(VifaSaladina; s l e the Geog. Indexunder ‘Tadmora,’
where the form tatitrrr is cited), that the original was tafmnv,
nected with any biblical story except that of Saul, and w.th the meaning ‘abounding in palms.
15G 4885 4886
name stands between Makheloth and Terah, both of abandoned afterwards, the palace or citadel having been
which are possibly corruptions of ‘ Jerahmeel’ (Che.). destroyed by fire. Many finds of arms, pottery, etc.,
See W ANDERINGS , W ILDERNESS O F . showed that the garrison had consisted chiefly of Greek
TARCHEMONITE, AV Tachmonite (’?b?p,0 mercenaries. The position of this fortress, on the right
bank of the Pelusiac branch of the Nile close to the old
XANaNAlOC PA11 YlOC & K E M A N € l [?I), 2 s. 238. caravan-road to Syria, explains its great importance and
Probably miswritten, owing to the repetition of n from
the preceding word, for 713337 (note 6 xau. in BA)-;.e., agrees excellently with that of tlie biblical Tahpanhes a s
key to Egypt (cp Jer. 437) ; the expression in’ Jer. 216
vns;l, ‘ the . . . -ite ’ (so Marq. ). This is in accordance
would be explained by the strong garrison. Such a place
with the other descriptions of David’s other heroes. But would also be best adapted for a Jewish colony which,
w x can hardly be correct. Besides, 31237 is preceded evidently, subsisted chiefly on trading. Wilkinson’s
(according to the emendation suggested under JASHO- identification may, therefore, be considered as very
BEAM) by n’x; * J D J X - ~ ’ ~is analogous t o vxSn-n-2. J probable.’ The Egyptian name of the city has, how-
and ibeing sometimes confounded, it is plausible to ever, not yet been found, which is not surprising, if w e
correct into ’m?-n”p--i.e., a man of Beth-cerem (see consider that the city received its importance only under
BETH-HACCEREM); i and n were transposed. Cp Psammetichus I. Such Egyptian etymologies as have
Carmi, the name of a son of Zabdi, Josh. 71, and been attempted so far are too improbable to be discussed
note that in I Ch. 272 Jashobeam is called b son of here.
Zabdiel ; also that in I Ch. 41 Perez and Carmi are [On the theory that the reference in all the passages which
mention ‘Tahpanhes’ is to N. Arabia (cp PROPHET gs 26J 40)
brothers, and that in I Ch. 273 Jashobeam is said to ‘Tahpanhes,’ like the other traditional names, disAppears f r o 4
have belonged to the b’ne Perez. T. K. C. the text. For the underlying words see Crit. Bi6. on Jer. 2 16
TAHPANHES (Dn$?n, Jer. 437, etc.) or Tehaph-
Ezek. 30 17JI . W. M. M.
nehes (DnqFC?, Ezek. 3018) : Jer. 216 Kethib DJDlln TAHPENES (D’>Q?q ;a in I K. 11zob defectively ;
(EV Tahapanes), Judith 19 AV TAPHNES, RV TAH- BEK [Or X ] E M [ ~ ] I N ~[BAL] ; vg. Taphnes ; I K. 1119J
PANHES, a city of north-eastern Egypt. Ezek. 30 closes [twice]), the wife of Pharaoh, whose sister was given
the long enumeration of Egyptian cities threatened by to Hadad, the Edomite, to wife. The name has a very
destruction, with Aven- Heliopolis and Pi-beseth- Egyptian appearance, although no certain etymology
Bubastus, v. 17. and Tahpanhes, v. 18, all three belonging could be given, except that the initial t would be the
to the Eastern Delta. The long verse, devoted to Egyptian article. The present vowel-points seem to
follow the analogy of the city TAHPANHES (4.v. ). See,
Tahpanhes, where ‘ the yokes (better, as 6 ,‘sceptres’ ;
see Cornill) of Egypt ’ shall be broken, and ‘ the pride however, HADAD,according to which article we should
of her power shall cease in her ’ shows the wealth and not expect an Egyptian name for a queen of MuSri in
N. Arabia which seems to be meant here instead of
importance of the place, as does the allusion to ‘her
daughters ’ -i.e . , surrounding towns (Jer. 43 7 f: ). Egypt. The possibility remains open, at any rate, that
Jeremiah, with many fugitives, fleeing from Palestine to at a later time, when the king of Musri in question had
become a Pharaoh in the text, and the whole narrative
Egypt, comes to Tahpanhes and settles there. This
points again to the place being near the entrance from was referred to Egypt, an Egyptian name was worked
into the story. It would he futile to try to reconstruct
Palestine into Egypt-ie., in the NE. In v. g the
the various short Egyptian words which could be found
words ‘ the entry of Pharaohs house in Tahpanhes’
in the name, especially a s d differs somewhat from the
seem to indicate that the place had a royal palace which,
even if used only on occasional visits of the king, would Hebrew. [On the Heb. text cp Crit. Bib. on Jer.
indicate an important city. In 441 4614 Tahpanhes 46 IS.]. W. M. M.

(which, however, is wanting in the good MSS of d in TAHREA (mpn; e ~ p d a[ALI.

l BapaX [BKI). a
4614), Migdol, and Noph are the three most important descendant of Meribbaal ; I Ch. 941.
settlements of Jewish fugitives in N. Egypt, as distin-
guished from Pathros in the S. In Jer. 216, the Egyp- TAHTIM-HODSHI, LAND OF ( ’@lQ n’npn nv,
tians are called ‘children of Noph (Memphis) and THN ~ A B A C U N H E C T l N NAAACAI [B], r H M E e a U N
Tahpanhes.’ Judith 19, enumerating Taphnas and AAACAI [AI, r H N XETTl€lM KAAHC [L];
Raniesse and the whole land of Goshen (Gesem), as State Of Pesh. om. vers. ; fewunz inferiorem
far as Tanis and Memphis, etc., seems to be following --
the problem’ Hodshi rVe.l), -,- a district mentioned be-
tween Gilead and Dan-jaan in the account of the
those Jewish settlements.
d transcribes the name as Taglvar (indeclinable) in movements of Joab in taking the census of the people
Jer. and Judith ; in Ezek. d B has Taglvar ; Vg. not of Israel ‘from Dan even to Beersheba,’ 2 S. 246.
Tnphnn, as is usually quoted, but Taphnis (indeclinable : That ‘ Tahtim-hodshi ’ is corrupt, is too obvious to be
the same form occurs as accusative in Jer. 4371. It has questioned. Several remedies have been offered, but
always been concluded from these transcriptions that the not quite satisfactorily, owing to the want of a thorough
reference is to a place which Herodotus, assimilating its textual criticism of the whole narrative of the census
name to the Greek word for ‘laurels,’ calls Aa$ua~. (uv. 1-9) in the light of parallel passages of geographical
According to him ( 2 3 0 ) Psammetik I. established a description.
I. Ewald (Hist. 3 162, n. 3 ) thought that for
great camp of soldiers a in Daphnae near Pelusiuni ’ (&
Acipgur TGUL IIeXouuigu~), which the Persians still ‘ Hodshi (?)’ we should read ‘ Hermon ’ ( p y n ) . Gratz
maintained. In 2 154. he reports that Sesostris, return- changed, in addition, ‘ Tahtim (?) ‘ into ‘ t e a t h ’ (nnn) ;
ing from his conquests, rested there. The Zt. Anton. cp Josh. 113, where Wellhausen, Buhl, Bennett (SBOT,
places Dnfno 16 R. m. inland from Pelusium; Steph. 1 No significance, however, should he attached to the fact
Byz. also mentions Aaq5uq.l Already Wilkinson (Modern that the Arabs called a part of the ruins ‘the castle of the
B i d e l - Yehddz?, which has induced
Eg. and Thebes, 1447) identified this place with the
modern Tel(1) Defenneh (about 2 5 English miles in a h ’
ew’s daughter (&r
etrie even to find the alleged Lbrick-kiln’ of Jer. 439 (sFe
BRICK-KILN). It may be mentioned here that Erman (in his
straight line SW. of the ruins of Pelusium), which was review, Berliner PhiloLo‘oeische U’ocfzenschmyf, 1890. p. 959)
excavated by Flinders Petrie in 1886 (see Petrie, has warned us against laying stress on the similarity of the
Tunis, 2 ) . Petrie found traces of earlier buildings of names Defenneh (?) and Daphnae. The best Arabic form is
Tel(l) Defeineh or De$=& (others give the lural Def n e t i . . .,
the Raniesside period, a great camp, fortified, accord- ‘ treasure-hill,’ evidently from finds made {ere by Arabs, not
ing to the foundation records, by Psammetichus I., from an old name of the locality.
maintained under Necho and Amasis, and evidently 2 Rg.,Lagarde once tried to find in Tahpenes the goddess
pkme(t), worshipped especially at Memphis. A fa-.So&me(f)
1 The form Ta$var in the Coptic version, of course, proves the one belonging to S.’ would, however, require quite .a
nothing, being taken mechanically from the Septuagint. number of violent emendations
4887 4888
‘Joshua’), and Steuernagel (but not Di.), read ‘the TALI”- CUM1 (TAhlea [Ti., -81.WH! KOYM),
Hittites ( y m ) under Mt. Hermon.’ But in this case two Aramaic words in Mk. 541 (see J AIRUS ), correctly
we require to prefix ’?no, thus producing ‘ the land of interpreted by ~b K O P ~ O L O V (ool XQyw) Eyerpe: ‘little
the Hittites under Hermon.’ H. P. Smith prefers ‘the maid (I say unto thee) arise!’ The most im-
land of the Hittites to Hermon.’ But are not Hermon portant variants are ( I ) ~ a j 3 r ~etc.
a , (with b for Z), and
and Dan somewhat too near together?
Koupr (see Ti.). T a p ~ ~ ifa , not purely an error,
suggests TABITHA [p.v.] ; K O U ~is of purely gram-
2. Wellhausen (TBS217), following Hitzig (for ‘nn)
matical interest ; see Dalman’s useful note, Gram. d.
and partly Thenius (for ‘in), reads ngl? o.?,~?, ’ (to the
/iid.-PaZast. A r a m . 266, n. I. Talitha, properly
land of) the Hittites towards Kadesh.’ This is con- ’ young one,’ used very frequently of lambs (in Aramaic
firmed by @- (see above), and is adopted by Steuer- more especially of the gazelle), would be represented in
nagel, Driver, Buhl ( S B O T ) . But is not Kadesh Aram. either by ;alyithi or (cp Dalm. op. cit. 118,n. 6 )
on the Orontes too far N. ? Wellhausen has to suppose (llifhi.
that the boundary line is traced to Kadesh, and that
it then comes back (SW.) to Dan. And had David TALMAI (V&’m, cp Nab. lh,
and the Lihyiin
really conquered the northern Kadesh, and even com- TaZmi [DHM Ep. Denk. 51, also e O h O M A l O C [see
pletely incorporated it into the territory of Israel? BARTHOLOMEW]; Cp w i . GI 240. n. I ; 8 O h M l , -81,
C p Buhl, Psi. 69. e&h&Mel). But the correctness of the reading ‘Talmai’
3. Klostermann ( a d bc.) and Guthe (Gesch. 94) (with n) has been questioned (see T ALMON , TELEM).
I. One of the sons of A NAK [q.~.]a t Hebron (Nu. 13 22 [23].
would read nrLi-13 .-:- ‘(to the land of) Naphtali
-:-. 9’7~91, BeAapaw [BA], Bo. [L], -ft [Fl ; Josh. 15 14 : Bodper [HI, 7i)v
Y [Bl, ~ . B a p f r[AI).
towards Kedesh’ ; cp Dt. 341J (where, in the descrip-
tion of the prospect from Mt. Nebo, Naphtali is intro- 2. A king 02
B d p a r [AL] ; udg. 1I O BoApa [Ll T ~ -Y
Geshur b.AMMIHU ~ probably Jerahmeel
[Che.]) whose daughter (Maacah) was one of David’s wive;, and
duced after ‘ the land of Gilead as far as Dan ’), and mother of Absalom. (2 S. 3 3 : Boppec [Bl ; 13 37 : BohpaAnp
2 K. 1529, where Kedesh is mentioned with Ijon (the [B], BoAopac [A]; I Ch. 3 z : Bowar [Bl, B o A p a [A], BoAopr [L]).
name which, according to Klostermann, lurks in the
second part of D AN - J AAN [g.n.]) and Gilead, as repre- TALMON (fiD$O, TEAMWN [BA] c. [L]).a family
senting together the far N. of the land of Israel. This of doorkeepers or (reading D’?pN [Che.l) Asshurites in the temple.
is plausible, but involves a somewhat bold emendation Ezra 2 42 Neb. 7 45 (mAal.lov [BH], T O A ~ O V[AI), cp I Ch. 9 17
of o’nnn. (TWpaV or -p [B, see Swete], T d p a v [AI, -WY [L]) ; Neh. 1119
A more secure solution of the problem can, as has and
(TCA~~CLLV ) . 12 25 (om. BNCA, T+WY [NLa mg. 1 , 7 d WY
been said above, onlybe reached in the course of a [L]). In :Esd.528 TOLMAN (RV, not in B, ToApav [AD. The
a. propBB radical correction of the text. (On Dt. clan to which Talmon and another doorkeeper T ELEM (O>h)
341f., one of the passages referred to by belonged was an important one. See TELEM, and cp S HALLUM
Klostermann, see NEBO, M OUNT.) (8, 11).
According to the present writer’s emended text of TALSAS (cahebc [B]), I Esd.922 AVkEzralOzz
z S.81$ (in a section which Budde, quite independ- ELASAH, I.
ently, places very near 2 S.241-9, which it precedes), TAMAH (np),Neh. 7 5 5 AV=Ezra253, TEMAH.
David had recently conquered the parts of N. Arabia
nearest to the land of Judah, viz., MisSur and Jerah- T A M m (7Ql7,‘date-palm’), a place on the SE.
meel (the region from which the Israelites appear to border of Judah, mentioned by Ezekiel (4718 [e2
have come). That David treated his new siibjects @OIN[E]IKWNOC BAQ] I9 [be A l M A N K. @., 8 being
with the cruelty asserted in the M T of 2 S. S z , may be a dittograph both of 33Dn and !Dn] 4828 [b
confidently denied (see Crit. Bib. ). ealMAN], w k [Pesh.], for M T s%g, ‘ y e shall
A study of the ways of the scribes suggests that the true text of measure’ [metiemini, Vg.]), and, as is usually held,
that passage (omitting a number of corrupt dittograms of $Nnniq) one of the cities fortified by Solomon (I K. 9 18 Kt.
is, ’111 vxp ’nni o’nrr-na eirn~! nhnn1-i l?xn q::, ‘and he and RV ; AV, however, gives TADMOR [P.W.] e € p M A 8
smote Missur and the Jerahmeelites, and subdued thezarephath- [A, om. BL], l&spMae [B at 1023, om. AI, 8oA-
ites, and Migsur became’ etc.
What David did next is shown us in 2 S . 241-9.
MOP [L ~‘6.1;Palmirum; )w?l [Pesh.]). Knobel
The thought came to him, ‘ Go, number Mi5gw and Jerah- among critics, and Robinson and Wetzstein among
meel ‘ (v. I) or as David puts it in his commaid to Joah ‘ Go geographers (cp T RADE , so), have identified Tam=
to and fro throGghout all Zare hath-misgur, from Dan (1 Misran) ( I ) with the Thamara of Eusebius and Jerome (=the
even to Beer-sheba,l and numger ye the people’(% 2). Verses military station Thamaro of Ptol. 4 16 and the Peutinger
*9 -,7 describe Toab’a oroceedinm.

‘And the; pa& througg- Jndah and began from Aroer- Tables), a village which is a day’s journey from Mapsis
jerahmeel the city that is in the midst of the valley of [Jerah- (OS21086 853) between Hebron and Elath, and further
meelj JizGel, and they came to Jerahmee1,z and to the land of (2)with the ruin called Kzrnub, on an elevated site SE.
thr R&ohoihites to K d e d and they turned rour,d to the city of 'Arks (A ROER , 3).4 This, however, does not suit
of Misran. And they cam: to Missur (or, to the fortress of
Miss&), and to all the cities of the Horites (Jerahmeelites) and the passages in Ezekiel. It appears that some point
the“Kenites,; and they came out to the Negeb of Judah, to near the SW. point of the Dead Sea must be meant.
Beer-sheha. According to 8. 9 (originally), Joah gave the ZOAR [p. TI.] was called ‘ villa palmarum’ in the times
number of the men of I\Ii;Fgur as 8000, and of the men of Jerah-
meel as 5000. of the Crusaders, and Zoar was probably not the only
Thus ‘ Tahtini-hodshi ’ becomes ‘ the Rehobothites place in the district which rejoiced in its stately palms.
to Kadesh.‘ The Rehobothite warriors in David’s Engedi, however. is too far N.
bodyguard are known to us in the present text as The T AMAR of I K. 9 18, which has generally been
(Cherethites.’ See REHOBOTH. T. K. C. 1 Cp Tor, where it is inquired whether ‘’yn, king of wn,’ is
not miswritten for ‘.Din, king of n>yn’(Talmai, king of Maacah).
TALENT (Y??, Ex. 2539,etc.; TAAANTON.M~.
2524, 2 Reading, ‘from HAZAR-AENON [in the NE.] . . . the
etc.). See SHEKEL, and W EIGHTS A N D MEASURES. Jordan forms the boundary ( B 6 ‘ o p i < e ~ = $ x n ) as far as the
eastern sea (going along) unto Tamar (mnn).’ So Smend,
Cornill Davidson Toy etc.
1 W e now see the original significafion of the literary expres- 3 Se; Ruhl, Pa? 184’ n. 545. The origin of the form ‘Map-
sion ‘from Dan even to Beersheha. There was a southern sis’ is not clear. Homkel (Ex#. T.12 288 [1901]) has identified
Dan. Possibly, however, ‘from Dan’ (pp) may be an early with it the M a + of Ptolemy v. 16 10 and the obscure nwm on
pottery stamps from the ShPphelah hstrict (PEFMern., ~ p z ,
scribe’s error (IymD), and the original coiner of the phrase wrote pp. 1068).
‘from Migran (I????). In either case the extent of the Negeh 4 See Van de Velde, Syria and Pal. 2 1 3 0 8 (more judicious
is thus defined. In the lapse of time this was forgotten. than Robinson [BR 26161, who did not actually %,isitKurnub),
a Rahbah of the hne Jerahmeel, misc+d in the text of z S. who sees that Kurnub CanDOt he the ‘ Tamar’ of Ezek., and cp
12 26, etc., ‘ Rabbah of the hne Ammon. Buhl, Lc. and Del. Gerr.(4)j81.
4889 4890
identified with that of Ezekiel, requires separate treat- two of the cases of the recurrence of a name in the
ment. It is credible that Solomon’s fortress was for the same family would disappear (see also MEPHIBOSHETH,
protection of the commercial road from Ezion-geber to and cp Gray, HPN 6 J ) . T. K. C.
Jerusalem; but it is not less possible that it was to TAMARISK TREE is the rendering in RV of ’Zd,
guard the Negeb towards the land of Musri (see $@&, for which AV has in Gen. 2133 ‘grove,’ mg.
SOLOMON, 7). ‘ Tamar,’ both here and elsewhere, is
therefore probably miswritten for mi (Ramath), which tree’ ; in I S. 226 ‘ tree,’ mg. ‘ grove’ ; and in I S.
is a corruption of ‘ Jerahmeel’ (see TAMAR ii.). ‘ In 31 13 ’ tree.’ The variety of rendering suggests that the
the wilderness, in the land’ (y;lw 131~1) should Heb. word has an interesting history, and though it has
become traditional to render ‘ tamarisk,’ the critical
probably be ‘ in Arabia, in Mksur ( i ~ p ? 3 3 ) (Che. ;
tradition needs periodical revision at the hands of critics.’
see Crit. Bib.). I. Apart from 6,whose rendering d p o u p Wellhausen
T A W (lQb,as if ‘ date palm,’ 69 : BaMap (Sam. 124)pronouncesunintelligible.theancients took the
[BKADEL]). The name, in the sense of ‘ date palm,’ word in a generaZ sense, translating sometimes grove ’
is of course suitable enough for a woman (cp Cant. 77f. or ‘ plantation ’ (Aq. 6evSp3v and GPvSpwpa (?) ; Sym.
(6wda, Vg. nemus, DVB Tg. Jer. 1 and 2, and Bey.
[Sf:]). But it also occurs as a place-name, and we have
to find an explanation which will fit both the personal rad. 54, end), sometimes ‘ tree ’ (Sym. (6urbv ; so Onk.
name and the place-name. Winckler ((;I 298f: 104J 227) Pesh.) or ‘oak tree’ (Theod. [rbs] +os; I Ch. 1012
offers such an explanation. Tamar, he thinks, is the a > ~instead
, of the 5$ of I S . 31 13). Such a view of
Canaanite IStar ; the myth of Tammuz and IStar was the meaning is supported by the Rabbis, and even by
doubtless transplanted into Canaan (cp Stucken, ArtraZ- Celsius ( 1 5 3 5 8 ) ; but the rendering ‘tree’ would be
tnythn, 14-16). B AAL - TAMAR was the place where excusable only as a protest against the cultus of some
the men of Benjamin had their tribal sanctuary, and special sacred tree (cp OAK)-philologically it is of
dedicated to the [female] goddess IHtar. Cp KIRJATH- course untenable.
JEARIM, SAUL. ‘Baalath and Tamar,’ I K. 918, 2. The tendency to explain obscure Heb. words from
should rather be Baalath-tamar (a less original form of the Arabic has led to the identification of ’ZfeZ, $@?, with
Baal-tamar). All this is set forth with great force and the Arab. ’afhZ, which corresponds phonetically, and
learning; but there is a doubt whether the relics of means ‘tamarisk.’ Of this tree perhaps as many as
mythology can be so easily traced, and whether textual half a dozen species are found in Pal. (Tristram, FFP,
criticism, methodically applied, does not here, as often 250) : our common tamarisk is not one of them. The
elsewhere, suggest a better explanation. common riverside species is T.Pallasii, Desc. T h e
Proper names in the OT are even more frequently corrupt tamarisk ‘is a very graceful tree, with long feathery
than has been supposed, and need very careful emendation, and branches and tufts, closely clad with the minutest of
it so happens that mn, both as an appellative and as a proper
name, is specially liable to corru tion The passage I K. 9 18 is leaves, and surmounted in spring with spikes of beauti-
treated separately (see T AMAR i.7; w; are here only considering ful pink blossom.’ ‘ Thoiigh it is often a mere bush,’
the passages in which ‘ Tamar ’ occurs as the name of a woman. some of the Palestinian tamarisks ‘ reach such a size as
A careful study of this group of passages suggests that ‘ Tamar ’
has here most probably arisen out of one of the popular distor- to afford dense shade . .. Beersheba is well suited for
tions of‘ Jerahme’elith ; another such corruption IS M AACAH, the growth of the tamarisk; and we observed large
and a third is MAHALATH. We may add that iDn’H, ITHAMAR numbers of the Eastern tamarisk on the banks below
(the name of a son of Aaron) very possibly came from $wnni., the site of Jabesh Gilead’ (Tristram, Z.C.). It is also
Jeralpe’el (n from n); cp J EREMOTH. common in Egypt, where it was anciently consecrated
I. The wife of Judahs son Er, who subsequently, to Osiris, and bore the (Semitic?) name of asarLS
through her father-in-law, became the mother of P EREZ 3. It may be doubted, however, whether this is really
and ZERAH [qq.v.] ( G e n . 3 8 6 8 [J] 1Ch.24 Mt.13 the correct explanation. It will be noticed that
[AV here THAMAK]). The story is referred to in Ruth Tristram says nothing about tamarisks at Gibeah of
(412) a s furnishing a parallel to Ruth‘s marriage with Saul. The tree referred to in I S. 226 was no doubt a
Boaz. According to Winckler it is a Canaanitish sacred tree (see H IGH P LACE , 5 3 and n. 6). In I S.
development of the myth of Is’tar (see above). For 1 4 2 we read apparently of a pomegranate tree under
another and a preferable view of the significance of the which Saul sat (see MIGRON). There is no probability
story, see J UDAH , col. 2617f. in the view that the tree on the high place at Gibeah was
2 . Sister of Absalom ( z S . 1 3 1 8 I Ch. 3 9 [B always a tamarisk. But if we give up ’&Z in I S. 226, we can
Bvpap and so A in I Ch.]), and probably daughter of hardly defend it in Gen. 21 33 and I S . 31 13 ; the pre-
the same mother (cp Jos. Ant. vii. 8 I) ; see M AACAH , 2. sumption is that the same word is meant in all these
According to Winckler (GZ2227f:), not only has this passages, and that in all three it is corrupt. Now let
Tamar’s name mythological affinities, but the whole us turn to 6 s Upoupa (thrice). At first sight this looks
story of her being outraged hy her half-brother Amnon like an orthodox substitute for a word liable to he mis-
is mythological. An old myth respecting Tamar, the used (cp the Vss. on Gen.126, and see O AK ). But
Canaanitish IStar, and her relation to her brother (to how can 6 possibly have understood the phrase &#d-
whom TAMMUZ corresponds) has been transformed by TEUUW &poupav, if Upoupa means ’ tilled land ’ ? Clearly
the people into a quasi-historical narrative. Note Upowpa must cover some tree-name, and it has been
especially Tamar’s cake, which reminds Winckler of suggested that dpoupa may come from i p y or iyiyp,
the cakes of Ashtoreth (Jer. 4419). See, however, which 6 ,like Tg. and Vg., understood to mean
above, and cp ABSALOM. DAVID,col. 1033. ‘tamarisk.’ Thus the harder part of 6 ’ s riddle is
3. (&flap [B], Thamar, but paaxa [L]). a daughter explained. It remains to account for 6 ’ s reading
of Absalom, zS.1427t (vv. 25-27 late ; see Bu. SBOT, or l y l i y in lieu of 5wK-it is no mere interpretation but
Sam.’). Elsewhere we hear of a daughter of Absalom a genuine reading that 6 gives us. There is only one
and wife of king Rehoboam called Maacah, and hypothesis which will do this ; i y ~ or y i y i i y is a corrup-
6 B A in 2 S. 1427 identifies Absalom’s daughter Tamar
tion of me!, ashZrdh (Che.). This, then, is the true read-
with the wife of king Rehoboam; @L, indeed. goes
further and reads, not Tamar, but Maacah. If the ing in all three places :--Abraham buiZt an ashZrah a t
addition in 6.z S. 1427, relative to the marriage of 1 H. P. Smith sounds a note of warning. Though he renders
Absaloni’s daughter with Rehoboam is correct, one $WE tamarisk,’ he remarks, ‘As the word only occurs three
would be inclined to follow 6 “ ’ s reading ’ Maacah.’ times, the species is uncertain.’
But perhaps the difficulty is not really existent. ‘Tamar’ a 8 i d p m p a seems to be an error for Gev8pZva (see Schleusner,
and ‘ Maacah ’ may both be corruptions of Jerahme’elith Lex. in YT rv.).
3 Pierret, ’Dicf. GarciPoZ. 4gYPf. 534 : Maspero, Dawn qf
( ‘ a Jerahmeelite’). For the rest see M AACAH , 3. Thus Civ., 28, n. 3.
4891 489%
Beersheba ;Saul sat under the asherah at Gibeah : the Ddzu, which was assigned to Ninib, the god of the hot midday
bones of Saul and his sons were buried under the asherah sun, as regent. See M ONTH, 8 2.
Originally and properly Du'uzu or Dumuzu, is the
at 1abesh.l
m m was corrupted in one important MS. into iy1y or ~ y n y ; spirit or god of the spring vegetation; also, by a
in another into $WN. T h e idea of the latter hypothesis was natural sequence, he is the lord, and his sister Bilili
suggested by Klo., who supposes $@& to be a deliberate dis- (see B ELIAL, 9 2 ) is the lady, of the underworld, the
tortion of ~ T W Nin, ~order to discourage Asherah-worship. 6 ' s region of growth, though also the place of the dead.2
d p o v p , acc. to him, is
,%:3 'the cursed (tree)'-again aprotest But it was not possible to keep this conception in its
against tree-worship. purity ; it was natural to identify the vegetation spirit
with the sun, and to treat Du'uzu as a manifestation of
2. 'ar'dr, y / y , Jer. 176 486f RVmg., EV H EATH .
the solar deity (Ninib). For the drama of the sun is
TAMMTJZ (blmn), whose worship is supposed, on similar to that of plant-life ; after the summer solstice
doubtful - grounds, to be alluded to in Ezek. 8 14 (e&M- the sun seems gradually to lose its strength, and at
length to die, till at the winter solstice it is born again.
1. Personality MOYZ P A ] , A A ~ N I[Om"]. Adonis Originally too, the Du'uzu story was distinct from the
[Vg.]), derives his name from the
and cult. Bab. Dumuzi3 (4 R. 28, coa)-i.e., Adonis and the Osiris stories ; but at an early date the
' son of life,' which, according to G. A. Barton, refers to distinction was forgotten (A DONIS , § 2). The identity
Tammuz as the child ofthe goddess of fertility, or perhaps of Tammuz and Adonis is asserted by JeromeS and
a true divine child ' ( =Ass. uplu REnu; so Frd. Del. ). other fathers (see ASHTORETH, 5 2, with n. 3).
H e is variously described as the youthful husband of the According to Robertson Smith the wailing for
goddess IStar, as her son, and as the first in the series Tammuz was not originally connected with the death of
of her rejected husbands. Every year, in the fourth vegetation, but was a ceremony of mourning for some
month (DGzu, see below)-Le., July-he descended to sacrificial victim, such as is performed among the Todas
Hades, and remained there till the next spring. His of S . India to this day. Later, a different explanation
disappearance gave occasion to drink-offerings and a was sought for the wailing-one more in harmony with
great 6iRttzi or ' weeping.' The ' motives' of his advancing civilisation-and the rite was projected into
legend and the meaning of his cultus can be fonnd in the myth of the death of Tammuz. Robertson Smith
the Babylonian myth of the Descent of IStar. There is also thinks that the yearly mourning for Tammuz-Adonis
also an illustrative passage in the GilgameS-epic, Tab. 6, is the closest parallel in form to the humiliation of the
where, among other lovers of the goddess who have Hebrew Day of Atonement (Rel. Sem.C'), 411, cp 414).
T o this view G. A. Barton (Sex. Or. 114) assents. T h e
encountered asad fate,*Tammuz (Dumuzi) is mentioned, story of Adapa, however (KRGr, p. 9 7 ; cp astrow Re(.
' Txnmiiz, the spouse of thy youth, thou compellest to Ba6. Ass. 549) discloses an earlier form of the Jaammu&yth
weep year after year.'5 The discovery of Friedrich according to 4hich Tammuz did not go into the death-world
on leaving the earth, but ascended to the gate of Anu, where
Delitzsch and Jensen (Kosmol. 197)that 4 R. 30, no. z he was stationed ('as door-keeper ') with another solar god or
contains a song of lamentation for Tamniuz is not less vegetation god called GiHzrida. According to Jensen ( 7 L Z ,
suggestive. This is how the song runs, as translated 1896, col. 70) another ancient belief made Tamniuz, the god of
by A. Jeremias. vernal vegetation the son of a6zu (the primaeval ocean).
Certainly Gudea' (about 3000 B.c.) mentions Tamfizi -abzu
' H e went down (?)to meet the nether world, he has sated (zuaba), i.e., Tammiiz of the ocean, beside NingiHzida (identical
himself the sun-god caused him to perish (passing) t o the land with Gekida, mentioned above) ; compare, however, Jastrow
of the bead with mourning was he filled on the day when he (A'BA g6), who deprecates fusing the two TammBz-deities, and
fell into gre& sorrow.' Barton (Sem. Or. Z I I ~ ) , who makes this deity a goddess.
The word rendered ' sorrow ' (idirfum)occurs again W e now turn to the single express reference to
in 5 R. 48, col. 44, where, on the name of the month Tammuz in the MT. It occurs in the description of
Tammuz, stands the note-idirtum, ' sorrow.' The 2. OT traces. heathen rites practised in the temple,
Tammuz festival was in fact the idealisation of human which Ezekiel in his captivity professes
sorrow-a kind of 'All Souls' Day.' Hence partly to have seen when in the ecstatic state. First among
the strong hold which it obtained upon the masses. these rites-according to Toy's explanation of chap. 8-
' Dirges were sung by the wailing women to the accom- comes (perhaps) an Asherah-image (u. 5). Next, the
paniment of musical instruments ; offerings were made secret worship of reptiles and beasts, probably forms of
to the dead, and it is plausible to assume that visits old- Israelitish worship ( v . I O ). Next, the women
were paid to the graves.' I t is probable that, to weeping for Tammuz (v. 14). Next, twenty-five men
gratify the general sentiment, specially important worshipping the sun in the east (u. 16). The last form
national mournings were placed in the month Tammuz of heathenism (as most explain 71. 17) is not recognised
(sea below). ' The calendar of the Jewish Church still as such by Toy, but we have to mention it here for
marks the 17th day of Tammuz as a fast, and Houtsma completeness ; it is 'stretching out the branch to the
has shown that the association of the day with the nose.'4 According to Toy, the sun-worship of the
capture of Jerusalem by the Romans represents merely
the attempt to give an ancient festival a worthier 1 See Jensen, Kosmol. 197, 227, but especially Frazer, GBP)
interpretation. The day was originally connected 2 1 1 5 8 Barton thinks that the goddess IStar was originally
with the Tammuz cult.' 7 connected with some never-failing spring, and that some sacred
tree near it represented her son (Sem. Or. 86).
The month devoted to Tammuz in the later Jewish Calendar 2 Jensen Kosinol 2 2 5 ; cp Jastrow, R B A 575. Bilili is the
. 4 5 6) was the Babylonian month Du'uzu or world-prindiple of generation and growth.
3 There is a remarkable statement of Jerome (ed. Vallarsi,
1 I t is assumed here that the Asherah was originally a sacred
tree. But cp ASHERAH.
1321) 'Bethlehem nun; nostram . . . lucus inumbrabat
Thanks id est Adonidis. Just before, he tells us that this cult
a Siegfr.-Sta. agree so far as Gen. Lc. is concerned. of Ado& has lasted ahout 180 years, from the times of Hadrian
3 The form TamQz; has also been found in the personal name to the empire of Constantine. Evidently he regarded the
Ur(?).(ilu) Tamuzu (Jensen, in Kraetzschnmr's note on Ezek. Adonis cult practised in the reputed grove of the Nativity as a
8 14). See further Delitnch, Hcb. and Assyrian 16, and in deliberate profanation. I t is not probable however that any
Baer's Ezekiel, pref. xviif: ; Zimmem, Bussjsa&n, 26, 60, such profanation would have been committed in t i e time of
and ZA 117-24zr5f: 2 270f:; Lenormant, 'Sur le nom de Hadrian ; it was the Jews, not the Christians, who were at that
Tammoriz,' in Proc. ofPar;S Co?zpr-essofOne-ntalists,2 149-r65 ; time the objects of heathen persecution. And we may assume
Baudissin, Stud. z. senr. ReL-gesch., 135 3 ~ 0 8; G. A. Barton, that the predominant element in the cultus in the cave a t
Semitic Origins ( ~ y m )p:, 86 ; Zimmern, K A T(3),3 9 7 8 Bethlehem was not connected with Tammuz-Adonis, but rather
4 For parallels to this view of IStar in mythology and folklore with Isis and Sarapis, just as at Byblus the legend of Astarte
(including that in Tobit38) see Stucken, Asfralmyfkcn,16. and Adonis became fused -th that of Isis and Osiris (cp Conradi,
5 Jeremias, Zzdubar-Nimrod, 24 ; cp Maspero, Dawn of Kindheitsgeschicitej u s , 315 f: ; Usener, ReL-gerch. Unter-
Civ. 580, 672; Jastrow, Rel. Bad. Ass. 482. such. 1 202).
6 Up. c i f .50 ; hut cp on one part of the song Jensen, Kosmol. 4 Toy takes nTini (v. 17) in the sense of 'stench,' and renders,
7 Jastrow, ReZ. Bad. Ass. 682. 'they are sending a stench to my nostrils' ($ .7)!. Kraetr

4893 4894
Jews was probably borrowed from Assyria, so that comprised all n y nma3, Naphtoah-arsb. See CYZX
Tammuz-worship and sun-worship would naturally be Bib. ; also SALMAH. T. K. C.
mentioned together. TAPHON [AvJ or TEPHON [RV] T&WN [AN],
Plausible as this is, a critical scepticism appears justifiable. TEC$W [VI, TOXOAC uos. Ant. xiii. 13, 5 151, Ceyho
I t is strange that I)nnn should occur nowhere else in the OT.
I n Ezek. 8 5 nujpn is certainly corrupt ; this may reasonably [Vet. Lat.], Syr. a+). One of the ‘ strong cities ’
make us suspect rinnn. First of all however, the whole context in JudEa fortified by Bacchides ; I Macc. 950. The
should be critically examined. T h e most obvious corrections name is a corruption either of Tappuah (cp Josh. 168
(if we presuppose some very constant types of corruption) are
those in zr. IO, on which see S HAPHAN . From the probably BE), in which case BETH-TAPPUAH (q.v.) may be meant,
true text of this verse we may divine that the whole description or of NETOPHAH ( q . ~ . ) . The latter view (Gra. Gesch.(4)
of which it forms part relates to heathen rites of Jerahmeelite or iii. 1 8 , n. 5 ) is geographically possible, but is phonetically
N. Arabian origin. Elsewhere (see Cn’f. Bi6.) the text of v. 14
is corrected, and a reference to the cult of the N. Arabian perhaps rather less natural.
goddess is supposed. See however also HADAD-RIMMON
where a reference to Tammiiz-worship is suspected to exist bot;
TAPPUAH (nBn; § 103, cp APPLE and F RUIT ,
here and in Zech 12 TI. For a generally supposed reference to 5 12).
the parallel cult of Adonis, see G ARDEN $ 8 ; and cp NAAMAN. I . A place grouped with Zanoah, En-gannim, and
According to Ewald, the ‘desire of worh&’ mentioned in Dan. Enam among the towns of the lowland of Judah
11 37 is Tammuz-Adonis.
It is maintained by Stucken and Winckler that (Josh. 15 3 4 ) , and connected apparently with Hebron
features of the Tammuz, Adonis, and Osiris myths (I Ch. 243). (In Josh. cXov6wB [B?], a8ra6aap [A],
have attached themselves to certain legendary Israelitish Ba$+oua [L]; in r Ch. Balrour [B], Ba+$ou [A],
heroes. Thus Abram and Sarai, brother and sister, as cpeBpou8 [L]). Perhaps, however, ‘ Tappuah and
well as husband and wife, also Amnon and Taniar, Enam should rabher be ‘and Tappuah [of] Enam,’
suggest comparison with Tammuz and Igtarl (see and the same place may be referred to in Gen. 3814
Stucken, A d r a Z m y t h n , 1 1 ; Wi. GZ223, 227J cp (read ‘ a t Tappuah of Enaim ’) and in Josh. 159 181:
l o s f . , and T A M A K , 2). The story of Joseph devoured (read for ‘ unto the fountain of the waters of NEPHTOAH,
by a wild beast, also the detail about Moses in the ark of ‘unto Nephtoah, or Tappuah, roof3 Enam’). In all
bulrushes (see, however, MOSES, 5 3). suggest respectively these passages there is most probably a geographical
the Adonis and the Osiris myth. David, the beautiful confusion dne to the redactors-Le. the place originally
young shepherd, also reminds one of Tammuz or intended was in the Negeb (cp SOCOH, Z ANOAH , ZORAH).
Adonis. Many critics may be inclined to admit that Very possibly, too, Tappiiah is a popular distortion of
the details here mentioned (Winckler has much more to Nephtoah or Naphtoah, the name the present writer
mention besides) are of mythic origin ; but to connect supposes to underlie the difficult ‘ Naphtuhim ’ in Gen.
them directty with the Babylonian myth of Dazu seems 1013. See MIZRAIM,5 2b, where Gen.1013J is ex-
to be at present a somewhat bold hypothesis. That the plained in the light of the theory that 0 3 i m is very often
mourning for Jephthah’s daughter is analogous to the not MiSraini, Egypt,’ but MiSrim, the MuSri on the N.
Tammuz wailing is, however, beyond the possibility of Arabian border of Palestine.
doubt (see col. 2362). T. K. C. 2. A place which appears once (see below) at a
critical point of the history of Israel, situated on the
TANACH (q!pn), Josh. 2125 AV, RV T S A N A C H . border between Ephraim and Manasseh (see K ANAH ),
TANHUMETH (nplll2q; cp
the Talm. pr. name Josh. 168 178. In 177 it is called EN-TAPPUAH, and
Tanhum), of S ERAIAH [q.v.] (2 K. 25 23 :
father in the next verse we are told that the land or district of
Tappuah belonged to Manasseh, but Tappuah itself to
eaN€Mae P I 9 -MAN [AI, eaNssMMae [L]; Jer.
the b n e Ephraim. This is inserted to account for the
4 0 8 ; e&NA€MaleCBI, 8aNA€M€e[AQI, NAB- [RI).
The name, though possibly (cp Nahum in OS) early explained expression in v. 7, ‘and (then) the border goes along
as comfort’ (cp 0 6 2 ; pointed so as to exclude a woman’s southward to the inhabitants ( =the district) of En-
name ?), may, according to analogies ( e g . Rehum, connected tappuah. ’ Conder ( Hu‘bK. 263) identifies En-Tdppuah
with Jerahme’el), come from an ethnic of the Negeb (cp or Tappuah with a spring near YcZsGf, at the head of a
N AHAMANI ). In z K. Seraiah b. Tanhumeth is called a
Netophathite; but tho present writer takes N a htuhite to be branch of the WcZdy KcZnah, S . of Shechem and of
meant (cp NETOPHAHtie., he belonged, like (pro!ably) his com- Michmethath. Robinson, however, and formerly
panions, to the Negeb. In Jer. the designation is alrparenfZy Conder (PEFQ, 1877, p. 48). connected it with
given to certain ‘sons of EPHAI’ (q.~.). But ,ary $32 (as Kt.) is Kh.’A@fi and Guerin ( S u m . 1259)with ‘Ain eZ-FcZri‘ah,
a corrupt duplication of >ngioj. Cp Crit. Bib. on Jer. 40 I 5
where it is argued that Gedaliah‘s Mizpah may have bee; both NE. of NEblus. . I n each case the identification
Zarephath in the Negeb. T. K. C. depends on the situation assigned to the torrent K ANAH .
TANIS ( T ~ N B W C[BA]) Judithlxo. See ZOAN. Probably enough there was a northern Tappuah ; but
the name ( a distortion of Naphtoah) comes from the
TANNER, TANNING. See LEATHER. Negeb. It is historically unsafe to suppose that the
TAPESTRY (WlJ7n, marbaddim), RV ‘ Carpets,’ northern Tappuah was the city so cruelly treated by
AV ‘ coverings,’ RVmg. ‘ cushions,’ of tapestry are men- Menahem in his hour of victory, 2 K. 15 16 (see
tioned in Pr. 7 16 31zzT. See E MBROIDERY, W EAVING . TIPHSAH).
(@ 7a+ou, rqyilv e 4 0 d [va+s0 a b, mg.], 0aO.B [Bl ; e++oue,
TAPHATH (net?, 5 78), ‘daughter of Solomon,’ “1 $ V 9d+o0, 0a4000 [A]; Oa&&
rrqyilv va+OoO, [9a+oOl
Dillmann holds that the Ephraimite Tappuah was the
wife of one of the king’s prefects (see B EN - ABINADAB ), royal city of Josh.1217 (aTa+OW [Bl, 0+$0u [A!, 6’arr+ou [&I).
I K. 4 11 ( T A B h H & l CBI. -Ohel [Ra” vid’l-T A B A b e With the preceding name Bethel the list of cities passes into
[L], TAC$A?A [A]). Probably. however, it was a central Palestine. The present ’writer thinks, however, that
Salmzan ( ~ . e .Arabian)
, woman who is meant ; point JpTh. 1 2 7 3 bas been recast by the redactor, and that the royal
cities are really in the Jerahmeelite Negeb (cp S HIMRON - MERON ,
n$@. So in ZJ. 15. Her name wa5 perhaps Naphtu- T IRZAH ). T. K. C.
hith (cp § 78) ; and her husband‘s prefecture may have
T U A H , RV Terah (mn; T A p A e [BLI, 8- [A]
schmar agrees with this and finds in v. 17 a contemptnous EKapaB, [F, the preposition EK dittographed]), a
reference to the sacrifices bf the ‘high places,’ which gave forth stage in the wandering in the wilderness ; Nu. 33 2 7 3
to Yahwe no ‘sweet savour.’ Most see a reference to the See W ANDERING , W ILDERNESS OF.
8uresinu, or bundle of branches of flowering trees, held by
worshippers of the solar fire in the Parsee religion (see Y e d i n a d Probably a mutilation of Jerahmeel (cp TERAH) tChe.1. C p
19 64, Spiegel, Eran. Alferfh.3 571). Cp a Cyprian parallel in M AKHELOTH , TAHATH, MOSERAH.
Ohnefalsch - Richter KVpros 137 j ? -
Clermont Ganneau
TARALAH (35y7n; B a p a H h a [Bl, Bapaha [AI,
(ktua‘es d’avc~bol.o;ienfaZc, zb [1880])supposes snme rite in the
mysteries of Adonis. This would require us to transfer the last
clause of 2). 17 to the end of v. rq.
e€. [L]; UereZa, theruma[OS(2)31z 15631 ; cp261zs]),
1 Thongh strictly the sister of Tammuz was Bilili. 1 See A DITHAIM.

4895 4896
apparently a Bcnjamite place-name (Josh. 1827), but iron, tin, and lead are specified among its riches (Ezek.
really, like ha-eleph in 21.28, a corruption of b l ’ , 2712 ; cp 3813). It is mentioned with the iyyi7n (y!)
or ‘ coast-lands ‘ (Is. 236 66x9 [with other countries],
I RPEEL (g.”.), or of h l l * ,of which h D l * may be a Ps. 7210). Jonah, when fleeing from the presence of
corruption (Che. ). See ELEPH. Y a h d , set sail for Tarshish from Joppa (Jon.1 3 4 2 ;
TAREA (m.3c [sa.], m.vn [Gi.] in I Ch.835; cp z Ch.9zr bis [rXoia PK 6. once], 2036fi-where
but u>gn [Bii.], mnc [Gi.],
EV TAHREA in 941f; Tarshish ships have become, through the author’s mis-
understanding, ‘ ships that go to Tarshish ’).
Bepee, eapax [B and K in 9411, eapee. ebpa [AI, The identification of the locality is difficult. Most
eapaa [L]), a descendant of Saul mentioned in a
(T.v.,5 9, ii. @), I Ch. 835=941.
genealogy of BENJAMIN scholars since Bochart have thought of Tartessus
a. mere? !Taprvpmbr ; but Polyb. iii. 24 2, T u p u ~ r o v )
TARES (ZIZANIA. Mt.13258). The Greek word, This wzs the ancient and,
which does not occur in B, is plainly of Semitic origin. Its Tartessus? in as S.
a s known to the OT writers, the
Syriac form ziznri is (as Lagarde says, Sem. 63) equivalent to
z i n z a ~ ,and so derived from 411,which in Ar. means ‘to be remotest goal of Phoenician commerce (see GEOGRAPHY.
dry.’ A kindred word is Ar. (and Pers.?) zawan, which 5 106). Herodotus (4152) indeed places Tartessus
denotes the,seed of dawsar-Le., darnel. ‘&“vtov is, according beyond the Pillars of Hercules ; cp Strabo315r ; Plin.
to Suidas, 1 dv T+ &rc+ atpa ; the medicinal effects of alps are
described in Diosc. 2 122. iii. 38. Elsewhere (2148) Strabo, with whom Pausanias
From the statements in Mishna and Talmud (see (iv. 193) agrees, makes Tartessus the name of the
River Bztis (Guadalyuivir), and also of a city in the
Low, 133J ) we learn that DW, the post-biblical Hebrew
delta of this river, the surrounding territory being called
equivalent of {i@via, denoted plants closely resembling
Tartessis. Diodorus ( 5 3 5 8 ) as well as Strabo speaks
wheat, alongside of which they grew, and were indeed
of the silver, iron, tin, and lead of Tartessus. The
sometimes regarded as a degenerate form of wheat
exact site seems not determinable, nor is it clear that
produced under unfavourable conditions from the same
seeds. In view of these and other statements, it is the Hebrews knew it. Cp SILVER.
[The name Tartessus was extended to the whole of S. S ain.
generally agreed that the plant intended is LoEum ‘ As far as the terminus Tartesiorum’ is found in Avienus 86%)
temulenhrn, or darnel (Tristram, N H B 487, where and in the second treaty between Carthage and Rome we read
there is a good account of the plant). that the Romans are forbidden MawTlas Tapqlov p i Ah<ewea‘
2trixcrva (Polyb. iii. 24 3 t i . e . they are not to go beyond the city
I t is not improbable that ‘darnel’ has been associated with of.Mastia in the land called T&seion=Tarshish. See E. Meyer,
‘white crops,’ especially wheat, from the earliest times. With
iiuperfect methods of cleaning the seed-grain, the seed would be G A 2 -7 (B 425).1
sown with that of the wheat. It grows to about the same height, What is likely is, that Tarshish is a Semitised form
and would naturally be regarded as a degenerate form. Darnel of the native name.
was long regarded as poisonous (cp Hooker Student’s Elora,
454). this however, is now attributed to t h i e r g o t with which 65 in Ezek. and Is.23 renders ‘Tarshish’ by
I t is’pec;liarly prone to be affected. Its rarity in England, ‘Carthage.’ 1,n its ordinary sense this name is of
where it is only a ‘weed of cultivation,‘ is due to greater care in 3. carthage’l course unsuitable. But when the
the sowing. A native of Europe and N. Asia, it occurs
throughout the Mediterranean basin. N. M.-W. T. T.-D. Carthaginians brought the Phcenician
TARGET. ( I ) ??y, $nnih, I K. 10 16 ; see SHIELD, settlement of Mastia (see 5 I, end) in the land of
Tarseion (Tarshish?) under their rule, they made i t a
I. ( 2 ) fir?,&i%n, I S. 176. ,See JAVELIK, I, 5 ; SWORD.
Kart-hadaSt (=Carthage), so that 65’s rendering in a
TARGUMS. See A RAMAIC LANGUAGE, $ 6 ; TEXT new sense appears to be defensible (Wi. A OF 1445f. ).
AND VERSIONS, 5 65. Tarsus in Cilicia is the identification adopted by
TARPELITES (K!>BlQ E z r a b t ; T A ~ A @ ~ A A A I O I Josephus and Jerome, and in modern times by Baron
[Bl, Tap+. [ALI; bd), according to most recent writers not
*. Bunsen, Sayce,l and-for Gen. 104-by
Tareus? A. H. Keane (who takes ‘ a son of Javan ’
a n ethnic name, but mismitten for N;?DjiU, ‘ tablet-miters’ (from
Ass. duj-sa-); cp Schr. C O T on Jer. 51 27, but see SCRIBG
to mean ‘ a n Asiatic Greek’ ; cp The GoZd of Ophir,
Cp also APHARSITES. 928:). The objections to this are ( I ) that the recorded
foundation of TARSUS [T.v.] does not go back far
TARSAISH ( ~ ’ ~; eapc[~lIc F I [BHA, etc.]-every enough, and ( z ) that its name, as given on coins and in
where except Is. 2 16 [see below] and 23 r6ror4 [ K ~ P - Assyrian inscriptions, has z instead of s.
XHAWN, (BKQT), XAPK. (B* once, K* twice)] where Le Page Renouf ( P S D A l8104-roB 138-141) advocates
twice has eapcelc as the reading of Aq. Symm. the claims of the Phcenician coast, so that the uhrase
Theod., and Ezek. 271225 [ K ~ P X H A O N I O I or xaplc. ‘ Tarshish ships ’ would be equivalent
W Q - A v. 25 adding 8apcoc)l 3813 [KAPXHAONIOI *’ PhCOnicia? to ‘Phoenician shim.’ This is in
(B) ; XAAKHAONOC (A), ebpcelc (pmp,vid.)]; thrice accordance with W. M. Miiller’s explanation of the
spelled Tharshish in AV [ I K. lOzzBzs, 2248)). A son Egyptian phrase ‘ Kefto ships ’ as= ‘ ships built in the
of lavan, Gen. 104 I Ch. 1 7 (where mis-written nwvwin, Kefto style,’ As. u. Eur. 349, n. z (cp C APHTOR ).
under the influence of n w 3 ~ ) . In a rela- But plausible as this interpretation of ’ ships of Tarshish ’
references. tively early passage (Is. 2 16) we find the may he, the sense ’ Phcenicia’ for ‘ Tarshish’ has not
phrase ’ Tarshish ships’’ as a synonym been made out. It would appear as if this learned
for large, sea-going vessels. W e also find the phrase Egyptologist had read the text of Is. 2310 too un-
in I K. 1022 (twice ; 65 vaDs PK 8. the second time), suspiciously. Of course, too, the sense ’ Phcenicia ‘
224g3 Is. 609 Ps. 487 [a], and Ezek. 2725. The infor- for ’ Tarshish ’ cannot easily be made to agree with the
mation given us respecting Tarshish may be very briefly biblical references (apart from the phrase mentioned)
summed up. According to Jer. 109 (later than Jeremiah), to the city or district of Tarshish.
silver was brought from it, and elsewhere, besides silver, Knobel (Gem C2J) and Franz Delitzsch (Gen.(5)) separate
1 B,however, does not support the rendering ‘Tarshish ships’; the Tarshish of Gen. 10a from that of other Dassages. 1 Y .

O a h h w q $ in a2v rrhohv Bahdwwqs [RNA,etc.] is an erroneous 6 , Tgrseni? and suppose it to mean the Tyrseni-ie.,
frandiferation;for another case of this see Dan. 10 6 (8ahauqs the Etruscans. This we mav at once
[ 8 7 ] = 8 a p w ~ ~[Theod.]
s ; cp Vg.’s 7naris in Ezek. 116). I n Talm. venture to reject; if Tyrseni are meant, it must be
Jer. MeK. 74a, w-w7n=Bar\dwuros (Levy). those of the E g e a n (cp TIRAS). These famous sea-
2 Regarded as a redactional insertion (see Kit:el, Benzinger).
rovers appear in the Egyptian inscriptions as Tur(u)Sa,*
The Hebrew has ’n 95(collective).
3 Stade, Kittel, and Benzinger agree that (following 6) we 1 I n Exp.T, 1902, p. 179.
should read here n . 1 ~and n q ~ (singular).
n Note n i x q (Kt.), 2 ‘It is safe to recognise in the TuruIa, expressly mentioned
‘ was broken.’ 6 B omits w*win whilst @A and BL have respec-
tively in their insertion after I K. 1628 vaih eir 8. and vaav... by Rameses 111. as a maritime people, Tyrsenian pirates v ho
a pear in the old Greek tradition-by no means the Etruscans’
e k 0. (E. M eyer, GA 1313, 0 260).
4897 4898
and if they are referred to at all in Gen. 104. it would T U S H I S H (dr@ln).I. One of the 'seven (?)
be best to read there, not 'Tarshish,' but 'Turus' or princes' at the court of Ahasuerus (Esth. 114 MT).
' TuruS.' If we take this step, it becomes possible that On the sapuatlazos (uapiatleos)of BENALP,see SHETHAK.
the phrase ' ships of Tarshish ' may have been originally If the underlying story of the Jewish deliverance is N.
' ships of TuruS' (em?). In this case the expression Arabian (see P URIM , 3), ' Tarshish ' probably comes from
.vould be very old, and be a monument of the times 'Asshur ' or Ashhur. See TARSHISH (above), and cp
.,hen 'ships of the TuruS' were no unfrequent sights. SHETHAR-BOZNAI.
.ater, TuruS might very possibly be confounded with 2. b. Bilhan, of B EN J AMIN (8 g, i i [ a ] ) , I Ch. f r o
:he Tars implied in the Greek form Tapmjrov=Tartessus (papeuuar [B], tlapue6s [AL]). Here, at any rate,
;see 8 2). ' Asshur ' or Ashhur is the underlying original.
It has hitherto been assumed in this article that the 'JEDIAEL,' the branch of Benjami: to which ' Bilhan ' belongs
:Iebrew text of the passages referred to is on the whole certainly comes from ' Jerahmeel ; so also probably doe;
,. The N. correct, though the doubtfulness of Gen. ' Bilhan' itself. Of Bilhan's sons, Je'ush (507 of Aholibamah=
Jerahmeel, Gen. 36 5) comes from ' Ishmael, ' Benjamin ' from
ha,,ian l o 4 and Is.2310 has been alluded to. ' Ben-jerahmeel,' E HUD (probably) from a?n>=inlN(Babnrim)
beshur? Now, however, we must proceed further, = $ ~ n n y' Fhena'anah ' from ' Cheniah ' (cp Coniah)= y p
and take into account the fact that there (' Kenite ) Zethan' from Sarephath and 'Ahishahar' from
i i much corruption in the Hebrew text of the OT, 'Ashhur' {see SHEHARIAH).~ It will be understood that the
ethnics may early have become corrupted, and that the corrup-
and specially in the readings of the proper names. tions may soon have attained a n independent existence, and
As a preliminary, we must separate the inquiry a s have become further corrupted. T. K. C.
to the signification of h z ~ y 8 f hTarSii ( w w i n n i w :
EV 'ships of Tarshish') from that as to the meaning
TARSHISH, STONE OF (d'@lntlv), Ezek. 109,
of Z P ~ where
, it stands alone, partly because most RVmg.. The text of EV has here 'the appearance of
critics (e.g.,Stade. G VI1 533, note) agree that ' Tarshish- 1. Occurrences. the wheels was as the colour (iy) of a
ships' means 'ships of the largest dimensions," and beryl stone' ; the mg. gives a needful
partly because a close examination of the passages warning (cp T OPAZ) against trusting this too implicitly.
where the phrase 'n n v j N occurs appears to show that More commonly, however, ' stone ' (Pden) is omitted,
the text is corrupt, 'ships' being, according to the and the stone referred to is simply called in MT ' tar-
text here adopted, nowhere referred to except in I K. shish,' in EV 'beryl.' Thus in Ezek. 116 (nearly=
l o g s ) EV has 'like unto the colour of a beryl'
1022 2248 and 2 Ch.921. Confining our attention
in the first instance to these three passages, and more (etjm .
. . .- l?yx),
.., and in Cant. 514; 'set with beryl'
especially to those in Kings as primary, we are struck (d*tlni &?Q). ' Beryl,' however, lacks justification
by the improbability of the language employed (as the (see B ERYL ), and in Cant. I.c. RVrng.suggests 'topaz'
text represents). In I K. 1 0 2 2 we have ' a navy of (see T OPAZ , end), whilst in Ezek. 2813 AVmg. offers us
Tarshish with the navy of Hiram' ; in 2248, 'ships ' chrysolite,' thus, as it were, connecting the Old and the
of T. to go to Ophir for gold.' If we knew nothing New Testaments (see Rev. 21 20).
about a place, supposed to have been called Tarshish, 'Chrysolite' rests on the authority of 6, which, supported by
should we not suppose that v w i n represented something Jos.(Anf.iii.7~Bjv.57),Aq.Ezek.11610gDan.l06,andVg.
(except Ezek. 1 1 6 Cant. 5 14), thrice (Ex. 28 20 39 13 [36 201 Ezek.
connected with naval architecture or management ? 2813) renders w*win by xpuu6AiBdv). I t should be added,
Should this consideration seem to warrant emendation, however, that in Ezek. 10 g @ gives AiOw dveparoc ('n ]>N), and
no better one presents itself, perhaps, than D i i Q (Ezek. that in Ezek. 1 1 6 Cant. 5 14 it is content to transliterate Bapmrr
27 2g)--i.e., the phrase ' ships of Tarshish ' means, not (cp Symm Theod. Dan. 10 6 and Theod. Ezek. 109); also that
Symm. in'hx. 28 M Ezek. 1 16 109 Cant. 5 14 gives G r r v 8 o c (cp
our a East-Indiamen,' but 'galleys with oars.' I n Is. 3321 Vg. Cant. 5 14, and see J ACINTH ); and that @ in Dan. 106 gives
we actually find almost the very phrase here taken as 86Aaua (cp Vg. Ezek. 115, and see TARSHISH).
the original of 'n 'N, viz., w@ 7% (EV ' galley with oars '). The modern chrysolite is, of course, excluded. There
Turning to the remaining passages in which the phrase 'ships remain the ' hyacinthus '--i.e., the sapphire of the
of T.' is supposed to occur, we are struck by finding that here moderns (see JACINTH)-and the topaz,
too there' is frequently the appearance of corruption. In the 2. Identiica- which Pliny's description of the chrysolite
passage which, if correctly read, is the earliest authority for tions. as 'aureo fulgore tralucens' (HN374zJt:)
this phrase (Is. 2 16), we cannot possibly avoid reading, at the
end of the list of'objects 'high and lifted up ' in lieu of 'ships has led some ( H W B P ) , 3348, Del.. Kraetzschmar) to
of T.,' 'palaces of Asshur' ( I1 'dwellings o i erahmeel'z); cp identify with the chrysolite of the ancients (see, however,
Am. 3 9, where, as Winckler has already seen,J' Ashdod should CHRYSOLITE). For the hyacinthus no plausible case can
be 'Asshur.' Similarly in Ezek. 2725 Is. 609 and Ps. 488,
' ships of Tarshish ' should probably be ' tribes ( n i y ) of Asshur'. be made out. The chrysolite or topaz (?) has found
some favour because Pliny speaks of a large chrysolite
I n all the other passages where this word occurs (the har-
monising must he due to an early editor), @,win (Tarshish) from Spain, and Tarshish is generally placed in southern
should probably be emended into l?flr$# (Ashhur) or 1WN Spain. But Pliny also states that chrysolites were found
(Asshur); an interesting proof of this is suggested by Ezek. in .Arabia, and it seems likely ( I ) that the Hebrews
3813.4 By 'Asshur' is meant of course, not the famous rival would have obtained precious stones chiefly from Arabia,
of Babylonia, but a N. A r a b i a district of somewhat uncertain and conseqiiently ( 2 ) that if the name of the stone under
extent, also known perhaps as Geshur (see GESHUR,2). That consideration were derived from a country, the country
ihe Chronicler in the third century B.C. read w*psm,.and sup-
posed it to be a comparatively distant maritime region, is no would be some part of Arabia. Luther's identification
ohstacle to the theory here maintained, whilst an objection of 'tarshish' with the turquoise would therefore be
rlramn from Gen. 104 (Tarshish, a son of Javan) would imply plausible if the name ' tarshish' could be traced to some
that we possessed the Table of Nations in its original form (see ancient name of the Wady Maghara in the Sinaitic
TIRAS, s 2). See Crii. Bid. Peninsula, where the turquoise-mines were worked. But
F.B.,§If.; T.K.C.,@3-7.
the mere similarity of names is of course valueless,
and the Sinaitic turquoises so quickly lose their colour
1 See however Benzinger's note on I K.10 22. that they can hardly have been much in requisition.
2 The' Jerahmielites also appear to be referred to in Is. 2 20
(see MOLE). W e must, therefore, look farther for a clue to the
3 Alftest. Unt. 185, where, however, Winckler supposesa refer- meaning of a tarshish.'
ence to Assyria. Let us then, as we have done already in the case of the
4 We there find W'Wlp *$;]Tl? N ? f , where ' T I D almost
1 Cp I S. 6 19, where the original of @'s text (note [oil u b i
certainly represents l?ndN, and a t once suggests that the
' I ~ x o v i o u )must have run, O $ i n.2 ' W ~ N ? 'T?? *>
qN i!
i; >],
following word 'in (which has no !) is a corrupt dittogram of the 'and the Kenites were angry with the men of Beth-cusham.
same N. Arabian name. Certainly 'Tartessns' does not suit Cp SHIMSHAI.
ut all. 2 Ebers, Uurch Gosen, 137.

4899 4900
"?us,pitddh (see TOPAZ), turn to the Assyrian lexicon. Juliopolis (Cres. Bell. Alex. 66 ; cp Dio Cass. 4726).
It is well known that to the Assyrians the For this attachment Cassius ordered it to be plundered ;
3. The
deeyrian precious stone p a r excellence was that called but, on the other hand, Antonius rewarded it with
2lm&% (etymologically identical with Heb. municipal freedom and exemption from taxes ( i . e . , it
iln1esu7 &alliirnij; see FLINT), which is hardly the became a civitirs libera et immunis). But none the
diamond (Del. ProL 85 ; Ass. H W B s.v.), but may less it was the seat of a conventus-i.e., periodical
perhaps be the white sapphire. assizes (cp Acts 1938) were held within it by the Roman
Here are two Assyrian passages given by Delitzsch in which governor (Cic. Ep. ad Att. v. 164, etc.), though in
the name occurs : ' Like a ring of BlmZBu may I he recious in strict theory a a free city ' was outside the province and
thine eyes,' and 'a carriage whose wheels were OF gold and
flm2Su' (cp Ezek.116). I t is at any rate, possible that the
the governor's jurisdiction (see further, with reference
tarshish-stone ' should rather be the ' halmiz-stone,' 1 and that to Tarsus, Philostr. V. AFoZl. 1x2, $r Tupuois 6P &pa
the inferred Hebrew form &%\Q (Ass. nnrcSu) is equivalent to dyopbv lJyw ; and Momms. -Marq. Rom. Stantsvem.
the attested form &&tal in Ezek. 14 27 8 a (cp AMBER, S I). 180 n. 3).l Like Thessalonica, the legal position of
Probably enough the halmig-stone is referred to again which was similar, Tarsus was the headquarters of the
in Job 28 18a, where riimith w2-gEbiS ( w q a nlmi) should Roman governor.
The freedom (li6erias, a4rovoFia) or self-government which
perhaps be [ * ] n i ~w) o h a and in v . 19, where a*nh Tarsus enjoyed is expressly attributed to Antonius (App. Bell.
should be read for vi1 (see T OPAZ). Civ. 5 7). I t was a t Tarsus that Antoniusreceived Cleopatra in 38
There is also, however, the possibility that v a i n [p] B.C. when she sailed up the Cydnus in the character of Aphrodite
or ' Tarshish [stone],' is a corruption of n?rpdy p!, (Plut. Ant. 25 A). But others attribute the status to the
bounty of Augustus (Lucian, Macrob. 21 ; cp Dio Chrysos.
' Asshurite stone ' or iqn@ 'N ' stone of Ashhur ' (cp 236 R X A K P ~ V OLie.,
~ Augustus] 6r;v rapCuxe xhpjprv v b o u o
T L ~ $ Y.$ouuLv 705 rrora(l00 njs Bahwcnlo n j o ~ a @
aha&, thus
T ARSHISH , 5 7). T. K. C. summing up municipal independence, freedom from taxation
and control of internal sources of revenue). Probably Augustus
TARSUS (TAPCOC,Acts 9 p 1125 2 2 3 ; Ethnic, confirmed in this respect the action of his rival Note
~ ~ p c a y 2cMacc.
, 430 Acts 911 21 39). that it by no means followed that Paul's possession of Roman
Tapuis (Attic rappds)= ' wing ' or 'feather.' The town citizenship (Acts 22 28) was a con-equence of the autonomy
was said to haviderived its name irom a feather which fell from enjoyed by Tarsus. T h e citizenship of Tarsus possessed by
the wing of Pegasus (cp Juv. Sat. 3 118); hut that was a legend all Tarsians who came within the prescribed conditions, could
based upon an etymological fancy. I t is the n n of late coins never carry with it Roman citizenship (cp Ramsay, S f . Paul
(with Aramaic inscriptions), and is mentioned under the name the Traveller, 30J).
Tarzi by Shalmaneser /Black Obelisk I n x r . Z.138 ; Scheil, It is not easy to estimate the influence exerted upon
RPP),447; Wi., GBA, 196, 256) in the ninth century. For
stories of Its origin, see Ammianus, xiv. 83, and Straho, 673, and the intellectual life of Paul by the peculiar surroundings
on the name c Jensen, Hittitcr u. Armcnicr 1898, pp. 62$,
I&X [The Reracles of Tarsus was the Cilician god Sandan. a. NT and circumstanEes in which he was placed
Tarsus was indeed renowned
Dio Chry;. calls him the Apx do of the Tarsians (2 23). and he references. at Tarsus.
as a Dlace of education under the early
may he identified with the B a of Tarsus named on coins. H:
was worshipped by the periodical erection of 'a very fair pyre Empire. Strabo 1673) even ranks Tarsus above the
(ibid.), a rite presumably analogous to that described in the De other tMro great ' University cities' of his t h e for love
Dea Syrin. ch. 49-WRS. See RSP), 377, where Is. 3033 is of learning. It was the home of eminent Stoics, like
compared. ' On Sandan, W R S refers to K. 0. Muller in Rhein
Mus. 1829, and E. Meyer in ZDMG, 1877, pp:
Tarsus the chief town of C ILICIA [ q . v . ] was situated
:z Athenodorus the tutor of Augustus, and Nestor, who
identification, sometimes proposed, of Tarsus w i d 3 ~ ~ s h ~ ~ taught
, Tiberius (Strabo, 674). A remarkable feature
was that this zeal for learning was not an extraneous
characteristic, but was due to natives of the city itself
on the right bank of the ancient Cydnus in the wide (Strabo, Z.C.), so that Tarsus rather sent teachers to the
1. Site and and fertile plain between Mt. Taurus and rest of the world, then received students therefrom. It
the sea, thus commanding the passes
his to^. leading from Cilicia into Lycaonia or
would doubtless be very satisfactory to have been able
to trace in Paul's writings (as, e.g., in the case of the
Cappadocia. Almost necessarily also the route through writer of Lk. and Acts) some tinge of Hellenic culture,
Mt. Amanus into Syria involved passage by Tarsus. some echo from the lecture-rooms of Tarsus : but the
The city thus at an early date attained importance. attempt must be abandoned. The three references to
Xenophon (who uses the plural form, Tupuof) speaks Hellenic literature (Acts 1728 I Cor. 1532 Tit. 112) by
of it, in 401 E. C., as a great and prosperous city ( ~ 6 x 1 ~
no means bear out this imagination, but are merely
p e y d X ~ v~ u eb8uipovu),
l the residence of Syennesis the floating sentiments of a popular character. Passages
a (Anab. 1z 23). In the time of Alexander like I Cor. 120 or Col. 2 8 would hardly favour the
the Great it was the residence of a Persian satrap, who probability of finding a tinge of classical culture or
fled on his approach, so that the city surrendered with- philosophy in Paul. Even the speech in Athens, if its
out resistance. Alexander nearly died here from a fever historicity is to be accepted as beyond dispute, cannot
aggravated by bathing in the icy waters of the Cydnus on an unhiassed view be made to support the somewhat
(Arrian, Anab. 2 4 ; cp Paus. viii. 283). After Alex- extravagant claims made on Paul's behalf by some
ander's death Tarsus usually belonged to the Syrian modern commentators. Seeing that Paul's teacher
empire, and under the Seleucid kings Antiochus VII. Gamaliel was inclined to encourage Greek studies, the
to Antiochus IX. was one of the royal mints. For a fact that so little trace of such can be found in Paul is
short time under Antiochns IV. (175-164 B . C . ) it bore itself an argument against attaching undue weight to
the name ' Antioch on the Cydnus ' ( ' A v r r 6 ~ e i uapbr the Hellenic influences which surrounded his early life a
T @ KciSvy ; Antiochia ad Cydnum) as we find from the
(see ATHENS).
coins (see Head, Hist. i\'umm. 617.) ). For a tiine it This verdict. on the other hand. bv no means imolies the
was in the possession of the Ptolemies. denial of the foimative influences of Taqsian life upon Piul. In a
Coming down to Roman times, we find that in the city which was in contact, both in the philosophic schools and in
Civil War Tarsus took the side of Czesar, though it was its harbour with both the eastern and the western world ' which
entered intjmately into the general life of the Roman p r h n c i a l
to Pompeius that she owed her liberation from the organisation to which it belonged, but also retained the vestiges
sway of eastern rulers. Caesar in consequence honoured of that vigorous municipal life which was 50 characteristically
the city with a visit, and its name was changed to Greek-in such a town Paul could not fail to gain that
1 ?.e., n and n, 5 and 1, 13 and p (cp old Hebrew script) have 1 On the constitution of Tarsus under the Romans, see the
been confounded. details given in Dio Chrysos. 2 4 3 R.
a So, a t least, if n in n i m i represents in v&n. Otherwise 2 [WRS, EBM, 23 676,presumes that Paul 'formed no higher
niDR7 may spring from m u i , which became first imi and then opinion of the culture of Tarsus than did his contemporary
inNi (with stroke of abbreviation). There is no inducement to Apollonius of Tyana, whose testimony as to the character of
make niDN1come from mnyl (the ' Ra'amathite stone '). the citizens (Vit. A?. 17) is confirmed by Dio Chrysostom
3 Pysanias wlls it T q u e 5 Other forms are Tepu6s, or H e thinks that 'sensuous Eastern religion had more attraction
0apuoo. for the inhabitants than the grave philosophy of the Porch.']
4901 4902
familiarity with cosmopoli!an idea$, that knowledge of the Upon Job41 23 [q],among other passages, is based
working of complex organisations, and that grasp of Roman the theory that BEHEMOTH A N D L EVIATHAN [q.v.]
ideas and methods, \v:tich r u n s throuph hi, life atid work. I n
ahort, it is the Roman, rather t h i i i the Greek, that w e find in belong primarily to mythological zoology. Leviathan
Paul. is in fact a reflection of Tiamat, the chaos-dragon (cp
;\fter his conversion, Tarsns became once more Paul's DKAGON,5 7), and, according to one form of the
home when he w:is obligrd to quit Jerusalem (ActsOjo). creation-myth, was cast into the abyss under ward.
IIere he remained until brought by U:irti:thas to Antioch But Tartaros was not properly a watery abyss ; it had,
of residence aiid preaching in according to the Greek myth, ' a gate of brass and a
towns (cp Gal. 1 2 1j extended threshold of bronze.' The essential parts of the con-
over several years. Doubtless Tarsus w:is again visited ception are depth of situation and (of course) darkness.
o n the second missionary tour (Actsl541); for the Tartaros was ' as far beneath Hades as heaven is high
Roman road ran from Tarsus through the Cilician above the earth' (ZZ.8 1 3 8 ; cp Hes. T h e q . 807), and
Gates,' in Mt. Taurus, giving access to Lycaonia (cp the Titans are even described as 'below Tartaros'
.\cts 16 1 ) . Similarly, on the third missionary tour, ( r o h hrompTaplous), ZI. 14279. Analogous to the fate
Acts1823 conccals a visit to larsus, on which occasion, of Kronos and the Titans was the fate of the fallen
so f:tr iis the record goes, Paul looked for the last time angels, who, according to 2 Pet. 24, were ' committed
upon the busy quays and market-squares of his native to pits of darkness ' (uipois {b@ou'). having been ' hurled
town. into Tartaros.' The allusion may be to the passage
'larsun is now T e r w . The ruins of the old town are con- on the punishment of A ZAZEL [q.v.] in Enoch 10, where
cealed I j or m feet deep in the silt of t h e river and nu systeniatic the vigorous Greek version (Syncellus) gives. .$1LpaXe
excavation hi~syet been made. See Murray's ildb2'tR. I o A.If
rY4/ 'l'hr chief coin-type re>emhles t h a t of Atitioch being alirdv E i S Tb U K b r O s ...
Kal 6 l r L K d X U $ O V a d 7 4 uKbros.
the 'I'yche of 'l'arsui seated, with the river Cydnu, swhning For a more remote parallel see Rev. 202. See ABYSS ;
at her feet. The imperial coiniyc shows great variety of suhject. ESCHATOLOGY, J 89. T. K. C., 5 5.
Anlong lhr titlei are Y q r p d n o A t ~'EhruOipa,
, N & K O ~ O Sand
, 11pbh-q
peyLurq Kahhluq ypdtwarr Bouh<c. W.J . \V. TASK, TASKMASTER, TASKWORK. See TAXA-
TARTAK (>n?n ; e A p e A K [BAL]), the god of the TION,§ 5.
people of Avvah (imported into Samaria). 2 K. 1731. TASSELS (nu'?), NU. 1538 RVW, EV FRINGES.
I'erh.qx Tartahu, the lance-star ' of the 13abyloni:ins
TATAM (TATAM [BL], -MI [AI), Josh.1559, d
(cp nnm, lance.' Job4121 ; M T nnn), idcntified by
Jetiseti with Antares, and by Homme12 with Procyon, Between KULONand SORES.
iiiid regarded by thc Bshjlonians as the star of thc god TATNAI, or rather (RV) TATTENAI ('!?D ; TAN
Ninib. I3y a textual error3 p m became 1n21, or e A N A l O C [L]; Ezra53 e A N A N A l [Bl, eA€le. [AI, 50
(perh;ips better, see N I B I J A Z p ~i , and by another error, €IaNeaNbc LB], aNA€Ic€)&?. [AI, 6 6 A W C ~ T E
similar to that which has duplicated the deity of Sephsr- v. 13, T A N e A N A l [B], 8 A e e A N A l [A]), the 'governoi
vaiin, made its way into the text, atid was even in one of the region beyond the river' (see GOVERNMENT, 5 25.
furm of the text (sce &?3L)4 :issigned to the people of the Ezra 5 3 6 6 ) , called in I Esd. SISINNES ( q . ~ . ) . We
imaginary city of HENA[ q . ~ . in ] order to leave Sibhaz shall assume here that the present form of the text is
for the .\vvitcs. original (see, however, Crit. Bi6.. where this and other
If, however (cp SUCCOTH-IIENOTH), the colonists of ~'IDQ, names are disputed). According to Meissner ( Z A T CV,
Shimrnn, came from the non-Israelite Negeb, both idibhaz 1897, p. ~ g ~ f . this ) , Persian official is mentioned in
(Nihharu':) may he a corruption of Jerahmeel and Tartak of neo-Babylonian contracts. Here, in texts of the first
Terah (a distorted form of Jerah= Jerahmeel (we C'rit. Bib.). and third years of the reign of Darius, is mentioned
'r. K. c. a certain US-ta-an-ni or UH-ta-nu, satrap of Babylon
TARTAN (1gln; i n 2 K. 8 A N e A N [Bl. f h p e . [AI, and Syria. The dates agree, and also the titles
T A N e . [L]; in 1s. T A N A e A N [BXC.a~ba.dC!*], N A e A N ( ~ im m y nna, pigat d i u ndri). The name corre-
[.U*:\]. e&pe& [Qn'x:]; ThauthLrn) is an exact reading sponds to old Pers. ViStana. and appears in a Greek
of the familiar Assyrtnn trtlc, tarlhnu, furA2nu, tartan, form as B~uBdCv~s (Am. iii. 194),' I u T ~ v * / s (Arr. vii. 64),
which occurs in 2 K. 18 17, and Is. 20 I . and 'Tur&v*/s (Herod.-777). On the other hand,
I n Assyrian historical times, the Tartan was the it is a much easier transition to 7jnn from old Pers.
coinitintidcr-in-chief of the army, and ranked next to the Thithina (a form assuhed by Marq. Fund. 52, and
kin:. 'The ofice seems to have bccn duplicated, and E. Meyer, Entst. des. Jud. 32) than from old Pers.
there W A S a fartdnu inam' or 'tartan of the right,' as ViHtana, for we have, on Meissner's hypothesis, to
well n taartirr7r J711ntVi or 'tart:in of the left.' In suppose that 'Jnn was corrupted from 33n01. According
hter tiiiies the title bccame trrritorinl; WC read of a to Arrian, however (vii.64). there were two con-
:trtan of Kummuh, or Coinmagcne. The title is also temporary persons named respectively Sisines and
applird t d the commanders of foreign arrnie3; thus Histanes. May not the document from which the
Szrgon speaks of the 'Tartan Musurai, or Egyptian name of the Syrian satrap in Ezra and Nehemiah is
'lkrtan. The Tartan of 720 n.c. was probably called derived have confounded the two names? As to the
Ah-iska-dnriin ; i n 694 R . C . , Ahda'. and in 686 H.C. historicity of what is told us of Tattenai and Shethar-
IhY-Einurbni, held the title. It does not secm to have bozenai, we must draw a distinction between the
been i n use among the Ihbylonians. c. H. w. J. narrative and the inserted documents on which the
TARTARUS, a term for hell' (so EV text) in narrative is supposed to be based. According to Well-
R\':'W of 2 Pet. '24. The Greek, however. has r a p - hausen ( G G A 1897, no. 2). the official correspondence is
T a p h a s = d s Tdprapou bl$as. Sextus Xmpiricus (about but an invention for dramatic effect. Sisines (Tatnai).
zoo A. I ) . ) , speaking of the expulsion of Kronos by Zeus, for instance, attempted to get the building of the temple
h.1s Karcraprdpwue. interrupted, and failed. Rut the Jewish writers had no
Triprapoc occurs twice i n Job, vir. ( a ) in 40 '5 [zo], where, access to official archives. The same view is taken by
however, rrrpdrromv i v 7; raprdpy muat he a n error for T ~ T .;u Kosters (HeusteZ, 29). Marquart, however (Fund.
T$ iy&i (3o G r a b a p SLhleuwer), the initial m p heing ditto-
graphic, and T (T) miiwritten for y (1'). and ( 6 ) . in 41 23 1241, 49), thinks that the 'kernel' of the decree of D a r k
where r h 61 rdprapov +C i,9iuoou may represent crnn y p p may be genuine, whilst Meyer (Entst. des Iud. 41-53)
' t h e huttom of t h e a h g i s ' (see O i s r \ i e N . i . , 3, with n. I). maintains that the documents are almost entirely
I hFosmd. 4 9 f l ; cp 15053. genuine, and the narrative therefore in the highest
2 /?A*. T 933' ; GRA 666.
3 The error may have been partly due to a reminiscence of 1 C J.ide6, 3 r b <d+ov, 'under darkness' (cp Enoch105,
reran! ( p - , ~in21
) ; springs o u t of inn. above! The reading ueipats ('chains') is not accepted by
4 xar avspcc atwvs+ inoiquav S;lv eap0ar K& oi &&or editors (see Var. Bible), though both Jude 6 and the foundation-
isolquav q v cShars<rp. passage in Enoch speak of bonds.
4903 4904
degree trustworthy. The only passage in the docu- the firstlings of cattle he finds, not in the yearly offering
ments to which this scholar takes exception is Ezra 6 I z a , of the first-fruits of the field generally, but in the law of
which is certainly not the language appropriate to an Lev. 1 9 2 3 8 , according to which the fruits of a newly
imperial decree. This criticism seems hardly keen planted field for the first three years may not be eaten.
enough. Even the name Sisines, on which Meyer ' The characteristic feature of this ordinance, from which
relies so much, is very doubtful, and Kosters' and its original meaning must be deduced, is the taboo on
Wcllhausen's criticisms are not altogether baseless. Cp the produce of the first three years, not the offering at
E ZRA-N EHEMIAH, Ej 6. T. K. C. the temple paid in the fourth year.' This same con-
ception of a taboo is what he finds underlying the
sacrifice of the firstlings of the flock. That which is
TAXATION1 AND TRIBUTE taboo has supernatural attributes u hich forbid its being
The modern sheikh (8 I). Tithe (8 QJ). appropriated to common uses. This character of taboo
Religious dues (E 2). Firstlings (55 11-13). attached, he thinks, in the oldest times, in a certain
Monarchical idea (E 3). Levitical cities (B 14).
Political taxation (ES 4-7). Expenses of worship (5 15). measnre to all domestic animals, and naturally there-
Sanctuary dues (8 8). Priests' revenue (5s 16-18). fore in an intensified degree to the firstborn. It
The nomads of the Arabian desert know nothing of IS, however, hardly necessary to have recourse to this
tax or tribute, either to their sheikhs or to Allah ; so far line of explanation. Certainly no other instance of an
1. The indeed from finding a source of revenue in offering of firstlings besides the passover can be adduced
modern their people, the sheikhs are under obligation for the earliest Hebrew period before the settlement in
sheikh. to spend their own private fortune for the Canaan. And the passover itself, as is shown in more
public good. It is expected of a sheikh that detail elsewhere (F EASTS , § 2 , PASSOVER, s§ 9-11) was
he entertain strangers and visitors better and more not originally, or before the settlement, a sacrifice of the
sumptuously than an ordinary member of the tribe firstborn. The passover ritual points clearly to the
possibly can ; his duty is to support the poor and to contrary, and shows that under this sacrifice lay the
share what he has with his friends (Burckhardt, Notes same fundamental ideas as under all the other sacrifices,
on the Bedouins, 1830). Often enough it happens that, namely, that the blood of the victim was to renew the
even with a rich sheikh, this ends in poverty; but a communion with the deity, and thereby, in this
reckless hospitality always brings high repute. The particular instance, be a powerful protective against
nieans for siich hospitality have to be found in war and pestilence and the like. It was only in the course of
pillage. The Syrian towns and villages on the borders the subsequent development that the passover was
of the settled land have to pay their regular ' brother- brought into connection with the sacrifice of the first-
hood ' ( & o w e )to the Bedouins. By ancient custom a born, or sought to be explained as such.
special share of the booty taken in war falls to the As already said, the sacrifice of the firstborn cannot
commander; he has the first choice, and in old be proved, in the Hebrew domain, for the oldest
Arabia was entitled to a fourth of the whole. In ancient period ; all the probabilities point rather to the other
Israel the practice was similar. 'The only due, if we conclusion-that it was a secondary development ; out
may so call it, falling to the chief is a larger share of of the custom of offering the first-fruits of the field arose
the spoil; Gideon, for example, receives the golden the other of offering those of the flock and of the herd,
' crescents ' of the Midianites (Judg. 8 24 ; cp 5 30). and here accordingly we have only the extension to
David sends his share in the spoil ( i d i d , %w, TGV animals and men of the deity's original claim to be
U K ~ X O V ~ from
) the Amalekite raid in presents to his presented annually with the first-fruits of the field.
friends in Judah (I S. 3 O z 6 f : ) . The entire conception of sacrifice as being a tribute
The offerings also which were presented to the god due to God is in Hebrew religion subsequent to the
did not origina!ly come under the category ~. of dues
settlement in Palestine, and on internal evidence must
2. Reliaous which were demanded and had to be be regarded as impossible in the earlier time, for it had
dues. paid. When a beast from the flock or its origin in the complete revolution in the idea of God
herd was slaughtered, there was no which followed upon the settlement. The tribal and
question of a definite tax or- tribute ; it was a case national god became thereby a territorial god, and thus
of voluntary giving. Indeed in the most ancient came into the position which the Canaanites had as-
Semitic ritual the notion of giving to a deity at all has signed to their Baal ; he himself became the ' baal,'
no place, or at best only a very subordinate one ; the that is, 'lord' of the land,-in the sense, especially,
root-idea being that the blood poured out and the that he was lord of the soil, and that the produce of the
sacrificial meal are fitted to renew and strengthen soil was regarded as his gift (see B AAL ). This whole
sacramentally the mystic bond in which the deity and his view of the deity as the bestower of all the gifts of
worshippers are united (on this subject cp S ACRIFICE). nature is, it is obvious, possible only for an agricultural
A solitary exception would seem to be found in the people. As soon as this view had become the prevailing
paschal offering. Following Wellhausen (ProL@)) and one, however, the next step was exceedingly simple,
Robertson Smith ( R e l 463 f.),most recent nay, it was inevitable ; thanks were offered to the deity
scholars explain it as an offering of the firstborn of the for the gifts of the soil, and he was acknowledged as the
flock. If this be right, its character as a due payable giver by having the firstlings and the best of the fruits
to the deity can hardly be denied ; and it is certain that of the e.uth returned to him in sacrifice. The Canaan-
the paschal offering was, in the later period at least, so ites had already come to this view of their offerings,
regarded. Robertson Smith, indeed (Loc. cit.), seeks the and the Israelites took it over from them, as we see
original explanation of this sacrifice of firstlings in another very specially in their adoption of the originally
region of thought ; the exact parallel to the sacrifice of Canaanite yearly festivals. All these festivals are agri-
cultural in character : they are intimately associated
1 The verb Ae'gik (7'7Il) is rendered ' tax ' in 2 K. 23 35 EV ; with harvest, and the idea they express is that the
in Lev. 27 8 12 'value,' and 27 14 'estimate.' The subst. 'Prek harvest is sanctified by the festal offering.
(T;?) is 'taxation' in 2 K. 2335; it occurs frequently in P In the further development in Israel a new thought
(Lev. 27 3 Nu. 18 18, etc.), where RV regularly has 'estimation.' came to be added. Once the monarchy had become
For the ' raiser of taxes,' Dan. 1120, mi& (bi), cp EXACTOR. 3. lllonarchical established, the monarchical idea was
On the ' taxing, RV ' enrolment ' (Aaoypm#nj), of Lk. 2 2 Acts applied to Ydhw& also, and he was
5 3 7 , cp QUIRINIUS, J U DA S , TO. The verb droypa'+eoOat occurs idea. thought of as the supreme king of his
in Lk. 2 I 3 5 Heh. 12 23 ; Laoyp&+crv in I Esd. 8 30 (@L, in @BA people (cp MESSIAH, MOLECH). But among the rights
&arbypa+rjs, see Swete).
2 &iZ&Z is also a p o v o p f , e g . , in Nu. 31 32, and Apmzyvj [BRA]
of kings one of the first was that of levying tax and
in IS. 10 2. For other terms used see SPOIL. tribute ; and, as we shall see later, it was exercised very
4905 4906
early (David, Solomon); cp G OVERNMENT , 5 19. A into districts. If the text (I K. 47-19) is correct, it
main duty of subjects was and is the payment of the would seem that the king’s own tribe (Judah) was
king’s dues ; this principle was applied to the deity and exempt from dues and imposts (but see G OVERNMENT ,
to his worship in sacrifice, as soon as he came to be 5.1.9). However this may be, the purpose of the
regarded as the king of his people. How nearly related division is given with substantial correctness in the text
are the two things-secular taxation and sacred tribute as it stands (see special articles on the names of the
-is instructively shown by the instance quoted by ‘officers’). The statement that each ‘officer’ (or
Robertson Smith (ReL Sem.(21. 246) ; at Tyre tithes ‘ prefect ’) had to provide victuals for the king and his
were paid to Melkarth as ’ king of the city.’ The same household for a month in the year may owe its form to
thing is seen in the motives assigned for sacrifice by the a desire to show the glory of Solomon‘s court ; but in
later Hebrews. The offerings brought voluntarily to substance the narrative is undoubtedly correct : the
the altar are regarded as a tribute to the deity on quite chief object of the division into districts had reference
the same footing as the presents voluntarily brought to to taxation, and in connection with this to the ‘task
an earthly king. T o the sacrifices offered during the work ‘ or personal service which was exacted ( I K. 5 25).
Hebrew monarchy equally apply the words of Homer : W e also hear that Solomon levied toll on the caravans
6Gpa meieer, ~ p aiboious
‘ paurXjas. travelling by the trade- routes through the kingdom
(I K. 1015). The complaint made by the people after
One does not come into the king’s presence empty- his death leaves the impression that his system of taxes,
handed (Judg. 317f. I S. lO27), but, if one has aught to besides being grievous in itself, was objected to as some-
ask, brings a gift of homage ; so, in like manner, when thing new and unaccustomed.
one ‘seeks the face‘ of God (Mal. 16). Precisely We find hardly any other references to regular taxes
similar is the ancient Greek conception of sacrifice as in pre-exilic times ; but the ‘king’s mowings ‘ are men-
being the tribute and homage due to the divinity on B. La~Lter tioned in Am. 7 I (see G OVERNMENT , $19;
whom a man is dependent (Nagelsbach, Honzerische MOWINGS;and, on the text, LOCUSTS).
Thedogie, 186). In the last resort, the offering comes kings* From the fact that in post-exilic times tithe
to be expressly called ‘ a gift’ to the deity; min&h appears from the first as an established institution,
(Gen. 4 3 f . IS.217, and often) or korbdn. we may perhaps infer that it was of pre-exilic origin.
Such in general is the course of the development. The narrator of I S. 8 14f regards it as an ancient
As to the development in detail of taxation and tribute institution. With this would harmonise the fact that
4. political as political institutions the deficiency of Am.44 knows of a tithe paid to the sanctuary. For
taxa’tion: our sources leaves us very much in the the rest, in the ideal state as constructed by Ezekiel
dark. Under Saul we hear nothing of we find no such thing as taxes ; the prince maintains
special dues levied by him; he had no his court and officers out of the revenue of the princely
capital and no special court, but lived on his ancestral domains. H e gives the princely domain to his officers
holding at Gibeah. Nor had he any state officials to in fief. This also is an arrangement which we may
govern the land under his orders and receive their pay unhesitatingly presume to have existed in the earlier
from him. W e may take it for granted as self-evident times ( I S. 8 12). A property-tax was imposed only for
that, in accordance with ancient custom, he claimed and extraordinary emergencies, not regularly ( 2 K. 2335).
received his special share of the spoils of war, as we are See G OVERNMENT , 5 20.
expressly told that David at a later time did ( z S. 8 1 1 In post-exilic times a heavy tribute was exacted, of
1230). We hear of gifts of homage, as, for example, course, by all the overlords of the country. Unfortu-
when he was elected to be king ( I S. 1027), or when his 7. Post-exilic. nately we are without information as to
favour was specially sought ( I S. 1620). I t is easily the nature of the taxes or how they
conceivable that this source of income, added to the were levied. On the latter point, however, it is practi-
revenue derived from his property at Gibeah, may have cally self-evident that the Persian rulers, like the Syrian
been amply sufficient for the modest requirements of and Roman after them, availed themselves of the local
his throne. At any rate, it is not safe to draw from Jewish administrations for assessment and collection.
what is said in I S. 1725 strict inferences as to the exist- The land as such paid, doubtless, a definite composition
ence of certain specified exactions in Saul’s day. The as tribute. Moreover, when it had a governor of its
passage promises freedom from taxation to the slayer of own, the community had also to pay for his support,
the giant and to his house, thus presupposing the exist- as well as make a contribution towards that of the resident
ence of fixed taxes. But this is evidence only for the Persian official in Samaria under whom it was placed.
much later period of the author, or editor, to whom it That these burdens were not trifling can be seen from
appeared self-evident that such must have arisen a s soon such a passage as Neh. 514 : the governor drew 40
as a monarchy had come into being. The same obser- shekels a day besides what the ’ rulers ’ and their sub-
vation applies to the so-called ‘ manner’ or constitution ordinates extorted from the people. If we find a
of the monarchy as set forth to the people by Samuel Nehemiah in public discourse to the people characteris-
( I S.810#:, esp. 21. IS), where also taxes, and, in ing this as severely oppressive and taking merit and
particular. tithes of the field and the vineyard are credit to himself for having drawn nothing from the
mentioned. people, but on the contrary, having met all charges out
Under David, and still more under Solomon, u7e see of his own private means, we may safely conclude that
the system growing. Under David, in addition to the pressure of these dues was not regarded as light.
6. David, the king’s share of booty ( 2 S. Iro 1230), Besides these direct taxes were the indirect ones
Solomon. prominence is given to the tribute received levied by the Persian court : rents, customs, tolls, etc.
from subjugated peoples ( I K. 5 I [421] z K. (Ezra 413 20 7 2 4 ) ; unfortunately, we are very in-
34), and the voluntary gifts of subjects still continued to sufficiently informed as to the meaning of the various
come in ( I K. 1025). W e may, nevertheless, conjecture technical expressions here.
with some degree of probability that David‘s numbering Over and above these were the requirements of the
of the people ( z S. 2 4 1 J ) was connected with the levy- internal administration, and even if these may on the
ing of taxes, and was intended to he used in regulating 1 [Of the three terms in E z r a 4 1 3 ~ 07 2 4 (Bibl. Aram.),
their incidence and the exaction of military service. mindEh (a;;?, AV ‘toll,’ RV ‘tribute’) is quite general, a tax
The duties of the ‘governors’ (P~X?, n&bim, EV for every one (Ass. mandaffu),be% (ih,AV ‘trihute,’ so RV
garrisons,’ 2 S. 814) also, whom he set over conquered ‘custom’), lit. what is brought (Ass. 6iZttc=Jh,), and h&ik
territory, must essentially have consisted in the collection (qih, AV ‘custom’), a ‘toll’(so RV) exacted of travelien.
of tribute. We are expressly told, at all events, that From the Ass., also, comes Aram. muha, ‘toll,’ and mZktsZ,
this was the object of Solomon’s division of the kingdum ‘ toll-gatherer ’ (publican).]
4907 4908
whole have been relatively light, nevertheless the say, it must be added, how great a relief, if any, this
maintenance of the temple, of the sacrificial system, and meant for the subjects concerned. Fundamentally, it
of the priests and Levites. must have cost considerable meant nothing more than a change in the taxing
sums. The voluntary gifts of worshippers were not authority ; the continued wars in any case were
enough, and soon (under Ezra; cp Neh. 1033f.) a enormously costly.
fixed poll-tax, besides other payments in kind, had to When the country became tributary to the Romans
be established (see below, 5 15). On other accounts, (Jos. A n t . xiv. 4 4 Bli. 7 6 ) they at once took in hand
also, heavy demands were from time to time made on the system of taxation. Gabinius divided the country
the community, as, for example. for temple restoration into five districts-probably taxation areas after their
and wall-building ; in the latter connection also in usual practice in subject provinces (Schiirer, GJC.P),
the form of corvPe, even if in both cases, as it would 1340 ; cp ISRAEL, 5 85)-in which the local authorities
seem, the voluntary character of the service was formally were at the same time the leviers of taxes. Here also
retained. Caesar showed his friendly disposition towards the Jews
The priests and Levites, and the whole personnel of the by respecting the sabbatical year as regarded taxation.
temple, were declared wholly exempt from taxation by decree The Roman census and the Roman system of taxation
of the king of Persia to Ezra (Ezra724). On the rest of the as a whole do not seem, however, to have been intro-
people the burden of taxation pressed all the more heavily as
the community, broadly speaking, was a poor one. Thus, in duced for some considerable time, the raising of the
Nehemiah’s time the complaint was raised by many that in taxes being left in the hands of the native authorities.
order to uav the:r taxes thev had been comDelled to borrow Herod the Great, at leaSt, paid sometimes (whether
money a i d -mortgage their pkoperty, thus c6ming into great always is doubtful) a definite tribute to the Romans, but
straits (Neh. 54J).
as regarded the raising of this sum he could exercise
Nor did matters improve after Alexander, in the independent authority as rex socius. Thus, he could
days of the Seleucids and Ptolemies. The principal remit taxes wholly or in part (Jos. A n t . xv. 1 0 4 xvi. 25
burden was the poll tax (Jos. A n t . xii. 41)of which we xvii.21). We nowhere hear of a Roman tax during
learn more particularly from (Ps.-) Aristotle (Oeconom. his reign (cp ISRAEL, 5 87, end). The situation changed
ii. 14) that in the Syrian kingdom, as distinguished when, after the time of Herod and Archelaus, the land
from the Egyptian-Roman, it was, strictly speaking, a was administered by procurators ; the Roman taxes,
kind of trade-tax, a percentage that varied according to including the personal tax of the census, were now
the nature of the work and the means of the individual, introduced. The new division of the land into eleven
not a personal tax, uniform and unchanging.l toparchies, like that formerly made by Gabinius (see
In addition to this there were now also other taxes, above) doubtless had reference primarily to taxation.
presumably indirect, which Josephus ( A n t . xii. 3 3 ) refers The procurators levied these taxes through native com-
to but does not name. A characteristic example of missions. The indirect taxes were now also farmed to
the manner in which new dues arose out of voluntary the publicans (see PUBLICAN). From the N T (Lk. 191
gifts is seen in the crown tax which grew out of the and elsewhere ; cp 30s. BJ ii. 144) we learn that these
voluntary gift to the sovereign of a golden crown of were mostly Jews ; intelligibly enough, they were not
honour. The priesthood of Jerusalem were exempted popular : in the N T ‘publican’ and ‘sinner’ are
from all such dues and tribute from the time of Anti- virtually synonymous (cp ISRAEL, 5 90).
ochus the Great (Jos, A n t . xii. 33). On the whole subject of Roman taxation see Schiirer,
The method of collecting was by farming to the 1 sa& and the copious literature there referred to; cp Qui:
highest bidder (Jos. A n t . xii. 4 1 8 5 I Macc. 1128 1315) RINIUS, $ Zf:
and, indeed, according to the same authority (Zoc. cif.), Sanctuary dues fall under two categories : (I) the
the taxes of each individual city were let from year to regular offerings at the sanctuary prescribed by custom
year. Elsewhere it appears that there were also farmers- 8. sanctuary or by law : ( 2 ) -the occasional gifts
general of taxes for the whole land (see below). This w-hich the priests received for their ser-
system was widely spread throughout the whole of vices on each sacrificial occasion.
antiquity, and was adopted also under the Roman As for the first of these two classes, it has been
Empire. Even at present it is in the Turkish Empire already observed that in the old times no other dues
the usual method of raising certain dues. The advan- were known beyond the offerings themselves, as also
tages and disadvantages of the system can easily be that it was only in a secondary way that the offerings
seen in actual operation there. That it is the least assumed the character of dues. To this class of dues,
favourable of all for the taxed needs no showing ; at all in the strict sense of the word-that is to say, regular
times the farmers have known how to enrich themselves offerings definitely fixed by custom or law, as distin-
at the expense of the taxed, since any surplus naturally guished from free gifts presented on all or any of the
falls to them. various occasions of public or private life-belong the
A classical instance, in fact is one that comes to us from offerings of the first-fruits of the ground and of the
Jududaea. A certain Joseph b. ‘kohia, who, it ought to he men- firstlings of cattle. T o both these Yahwk from an
tioned, had the reputation of being very lenient with his own early date set up, so to say, a legal claim.
countrymen, had acquired the taxing rights under Euergetes Even in the oldest decalogue (Ex. 3426 J ) it is made
and Philopator by bidding twice as much as any other com-
petitor, and paid the (for those times) enormous yearly sum of a legal injunction that the Israelites are to bring to
16,000 talents, nevertheless accumulating v a s t wealth during his Yahwe ‘ the best, the first-fruits of thy ground ’ ( n , @ N l
twenty-two years’ tenure. q n p t ‘:as?, T~W~EY&TU).’ The Book of the
The question of immunity from taxes played a great Covenant (Ex. 2229 [28]) has the ordinance : thou shalt
part, naturally, from the Maccabaean period onwards, in not delay (to offer) thine abnndance and the best of thy
all the dealings between the Jewish leaders and their winepress’ ; the exact meaning of the expression is
Syrian overlords; it was more or less identical with doubtful,2 but the idea of first-fruits is not directly con-
the entire question of dependence or independence. 1 BikkzZn-m being always a relative idea it makes little
Jonathan was able to secure immunity from Demetrius material difference whether we translate ‘th; best that is to
11. ( I Macc. 1134-37 ; see I SRAEL , $ 26),but this privi- say, the first-fruits of the ground,’ or ‘the best of thk first-fruits
lege does not seem to have been long maintained, for of the ground.’ Still, as in v. 22 (cp 23 16) the harvest festival
is designated as the feast of first-fruits the expression dikkrirjm
at a later date Simon had to demand it anew for all ought, doubtless, to he taken as refer:ing to the first-fruits that
time to come (cp I SRAEL , 5 78). We are unable to are offered and not to the first-fruitsgenerally, and thus equiva-
lent to rZEfh.
1 It has been recentlymaintained by Willrich Uudaica, 1900,
pp. 52-56) that under the Seleucids the poll-tax w a s still a thing 9 On the meaning of qF7; q& see the commentaries Q
unknown, that it was not introduced until the time of Augustns. has lrrapxdp &wos rrai AqvoO, thus taking it to mean the first-
As against this, see the evidence marshalled in Schiirer, GJV(3), fruits. Doubtless it was led to this rendering hy the parallel
1229,f clnuse : ‘thy firstborn son shalt thou give unto me,’ etc.
4909 3910
tained in the words themselves at any rate, and neither thou shalt eat it there before Yahwi: thy God, and
is the injunction in substance quite the same as that of rejoice, thou and thy household and the Levite that is
the old decalogue. There only the first-fruits of the within thy gates.' Now, this tenth is actually called the
field are spoken of, whilst here, in all probability, oil first-fruit ( d f t h , nv@m)in Dt. 2 6 2 . and is accompanied
and wine also are intended ; there an offering to God by a further regulation as regards ritual, which may
at the harvest festival is intended, here no such fixed very well have been in accordance with ancient custom,
date is given. Most probably the two laws were in- although the text itself appears to be a later addition
tended to run concurrently ; alongside of the precept to [see Steuernagel, ad Zoc.): the regulation, namely, that
offer the first-fruits of the harvest at the harvest festival the Israelite who makes the offering is to put a small
stood the other injunction not to be niggardly towards portion of the tithe into a basket, and set it down before
Yahwk with the fulness wherewith he had blessed floor the altar of YahwB, and in doing so to make use of a pre-
and press. scribed form of prayer.
Nothing is said as to the amounts of such offerings. Along with these general regulations regarding the
Apart from the offerings definitely provided for in the tithe D gives also a special one for the tithe of every
ritual of the old feasts, it is clear that the amount of lo. Third year third year (1428J); every third year
first-fruits to be offered was left to the free will of the the entire tithe is to be expended a t
individual offerer. In particular, J E has no hint that tithe. home on the poor and indigent, in
a t that early date it was already the custom to give to which category the Levite also isincluded in D , no part
God the tenth part of the produce. Not until D is this of it being applied to a sacrificial meal in the sanctuary.
expressly laid down by law. As the taxes and tributes In devoting the tithe to this purpose, also, a special
payable to the king were, throughout, of older date than prayer is to be used, which is given in Dt. 2 6 1 2 8
those payable to the temple, so also the tithe was first This tithe constitutes one of the main sources of income
of all exacted by the state, and not till afterwards took of the rural priesthood (see below, 5 17). This shows
its place among the dues of the sanctuary. that by ' the third year ' we are to understand not a fixed
Indeed, in the time of the old decalogue and of the date holding good for the whole country, but a relative
book of the covenant there is as yet no word of dues a t one, falling differently in different places or with different
all in the strictest sense of the word, but only of definite families, yet always in such a way that every year some
offerings fixed by custom. Men offered the first-fruits portion of the Israelite nation was paying its ' tithe of
to YahwB in sacrifice, and in the sacrificial meal became the third year ' for the poor and similar objects. It is a
Yahwe's guests. This custom is presupposed in D as debatable question whether by this tenth of the third
still maintaining its ancient standing (see below). year we are to understand a second tithe every third
Accordingly we have not in D, as in later times, to do year over and above the yearly tithe that has already
with a tax designed to fill the temple treasury, to defray been spoken of. The precept was interpreted in this
the cost of the temple worship, and the like. The sense by 6 , which gives ' the second tithe' ( ~ ~ bE B T ~ ~ P O V
maintenance of the temple in Jerusalem, and of the PTL~CKRTOV) for -ibyan nw, ' in the year of tithing,' in
regular worship there, was the king's affair ; the priests Dt. 2612, and the same view is taken by some modern
derived their income from the offerings that were brought scholars (.g.,Steuernagel). For various reasons,
(see below, 16),and thus there was no occasion for levy- however, it seems highly improbable. In the first
ing on behalf of the temple any regular dues over and place, we should have expected in the text of the law
above such voluntary offerings as might be made at the some kind of explicit indication that quite another tithe
sanctuary (cp 2 K. 1258). Further, in bringing his than the preceding-a second tithe, in fact-is being
first-fruits the idea in the mind of the pious Israelite in spoken of; but of this there is no hint. Moreover, the
early times was not at all that YahwB had a claim to imposition of a due of two-tenths of the whole produce
the fruits as being the giver of them ; his action was of the field over and above the various payments exigible
dictated by the consideration that his whole harvest, by the state would be something quite unusual and
and all the bread which he enjoyed from year to year, unheard of, and not at all in harmony with the general
was pure and hallowed only if some part of it had been spirit of Deuteronomy. It is not permissible to evade
received by YahwB. I t is one of the heavy punishments this argument by answering that the yearly tithe paid in
with which the nation is threatened by Hosea, that in Jerusalem was not a tenth reckoned with any precision.
its exile Israel shall have only ' bread of mourners' to The exact opposite would seem to be the fact, if it is
eat, bread that is unclean, inasmuch as no portion of it remembered that the ' renewal ' in D, as contrasted with
can be brought into the house of YahwB (Hos. 94). the old law, consisted precisely in this, that for a sacri-.
The sanctuary tithe is first met with in Am. 44, which ficial offering to be made at discretion was substituted
passage shows that in the northern kingdom it was a n offering of which the amount was precisely deter-
9. Tithe. customary, in the yearly pilgrimages to the mined by law, and that amount fixed a t one-tenth of the
sanctuary, in addition to the daily offering total produce.
to bring tithes on the third day. The narrative of E,
A later decision in Dt.184 further enacts that the
dating from somewhere about the same period, tells of
priest has a claim to the best of the corn, the wine, and
Jacob's vow to pay the tithe a t the sanctuary at Bethel the oil, as well as of the sheep-shearing ; over and above
(Gen. 28 22)- the tithe the Y 8 t h also. This again is not in the spirit
D makes it quite evident that the tithe intended
of D, which regards the YZJfth and the tithe as identical
simply means the first-fruits, of which the proportion, (see above, § 8). W e have here again an expression
roughly speaking, of a tenth had been gradually fixed
bf the growing claims of the priests, who in other direc-
by custom. For in Deuteronomy ( 1 4 z z g ) it is enjoined t i w s also were dissatisfied with the revenues assigned
that the produce of the field (corn, wine, oil) is to be
tithed: hut, exactlyasin the earlier time (seeabove, § 8), to t b m by D (see below, 13).
in such a manner that this tithe is not to be paid, so to Thkcourse of the development of the offering of the
say, into the sanctuary, but simply to be laid out in a firstlings ran parallel with that of the offering of first-
sacrificial meal at the sanctuary. Should the distance For its origin, see above, § 2.
ll. Firstlings. fruits.
The law of the older decalogue in Ex.
from Jerusalem, however, be so great as to make it
impossible to carry thither the tithe in kind, then ( v . 25f: ) 34 IS$ runs, ' every firstborn is mine, and all the cattle
'thou shalt turn the tithe into money and carry the that is male, the firstlings of ox and sheep. But the
money with thee and go to the place which Yahwk will firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a sheep, or,
choose, and there thou shalt bestow the money for if thou wilt not redeem it, then thou shalt break its neck.
whatever thou desirest, oxen or sheep, or wine or All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem.' T h e
strong drink, or whatsoever thy soul asketh of thee, and expressionpPfer r&m (m: ma) means the first offspring
4911 4912
of the mother, not the earliest of the animals born year now, for the first time, converted into simple dues pay-
after year (cp WRS ReL. Sem. 462J). Here, accord- 13. In p. able to the priests, the fixed offerings become
ingly, even at this early date the demand is extended to mere taxes. Even Ezekiel (4430) had de-
human beings and to animals that cannot be offered in manded for the priests the first of all firstlings of every-
sacrifice. This is, in point of fact, however, quite thing ($1 .??s?-i?n.@m). But the Priestly Code claims
secondary; the original precept had reference only to not merely a portion but the whole of the firstlings for
sacrificial animals. For it may be taken as certain that the priests ; all the first-fruits of corn, wine, and oil are
genuine Yahwism was always opposed to human sacri- handed over by Yahwb to the priests (Nu. 18 1.8: ).
fices, and therefore that in the law of the redemption of entire tithe belongs to the Levites, who, in turn, have
the human firstborn we are to see not a toning down of to make over their tenth part of this to the priests (Nu.
an ancient custom which had demanded human sacrifice, 1 8 ~ 0 ~ The ) . firstlings of clean beasts are offered in
but only an expedient for extending the precept relating kind ; after their blood has been sprinkled on the altar
to firstlings so as to include men and non-sacrificial and the fat burnt, the flesh falls to the priests. The
animals. W e should also take note of the parallelism firstborn of unclean beasts, and of man, must be re-
with the first-fruits of the ground, and consider how deemed. The redemption money belongs to the priest.
opposed to such sacrifices is the entire character of the (Nu. 18158 , cp Neh. 1037). The amount of the re-
sacrificial system in ancient Israel so far as we know it. demption money is in the case of human firstborn fixed
Literary analysis also shows that the words in question at five shekels (Nu. 1816 ; cp Dillniann, i n Zoc. ). In
are secondary. In the original ten short words (see the case of unclean beasts the estimated value is to be
D ECALOGUE , col. 1050)the precept probahly ran, ‘every paid with addition of a fifth (Lev.2726f: ; certainly
first birth is mine ’-a law which, as matter of course, secondary).
applied only to animals capable of being offered. See Apart from this change in the scope of the law, P
further, FIRSTBORN ; S ACRIFICE , 5 3 ; also ISAAC, shows a quite extraordinary advance in the amount of
§ 4. such payments. The firstborn is given to the priests ;
In the Rook of the Covenant also, Ex.2229 [zB]. the but the Passover remains unaffected by this. In the
claim to the human firstborn is made ; but here, too, case of fruits of the earth the payment of the r 3 i h is
the originality of the clause is highly questionable. T o retained as well as that of the tithes already enjoined in D
begin with, the position of the firstborn of men-between (see above, g ; Nu. 18 12 Z O ~ ) and,, besides the ’ best’
the fruits of the field and offerings from the herd-is of the winepress and the threshing floor, there is de-
remarkable. Moreover, it would be unnatural to under- manded payment of the first-fruits (bikkPnin, n-??~?) of
stand the requirement literally ; it must be supplemented all that grows in the field. What we are to understand
by the precept of redemption ; but this highly important by this expression is not quite certain. The most
point is not mentioned, although in view ‘of the inclina-
probable interpretation still is that which takes it as
tion occasionally shown by the people to offer human
referring to the fruits that have come earliest to maturity
sacrifices, it could hardly be omitted as too self-evident.
(Nu. 18 13, EV ‘ first-ripe‘ ; cp the commentaries). Over
With reference to offerings of the firstborn there is added
and above all this we find in Xu. 15 1 7 8 the further de-
the further detail that the animals are to be sacrificed
mand that the first of the ?,D’!+‘drisuh ( ’ dough’ [EV]?
on the eighth day after birth.
W e know not at what date it was that the law relating ‘ coarse meal ’ [RVW.]? ‘ kneading trough ’ ? see FCOD,
to human firstborn first became general. The deutero- 5 I u),a cake, must also be given. In accordance with
la. In D. nomistic passage in Ex. 1311f. presupposes this the post-exilic community drew a distinction between
i t as a settled custom. D itself (Dt. 1423 7-eYifhand dikkzirf?n, and paid on both. In Neh. 1036-38
15 ‘ 9 ) has nothing to say on the subject ; D plainly has the entire community comes under a solemn obligation
no intention of laying down a complete law about offer- to bring the bikkzirim of all fruits of the tilled land and
ings of firstborn, but only of settling points where of all trees to the temple, and moreover to pay to the
traditional custom had necessarily to be departed from priests the r&th of the wine and oil and tree fruits, and
in consequence of the centralisation of worship. The also of the ‘drisih-all this to be, along with the tithe,
chief stress accordingly is laid upon the injunction that the portion of the Levites (cp Neh.1244 135 zCh.
this offering is to be made year by year at the place 315 12). Finally, Lev. 1923 enjoins that the fruit of
which Yahwb will choose. This, but still more the newly-planted trees must not be eaten within the first
further command not to do any work with the firstling three years, and that in the fourth year the entire yield
ofcattleortoshear thefirstling oftheflock (Dt. 1520[19]), must be given to Yahwb-that is, to the priests.
shows that, according to the intention of D, the animal Nor is even this enough; the decision preserved in
was not to be offered exactly on the eighth day after Lev. 2732f: includes cattle also in the tithe ; the offerer
birth. That the offering of the firstborn was to be made in rendering this tithe must not select the animals :
precisely at the Passover feast is nowhere expressly laid each tenth head at the counting belongs to Yahwb. If, a
down ; but the connection into which the two are brought however, it should so chance that one animal has been
in the narrative of the exodus (Ex. 1 3 1 1 f i ) shows that changed for another, both shall belong to the sanctuary.
their union had already been accomplished at the time Even in Neh.7037-39 (cp 1244-47 13512) there is no
when that account was written (cp PASSOVER). Since allusion to any such law. It must, therefore, have
blemished animals could not be offered in sacrifice it is come into existence at a later date.
enjoined that they are to be consumed as ordinary food In real life such a tithing of cattle is impracticable.
under the same conditions as those applied to ordinary But the legal theorist did not concern himself about any
slaughtering in D (Dt. 1521 8 ) . Substitution, or re- 14.Levitical such consideration as that ; he was able,
demption of such animals, is not required ; but this does therefore, to put the copestone on his
not exclude the possibility that the custom nevertheless cities. system by that extraordinary enactment
existed, since D, as already remarked, does not start which assigns to the tribe of Levi forty-eight cities, each
with the intention of giving a complete law on this having a territory of 2000 cubits square (cp LEVITES,
subject. From all these considerations it is plain that 5 6). T h e impossibility of carrying out snch a theory is
here also there is no question of a ‘ due ’ in the strict demonstrated by any map of Palestine. But nothing can
sense of that word, but only of an offering. Like the better reveal the spirit underlying such legislation than
first-fruits so also ought the firstlings to be set apart for the fact that the lawgiver in the same breath in which
a sacrificial meal in which of course the priest has his he assigns these forty-eight cities to the Levites alleges,
usual share (see below, § 16). as a reason for the dues he is imposing, that the Levites
It is on this last point that P makes a characteristic had received n o inheritance in land like the other tribes.
change affecting principle ; all offerings of firstlings are Another point deserves notice : in Ezekiel the people
49’3 49’4
already pay their dues as a tax to the prince, who, how- the two cheeks, and the maw of every animal sacrificed
. ever, has laid upon him in return the belonged to the priests. That such a provision was
l wholly inadequate in view of the increased number of
of worehip. responsibility for the expenses of the
public worship (Ezek. 4 5 1 3 8 ) . In P clergy and the diminished number of offerings in conse-
it is the priests who receive these taxes ; but they keep quence of the centralisation, was seen by the Deutero-
them to themselves : the support of the regular cultus nomist himself. The rural priests, accordingly, are
is not their concern. On the contrary, a further tax bidden to look specially to the sacrificial meals set on
has to be levied for that purpose : a poll tax of half a foot by the offerers : but at the same time details as to
shekel has to be exacted (Ex. 3 0 1 1 8 ) . With the spread this are left to the charitable disposition of the worshippers
of the Persian monetary system the third of a shekel (Dt.121218f:). For the tithe of the third year (Dt.
found its way into Palestine, and accordingly in Neh. 1428f: 2 6 1 . 3 ) and for the rZfth assigned in a subse-
1032 [33] we find the temple tax fixed at that amount. quent decision to the priests (Dt. 184), see above, 5 9f.
The coinage of the Maccabees reverted to the older type, These dues to the priests increased in amount also,
and thus in the time of Jesus we find the temple tax like the other dues, in process of time. In Ezekiel
again fixed at half a shekel (Mt. 1724 27 ; cp Benzinger, Later. ( 4 4 2 8 8 ), besides the minhah, the sin-offer-
H”i 193). ing, the guilt -offering, and every devoted
As to the manner in which priestly service was paid thing’ are handed over to the priesthood. According
in the early period we know very little. At first the to P the priests receive, in addition to the dues men-
16. Priests, priest was not so much a sacrificer as a tioned above (first-fruits, etc.), I the most holy things’-
guardian of the image and giver of oracles ie., the minhah, the sin-offering, and the guilt-offering
revenue. whose business it was to impart YahwKs in so far as these are not burnt ; they may be eaten only
f8rZh or oracle to those who consulted him (see PRIESTS). by males of the family of Aaron, and that only ‘ in the
It may with safety be assumed that the priest received holy place’ ; what is left over must be burnt (Nu. 18&$
payment for communicating the oracle, precisely as did Lev.1012/, cp Ex.29328). So also with the shew-
seers such as Samuel, Ahijah, and the like ( I S. 97J bread (Lev. 249). Of the burnt-offering, the skin of the
I K. 1423). When a sacrificer came to the sanctuary animal sacrificed belongs to the priest (Lev. 7 8 ; this may
and arranged a sacrificial meal, he naturally invited the perhaps have been an ancient custom), of the peace-
priest to it, or gave him some portion of the flesh for offerings the right thigh and the breast (Lev. 734 Ex.
such service as he had rendered. But these gifts were 2 9 ~ 7 x ) and,
, besides, one cake of each meal-offering, of
voluntary, and regulated not by law but by custom.’ whatever kind, offered along with these (Lev. 713). With
T h e priests’ right to a definite share is not recognised ; the breast of the peace-offering which belongs to the
this is proved by the story of the sons of Eli ( I S. 2 1 3 8 ) , priest is performed the peculiar ceremony of waving ;
who demand a tribute of flesh, and even take it by force that is to say, the priest swings it upon his hands towards
instead of accepting what is voluntarily given, but in the altar and back again, a symbolical representation of
doing so show themselves to be ‘ sons of Belial,’ heedless the idea that this portion is preseked to Yahwe as a
of law and priestly duty, thus bringing the offering of gift, but by him delivered over to his servant (Lev. 7
Yahwh into contempt. 30-34 921 1014 Nu. 620). The thigh pertaining to the
It is clear that at the greater sanctuaries, and particu- priests is always designated as ‘ the heave thigh ’ (Lev.
larly at Jerusalem, a.fixed practice gradually established 734). This expression presumably does not refer to
itself in regard to this, with the result that a definite any special ceremony analogous to that of waving, but
share of the offering and certain other perquisites fell to is intended to denote that the part in question is ‘ lifted
the lot of the priests. As early as in David’s time, we up’ from the offering as the priests’ perquisite (cp
learn that the shewbread loaves in the sanctuary were the SACRIFICE. $5 14, m u , 29a). The last-named portions
priests’ perquisite, although they could also be eaten by of the burnt-offerings and peace-offerings may be con-
ceremonially pure laymen (I S . 2 1 3 8 ) . With regard sumed by the male and female members of the priests’
to a considerably later period we find that the fines paid families alike, and in any clean place-and thus, with-
to the sanctuary for various (presumably ceremonial) out the sanctuary (Lev. 3014f: Nu. 189). The slaves
offences also fell to the priests ( 2 K. 1216 [17]). On the also of the priest may eat of it ; but not (for example)
other hand, the income from voluntary gifts and votive daughters married to ‘ strangers‘-ie., to men who are
offerings was to be applied to the maintenance of the not priests. And if a ‘ stranger ‘-say, for example, a
temple ; the control of this money was taken from the hired servant of the priest-‘unwittingly’ eat of it, he
priests because they applied the whole of it to their own shall pay to the priest the value of the holy thing with
uses ( z K. 124 8).This was by royal ordinance ; an added fifth (Lev. 2 2 1 0 3 ) .
possibly tradition had previously sanctioned such an With further detail as regards the rights of priests it
application of the revenues. Finally, we gather from is laid down that the guilt-offering and the sin-offering,
z K. 239 that the unleavened bread, or meal offering, as well as the skin of the burnt-offering, shall belong to
with which no sacrificial meal was associated, fell to the the officiating priest (Lev. 5 7 5 ) ; of the meal-offering
priests. he is entitled to all that is ‘ baked in the oven or dressed
The priestly revenues are legally regulated for the in the frying-pan and in the baking-pan ’ ; the rest shall
first time in D. It is not impossible that the practice belong to the priesthood as a whole (Lev. 79f: ) ; of peace-
l,. In D. in Jerusalem lies at the basis of its provisions. offerings the wave breast seems to have pertained to the
In any case the legislation had a very special priesthood in general, whilst the acting priest received
motive for thus disposing of the questions involved. the shoulder and the cakes (Lev. 7 31 ; cp 7 33 14).
For by the centralisation of the worship the priests of The more detailed regulations of post-biblical times will he
the high places and rural altars were made penniless. T o found collected in a series of tractates in the Mishna : TinZmbth,
Ma‘dYr8th, Ma‘d&shZni. ChaZhi,*OrZd,Bikklirim, .Sh@iEm,
remedy this, D gives the Levites the right to discharge BikarZh. See further Wellh. ProZ.(4) 149 and passim;
priestly functions in the sanctuary at Jerusalem, and to the archreologich text-bdoks of De Wette: Ewalf Keil, Schegg
share in the temple revenues (Dt. 186 J ) . But if all Benzinger, Nowack, and the article5 ‘Erstgeburt’ and ‘Erstlings~
opfer’ in PRE,Winer, Schenkel, and Riehm. 1. B.
priests were thus relegated to the sanctuary at Jerusalem
it is easy to see that the dues for offerings there required TEACHER.’ In the earliest stage of the Christian
to be strictly regulated and perhaps also raised. The Church the two most striking figures are those of the
right of the priests as towards the people who sacrificed apostle and the prophet. In several important passages
in the temple nowbecamedefinite(Dt. 183); theshoulder, a third figure is found in their company, that of the
teacher ( G & J K ~ o s ) .
1 I S. 2 28, where ‘all the offerings of the children of Israel
made by fire are assigned to the priests, is of post-deuteronomic 1 In the OT Hab. 2 18, etc., the word is 3JD; for later terms
origin : cp Dt. 18 I . see E DUCATION, 58 15-17.
4915 4916

Похожие интересы