Spiritual Gifts Stool

SPIRITUAL GIFTS SPIRITUAL GIFTS
SPIRITUAL GIFTS
CONTENTS
Definition (5 I). Speaking with tongues : what? (0 8). Interpretation of tongue-speech (5 15).
g+uea :,what? (B 2). Tongues not foreign languages (5 9). Diffusion and cessation of tongue-speech
elimitation of field (5 3). Acts 2 1-13and Mk. lfi17 (%IO). and prophecy charisms ($3 16).
Classification (g 4). Tongues not archaic expressions (5 11). Popular view of spiritual charisms (5 17).
Charisms other than that of :p:ech (5 5). Not figurative (8 12). Discerning of spirits (5 18).
'Wisdom' and 'knowledge ; exhorting' Tongue, the bodily organ (0 13). Paul's view of spiritual charisms (0 19).
(S 6). Tongue= tongue-speech (F,
.. 14.). Conclusion (F, 20).
' Prophecy ' (0 7). Literature ($ 21).
'Spiritual Gifts' is a comprehensive name for all aptitudes which Timothy, as a bearer of ecclesiastical
those extraordinary and often directly miraculous powers office, possesses, or ought to possess: 'neglect not
1. De~nition. df which we learn; chiefly from-1 Cor. the charism that is in thee' ( I Tim. 414) ; ' I put thee
124-11 28-30 Rom. 123-8, that they were in remembrance that thou stir up the charism of God
possessed by many Christians of the apostolic age, and, which is in thee ' ( 2 Tim. 1 6 ) .
according to Paul, had their origin in a specific opera- ( c ) For us the technical meaning of the word is first
tion of the Holy Spirit, which has for its object the met with in Paul. At the same time, we may at least
profit of the chnrch. be certain that Paul did not invent it when he was com-
When in T Cor. 12 6 the ' workings ' (2uapyjpaTa) are assigned posing his epistles : for he employs it in his writings
to God or in v. 5 the 'ministrations' ( S m c o v i a r ) brought into without any explanation, as referring to a matter quite
conneclon with Christ, we are not to see in this any real
departure from the regular attribution of the spiritual gifts to well known. There remains a possibility that he may
the Holy Ghost. The phrase i n n 5-'diversities of ministrations have coined the expression, in the course of his observa-
hut thesame Lord,' is simply another expression ofthe purpose for tions of the extraordinary endowments intended by it,
which the gifts are given-the common good of the church ; for while engaged in his missionary labours. W e may well
he who serves the church serves Christ who is the Lord of the
church, or, according to another way of putting it, who is the venture upon such a conjecture, seeing that the idea of
soul of the church which is his body (12 1.3).The phrase in 4). 6 grace (charis) is so specially prominent with Paul.
on the other band-' diversities of workings but the same God '- Yet the expression can also have sprung into existence
is appropriate in so far as by the 'workings ' in question we are
to understand according to v. IO workings of powers,' or of in the Christian churches without the agency of Paul.
miracles (2mpjpam Suva'pcov), of which one most readily No one of the three leading passages relating to
thinks of Go as the author. They are nevertheless attributed spiritual gifts in the writings of Paul, as given above
precisely in the next verse(7~.TI) to the Holy Spirit, a conclusive 3. Delimits (5 I ), can claim to be a complete
roof that no real distinction ought to be drawn here between
xim and God as the author of these workings. tion of field. account, and it therefore remains un-
The word charisma in this connection is plainly used certain whether even all three together
in a narrow technical sense. ( u ) That the thought of make mention of everything which Paul reckoned to this
the grace of God as being the source category. ( a ) Nevertheless the attempt must be
2. Literal from which the bestowal of a charisma made, with the help of these three principal passages
ofmeaning
Xhprow comes is still very vividly realised is shown and other subsidiary ones, to form to ourselves some
by Rom. 126 : 'having gifts (charisms), conception of the range of the phenomenon in question.
differing according to the grace that was given to us ' 'Prophecy' (rpoq4vrsia) is the only charism that is actually
named in all three passages ; but in effect so also is ' teaching
(E?OYTES Xapiupra KUT& T?V Xripiv rhv 6oOeiuav +pZv (6daUK+ia), if we permit ourselves to regard the 'word of
Giag5opa). wisdom (A6yos uo@as), and the 'word of knowledge' (A.
In the only N T passage where cLarisirra &&bop) is coupled ~ Y J U B W F ) , of I Cor. 128 taken together as identical with 'teach-
with the adjective 'spiritual ( m f v p m d v ) , the technical sense ing,'-a view which is favoured by 1426 ('teaching [ S t S a p j ] ,
is, as it happens, absent ; in Rom. 1 I I it does not mean any co-ordinated with ' revelation, tongue interpretation (aro-
special aptitude possessed by Paul but a gift (in the way of xa'Aul(rr5, XAiTua, I p p ~ p 4 a ] ) , whilst ' in 146 ' knowledge
instruction, encouragement, consola;ion, or the like) which he [ y v t u r r ] a 50 1s found co-ordinated with 'teaching ' (Sdapj)
hopes to he able to confer upon the Romans in the course of his as well as 'tongues, revelation, prophecy ' (yhGuua6, arora'hv+rr,
visit, even if 'spiritual' (rucuparr.6u) expresses the thought rpo+qrsia), so that only the 'word of wisdom' (A' OF 00 rac)
that he himself in turn has received it from the Holy Ghost. seems to be left as synonym for 'teaching' (8c8axx In t b t h
Still further removed from the specified meaning of the word the leadin5 passages in I Cor. 'gifts of healings' (Xapiupara
charisnza as given ahoi-e, though again with a passive applica- iapa'rov), powers ' or ' miracles ' (SVY&;US), and ' diversities of
tion (gift that is conferred), are the applications of it which we tongues' ( y d y yhouuiv),occur in addition to the other concepts
find in Rom. 6 23 (eternal life the charisma, not of the Holy already mentioned. Rom. has with the first passage in I Cor.
Ghost but of God), in 11 29 (the charismata of God=the favours (125) nothing but 'ministry' (Scarovia) in common, but in that
bestowed by God upon his people Israel as enumerated in first passage, as well as in I Cor. 16 15, this word-seems to have
9.+J), in zCor. 1 TI (without TOG QeoG : the charisma of Paul's a more extended application than in Kom. 12 7 ; with the second
deliverance from deadly danger) ; so also in Rom. 5 I 5J where passage in I Cor. (12 28-30) Rom. has in substance hut one concept
the justification of sinful man is the charismaof God and Christ. In common-on the assumption, that is to say, that we may
The word denotes the whole aggregate of God's benevolent identify the rrpoi'ura'psvop ('he that ruleth ') with him who has
operation in the universe in the single passage outside of the the gift of 'government' (ruf3Cpyuis). Peculiar to the first
NT, and the Church Fathers in which it is known to occur passagein I Cor. (124-11)are 'faith,discerning ofspirits'(rri~~rr,
(Philo Legis aZZegor. 3 24 end 1103 ed. Mangey : 'All things ) , ' interpretation of tongues * (ippqvrio
S L ~ K ~ L Ur vCmS, ~ a ' ~ w vand
in the' universe, and the n n i & s e itself, are the donation and y h w u u t v ) ; to the second (12 28-30) the concepts 'apostle ' (&A-
benefaction and gi/t of God (Sop& xa; &epysuL N a i xcipbufia umhor), and 'h e l p : ( L ~ r r A ~ p l ( r s r;5 )and to Rom. ' admonishing '
@a06 r&ra'vra Sua ;v 1c6upyrai airbc Q ~ 6 u p o sduriv). (rapaxar\iuv), 'giving (pfTaSdov's), and 'showing mercy'
(;A€&").
(6) Very sharply distinguished from these uses is the
technical sense in which the word is employed, whether (6) Eph. 411 and Justin, Dial 39, can be adduced
in the pl. (Rom. 126 I Cor. 1 2 4 3 1 ; and, with the only as secondary authorities. so long as it is with the
addition of ' healings ' [lapdrwv], 12 g 28 30). or in the. apostolic age that we are dealing.
Eph. (on its date see col. 3120, n. 3) noticeably enumerates
sing. with a negative (I 7 : 'so that ye come behind in offices only, not charisms. Of these Paul had already name!
no charisma'), or in a distributive sense ( I Pet. 410: the 'apostles,' 'prophets,' and 'teachers ' and also the 'pastors
' according as each has received a charisma '; cp I Cor. ( r o q d v ~ c )if these are to be taken as eq&aleiit to the 'rulers'
( n p o i ' u r a ' ~ s v o ~of) Rom. 12 8. Peculiar to Eph. are the ' evange-
7 7 : 'each man hath his own charisma from God'). lists' ( e i a y y e A r m a i ) , on whom see MINISTRY,$ 39 a,6. Of
I n just the same way, in the technical sense, the dis- the gifts enumerated by Paul Justin has only 'healing' ( C ~ U L S ) ,
tributive singular of 'grace' (Xdpis) stands in connection and ' teaching ' (Sdaurahia). What he designates ' understand-
with the plural 'gifts' (66para),in Eph. 4 7 J : ' unto each ing' (&EULF), may safely be identified with ' wisdom' (uoqh'a),
and his 'strength' ( I q 4 ~ perhaps ) with 'power' (Sv'vaprp), as
one of us was the grace given according to the measure he attributes 'strength'(iuX;s) to Moses (DiuZ. 87). The ne:
of the gift (6wpeBs) of Christ. Wherefore he saith . . . elements in his list are 'counsel' (BovAG), 'foreknowledge
He gave gifts (66para) unto men.' Not till we reach (rp6yuours), which answers only in a very limited degree to the
prophecy ' (rpo+qmia) of Paul, and ' fear of God ' (+6f3os BaoP);
the Pastoral Epistles do we find the sing. charism Four of h a seven concepts-'understanding (uv'veurr), 'counsel
(x&pirpa), used comprehensively to denote all the @WAG), ' strength ' (Lu~v'c),and ' fear of God' (q46goe @e&)-
4755 4756
2. :
ustin has taken direct from Is. 11zf: 65, where, according to
is interpretation ( D i d 87). are enumerated the seven powers
that, namely of leaving him freer for the preaching of the gospel
and pecunia& less dependent on the churches in which freedom
of the Holy Spirit which were all of them to rest upon Jesus and independence he discerned a great advanta‘ge for the exercise
from his baptism onwards, whilst the saints of the O T and of his office, and specially for the assertion and establishment of
Christians never receive more than one or a few of them. I n Is. his authority (r Cor. 7 3zf: 9 126 15-18 z Cor. 117 - 1 2 ) . When
we find brsides the four words alreadygiven ‘wisdom’ (u@ia), therefore, he speaks of the unmarried condition as a charism h;
‘knowlbdge ’ (yvimrs), and ‘piety’ (e;uC@;Bba). I t is plainly will, broadly speaking, he thinking of himself and of those ln a
with reference to knowledge (yuours), that Justin speaks of like position with himself. Otherwise we should have expected
foreknowledge (rppdyvours), for he lays stress upon the argument him to class as charisms also other forms of asceticism, such as
that in his time ‘prophetic charisms’ (rrpo+qrr~b x a p i u p a r a ) abstinence from certain kinds of food, or voluntary poverty; hut
are still found among Christians, and that thus the O T gift of this he never does.
prophecy-hy which he understands merely prediction of future After defining the field our next task must be a
events-has passed over to the followers of Christ (Dial. 82,
classification of the charisms of so very various kinds.
begin.).
(c) It will be noticed that in all the enumerations *. Classification. ( u ) It might seem as if Paul himself
almost no reference whatever is made to the virtues that had undertaken it when, in the first
are looked for in every Christian. Even ‘ ministry ’ of the three leading passages ( I Cor. 124-6). before
(8raKovia), ‘ giving’ (pwa8r86vai), ‘ showing mercy’ going into details, he sets up these three great
(QXeBv), are enumerated only on the assumption that categories-‘ charisms ’ (XapiupaTa), ‘ ministries ’ (&a-
they have risen to a pitch that is not attainable by Koviar), and ‘ works ’ (&epy?jpa.ra).
every Christian. The extraordinary character, rising If, however, we decide to take these verses as setting forth a
strict arrangement we shall have to believe that in the detailed
in many cases to the level of the miraculous, which has enumeration in m,.’7-riSwhere each charism is traced back to
been noted in 5 I as the first criterion of charisms in the Holy Spirit, only the first of the three great categories
the technical sense, is thus preserved. All the less has been specifically dealt with, since the second and third of
have we any occasion to lay stress on the ‘fear of these-‘ miiiistries’ (6raroviar) and ‘works ’ ( Z v c p p y j p a r a j a r e
brought into connection not ’with the Holy Spirit hut with
God,’ which Justin has merely taken from Isaiah, Christ or God. This again, however, would not be in accord-
or to extend in an analogous way the limits of our ance dith v. IO, where ‘ works ’ [‘of powers ’] (ivep ’para [dvva’-
category in the direction in which this would be per- yov]),are ,included in this detailed list ; and in Eom. 1 2 7 the
ministries (6raroviai) helong to the charisms (xapiupanz).
missible, if one elected to pay heed only to the second Thus ‘charism ’ ‘ministry,’ and ‘work’ (,y+~upa, 8rarovia and
criterion (see 5 I)-that they are attributed to the ivCppy?pa) are Anly three different names for all or at least ;any
agency of the Holy Spirit-and, further, to take it as of these kifts, and they are chosen with consaous reference to
one’s guiding principle that according to Paul the whole the three modes of divine revelation. The most comprehensive
would seem to be according to 2,. 6, ‘work’ (Zvipyrlpa), (God
new life of the Christian, with all its virtues, is a work worketh all thing: in all) ; according to Kom. 12 6 ‘ charism
of the Holy Spirit (Gal.5zzf.: love, joy, peace, etc.). (x&ptupa) ; in I Cor. 16 15 ‘ ministry ’ (6rarovia) is used also in
It would therefore be a mistake to accept the limits for a very comprehensive sense.
our present concept, as these are laid down by Weinel ( b ) Within the detailed enumeration made in I Cor.
(below, fj ZI), who in fact writes not about the ‘ gifts.’ 128-10 a classification might seem to be hinted at by
but about the operations, of the Spirit. T o these of Paul himself, when he uses ‘other’ (6XXy) six times and
course belongs the ethically good state of the will, treated ‘ different ’ (hdpy) twice ; for ‘ different ’ ( h ~ p o s )may
of by Weinel (149-161), with all its effects ; it does not mean ‘ of another kind,’ whilst ‘ other‘ ((IXXos) signifies
belong to the order of charisms. merely ‘ not identical. ’
In that case, however, we should have to subsume under the
( d ) There is still another element included by Weinel fixed confidence or ‘faith’ ( ~ I O T L F v. 9) which is introduced by
which we for our part must exclude. The receiving of the first ‘different’ (&+y), not 4erel;the gift of healing and
revelations-apart from the subsequent reporting of the power of working miracles (which would be suitable enough),
them-or the power to endure martyrdom (or even but also ‘prophecy’ and ‘discerning of spirits’ (which would not
suit at all). ‘ Other ’ and ‘different ’ are thus used only for the
ascetic privations) may be traced back to the Holy sake of variety, not with the intention of expressing a
Spirit, and may also possess the note of the extra- difference.
ordinary in a very high degree, yet they ought not to (c) Any attempt to find a suggested classification in
be reckoned to the number of the charisms because they the omission of the particle ‘and ’ (86) in many instances
lack the third criterion-that of utility for the life of the also breaks down.
church. In v. I O the second and third 66 are put in brackets by WH.
This criterion must have had very great importance in Paul’a If in these two cases the particle is taken as genuine, then each
view; b,r w t only doe, he in I Cor. 127 142-33 make it the ‘other’ (CLUO) is accompanied by 86, and ‘different’ ( C d p y ) in
chief goal of his entire d i x u 4 o n of the chariams(a1though he both cases is bithont it ; the classification would then be the same
has been led to the mention of them, not by this thought hut by as under (6). If both are deleted, ‘discerning of spirits’ as one
that of the unity of the Holy Spirit), hut also in Rom. 126-8 the principal division would he separated from ‘ prophecy ’ as another
same goal is set before him, although the occasion is in like principal division, although unquestionably the two are not more
manner different, namely, the thought of the unity of the church widely separated than ‘interpretation of tongues’ from ‘kinds
notwithstanding the diversity of its members. Oneis not entitled of tongues‘(l429). Thus we should have to reject the first of
to suppose that the profit of the church is onlyan application of the two 8C and retain the second (so Bern. Weiss.). For this
the charisms which Paul would like to see made, not a consti- however, the authorities give not the slightest warrant, for i;
tutive element in the concept itself. So far from that being the both cases the evidence is almost exactly the same for the re-
case, this criterion is for the apostle so important, that he would tention and also, on the other hand. the same for the deletion.
refuse to reckon to the number of charisms in the technical sense ( d ) ’Thus all that remains for us is to attempt some
of which we are now speaking, any phenomenon which yielded sort of classification from the nature of the case. The
no advantage for the community at large. points that seem clearest are these : ( I ) to the ’ works
( e ) For this reason we must hesitate before including
in the category in question one manifestation which of powers ’ ( P v e p y ? j p a ~8uvOip~wv)
~ of I Cor. 12 IO 28 be-
Paul himself expressly designates by the name of long the ‘ charisms of healing ’ (Xapiupum i a p d 7 o v ) of
m. g 28 which were invariably regarded as miraculous.
charisma. In I Cor. 7 6 J he wishes that all were un-
married as he himself is. but does not set this up as a and the ‘ faith ’ (rriuns)of v. 9 since, in 132, it is spoken
positive command, ‘because each man hath his own of as able to remove mountains. ( 2 )To the ‘ ministry ’
(6raaouia) of Rom. 127 belong certainly the a givings ’
gift from God, one after this manner and another after
that.’ (pcTu8c86var) and showing mercy’ (QXeBv) of 128.
It would be a mistake to believe that Paul here intends to and the ‘helps’ (dVTlh?jp$€lS) of I Cor. 1228. This,
contrast a charisma of marriage with a Xripwpa +pamias (as if we take 8ramwia in a narrow sense. In a wider
following 79, we may designate the other side of the corn: sense of the word there is a ‘ ministry of the word’
parison); for in this whole section h e regards marriage, and the (&aaovla 7017X6you, Acts 64), and in the sense in which
intercourse of the sexes in marriage not as a good in itself, hut
only as a preservative against evil’(7z 5 9). Rather must we the word appears to be used in I Cor. 1615 other gifts
take as the antithesis to the X+rupa iyrpa&ar some one or also might easily be included under it, as Stephanas had
other of the charisms enumerated in chap. 12. Paul, however, rendered useful service in the guidance of the church at
would hardly have arrived a t such a co-ordination if for his own
personal calling the unmarried condition had not carried with it Corinth as well. Yet ( 3 ) it is better to regard the govern-
a direct and obvious utility for the churches under his care- ments ’ ( ~ u , % p v $ u w )of I Cor. 1228 as forming an inde-
153 4757 4758
pendent main division, to which of course the governor’ favourable sense, it always indicates with him the
( a p & u r d p u o s ) of Rom. 128 will belong. Most amply content, not the manner, of the knowledge. This
subdivided (4) is the gift of the ‘ word’ ; ‘word of circumstance, however, cannot alter anything in the
wisdom’ (X6yos uo@as), ‘of knowledge’ (hbyos yv&wsws). fact that in our leading passage it is parallel with
the first of them (or both of them) = teaching ’ (br8a- gnisis, and here, accordingly, like the other, must mean
UKUMU),or, if it is the product of the charism that is R manner of knowing. There is nothing to indicate
thought of, = ‘doctrine’ (SrSax?)); see § 3 a. Then there that the practical, as distinguished from the theoretical,
is also the ‘admonish’ (aapaKaX&) of Rom. 128 ; but is meant. On the other hand, the wisdom of the world,
also very specially ‘ prophecy ’ (apoq5qreia) together with which is the opposite of that here intended, exhibits
‘ discerning of spirits ’ ( ~ ~ K ~ C ~UY EL US~ ~ L C ( ~and
T W Y the
) pretty clearly the feature which would offer a cle‘ar
‘ kinds of tongues ’ ( y Q v qyXwuuGv) with ‘ interpretation contrast withgnoris as explained above ; it results from
of tongues ’ (ippyuelia yAwuuGv). An apostle (I Cor. intelligent consideration of things. A wisdom which
1228) combines the gift of the word with that of direction figures as gift of the Holy Spirit must naturally be the
and of miracle-working ( z Cor. 1212). consequence of the inspiration of that spirit; but
The first three classes call for but little remark by way nevertheless it can in its style and manner display the
of explanation. It has elsewhere been shown from the note of discursive thought and reflection quite as
sources (see GOSPELS, $ 144; cp also cIearIyas gnosis a n display that of vision and intuition.
ap&,Charisms
fromthat below, Q 16) how widespread, down Holsten seeks to bring out the ContraSt in the following way ;
in B a d we have to look more for gnosis in so far as he visualised
of the word. to the end of the second century, was
the belief that many Christians
the fundamental conceptiuns of his entire doctrine on the basis
of that imqe of the ascended Jesus which he saw in his vision
possessed the power of working miracles, and very near Damascus ; ‘wisdom ’ (TO+) we find more in ApoHos. If
specially that of driving out evit spirits. I t is specially this is correct, the so-called pneumatic interpretation of the OT
important to observe that the same power is not denied which believes itself able to arrive at the hidden sense would
rather fall to the side of ‘wisdom’ (uo+ia), including thekorm in
of those who are not Christians, but only attributed in which it is employed hy Paul in, for example, such passages a5
their case to the agency of demons. This goes t o show I Cor. 9 9s104 14zrj: 2 Cor. 313-16 Gal 421-31. Acmrding
to the Epistle of Barnabas, it is true (10z gJ), it appears to be
that some kernel of actual fact in the alleged Occurrences called gnosis Yet here a vacillation of expression is easily
is undeniable. possible. It must be added, further, that gnosis in Paul, where
We may seek to explain these from natural causes, a method I t relates fothe region of practice (I Cor. 8 I 7 .of: and douhtlps
of explanation that presents no particular difficutty, least of all also z Cor. 66X is a much simpler notion. It is easily
111cases of castingout of devils-;.#., hedings of mental disease, conceivable that the application of the word to this region may
which, however, often enough will have heen only temporary in have had a different course of development from that which it
their effect. We may further take it that the faith which saw bad when regarded as a spiritual gift.
miracles in those really unrniraculous events will, without dis- The ‘admonish’ (rrapuKaXeiv) of Rom. 1 2 8 belongs.
crimination, have attributed to those who produced them per- entirely to the practical side. Primarily it means not to
formances also of such a nature as would really have been
irreconcilable with the laws of nature. The collection to be comfort but t o exhort. Consolation, however, is not,
found in Weinel (19-127) shows, however, that the Christian excluded ; for the literal meaning is to speak to a person.
writers, apart from quite summary accounts, refer, with regard to I t is presupposed that people are in need, not so much
the first and second centuries, almost exclusivelyonIytoexorcisms
and attribute miracles of the more pronounced sort to Ireathe; of instruction as of the effort made, whether gently or
sorcerers and to the gnostics (who, in holy horrot., are ut on the more strenuously, always in a friendly and tactful manner,
same level with the sorcerers). Exceptions are t h e Tegendary to bring them, by spoken word, to a better dispajition
works in which such magical arts, as practised by Simon Magus, of will or a better frame of spirit.
are imitated by Peter or by Peter and Paul with a view to out-
doing them (see SIMONPETER 5 33f.X OF apocryphal Acts of We should completely misunderstand ‘ prophecy ’
Apostles, partly of gnostic origh the spirit of which k illus- should we suppose its essence to lie in prediction of the
trated by some examples in J O H N , SON OF ZBBEDEE,0 Sf, This is not wholly excluded ;
and in S IM O N PETER, 5 46. ?. propbecp.future.
On ‘ministry’(6rarov;a), see DEACON, 5 3 ; on ‘government’ but it can have had only a very modest
(KVSCPV~ULS) and its development, see MINISTRY, $3 9, and subse- part as compared with more important elements in the
quent sections. idea. These elements are found in I Cor. 14.
The various forms of the fourth class, on the other ( a ) According to 143 prophecy produces ‘ edification,’
hand, demand careful and detailed investfgation. Let ‘ comfort,’ and ‘ consolation ; according to a. 24 5 it
us begin with the ‘ word -of wisdom ’ can penetrate so deeply as to lay bare the secrets of the
6. ‘Wisdom’
(Xbyos u+as) and ‘word of knowledge’ hearts of strangers and constrain them to confess
md (Xbyos Y ~ ~ I U E W Sin) I Cor. 128. It is that the spirit of God speaking in the prophet has rightly
‘knowledge*; obvious from the first that the two are disclosed what was passing within them. Accordingly,
‘exhorting.’ very closely related ; for in 27-26 ‘know’ prophecy would seem to be distinguished from the ‘ word
(~WJUKE L V ) as the verb t o which the substantive
figures of wisdom ’ (XSyos uo&as) and the ’ word of knowledge ’
‘I wisdom ’ (uo@fu) corresponds. If, notwithstanding, (X5yos yvduews) in this, that it is preaching of a purely
the two must be regarded as characteristically distinct practical kind, often not unlike the addresses at a revival
in our leading passage, the difference accordingly is meeting. Yet, according to vv. 31 and 19, the hearers
hardly to be sought in their differing contents, but rather also learn (pauA-kw) and are instructed (KarqXEiuBar)
in the way in which the human spirit appropriates the by it. Theoretical elements, therefore, cannot be
same material which is brought before it by each. Now, wholly absent ; the real distinction as compared with
according to z Cor. 46 (cp 214), gnissis appears to be ‘wisdom’ (uo&u) and ‘knowledge’ (yvGu~s)has not
applied to the knowledge of what is perceived in an yet emerged.
ecstatic condition ; for Paul who had never known Jesus ( 6 ) What is more important to observe is that, accord-
upon earth can only have seen, in the face of Christ, the ing to a. 30, it is by a revelation ’ that the prophet is
#
splendour of Chd ( 6 6 : ~ is nothing abstract ; cp 2 Cor. led to speak This feature is in fact so characteristic
37 Lk. 2 9 Acts 7 5 5 I Tim. 616 Rev. 2123,f), in a vision. that in the enumeration in v. 26 we actuaIly find ‘ revela-
If, now, gnisis appropriates to itself the impression thus tion’ (daordXv$ts) where, alongside of ‘teaching, tongue,
received and casts it into the form of thought, it follows and iuterpretation of tongues ’ ( ~ L ~ R X yAGuuu, T ~ , and
from this manner of origination that the mental product ippqreia y b u G v ) we should have expected t o find
will possess the character of what, in the philosophical ‘ prophecy‘ (xpoq5l]reia). In v. 6 also, the two pnirs
theory of knowledge, is called intuition. It will thus are clearly so distributed that the first member of the
have the note of immediacy as distinguished from that one ( ’ revelation ’) is, if not similar to, at least analogous
which has been reached by the discursive method. to, the first member of the other (‘ prophecy ’) just as
For the explanation of what is meant by ‘ wisdom’ are the second members of the two pairs (yrGms and
(soq%,la) no such direct hint is given ns by Paul. Apart SiSax+). Here accordingly is seen what is the really
from passages where the word is used in an un- essential distinction between prophecy on the one hand,
4759 -2760
and wisdom and knowledge on the other ; it lies in the tones. Against this, however, has to be set the
suddenness and inunediacy of the revelation from which comparison of tongue-speech with musical instruments
prophecy proceeds. For we must assume that a prophet which give out loud tones, if not individually distinguish-
spoke from the basis of such a revelation even in those able, and with a foreign language which is heard but
cases where he had received it, not as we find in v. 30, has not been learned (w. 7-11), as also the statement
while the meeting was actually going on, but some time that a stranger must regard the tongue-speaker as one
previously-at home, let us suppose. out of his mind (u. 23).
(c) On the other hand, prophecy has to be dis- ( d ) The explanation of the unintelligibility of snch
tinguished equally clearly from the ' speaking with speeches must accordingly be sought in this, that
tongues' with which it stands in such close parallelism. intelligent thought (YO%) had no part in their production
Whilst that which is spoken in tongue-speech remains (v. 14). For ' unfruitful ' ( l i ~ a p a o sin ) this connection
unintelligible until it has been interpreted, the ' prophet ' must mean not 'receiving no fruit' but 'yielding no
can be understood by any one (vv. 3f.) because, during fruit.' Now, the antithesis to ('speaking' X a k i v , or
the time of his speaking, he is guided by his 'under- ' praying' ?rpomI;xeu8ar, or ' singing ' ~ ~ X X E L etc. Y, )
standing' (voOs ; a. 14). Therefore, also, it is said of 'with the understanding' (TC voi") in m.ISf. is 'with
prophecy (v.32) that 'the spirits of the prophets are the spirit ' (74 r v e l j p a ~ r )but
, in v. 19 it is ' in a tongue '
subject to the prophets,' whilst those who speak with (hyh6uug haheiu). ' T o be in the spirit ' ($Y ? r v ~ l j p c t ~ r
tongues are at the moment in the ecstatic condition. e t a r ) , however, is in Rev. 1 I O 42 1 7 3 21 TO the ter7ninus
( d ) Taking all these considerations together, we find technicus for the ecstatic state.
that the prophecy spoken of by Paul is entirely similar Hence the meaning must he that not all tongue-speakers were
to the discourse of the O T prophets. In the O T also in a position to be ahle afterwards to explain their utterances
the contents of prophetic discourse are for the most 13 A),and that it is only of the prophets that Paul says
( 7 ~ .
that the spirits speaking through them are well known to he
part of a practical character, yet also informing; the subject to the will of the prophets and could therefore, when a
origin is sought in a sudden revelation ; the manner of new speaker came forward, be silent (v. 32)-although for his
speech of the O T prophets is quite intelligible. This own part Paul enjoins silence (v. 28) also on the speakers with
tongues (on occasions when no interpreter is present). How
holds good of the prophetic discourse so long as it ecstasy was regarded is well described by Philo (1 5rof: ed.
has not, as in the Book of Daniel, or even in Zechariah Mangey) ; only, he supposes he is describing the condition of
or Joel, passed over into the apocalyptic style, but simply the OT rophets (in the widest sense of the word so as to include
as we find it in the genuine writings of the older prophets, all the 8Tsaints) when he says : ' [he is] a sounding instrument
of God, invisibly struck and played upon by him . . .
The
not as it is described by such authors as Philo and Justin understanding that is in us goes abroad when the divine spirit
for whom the O T prophets are men who speak in a arrives, and returns home again when the spirit departs ; for it is
completely ecstatical condition and are mere foretellers of not right that mortal and immortal should dwell together
(6pyyayou-OcoG Gurw ~ x o h rpou6pevav
, r a i rrAqrr6Fsvov d o p b ~ w s
the future. Perhaps we might even go a step farther
and conjecture that the manner in which the ' prophets '
v r amov ... Gtaid&rar Qv $ p b 6 VOGF r a d S;lv TOG Briou rrvrd-
paros 8$&u, r a r d 61. rilv prravbcraurv ahoG ?rbArv eiuowi<evaL.
of the apostolic age were conscious of receiving their B&LF ydp d~Eun 6'qrbv L B a v b o wvoiK+ai).
revelations resembled that of the O T prophets who say, (c) What the listeners actually heard Paul does not
' The Lord spake to me,' and that the contents of such tell, because it was perfectly well known to his readers.
a revelation, as in the OT, had reference for the most For us this is unfortunate, since on this point, perhaps
part to some concrete detail. From what has been said the most important of all, we are thus thrown back
it will be seen that on the whole the most suitable render- upon conjecture, and many are only too readily inclined
ing of ' prophecy ' will be ' inspired address ' or ' inspired to support their conjectures by reference to Acts21-13.
preaching. ' On the later stages of Christian If, as we ought, we hold strictly by I Cor., we learn
prophecy see M INISTRY , § 38 [also PROPHETIC from 1414-17 to distinguish between a ' praying' (apou-
L ITERATURE , 30-331; on ' discerning of spirits ' cljxeuBar) and a ' singing of psalms ' ( ~ u h h e r v )whilst ,
(&a'KplUlS aV€Up$Twv), S e e below, 18. the ' blessing' (eLXoyriv), since it occurs in a confirma-
The discussion of the question of speaking with tongues tory clause, is doubtless to be identified with the latter
has been brought into the state of confusion in which we
I
or with both, as also 'giving thanks' (e1Xaprumb)
*,
with
find it by the circumstance that investi-
:gators were determined to take Acts
with ' blessing' (ebhoyeiv). But what are we to say as
to the nature of these prayers, songs of praise (and
21-13 as their starting-point, and to find thanksgivings) ? They were unintelligible, and were
the pheno- the truth of that narrative confirmed in spoken in the state of ecstasy; from this we must
menon all circumstances. in other words. SUD- conclude that they consisted either of quite disjointed
ported by Paul. The student, however. who is Lot sounds, cries, sighs, and the like, or, if of actual words
prepared to give up the genuineness of the principal or short sentences, at all events not of connected ones.
Pauline Epistles (as to which cp G ALATIANS , 1-9)is A Christian listener, who naturally did not, like the
in duty stringently bound to consider the account of stranger in n. 23, regard the speaker as insane, must
Paul as the primary one, and discuss it without even a yet have had the impression that he was speaking in a
side glance at Acts, and to reject as unhistorical every- dreamlike state.
thing in Acts which does not agree with this account. ( d ) We may, further, adduce analogies from earlier
Nor will it be permissible to urge that Paul's information and later times. Whilst the prophets of the best OT
may have been defective; for he himself spoke with period are clearly distinguished from the speakers with
tongues more than they all ( I Cor. 14 18). tongues by the complete intelligibility of their utterances,
( a ) The speaking with tongues was unintelligible the oldest stages of prophecy manifest a strongly
(I Cor. 142 g IT 16)and therefore of no use to the church, ecstatic character. Cp for example I S. 10 5-12 19 20-24.
unless an interpretation followed (vv.6 9 17). Paul goes These prophets, capable of being brought by music and
so far as to say (v. z z ) that in a mixed assemblage of sensory stimuli, to dancing and frenzy, stand for their
Christians and non-Christians it has any purpose at all part in turn quite on the same plane with the pagan
only for the non-Christians-namely, to be to them a oracle-givers ( f i d v ~ e r s ) . In this connection we can
sign which, in the context, can only be taken as appropriately adduce the description of such persons
meaning a mark of displeasure. True, along with this (pdvrers)in Plat0 (Tim., 71e--pb, Zon, 5 3 4 6 4 , accord-
he concedes that the speaking with tongues has a value ing to which they need an interpreter; only, this
for the speaker himself, for his edification, namely, interpreter here bears the name of prophet. Within
because it is a speaking on behalf of God (vu. z 4 17 28). Christianity, Montanistic prophecy shares fully the
From the latter circumstance, and particularly from v. z ecstatic character of the primitive Christian tongue-
( # n o man understandeth'), has been drawn the con- speech. Of Montanus, for example, Epiphanius ( H e r .
clusion that the speaking with tongues was in quite low 484, begin.) has preserved an utterance in which h e
4761 47a
says in the name of God : ' behold the man is as a lyre the foreign language in question. If, however, we are
and I play over him like a plectron ; the man sleeps and to suppose that the interpreter understands the language
I wake ; behold, it is the Lord who takes away the hearts in question just as little as the speaker, the interpretation
of men, and gives to men a [another] heart : ' (is03 6 would be a miracle of precisely the same order as the
dvSpwrros J a e i hdpa ~ d y [email protected]
d juei T A ~ ~ K T ~6O V . tongue-speech itself, and it would be incomprehensible
d v ~ p w a oKorpGsar
s ypyp?~yopO.iGo3 d p i 6 s Punv d t.$iu-
K ~ Y W how in v. 28 Paul could have supposed the case that
rdvwv Kapsias d v S p d ~ w vKai GrGoirs KapGiav dv9phrrocs). before the beginning of a tongue-speech the speaker
From recent times we may cite the inspired persons of the could know that no interpreter for it was present at the
Wetterau and elsewhere (1714-1749) ; also the second meeting. For the gift of interpretation on such a pre-
stage of Jansenism from 1713 onwards, the Irvingites, supposition as that under discussion could nevertheless
the ' preaching sickness ' and ' reading sickness ' in be quite suddenly bestowed on someone immediately
Sweden, 1841-1854(see R E SURRECTION, § 36 e ) , many after the tongue-speech had been made.
cases of somnambulism, also the Quakers, and especi- ( e ) That no one in the meeting, apart from snbsequent
ally and above all the Camisards in the Cevennes' interpretation, understands tongue-speech (v. 2 ) would
(1686.1707) ; not, however, the Jumpers and Shakers. not hold good of those listeners who understood in a
( e ) The ' kinds of tongues ' (y&g yhwuuOv) of Paul natural way the foreign language, the temporary use of
points emphatically to a manifoldness of tongue-speech which had been bestowed upon the tongue-speaker in a
with regard to which we are hardly able to form any supernatural way.
concrete idea. In the ' praying ' (rrppouedxeut'ai), ' sing- v,) The antithesis between ' (speaking) with a tongue '
ing' ($dhheiv), ' blessing' ( E I % O ~ E ~ V ) ,of I Cor. 1414-17 ( y h w u u [hake%])~ could not be 'with the understanding'
we have up to the present point become acquainted (voi": so v. 15) or ' by way of revelation,' ' of knowledge,'
with two (or three) different kinds of contents of tongue- ' of prophecy,' ' of teaching ' (& d ? r o K a M $ a , i v yvduec,
speech; but that by no means exhausts the subject. t v ?rpo@?pip. hv GrSaXi : so v. 6), but must run : ' to
We may perhaps think in addition of such contents as : speak in one's mother's tongue.' Of this we find no-
communication of a vision received, threatening of where the faintest trace.
judgment, personal confession, and the like. On the (9) Finally, the main characteristic feature of tongue-
other hand the expression ' kinds ' (ykvg) can also be speech-ecstasy-would be completely inexplicable.
taken perhaps as intended to denote differences in the Wherefore this, if the whole matter is simply to speak
form of the speeches according as they were composed in a foreign language which one has never learned?
of complete but reciprocally disconnected sentences, of After all, ecstasy is a psychological condition which
disconnected words, or of single sounds or syllables; must have its psychological explanation. But if this
whether they betokened joy or sorrow, delight or terror, kind of speaking can really bring ecstasy with it, why
and so forth. can it alone do so? One might say : the substance of
Proceeding now, on the basis of the preceding these speeches was so exceedingly joyful that it trans-
- - to a consideration of what is meant by the ported the speaker to an ecstasy. But why not also
-paragraphs,
expression ' speaking with tongues,' the the substance of many speeches held in one's mother-
Tonees
9' first thing to be remarked is that in the tongue? W e should therefore have to say : on each
not fonlgn present connection Acts21-13must be set occasion when a communication was received that
'wage s*not provisionally, but definitively.
aside cheered to ecstasy, the speaker was endowed in a
Nothing is more certain than that iongues ' (yhG~o&) supernatural way with the ability to speak in a foreign
in the case before us must not be translated ' languages. ' language. In that case, however, the counter question,
(u) Were the case otherwise theexpression ' ( t o speak) Why not in his mother-tongue? would be difficult to
in a tongue' (yhdaq [haheb]) would be quite impos- put to silence.
sible, although in point of fact it occurs not only in the ( h ) The latest defender of the view that foreign
mention of a single speaker (I Cor. 142 4 13f: 19 26f: )- languages are intended, Arthur Wright (see below,
where it might be argued that each individual speaks § ZI), does so in fact quite differently.
only in one language that is foreign to him-but also H e points to 'the little prophets of the Cevennes'(1686-1701)
in w. g where more than one speaker is in question. children of three ears and upwards, who, according to Heatd
(6) Where unquestionably the languages of foreign (Confemj. Rev., Jan. r886), preached sermons not only in their
peoples are being spoken of (w.IO$) PFul as it happens mother-tongue, but also in good French, often for three-quarters
of an hour. 'There was nothing hystqical or wildly excited
precisely refrains from using ' tongues (yXOuuai) ; the about their manner, only they were insensible to pain and
word he employs is ' voices ' (Gwval), an unmistakable could not be induced to stop.' T h e explanation given is that
proof that in this connection ' tongues' (yhOaaar) is they were merely repeating sermons which they had previously
heard delivered by ,grown-up preachers; their memory was
reserved for a different concept, and with these ' voices ' abnormally stimulated by the excitement of the persecutions.
( G w v a f ) the speaking with tongues is only compared, In like manner, according to Wright, the primitive Christian
whilst on the other assumption the two would be tongue-speakers in each case were simply repeating discourses
which previously--of course without iinderstanding them-they
identical. had heard with excited attention, especially in Jerusalem, where
(c) Paul concedes that the speaking with tongues is at one of the great feasts, for example, a multitude of unknown
fitted for the private edification of the speaker, and languages could he heard. H e lays stress upon the argument
therefore recommends that this gift should be exercised that 'they who spake with tongues are never said to have given
utterance to distinctly Christian teaching ' and goes on to say :
in solitude (vz. 41828). But that speaking in foreign 'Accustomed to the higher tone of St. Paul and his evangelists
languages should have this result would be indeed the Corinthians found little profit in these Rabbinic exhorta-
wonderful. tions.' H e thus draws his entire view as to the contents of all
( d ) The interpretation of tongue-speech would not the tongue-speeches from Acts2 I I ('speaking the mighty works
of God '), instead of the notorious overvaluation of tongue-speech
have any miraculous character at all. and therefore in Corinth asserts the opposite and moreover seems seriously
have no claim to be considered a charism, if it rested to believe that all the Corintkan Christians, bond and free
upon acquaintance on the part of the interpreter with alike, who spoke with tongues had previously at one period or
another been in Jerusalem, and there had excitement and
anguish of so enduring a character that their memory could he
1 C p Hilgenfeld, Glossolalie, 119136 (1850); Goebel, ZiscLr. stimulated with regard to them in this abnormal way : and this
fzir hist. TheoC. 1854, pp. 2677322,377-438 ; 1855, pp. gq-~do,327' too for discourses of which they could not by any means have
425 ; Evanx. h-irchen-ztg. 1837, No. 54-56 61 f: : Hohl, had the same impression as the Camisard children just spoken
CvucLslJcke aws . .. ; Oliphant, kLife of?ming,
fming, ~ 8 3 9 of that all salvation lay in them for they did not turn to
1862 ; Joh. Nic. Kahler, Let Irvingisme, 1876(contains examples Jjdaism : at least this is not affirme6 by Wright. H e is equally
of tongue-speeches actually delivered) ; Reich, St.Kr. 1849, silent as to what it was that brought on the ecstatic state at
pp. 1g3-242; Fahri, Die newten Enueckungcn in America, the repetition of discourses formerly heard. H e speaks ,of the
lrZand etc. (1860)' Id. Die Enueckun en auf deutsrhem whole as 'a miracle, not of power, but of providence ; the
Bodm,'1861 ; Delitzdch, 232.Psyrk0lngip,~~316-320 =PI 364-368 latter he sees in 'the choice of time, the preparation of
(r86r) ; Kerner, Die Sehenn von Preuorst, 1829 and often. the speakers beforehand, the selection of suitable words, the
4763 4764
restriction of the gifts to particular persons.’ Finally, he here the subject can only be ‘fire,’ the only other subject which
nevertheless finds himself compelled to add to his words is grammatically possible, the ‘sound ’ (?j~os) of v. 2 being ex-
quoted above, the following, as an explanation of the cluded by the nature of the case. Perhaps the pl. ( 8 K a O r u a v ) is
ecstasy : ‘ the exciting cause may finally have been not merely nevertheless to be read, as in H*D sah. cop. pesh.
mental tension, hut the direct impulse of the Holy Ghost.’ The
interpretation of the tongue-speeches on the other hand he ( d ) These tongues of fire, however, remain out of
accounts for by ‘ a knowledge of the language” where however, account also in the interpretation that a miracle of
it is the tongue-speaker who is himself the’ interpieter, this
explanation will not serve : for the speaker ‘had no recollection speech is intended in so far as that interpretation has
of what he had said.’ In such a case, then, ‘interpretation’ been set forth undrr ( u ) . Since, however, they cannot
must mean ‘any utterance made in the vernacular during the by any means be regarded as of subordinate importance
state of ecstasy.’ Wright has heen led to put forward his they urgently call for some explanation. This has in
hypothesis ‘from a sense of the very serious danger of calling
in question the historical truth of the Acts of the Apostles.’ part been given already (see M I N I S T R Y , 5 21 c). The
With the purpose of obviating this danger he does as great event of Pentecost is there represented as a parallel to
violence to the language of Paul as any of his predecessors. the giving of the Law on Sinai. T o this parallel belongs
What is excluded by the words of Paul is exactly also the loud noise from heaven with which the scene is
what is meant in Acts21-13: the IZO of 11s spoke opened in a. 2. In virtue of this very circumstance,
lo. Acts21-13 in the languages of the PGthlans, however, the narrative lies gravely open to the suspicion
that it rests not upon observation of fact but upon the
and Ildk. l6 17‘ M7?k?texDedients that have been activity of the imagination.
resorted to are innumerable : ihe friendly address pro- (e) In what is said about the audience the text has suffered
duced in the foreigners only a homelike feeling ; or they greatly. ‘ Both Jews and proselytes’ (‘Iou8a;oi r e rrai .ipomj-
Avrar) in v. TI is impossible as a clause in the enumeration ; it
interpreted the disconnected sounds of the actual tongue- has sense only if taken as in apposition to all the other clauses
speaking described in I Cor. in each case as utterances together, so that what is mean: IS : ‘and in fact of every nation,
of their own language; or the 120 spoke a single horn Jews and also proselytes. Thus it had its place originally
either after ‘Arabs ’ (”Apa@sr),or on the margin as a gloss, but a
language, a new one miraculously intelligible to all. correct one. In order that foreigners should he hearing their
whether that of Paradise or the future language of mother-tongue it is not in point of fact enough that horn Jews
heaven ; or they spoke not Aramaic but Hebrew, and should he represented a5 present from foreign countries; pro-
in this the foreigners, who all of them were Jews or selytes also must he there, to whom the foreign language was
reall a mother-tongue in the full and proper sense of the word.
Proselytes, recognised the language of worship to which
they were accustomed at home ; or the 120 spoke only
(A Against this, however, there is what we find in v. 5, where
all the hearers are called ‘Jews dwFlling in Jerusalem’ (cis
a few languages, not wholly unknown to them but only Iepovcahqp xararroirvrcr ’Io~8a;ot). Jews ’ in fact is wanting
in N ; hut even so it is improbable that all these strangers in
unfamiliar, such as Arabic, colloquial Greek, colloquial e ~ ) ; it would he
Jerusalem had their residence ( r a r o ~ ~ o 6 u rthere
Latin; or those who spoke were not by any means much easier to suppose that they were there only as visitors at
only the 120 but all the foreigners who were present the feast. The circumstance also that ‘dwelling’ ( K a T O r K O ~ v 7 c S )
with them. This and all the like is strictly excluded in C pesh. cop. comes hefore instead of after ‘in Jerusalem,’
and ‘Jews’ in E before instead of after ‘dwelling ’ can be held
by the thrice repeated statement (m. 6 8 11) that every as indicating that both words were originally a gloss, and in
man of the foreigners heard the IZO speaking in his this case a wrong one. If so it would have to he attributed to
own mother-tongue. the desire to produce harmony with 7’. 14 : ‘Jews and dwellers
at Jerusalem (&&prs ’Iov8a;or rcai 0; K a r O r K o ~ V R S‘IcpouuaA&).
(6) The only theory still left open would seem to be Yet see below i end.
that of a miracle of hearing instead of a miracle of (x)For the’sime reason ‘ sojourners ’ (0;&r8qi.~oirure~) before
speaking. Yet neither does such a supposition hit the ’ Romans ’ (‘Po,~a;oi)in v. IO is open to the suspicion of being a
meaning of the author ; for according to what he says gloss if it means Roman citizens who were settled in Jerusalem.
Should it he intended however merely to indicate that they were
the foreign languages were not only heard but also there on a passing vikt the eipression will fitly apply not only
spoken. The words of v . 4 : ‘ they began to speak to Romans hut also equally well to all other nationalities, and
with other tongues’ (&&pars yXduuurs), receive their therefore would have had its right place before ‘Parthians’
(IIdptJor : v. 9). That Roman citizens who were settled in Rome
interpretation precisely in the statement ‘ we hear them (not in the province) should he intended is excluded by the
speak in our mother-tongue ’ (Tak + J ~ E T . ! ~ U Cyhduuats.
S article, for this would affirm that they had come for the feast to
v. 1 1 ; ‘each in his mother-speech,‘ ZKUUTOS ~i
iSip Jerusalem in a body.
(h) Finally, ‘ Judaea’ (‘IpySaiav) in v. g between ‘Meso-
SraXPuy, m. 6 8). potamia’ and ‘ Ca padocia 1s very surprising [cp GEOGRAPHY
I t is possible to suppose a miracle of hearing, therefore, only S 26, end]. That yews understood the speakers really did no:
in the sense of ascribing to the author a confusion of such a need to he said. Already in Tertullian and (once) in Augustine
miracle with one of speech. But why should it have been pne- we read Armenia; in Jerome Syria. Others have conjectured
cisely a miracle of hearing? If it occurred in the ears or rather Idumrea, India, Ionia, Bithynia, Cilicia, Lydia, and even the N.
in the minds of the hearers there is no answer to the question Syrian kingdom of Yaudi with which we are acquainted from
wherefore it was that the d o l y Spirit exercised his miraculous the inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser Lcp UZZIAH,5 71.
influence precisely in this quarter, whilst it is not onlysaid (v. 4),
but is also appropriate to the situation, that it was on the (i) In other passages (1046, 1 9 6 ) Acts mentions
speakers that he wrought. According to others the miracle, in tongue-speech without the idea of a speaking in foreign
becoming a miracle of hearing, happened during the transmis-
sion from the mouth of the speaker to the ear of the hearer. languages and without the addition of ’ other ’ (2rCpars)
The Holy Spirit ‘interpreted the words during their passage to ‘tongues ’ (yXduuars), so that there is no reason for
through the air, so as to present them to the ears of the numerous doubting that the same thing is intended as that which
listeners, to each in his native tongue. Here one can only ask we find in Paul. Now, this cannot by any means lead
in increased surprise why it is precisely the Holy Ghost that is
named as the author of a miracle which is accomplished in no to our finding ourselves compelled, at the cost of what-
human being hut in a dead object. ever violence to the words, to find the same view of the
(c) Another question : Wherefore the ‘ tongues as of matter also in Acts 2 ; but it does doubtless tend to
fire ’ (yX&uuac &mi wup6s ) in v. 3 1 In this view that raise the question whether perhaps Acts 2 also may not
a miracle of hearing is intended, they are left wholly depend on an underlying source which spoke of tongue-
ont of account. Other interpreters have, in view of speech as fittingly as did those which have been used in
what is said of the tongues, supposed that according to 1046 1 9 6 . The same idea is suggested also by the
Acts the miracle was one wrought on the organs of speech. remark of Peter in 1047 that Cornelius and his house
Since ‘tongue’ in v. 3 denotes the organ of speech this seemed ‘ have received the Holy Ghost as well as we ’ (cp 1115,
to be the case also in v. 4 ; the meaning would therefore be: 17). Further it has long ago been remarked that the
they received in their mouths new tongues and therewith spoke reproach of drunkenness in 213, if the languages of
a new speech. Here, however, not only does one miss all foreign nations were what was being heard, would by
possibility of conceiving the nature of what happened, so that
one is compelled to describe the suggestion of it as simply no means have been appropriate, and that the speech of
fantastical ; the idea further is not in the least indicated by the Peter in 2 14-36 has no relation to hearers from foreign
words. The ‘ tongues as of fire ’ of D. 3 have nothing to do with parts or to any miracle of this description, but explains
the ‘ other tongues ’ of v. 4 ; for the tongues of fire do not enter
:he mouth hut rest upon the head. Such remains the meaning the event by the prophecy in Joel ( 3 1 - 5 ) as to the out-
even if the reading ‘ rested’ (ird6’ruw : sing.) is adopted ; for pouring of the Holy Spirit with prophetic specches,
4765 47%
visions, and dreams (216-18). Of the various attempts (?r!vt)yXwuuGv) can hardly be distinguished. ( 6 ) The
at separation of sources (see ACTS, 5 11) the simplest sing. ‘ speak in a tongue ‘ (yX3uuy X a X e b ) or ‘ pray in
and therefore the most probable is that which holds the a tongue’ (yX6uuy rpouebXeu8at) can in this view, as
source to have contained v. 4 (without ‘ other,’ ~ T C ~ U L S ) Heinrici himself says, mean no more than the utterance
followed immediately by vv. I Z ~ : ; in fact the conjecture of a shout of praise or the heaving of a sigh. In that
has been hazarded that 431 presents only another case the question arises as to how a complete prayer of
account of the same event. such a kind as to require an interpreter can be produced
I t would also be conceivable that a fragment of the source ‘2 (14 14) and why Paul should be indisposed to allow more
PCEF
reserved likewise in the words ‘Jews dwelling in Jerusalem
‘Ieppavuah+p r a r O r K O ~ v T f 5 ‘Iov8a;or) in 2 5. The source in
that case will have mentioned not foreigners but only men of
than two or three such ‘ speeches ’ (v.27). each of which
wonld occupy a minute. ( c ) Even a stringing
erusnlem as witnesses of the occurrence, and it would justly together of such expressions, for which, according to
6, come a question whether the event occurred a t Pentecost (see
MINISTRY, 0 21 c, 4. Yet by its whole structure the sentencq
Heinrici, the plural ‘ speak with tongues ‘ (yh3uuats
is fitted to describe a speech-wonder. Should ‘Jews dwelling XaAe?v) is employed, can have resulted in no speeches of
then not be a gloss (see above,f), we should have to suppose such length as to render regulations necessary for their
that the redactor had very unskilfully retained these words restriction in this respect ; on the other hand Paul gives
from his source.
not the slightest hint at discourses in which such
( R ) The occasion for bringing in the idea of the ‘ tongues ’ were a characteristic feature, but which on the
giving of the law at Sinai, and thereby completely alter- whole consisted of intelligible words and therefore could
ing the character of the narrative, can perhaps be looked extend to considerable length. Heinrici infers dis-
for in the increasing importance which gradually had courses of this kind only from v. 19. The statement
come to be attached to the event of Pentecost as marking here made, however, would he quite ineffective if its
the presumed moment of foundation of the church meaning was : I had rather deliver five discourses with
(against this see MINISTRY, 5 21, b, d ) . Yet subsidiary my understanding than ten thousand discourses in which
circumstances can also have contributed to the same archaic expressions occur. It becomes effective only if
result. One such can be sought for in the passage of the meaning is (as in EV) : ‘ I had rather speak five
Joel cited in Acts 219 in so far as it speaks of ‘ wonders
in the heavens above and signs on the earth beneath,’
words ... than ten thousand words.’ (4
the Spirit should have inspired precisely expressions of
and of ‘fire,’even if rhis be associated there with ‘blood’ this sort, and how the employment of them could have
and ‘vapour of smoke.’ A still more obvious sugges- served for private edification (vv.4 18f. 28) remains wholly
tion is that the occasion may have been furnished by a obscure. ( e ) For interpretation of this kind of
misunderstanding of I Cor. 1421 for which Paul himself ‘speech’ what is needed is not the gift of the Holy
is responsible. Spirit, but philological knowledge. (f)But above
14 21 Paul cites Is. 28 11.f as evidence of the unin- all we must ask, How is to be explained the ecstasy
and uselessness of tongue-speeches without observing
that in Isaiah in the case of the Assyrians by whom God is that accompanies the use of such out-of-the-way expres-
about to speak to the people of Israel it is not the language sions? In short, whilst the interpretation of ‘ tongues’
spoken by them that matters but only the sword by which they a s meaning speeches in foreign languages still allowed
are to destroy Israel. Pant, moreover, contrary alike to M T and
the LXX, makes of the whole a divine utterance, and introduces the supernatural character of the occurrence to remain,
the words ‘ saith the Lord ’ (A+ r6pros) at the end, changes the that which takes them to mean mere rare expressions is
preterite of the last verb (‘they would not hear ’) into a future, simply a means of eliminating that character along with
and adds, ‘ not even thus ’ (066’ o h w s ) . By this means and by
the freely chosen composite verb ‘will they give heed’ ( & Q K o ~ - the ecstasy. Heinrici says (in Meyer : I 362=
uovrai) he has correctly reproduced one solitary feature of M T (s) 378) expressly that the outsiders alluded to in 1423
and the LXX. I n the interests of his parallel with tongue-speech could have taken the speakers with tongues to be men
what he ought to have taken from the O T passage ?as : ‘one will possessed, because they confounded their condition with
not be able to understand the men of foreign speech. Paul, how-
ever, actually says-quite unsuitably for the purpose he has in that of the Pythia and others who really spoke in
hand-in real if not in verbal agreement with fsaiah (‘they would ecstasy.
not hear ’) : ‘one will not give heed to them. Yet it is very in- Beyschlag (below, 5 21) accepts the speaking in
telligible that a superficial reader could draw from the entire
citation in Paul nothing further than that the speakers with ecstasy, and in fact actually proposes to explain the ex-
tongues had spoken in the languages of foreign peoples. 12. Tongues pression ‘ speaking with tongues ’ by
(I) As Mk. 169-20 is entirely derived from the N T not meta- means of it, referring for the expression
literature, including Acts (see R ESURRECTION - N AR - phorical. (though not for the thing) to Acts23.
RATIVES, 5 8 6, C), there need be no hesitating in H e holds that the tongnes of fire are an
interpreting the ‘ they shall speak with new tongues’ echo of the fact that the tongues of speakers were
(yh6uuats XaXijuouucv K U W U ~ S of
) v. 17 simply as meaning actually moved with fiery eloquence. This figurative
‘ they shall speak in languages’ previously unknown to the way of speaking about a tongue of fire is the origin of
speakers, ‘new’( K U W U ~ Sthus
) being substituted for greater the name (yXDuuu). The pl. ‘tongues’ is to be
clearness for the ’other’(d.rr!puts)ofActs24. It is quiteim- explained, he thinks, even in cases where a single
probable that an independent tradition lies before us here. speaker is in question, by the circumstance that such a
Interesting but not indispensable is the conjecture of Michel; tongue of fire was regarded as having been bestowed
sen (Hct Emngelie aaar Marcus 29) by which ‘new anew on each occasion of its exercise. The oldest ex-
is made to disappear. WH has befoie ‘will lift up serpents’ pression accordingly was (he thinks) ‘to speak with
(&$err &poiturv) in brackets the additional words ‘and in their
hands’ ( i d I v ra;c x q x ~ i v ) . Out of this ‘and in their’ ( K a t ;v other (or new) tongues’ (Irkpars [or ~ a t v a R ]yX3uuars
T Q ~ or ) rather out of the contracted form ( ~ d v Tais) arose ‘ new’ XaXcTu) ; the simpler ‘ speak with tongues ’ (yXluuurs
( K Q c V a k ) and then ‘hands ’ ( p p u l u ) fell away. Instead of ‘in’
(Zv), Michelsen further conjectwes that the original text read
XaXeiv) is merely an abbreviation of this. In abbrevia-
‘ if‘ (;a”), and writes ‘lift ’ (+wuw) : ‘ and if they lift up serpents tion, however, it has to be replied, it is not usual to drop
with their hands’ ( r l v 7ak c p u b B@is l p w u w r l v Bavdurp6v precisely the most important part of the expression ; the
r b niwurv a; p i aiwocs ~ ~ r i + $ . correct abbreviation must have been I to speak with
Returning once more to I Cor. 14,the next interpreta- other (or new) ’ ( C T C ~ U L S [or ~ a r v a i s ]XaXfiv). The im-
tion of ‘tongues’ (TXGuuar)that invites our consideration possibility of this whole view of Beyschlag’s is clearly
ll. ,Tongues, is the old Greek one, according to exhibited, however, in I Cor. 14 26. Along with a psalm,
not = archaiF which are meant archaic expressions no a teaching, a revelation, and interpretation, a tongue of
expr6ssions. longer understood among the people, fire cannot fittingly be enumerated as a thing which one
or, strange and unusual locutions who takes part in a religious meeting has; for in the
generally, including new coinages. On this head see connection ‘ has (i‘xer) means ‘ has to contribute.’ I n
especially Bleek (below, 5 21), and Heinrici in his own more points than one Beyschlag nevertheless comes very
commentary and in Meyer’s. 4 near the truth.
( 4 ) On this interpretation, however, ‘kinds of tongues’ Above all, Beyschlag has rightly recognised that the
4767 4768
literal sense-the bodily member within the mouth-is literal sense; rather is it simply an instance of the
13. The tongne 1.0be taken as the fundamental mean- same transition from the instrument to its product which
ing of ‘ tongue.’ is exemplified in ordinary Greek when ‘tongue’(yX&ca)
as a bodily ( u ) The decisive passage for this is is used in the sense of ‘language.’ It is necessary
member’ I Cor. 149. In connection with n. 7 3 to assume that this transition was effected anew in the
the sense must be: as the sound of pipe. harp, and primitive Christian usage in a narrower sphere, for the
trumpet cannot be rightly understood if they give out reason that all other explanations have been shown to
no clear sound, so also what is spoken by you cannot be unworkable. If ‘tongue’ could mean the language
be understood if you give forth no clear speech with of a foreign nation, or an archaic individual expression,
your tongue. 1426 would at least be intelligible ; as these meanings
This is the exact logical course of the comparison : to the are unpracticable ux should have to render : ‘ when ye
musical instruments which give forth either a clear or an unclear come together, each one hath a psalm, hath a teaching,
sound, corresponds as instrument of speech the member in the
mouth. If here by ‘tongue’ w e meant theparticular manner hath a revelation, hath a (human) tongue (in his mouth),
of speech that is known as ‘speaking wth tongues,’ the hath an interpretation ‘-which clearly is meaningless.
case that an unintelligible speech is gwen conid not for a a Tongue ’ must necessarily be something of the same
moment be suggested as merely a possible case; for according
to Paul this happens in all circumstances. Nor, again, have order as the other things enumerated ; and thus a
we here a new example arallel to that of the musical definite kind of discourse which is capable of being
instruments, but one draw;, Kom what is observed in ordinary delivered in a religious meeting.
human speech. We do not reach this till we come to v. rof: ; S o also v. 6: ‘if I come unto you speaking with tongues,
and as the application of that example to the Corinthian what shall I profit you, unless I speak to you [we must sup ly :
speakers with tongues is made in o. 12 by tht expression ‘so at the same time] either by way of revelation or of knowlefge,’
also you ’ (OS- e& irpekh in like manner w e must regard the and so forth. Similarly too 13 8 : ‘ whether there be prophecies
Same expression in v. 9 as introducing a n application of the
preceding illustrations drawn from the musical instruments to
.. . whether there be tongues . . . whether there be knowledge,,
it shall he done away.’ Indeed in the plural ‘tongues
the same persons. ‘ Tongue here thus signifies in actual fact we now recognise everywhere the different ‘kinds of tongues’
the tongue of the Corinthian speakers, yet neither as producing (y&p yAoc&.i)y).
the so-called tongue-speeches nor yet as producing ordinary
human speech, hut simply in so far as it is capable of giving In accordance with the attribution of tongue-speech
forth alike the (always unintelligible) tongue-speech, and also a to the operation of the Holy Ghost, the interpretation
kind of speech parallel to this, still intelligible, in the church 16. hterpreta- of it also is regarded as a spiritual
meetings-such speech as prophecy, for example.
( u ) It is in the first place to be
(6) Here then we have the origin of the expression Of
a r k e d that the tongue - speaker
* speak with a tongue.’ If all discourse is e f k t e d by epwches* Z himself, as well as another, can possess
means of tile human tongue and yet only this particular this gift. The first is established by 1413,the second
kind of speech is named from it, the idea can only be by the co-ordination in 12 to 1426 ; for as not every one
this, that in the case in question the part it plays is is capable of giving all the kinds of discourse there
particularly strong, or even, so far as may be, exclusive. enumerated, the meaning must be: ‘when ye come
In excellent agreement with this is the use of the together each one hath either a psalm or a teaching
opposite expression ‘ speak with the understanding ’
{ @ rot XaXeiv). In intelligible speech the ‘under-
. .In .this sense then,
o r a tongue-speech o r an interpretation. ’
we must interpret w. 2 7 f : also. ‘ I f any
standing ’ (VOCE) has a part, indeed so prominent a p a t man speaketh in a tongue, let it be by two, or a t the most three
that it alone calls for mention ; in the contrasted case .. . and let one interpret.’ If this interpreter is one of the
tongue-speakers, who expouixds his own tongue-speech, then
it is not engaged, and thus it might seem as if it were what immediately follows will mean : ‘but if he is not an
the tongue alone that produced the speech. interpreter’ (& 61 v+ 8 Ircppr)urv~<c);and this seems to he
Needless to .say the belief was that in ‘speaking with tongues’ absolutely necessary, since the sentence closes with ’let him
fhe tongue was ;et in motion by the Holy Ghost (ow. z , . I ~ ) , keep sileiice’(mydnu) whilst if all the tongue-speakers whose
just as in intelligible speech i t was set in motion by the ‘nnder- speech had no interpreter at h y d had to keep silence, the
standing‘ (voirs); but ‘ ( t o speak) with the spirit’ (nufJpan expression ought t o have run : let i&wz keep silence ’ (cry&-
[Ad&]) was not an appmpriate verbal expression for this, muav). I n that case, however, Paul would on the one hand be
because it would have applied equally well to prophecy, enjoining that of the two, or three, tongue-speeches delivered
widom-speech, knowledge-speech, and so forth. I t is also oue, or two, should remain uninterpreted, which is directl;
quite fitting that the designation of so characteristic a matter contrary to the principle laid down by him in m. 2-11 16-19
should be chosen with express reference to the impression which 2zJt: a6-and on the other hand he would be excluding inter-
i t produced upon the senses, and in this case it really a p p e d pretation by some other person than the speaker, whilst yet such
as if the tongue alone were speaking. True, that the lips, teeth, interpretation is, acmrding to 1 2 IO 14 26, a spiritual gift. Thus
pilate, etc., are also engaged. But a designation that is to be we must, after all. suppose that Paul, in a somewhat careless
in daily use needs to be short, and here it was enough t o name way, thou ht of ‘the person concerned’ as the subject of the
the most important organ; and that the tonwe is in popular singular ‘fceep silence ’ (ory6bo)l and that we ought to render
belief the most important organ of speech is evident. (with FV): ‘ if there he no inter reter.’ This too is inexactly
( c ) This explanation nevertheless leaves something
said : let [only] one interpret’ (& Grrpp*Mviro& What Paul
had in his mind perhaps was : ‘ let one a t least interpret.’ The
still to be desired. The plural ‘speak with tongues ‘ continuation ‘but if there be no interpreter’ fits this well.
(yhhuuats XaXeiv) is accounted for by it only in cases If this view be correct, we learn from the passage
where it is used with reference to more speakers than before us that those persons in the church who were in a
one ( 1 2 p 1 4 g n 2 2 f : 3 9 ) ; and thus not in 1 4 6 (and position to interpret tongue-speeches were generally
v . 18 according to W H ) , nor yet in v. 51’ 1210, although known and thus exercised this function with some
here the singular, used of the person speaking, has a regularity. The possibility was not excluded, indeed.
collective sense. Where only one speaker is in question, that some one on some occasion might give an inter-
the attempt has been made to explain the plural pretation who had not previously done so. Clearly,
(yXJuuars)as arising from the idea that in passing from however, Paul is not disposed to rely upon the un-
o n e manner of speech to another the ‘ tongue’ is in certain, and therefore he prescribes that if an interpre-
some degree changed; but such an idea is much too tation is not assured (such doubtless w-illbe the intention
fantastic to have arisen in popular spkech, which never- of his wards) the tongue-speech is to be from the
theless we must certainly assume to have been the case outset suppressed.
with all such expressions as this. And what of cases ( b ) What, next, were the means by which an
in which ‘tongues’ stands alone, without a verb individual other than the tongue-speaker became able
(121028 138 1 4 2 z ) ? to understand the tongue-speech ? If this faculty w-as
All the conditions are satisfied only by oneassumption : a purely supernatural one, our question has no point ;
‘ t o n-~ u e (yXGuuu,
’. . apart from 149) - . must be rrndered but the case was assuredly otherwise. With what
Tonme= ,‘ tongue-speech,‘-Le., speech which, degree of precision the interpreter was able to elucidate
to,&e-speech. m the manner described in 5 136,
1 Similarly, ‘the persons concerned is to he supplied as the
seems to be produced by the tonRue subject of the plurals ~ F & U U W (I Cor. 7 36) and r r q r A 6 p m . w
alone. This is by no means a departure from t h e (zThess. 3 6) as W H q . and Tischendorf read.
4769 4770
the sense of a tongue-speech we cannot tell. The and without letting us know whether by it he under-
more one was disposed to rest satisfied with genetal stands the phenomena met with in I Cor. 14, or what
renderings, the easier was it to supply them. The tone is described in Acts 2. Irenziis says :
of the voice, the gestures, the recurrence of particular ‘ We hear of many brethren in thechurch possessing prophetic
words or sounds certainly offered clues. Further help gifts and speaking through the Spirit in all kindepf tongues and
bringing to light for the general advantage the hidden things of
was gained from observation of the habits of the tongue- men and setting forth the mysteries of God’ (rioAAiv A K O ~ O ~ W
speakers. W e can hardly imagine otherwise than that &3sA-#Gv Iv 6 I ~ r A q u i p r p 4 q r ‘ ~ bFapiupala d ~ 6 v r w v .ai
their speeches readily assumed a stereotyped character. ravro8ara?s AaAolivrov SLB rod rvfwparos yAJuuais cai d
+@+La r i v Iuep&ov cis +avrpbv by6vrov irir T$ ovp+ipovrr .ai
If, however, at any time a tongue-speaker brought r,i puuvjpra rot? Om8 ;KSL~YOU~CVOV). It is to be noted that the
forth something unaccustomed, a knowledge of what making manifest of the,secrets of men of which Irenatus speaks
experiences he had recently been having would certainly immediately after mentioning tongue-speech is in I Cor. 14 24f:
not be useless towards an understanding of his speech. attributed to the prophets, not to those who speak with tongues.
Tertullian also does not say that there was speaking with
(c) It must he expressly noted that the things enumerated in tongues in his day’ all that he does is contemptuously to call
14 6 alon:, with tongue-speech-revelation,knowledge, prophesp- upon Marcion to eihibit in the case of any of his followers the
ing t e a c h i n g 4 0 nc: constitute the interpretation of tongue- exercise of spiritual qifts which, says he, ‘are forthcon;ling from
spekh in some such sense that the meaning will be ‘when I side more easily (‘a me facilius proferuntur’): exhibeat
come unto you speaking with tongues what shall I profit you if
I do not forthwith interpret these tongue-speeches in the form
my
Marcion .. . aliquor prophetas . ..
qui et futura pratnnntiarint
et cordis occulta traduxerint (or : produxerint?); edat aliquem
of revelation’ etc. This misunderstanding is froin the outset ps+murn, aliquam visionem, aliquam orationem, dumtaxat
precluded by this that in v . 26 ‘interpretation’ stands in co- spiritalem,in ecstasi, id est, amentia, si qua lingus interpretatio
ordination alike dith ‘revelation,’etc., and with ‘tongue. On accessit ’ (adv. Marc. 5 8,.end). Thus tongue-speech appears,
the other hand, it is possible that interpretation of tongue-s eech not as an independent thing, hut merely in an added sentence
f
is intended in 21. 15 : ‘ I will pray with the Spirit and will which with the whole of its surroundings is clearly reminiscent
Pray with the understanding also,’ that is to say &le I repeat of I Cor. 14 z s f : The ecstatical spiritual utterance, of which
in intelligible language the substance of the prayer I have Tertullian speaks, in his time refers not to ‘tongue-speech
originally uttered in ecstasy. This view is recommended by the hut to ‘ prophecy.
fact that, immediately before (v. 13), the tongue-speaker. is
admonished to aim at being able to interpret ha own tongue- (c) For the ecstatical form of utterance did not
speeches.
disappear so quickly as did tongue-speech. On the
On the subject of the diffusion of the tongue-charism contrary it became merged in the exercise of ‘ prophecy.’
our information is very defective. \
( a ) We are not
,
This was favoured in the highest degree by the cir-
aware that tongue-speech (and the
16. Spreadand allied charisms) had any considerable cumstance that already the O T prophecy was conceived
end of ‘ tongue- diffusion within the Jewish-Christian of as wholly ecstatical (above, § 86). This form of
-speech ’ an!
prophecy
charisms.
area; but neither is there adequate
ground for denying to the Jewish
utterance was most strongly prevalent in Montanism.
This may be the reason why stress is laid upon it by
Tertullian ; but as Montanisin altogether was nothing
Christians all aDtitude for such
~I
new, but only a strong revival of a tendency which had
charisms, or for accusing the author of Acts of having once before had prevalence within the church although
as a Paulinist arbitrarily introduced it into his account subsequently repressed, so also its view of prophecy
of the primitive Christian world. If he had not found was, even if not exactly what might be called the
them in the sources on which he drew for 21-13 1046f: primitive Christian one, then at least the post-apostolic-
196, but merely drew upon his imagination, we may be churchly one (Weinel, 78-96). It was only by way of
pretty confident that he would have brought in the reaction against the exaggerations of this and against
same elements at other points as well. Of course, the the dangers for ecclesiastical office which grew out of it
mere fact that they were present in his sources does not that brought churchmen at last to the view which finds
of itself give any security that their picture of .the expression in the title of the treatise of Miltiades (Eus.
diffusion of the charisms is historically correct.
HE v. 171), ‘ O n the necessity of a prophet’s not
( b ) In exact proportion to the intensity with which speaking in ecstasy’ ( r e p i TOG p+j 6eiw rpoQ;rqw ew
the charism of tongue-speech was exercised in Corinth 6~urCiu~i XaXriw). As to how it came about that
in Paul’s time does the complete silence of the Epistle ‘prophecy’ also in its turn had to recede into the
to the Romans on the same subject invite remark. I n background and give place to the ecclesiastical office,
I Thess. 519 ( ‘ quench not the spirit ’) it may perhaps
see MINISTRY,8 38.
be intended, or at least included. In any case If, finally, we proceed to inquire into the value which
it cannot have long survived its most flourishing the charisms possessed for primitive Christianity, we
period. The author of Acts certainly can never have 17. popular shall find that judges differ. ( u ) In the
heard it exercised, otherwise he could not possibly have view of the church of Corinth (which is almost the
fallen into the mistake of supposing that it was speech charisms. only authority to which we can refer) they
in the language of foreign nations, or into the confusion were valued very highly. They were re-
of identifying with this foreign speech the speaking with garded, and quite naturally, as evidences of special grace
tongues which occurred at the conversion of Cornelius and favour, and were therefore zealously striven after
(Acts 1046 f: 1115 17). It is a significant fact that (1412). This zeal, if a right zeal, was manifested in
Justin for his own period (about 155 A.D.) mentions prayer (1413 does not mean that he who speaks in
only prophetic gifts ( r p o & T i K & Xuphpasa) but no tongue-speech is to pronounce this ecstatic prayer
speaking with tongues (DiuZ. 82, begin. ). Irenaeus of his with the purpose of interpreting it afterwards :
(about 185 A.D.), in his detailed treatment of the the meaning is that when not exercising his charism of
charisms of which numberless instances happened every tongue-speech he is to pray for the gift of being able
day (HEY. ii. 493 [=324]; also up. Eus. HEv. 7 3 - 5 ) , himself to interpret any tongue-speeches he may subse-
speaks only of exorcisms of demons, prophetic visions quently receive). But we shall hardly be doing the
and utterances, healings, and some cases of raising of Corinthians an injustice if we suppose that many of them
the dead. In another place (v. 61 ; also up. Eus. sought to secure for themselves those ‘ gifts’ by other
HE v. 7 6 ) he mentions tongue-speech also, but only as means also-by imitation, or by artificially working
something with regard to which he tears that it themselves up into a condition of excitement, by efforts
happens in the case of many brethren in the Church constantly repeated. Vanity, it would seem, was not
1 The most familiar example, by which it has been attempted altogether without its part in the matter ; otherwise the
to explain the process, is t h e following: a tongue-speaker
babbled disconnectedly the syllables a6 and b a ; the interpreter gift most prized and coveted would hardly have been
believed himself to have discovered the Aramaic word abba. that of tongue-speech, the most conspicuous indeed of
Possihly the matter often fell out so. It must not, however, he them all, but at the same time the least fruitful. In the
thought that precisely this word was known only to certain mouth of the Corinthian Christians the tongue-speaker
interpreters. As Paul employs it iu Roin. 8 r g Gal. 46 it must
have been known to Gentile Christians generally. alone was the ‘spiritual’ person ( ~ U E I J ~ ~ :T ~1437,
K ~ E
4771 4772
and, in accordance with this, in all probability 121 (6) ,In all places where it occurs the 'discerning of
also). spirits is mentioned directly after ' prophecy ' ( I Cor.
( b ) From this we can see, at the same time, what 12101429,cp I Thess. 521). In itself considered, it isnot
it was that properly speaking was regarded as the easy to see why mention should not be made of it in
valuable element in the charisms. It was the extra- connection with ' word of wisdom ' or ' word of know-
ordinary, the wonderful or miracnlous, that quality in ledge.' Yet it is easy to understand how it needed
them which conferred a special importance on those who specially to be called into requisition in connection with
possessed them. Fondamentally the view taken does ' prophecy,' if this last gave definite directions as to what
not differ from that of the Greek religion. Man desires ought to be done in definite particular cases (J 7 d ) .
to enjoy the possession of the godhead, bestowing itself From I Cor. 1429 we cannot infer that only those who
on him individually. The same view dominates in the also possessed that of ' prophecy ' possessed the gift of
O T ; and in Gentile-Christian circles also the O T con- ' discerning ' ; ' the others ' (ot dXhor) can include others
ceptions of the operations of the Spirit of God can have also.
been familiar and influential. This conception has a ( e ) The recognition of a 'discerning of spirits' in-
marked leaning towards the quaintly, or even, one might volves in principle a complete abandonment of the belief
say, grotesquely miraculous. Thus it is the Spirit that in suggestion of the Holy Spirit. With the utniost
enables Samson to rend a lion or burst his own fetters, emphasis Paul insists ( I Cor. l Z 4 - x 1 1 4 3 3 ) that all
that is able to convey Elijah from place to place at charisms proceed from the Holy Spirit or from God ;
pleasure (Judg. 1 4 6 15 14 I K. 18 12 z K. 2 16 ; cp in N T but at the same time they can also come from evil spirits
Acts 839). Whether the thing done has a religious and the listeners must decide for themselves as to this,
purpose comes but little into the question. and in fact decide again upon the basis of inspiration.
This way of looking at the charisms is precisely that Here the most important point is that it is not Paul who
which makes it Dossible to attribute the same workings to Y
introduces the ' discerning of spirits ' as something new ;
18. other spirits than the Holy Spirit. (p) rather does it exist in Corinth as a thing of course. Here
reveals itself the impossibility of continuing to hold fast
of spirits. The belief in the existence of such spirits
was at that time exceedindv urevalent. the belief in divine inspiration if a free use of it is made
0 , I
Broadly speaking, they do not fall simply under the two in the actualities of life.
categories of good and evil, but many of them are re- Already in the OT it had been found necessary to set up
garded simply as of a subordinate character and a s
restricted in their insight. Whether they were called
criteria for discriminating between false and true pro hets
that the one class relate dreams, the others 'spes! mi 2:;
faithfully' (Jer. 2328) was, naturally, a quite inadequate dis-
demons in accordance with pagan ideas, or angels in tinction. That the true prophet must be a rophet of evil (Jer.
accordance with those of the OT, was indifferent ; in 288) may have been true in Jerusalem in yeremiah's day; but
either case they were thought of as quite personal and at other times, as, for example, in those of Deutero-Isaiah, this
maxim might have been turned against the prophets now become
as very active. Of such a spirit it is, for example, pre- canonical, and Jeremiah in fact finds himself constrained to add
supposed in z Thess. 2 2 that it can produce the erroneous 'if a pro het prophesies peace and his word comes to pass, the:
belief that the day of the Lord is immediately at shall he f e known to he a true prophet' (289). The result is set
hand. up as a criterion quite expressly in Dt. 18 20-22, cp Ezek. 33 33.
Not only, however, does this criterion fail to he available early
(6). That these conceptions are present in I Cor. 14 enough; in Dt. 13 2-4 is contemplated the case in which it may
also is shown by the plural, spirits' (7ruchpa.ra) which, prove to have been deceptive, and for discerning the true prophet
for linguistic reasons, cannot be taken to mean ' opera- the only way left is to ask whether he labours in the service of
Yahwk and (so Jer. 23 22) seeks to bring back the people from
tions of the spirit'- a meaning, moreover, which in the error of their ways. [Cp P ROPHET, B$ 23 2j.I
u. 32 is excluded by the connection in which the word
occurs ( ' the spirits of the prophets are subject to the Equally inadequate is the criterion set up in I Cor.
prophets '). Thus to each prophet is assigned a proper 123 : ' no man speaking in the Spirit of God saith, Jesus
spirit, conceived of personally, by which he is inspired is anathema. ' As to the difficulties and inconveniences
(cp Rev. 226 : ' the God of the spirits of the prophets '). experienced by the apostolic age from the impossibility
Quite similarly I Cor. 14 14 also : ' if I pray in a tongue, of finding proper norms by which prophets could be
my spirit prayeth. ' Here it is not the proper spirit, so tested, see M I N I S T RY , 38 a , b.
to say, with which a man is born, that is intended ; for this But what did P a d think of the charisms? ( a ) On
the apostle designates rather by the word ' understand- the one side he entirely shares the popular opinion. He
ing' (VOCE), and distinguishes in this very verse from 19. Psul'e holds them all for ope&ionsbf the Holy
' my spirit.' From this it follows that 21. 12 also is to be view of the Spirit, and is not sensible of the contra-
understood quite literally : ' ye are zealous of spirits,' chariems. diction which we have discovered (above,
that is to say, one of you seeks to obtain an inspiration Ij 18 b, c, E ) in his own words, to the effect
from one spirit, another from another. that such operations can proceed from other spirits also,
(6) If this were not the meaning, no such thing as the in fact from evil ones. At the close of the discussion,
'discerning of spirits' would be possible. By the in order that any remarks of his in disparagement of
' spirits ' here interpreters indeed have proposed to tongue-speech may not be misunderstood, he says :
understand distributions of the one Holy Spirit such as 1 forbid not to speak with tongues ' ( I Cor. 1439). H e
in point of fact were actually believed in (Nu. 1 1 2 5 Rev. makes no effort to bring into action a criterion for tongue-
1 4 31 45 56, Hermas, Sim.ix. 132 1 5 1 - 6 and often). speakers analogoils to the ' discerning ' applicable in the
Only, in this case also, any a discerning' would be case of prophets. That no such criterion should have
meaningless. For, beyond question, any act of ' dis- presented itself of its own accord is to be accounted for,
cerning' would consist in judging as to whether an on the one hand, by the consideration that tongue-
utterance founded upon spiritual suggestion was true or speeches were too unclear to admit of their showing
false, one to be followed or rejected. I Cor. 7 40 shows themselves to such disadvantage as in certain cases
us how easily it could happen that conflicting judgments definite sayings of prophets did, and, further, that even
were put forward on the ground that they were inspired. in cases where they threatened to do so they could be
Since Paul here supports his judgment on the subject of explained away ; on the other hand, by the considera-
re-marriage of widows with the words : ' I think that I tion that in the case of a tongue-speaker, one was, more
also have the Spirit of God,' we must conclude that in than in the case of a prophet, face to face u-ith a seem-
Corinth other persons on the ground of suggestion by ingly supernatural communication which could be re-
the Spirit had decided in the opposite sense. Cp ceived only with reverence and awe. The first-mentioned
1 4 3 7 5 where the best reading (dyuoebar) is to be pro- consideration would hardly have restrained Paul from
nounced as an imperative (dyumim) : if any man is setting up a criterion to be applied to tongue-speeches ;
ignorant, ignore ye him. for his disposition towards them is much the reverse of
4773 4774
SPIRITUAL GIFTS SPONGE
favourable, and he has every reason for seeking to limit on very well in their absence. It is, on the other hand,
their undesirable influence. The second consideration, equally intelligible that, once they had made their appear-
however, did. in point of fact, hold him back, especially ance they were infectious, that they brought the church
as, according to 1418,he himself was a speaker with life into serious danger, and that they led to reaction.
tongues more than any of the Corinthians. Paul led this reaction on sound principles; the later
(6) Alongside of this agreement with the popular view church led it increasingly in the interests of its conception
there presents itself, however, in the case of Paul, the of church oEce which was itself very unsound ; Paul by
great thought that every Christian hns the Holy Spirit the endeavour to persuade, the later church too often
(Gal. 32 5 etc.). and that the whole life of the Christian by the exercise of force. The phenomena in question
is an expression of the Spirit's activities (I Cor. 123 Gal. owe their disappearance, however, by no means to this
5 5 2 a f . Kom.55 84-16). This thought could not fail, reaction merely, but quite a s much to their own degenera-
in the case of every manifestation that laid claim to the tion. This degeneration was in large measure due to
character of a spiritual gift, to lead to the question being the faith in their miraculous character. In this case
asked a s to its spiritual value, but also, at the same time, also it was demonstrated that miracles produce a favour-
to lead to a lowering of the estimate put upon gifts in able impression only when seen from a distance ; where
which their wonderful character was the most important they have to be fitted into the daily realities of actual
thing, and to an increased appreciation of those which life they always bring evil consequences in their train.
consisted in an intensified exercise of the new Christian This holds true of the gift of healing the sick also, and
life on its moral side. In the first characteristic of our of miracle-working generally. The reaction just spoken
definition (3 I ) we have already Seen that the idea of of did not venture to deny the miraculous character of
the charisms is by no means uniform. Some of them the charisms. We for our part, however, are constiained
are expressly regarded as miraculous, in others it is to do 50, and to account for everything in the phenomena
very difficult to perceive anything wonderful. To this to which a miraculous character has .been attributed by
latter category belongs ministry' in all its forms ; the known psychological laws which can be observed in
' government' also, and the simpler forms of devotional cases of great mental exaltation, whether in persons
utterance. It is hardly probable that all these things who deem themselves inspired or in persons who simply
owed their designation as charisms to the pagan or OT require medical treatment.
presuppositions which had a share in the building up of The non-miraculous charisms on the other hand,
the conception ' charism ' {xdptupa). Since, then, this which, from the outset, possessed a moral character were
idea must have come to its maturity in the course of of abiding value. Without them the church could not
the missionary activity of Paul, under his eyes and with have lived; but they have never failed her and are
his co-operation, it is hardly too bold to conjecture destined never to become extinct; even should they
that it was through his influence that these compara- have ceased to be called charisms. it will remain ever-
tively non-miraculous, but, from an ethical point r)f lastingly true that they come from the Spirit of God.
view, all the more important, manifestations should On the whole subject see Dav. Schulz, Geisfesga6en, 1836;
have come to be included in the number of the Supernaturnl Religion [1877], 9 321-397=popular edition, I z
charisms. pp. 753-809 ; and the commentaries on I E",,:
( c ) T o the same order belongs also the most important 21. fiWatUre. 12-14. Works of a more comprehensivekind
are: Gunkel, Wi&unpn des bil. Geisfer
modification which Paul applied to the idea of a charism naeli der $0 uIdnn Anscliauuq der aport. Zeif u. nack der
when he refused to recognise as being such anything LeIm der I&&, 1888; cz) unaltered, I-; and, following
which had no utility for the life of the Christian coni- Gunkel, Weinel, Winkurrgnr des Gcisles a. der Gzistey irrt
mur&#osC. ZeiiaZfev his auf Z r e ~ e u s ,1849; Beversluis, De
munity (137, 7 b uupq5Cpov, profit' ; 1426, o I K o B o ~ + ,
'edification' ; see above, 3 d ) . By this miraculous
.
heiligegcest en zvne werkiqen nokens kef . . N.Vedond,
Utrecht, 1&96. On speaking with tongues, see Bleek Sf.ki-.
manifestations were by no means excluded ; but it was 1829, pp. 3-79; 18p, pp. 45-64; Eaur, TQ6. Z t s d r ~TAPOZ.:
no longer their miraculous character that supplied the 18306, pp. 75-133 ; St:Kr., 1838, pp. 618-702' Wieseler St.k-7.
1838, pp. 703-772 ; Hilgenfeld, Glossolalie, 1b50 : Rossieuscher)
measure accordiug to which they were to be valued. It Ga6e der Spvmkn, 1850 ; van Hengel, Gam der iukn, 1864 f
was with this principle as his basis that Paul entered Arthur Wright, SOMSNT P d l e m r , 2 7 7 . ~ 2[1&98].
especially on his campaign against the over-valuing of P. w. s.
tongue-speech. Broadly speaking, his great merit in
this ficld consists in his having nioralised, in accordance SPOIL. T h e words are; (I) 554". J i Z i Z , Gen.
with truly Christian principles, an idea that was only 4927 (a ~ & f ) , etc., UICOXOU, r p o v o p f , & u p s a y + ;
half religious, and essentially miraculous, and, so far (2) 18,bas, Jer. 1513, etc., UKAOY, H ~ O Y O ~ +Grapaay+
, ;
forth, unfruitful. also (3) a?@?, m&'imih, 2 K. 2114 etc., npej?,
We must proceed still farther in the same direction if n&Fuss~%,Is. 4224t Kt., H P O Y O ~ ~ $Graprayll;
, (4) P&,
we are to arrive at an ultimate .iudEment
- on the historical tereph, Job 29x7 etc.. tlpaaypa, biap?ray+. On the
20. Conclusion significance of the primitive Christian
division of spoils cp TAXATION, 5 I. See also
charisms. It is easily intelligible that S ACRIFICE, § 8.
the joy of enthusiasm over the possession of a new
redeeming religion should have expressed itself in an
exuberant way which. according to the ideas of that SPOKES, I . &i3z?im, WpVn, I K. 7 3 3 AV felloe.'
time. could only be regarded as the miraculous opera- See WHEEL,16.
tion of the Holy Spirit. Apart from the exceptions a. &Xatim, O'l$, I K.733 RV 'nave.' See WHEEL, l e .
specified above (a 17u ) we have no reason for doubting
that these manifestations were genuine expressions of the SPONQE (crrorroc), Mt. 2748=Mk. 1 5 3 6 = Jn.
feelins of a strong religious life, not mere artificial imita- 1929t. Neither r r . 5 y y o s nor u@by/os occurs in the
tions derived from the pagan cults. On the other hand, LXX. The use of the sponge, however, was early
we know with regard to Paul that his ecstasies in which known (cp, e.g., II. 18414; Od. 1111); see theClassica1
h e had visions coincided in point of time with the attacks Dictionaries.
of his malady (see G A L A T I A , 27); we shall, therefore, ' Sponge ' is the fibrous skeleton of a marine animal
hardly err if we bring into causal connection with this -the living part of which has been removed by dry-
malady the strong tendency to tongue-speech also, which, ing, washing, and bleaching-belonging to the g r o q
in any case, was intimately associated with the ecstatic Cornacuspongize of the non-calcareous sponges. T h e
condition. The ecstatical has always something of the most important Mediterranean species are Eusponp'u
unhealthy about it. Thus it is not difficult to explain oRcinnZis, the Levant toilet sponge ; and E . simmcu.
why extensive circles in the early church kept entirely the Zimocca sponge, and H@pospngin eqwina. the
free from such manifestations. The church could get horse-sponge. All these are found at a depth of
4775 4776
SPOON STAFF
3-100 fathoms along the coasts. The sponge fisheries 4. ma669d ( p p ) , Eccles. 126 (AV ‘ fountain ’),
of the Mediterranean are still the most important in Is. 357 4910. Properly a place where water bubbles
commerce, and the Syrian trade is considerable. or gushes up, cp the verb in Prov. 184 of a bubbling
A. E. S. spring, and metaphorically, of a gushing man in Prov.
SPOON (73, e Y I C K H ) . See ALTAR ; 5 IO ; COOK- 1 5 2 28, etc.
ING, § S , iii., INCENSE, § 7, and M EALS , § IO. 5. md&r ( l i p ) , a spring that has been dug(verb in 2 K. 19 24
I s 3725)- Mostly used in a figurative sense (Prov. 13 14 1622
SPOTTED (K)’?), Gen. 30 32 8 Ezek. 1616 ; see 1 6 4 etc.).
C OLOURS, 5 12. 6. 7mi:d (X$D), properly, ‘place of exit’ (cp also above col.
SPRINGS. In a country where perennial streams 883, n. 2), with O’p, 2 K. 221 Ps. 10733, 35 (6ri&&x), Is. 3725
are rwe, and where months of summer may pass without ( w w a y w y i ) , etc.
1. Distribution rain, the possession and preservation of 7. nb6d (7x3, orig. obscure) in Job 38 16, and perhaps also i6.
28 I T for ’?*, see DDB ad Zoc.
and preserva- water has always been a matter of
tion of water. serious concern. Water means life, E. p l l a t / i (j&), Judg. 1 1st ; see GOLATH-MAIM. Truemean-
ing unknown, perhaps a Canaanite word. On the supposition
and its value to the people of Canaan that the word IS corrupt see KEILAH.
is illustrated by manifold references and numerous 9. n n @ N , Dt. 3 17 RVmg., see ASHDOTH.PISGAH.
beautiful metaphors in the OT. For details concerning I O . vyi (the usual word in 6 for nos. IA, 4 8 ) , Jn. 4 6 Jas.
3 II z Pet. 227, etc.
the amount of rainfall in Palestine, see R AIN , 2, and 11. $p&p (Ws word for no. 3). Lk. 145 etc., an artificial well
on the distribution of springs and other sources of as opposed to xp+q (cp POOL, 2).
supply, see P ALESTINE, 13. Generally speaking, it A full supply of water, rivers on bare heights, wells
may be affirmed that the most poorly watered districts in valleys, pools of water in place of a wilderness, and
. -
are the table-land of J u d s a on the W. of Jordan and 3. springs instead of dry land characterise
the heights of the BeZkd on the E.’ Some of these Sentiment
and Beligion. the highest possible happiness to the
tracts, however, were once better supplied, cp NEGEB, Hebrew mind (Is.4118 CP 357 441 Ps.
§ 1. 10735). The possession of water is ;he one i’ndis-
Constructions for the preservation of water rank pensable acquisition without which the right of pasture
among the oldest specimens of masonry in Palestine. is useless. Hence, as Robertson Smith suggested,
The simplest plan w& to dig a hole, with perhaps a property in water is more important and probably older
shaft of masonry, where springs were known to exist. than property in land ( H S P ) 104J, cp CATTLE, 5).
Such a pit (bat%-, WP, +pPeap) was often covered over The digging of a well, accordingly, was an important
with a large flat stone, partly, no doubt, as a precaution function, and a typical specimen of one of the rites ac-
against accident (Ex. 2133), and partly to prevent its companying it has been fortunately preserved in Nu.
being easily discovered. For this latter purpose sand 2117f. (see B EER , col. 51s). Here the spring is
or earth might be strewn over the cover (cp also 2 S. addressed a s a living being, and indeed not only is
If 19). spring-water called ‘ living water ’ (Gen. 26 xg Nu. 19 17
The water was drawn up by a pitcher (had, Gen. etc.), but springs .are regarded as endowed with life.
2416) or bucket (dlZi, Is. 4015, cp verb in Ex.216, xg), They are regarded with reverence, credited with oracular
and for the watering of cattle was poured into a trough powers, and frequently associated with sacred beings. 1
(I-uhaf, Gen. 3038 4x Ex. 216, f@efh, Gen. 2420 3038).2 On the widespread beliefs connected with springs and
When dry a pit of this kind might be used as a wells among the Semites see IDOLATRY, 2, NATURE-
prison, and as no attempt was made to keep it clean WORSHIP, § 4, Robertson Smith, KSP) (re& in Index).
the accumulation of miry mud (tic,Ps. 402 [3], cp Jer. Cp also Barton, Semitic Onp’ns, g z f i ; Curtiss, P y i m
386) at the bottom added to the discomfort of the Sem. KeL , passim I. and the Abbe Bourcais, ‘ La source
prisoner. divine et generale conception Chaldeenne dans les
The Heb. and Gk. terms for ‘ Spring ’ which require Monuments figures des Collections A Paris,’ in Maspero’s
mention are : 3- Rec. de TYUV.. 21 177-193 (1899). S. A. C.
. . ~Gen. 167 2416 I S . 291, etc. ; AV’s
I . ‘ g i n (ly),
STABLE (;I!;),Ezek. 255 ; elsewhere ‘ pasture.’
‘well’ in Gen. 2413 4922, etc., obscures
2. Words the force and meaning. The ‘spring of 5, I N N (ad&.).
See CATTLE,
rendered Jacob ’ (Dt. 33 28) refers to J’s descendants ;
‘ spring.’ CD the metaDhors in Is. 48 I Ps. 6826 r2.11. STACHYS ( c ~ a x y c[Ti. WH]). greeted by Paul as
For particular springs, see reff. above in 5 I. The
. I> ‘ my beloved ’ (Rom. 169).
He is mentioned in the apocryphal lists of the
connection with ‘dyin eye’ is doubtful, nor, if the two ‘ seventy,’ and according to pseudo-Dorotheus was
are identical, is it easy to say which is older. The :onsecrated first bishop of Byzantium, by the Apostle
‘ spring’ can scarcely take its name from the circular Andrew. I n the apocryphal A d a PhiZippi, a believer
shape of the orifice since this (as in English) is called Jf the name of Stachys is the host of Philip in Hiera-
the nznulh (Gen. 2 9 2 5 ) . On the other hand, the eye polis. The name has been found among the remains
could easily be called the fountain of the tears (as in Jf the imperial household ( C Z L 68607).
Jer. 9 I [8 23] nym i i p n ~ y ) . Perhaps some primitive
belief underlies the usage. STACTE (TQ!,nd@ph, ‘ that which drops ’ ; cp Job
2. mu)& (p), derived from the above, properly a 3627 ; C T ~ K T H )is mentioned with onycha and galbanum
place of springs, cp Ps. 846 [7], Josh. 1815 (AV 1s an ingredient in the holy incense (Ex. 3034 ; Ecclus.
‘ well ’), etc. 24x5, RV‘W ‘opobalsamum,’ AV S TORAX ). A
3. 6 P i r ( i g . cp above § I , and see C ONDUITS, I iagrant resin is obviously intended ; but whether
[I]) occurs chiefly in the Hexat. : for place-names
Jpobalsamum, storax, or some other substance, is
compounded with it, see N AMES, IOI (6). incertain. Jewish tradition identified n@ph with opo-
mlsamum; but against this see B ALSAM , 5 4, and
1 Full information is given by G. A. Smith, HG 77-79. For
M Y RR H . Perhaps gum tragacanth is meant; see
the evidence of place-names indicating the presence of water see STORAX, 2. N. M.
SIOI.
NAMES
20th)er means of drawing up water are the s h d g i n Egypt STAFF. The words are partly the same as those in
mson, Anc. Ex. 1281) and the water-wheel in Eabylonia ROD (where see I, 2, 3, 5). Nothing depends on ful-
j:e”;s, Nippar, 1 x 3 5 141 ;’ cp Curtiss, prim. smz. Ret. 198
(Hamath]). There seems to be an allusion to the latter in 1 This is not confined merely to medicinal waters (cp HAM-
Eccles. 126. Cp A GRICULTURE , B 5. ~ A T H; MEDICINE, 0 2 , col. 3007 and reff.) where supernatural
3 Cp also B ROOK , CONDUITS, 5 I , Po&, P OOL . deas might readily arise.
4i77 4778
STAIRS STARS
ness of references. By far the most interesting is Heb. of the sea-shore (Gen. 155 2217 264 Jer.33zz), and
1121, cp Gen. 4731, where it is said that Jacob, after known only to God (Ps. 1474), their immeasurable
blessing Joseph’s sons, ‘worshipped upon the top of height above the earth (Job2212 Ob. 4 Is. 1413 ; cp
his staff‘ (?rpooe~dv?~acv 6?ri ~b &KPOV Pd@8ou ahroG), Dan. 81oa), and the brightness of their shining (Job
implying 3 y ; r (the reading of 6 ,Pesh., It.) instead of 255 3126 Dan. 123), formed subjects for comment ;
but it was their movements that excited the keenest
n ~ pChabas ~ justifies this reading by a reference to
attention, and opened up the widest field for the
an Egyptian custom.1 But it is clearly wrong, as the imagination.
parallel passage I K. 1 4 7 shows. ‘The ’ head ’ of the
T o realise the Hebrew conception of this phenomenon,
bed is no doubt a peculiar expression; Holzinger it is necessary to make some reference to their cosmology.
suggests that a ‘ teraphim ’ may have been placed at 1. Ear~h andThis bears close resemblance to the
the bed‘s head. But the true explanation is much Heaven. scheme of the Babylonians (Jensen,
simpler. W N should
~ of course be cy
‘couch’ ; cp Kosmol. 9 8 : ) . and may be thought to
‘yry m y ‘ the couch of my bed,’ Ps. 1323, RVmg. The have formed part of &e ‘common property of the
other words are- primitive Semitic family.
I. myvn. niym, mal’ZnnM, ntifhzcth ( &w to lean), The earth was regarded as a flat surface, bounded
Ex. 21 19 Is. 3 6 6 , etc. Used of the pastoral rod upon all sides by the watery deep. Above, the heavens
(11 uxcj) in Ps. 234 (see note in Che. PS.(~)). formed a hollow vault, which, resting on the waters,
2. yy, ‘F:, of the ‘staff’ of a spear ( I S. 177 [Kt. is might be said to describe a circle upon them (Job 26 IO
wrong], 2 S. 21 19 237 I Ch. 205). Prov. 827). This vault was thought to be solid, and
3. 153, pt?lek, in David‘s imprecation, ‘ let there not was spoken of a s a firmament (p.??,ni@‘, something
fail from the house of Joab one that hath an issue, or beaten or hammered o n t ; Gen. 1 6 etc.). or, in the
that is a leper, or that leaneth on a stafi’ etc., 2 S. 3 29. language of poetry, a tent spread out above the earth
So EV after d (KpaTGv U K W ~ X ~E-?,S or -7~1) and Tg. (Is. 4022 Ps. 194). Upon the farther side of the
Jon. ( 1 3 ~ 3q’pn ; so read, not 1 1 ~ ) . The rival render- firmament, called by the Babylonians kin‘b iarni, ’ the
ing-’ that holdeth the spindle ‘-does not suit the inner part of the heavens,’ there was again water, ’ the
context nearly as well (cp H. P. Smith, ad Zoc.), but waters which are above the firmament ’ (Gen. 1 6 3).
has a philological basis lacking to the first explanation. Indeed, one of the earliest of creative acts was the
Moved by Driver’s learned note ( T B S 192,with n. I) placing of the vault of the heavens, in order to cleave
Lohr and H. P. Smith adopt ‘spindle’ for 159 (cp in twain the watery deep (oi;m, tfhirn, Bab. T i h a t ) ,
Prov. 3119, and Toy’s note). There can hardly be a
clearer evidence of corruption ; no philology can save and thus make possible the appearance of dry land
this unsuitable reading. Read $m? ’n, ‘ one that leans (Gen. 16-8 Prov. SA$). Beneath the earth was the
on (lit. grasps) a staff’-ie., a lame person. In
realm of the underworld (he, S h f i l ) , and the -whole
Prov. 3119 the reading is of course undisputed (cp was perhaps conjectured to rest ultimately upon the
W EAVING , 2). waters of the deep (Ps. 242 1 3 6 6 ) .
4. Bin, mat, Nu.1323 (a pole, for bearing a huge grape- Across the fixed vault of the firmament the heavenly
cluster). bodies appeared-_ to move, seeming, no doubt, to the
5. 1 , dad(in plur.) Ex. 25 1 3 8 I K. 8 7 j : (to bear the ark). Hebrews as to ;he Babylonians, to
6. 66Aov(in plur.), i t . 26 47 Mk. 1443, coupled with ‘swords’
(Jn. 18 3 speaks of SrAa). Cp the use of ?I& and U?@ (ROD,
*. lVLovernents enter by a door in the eastern quarter
Of ?!e??.en1y of the heavens and to make their exit
1, 2). T. K. C. oocues. in the W. bv a similar means. Thus.
to the poet’s mind, the sun has his tent in the heavens,
STAIRS. The renclering ‘ stairs ’ in AV is generally and at his rising is like a bridegroom who issues from
misleading. his bridal chamber (Ps. 1 9 5 5 ) .
I. In I K. 68t, no doubt, 07!7h,Zzilim ( ~ [ c I A L Kbva,3dutc
~ ; The regularity of the movements of the stars arrested
cochzea) can be plausibly rendered ‘ winding stairs’ (EV ; see the attention. They are governed by ‘ ordinances ’
however, Stade, ZATW81368, and cp TEMPLE, 5 11, n.).
2. I n 2 K. 9 13 ‘on the top of the stairs’ (nib+? I&F) can established by Yahwk and unalterable (Jer. 31 3 5 3 ),
hardly be the right description of the place where Jehu’s
beyond the reach of human understanding (Job3833).
supporters acclaimed him as king (see JEHU). The spectacle of the heavenly host, led forth in full
3. I n Neh. 9 4 it was not on the stairs but on the ‘scaffold’ tale, is a wonderful proof of YahwB‘s mighty power
(hp, ma‘iizeh; ivd,¶aorc) prepared for the occasion that (Is. 4026). Thus they naturally serve to mark divisions
Jeshua and Bani stood. So A V w . Cp PULPIT. of time. They are set in the firmament ’ to divide the
4. In Ezek. 43 17 (j&yn, ma‘dOfh)‘stairs’ should be ‘steps’ day from the night’ and to ‘ be for signs, and for
(RV) ; the steps of the altar are meant. seasons, and for days, and years ’ (Gen. 114, cp Ps.
% In CaFt. 2 14 ‘the secret places (nrnio, madrFgath;
Z p p r v a rou riporerpsparoc; in cazwvza macm‘e) of the 10419). The Hebrew month (!#lh, &&e?; r y , yh*a&)
stairs ’ forms a bad parallel to ‘ in the clefts of the rock.‘ miin: is a lunar month, and the quarter of this period-one
‘
rnadn?gZh (in plur ) is again rendered stairs ’ in Ezek. 38 20 , phase of the moon-appears to have determined the
most scholars s u p p o ~
‘steep,
~ ladder-like hills’(RV ‘steep places ’
@$+yys) to be the true meaning. The word, however, is week of seven days (see M ONT H, I , 6 : WEEK, I).
suspicious. Since this constancy in the courses of sun, moon, and
6. ‘Stairs’ is right for Iva,QaO+o.oi in Acts2140. stars was so impressive, it is natural that anything
T. K. C .
which appeared to be of the nature of an interruption
STALL (pa?n. marb@, etc.), Am. 6 4 etc. See should, by the unscientific mind, be regarded as a
CATTLE, $ 5 . portent of catastrophe. Of such a nature would be
eclipses of the sun or moon, meteorites or falling stars,
~TANDARD ($a?), NU. 1 5 2 etc. see ENSIGNS. and comets.
So we find the darkening of sun and moon and the falling of
STARS. To the Hebrews, as to other races, the stars associated with troublous times of direst calamity (Am. 8 9
heavenly bodies were a constant source of interest and Is.13 I O Ezek. 327 JoeI2103r[34]=Acts2~0 Joe13[4]15 Job97’
cp Mt.2429 Rev.61zf: Erz).‘ Comets, as moving in orbit;
wonder. Their great number, comparable to the sand which baffled the calculations of the ancients, can be spoken
of as ‘ wandering stars, for whom the blackness of darkness is
1 MJZanges &y?~oZugiqres P) 1 g t . ‘
H e then pronounced reserved for ever,’ and thus serve to depict the lot of the repro-
the ordinary oath By the lite of the Lord Life-Health-Force,” hate.
striking his nose and ears, and placing himself on the top of tho
staff. The reference is to the baton which the magistrate kept
stretched out during; the ceremony. By this attitude and by 1 An eclipse or the sun which occurred in the year B.C.
these gestufes the pnsoner testified his submission towards the 763 is recorded in the Assyrian Eponym Canon. See AMOS,
magistrate. D 4.
4779 4780
STARS STARS
To the primitive imagination that which moves is Peshittg renders by ‘iyyzitha,’ which probably has
regarded as possessing life. Thus the heavenly bodies philological connection with the Hebrew name, and
are pictured as living beings, and form subject of folk- perhaps upon this analogy we may vocalise P?”p‘ZyliS
lore and legend. Stars, in particular, are closely (Hoffmann), or else, with closer approximation ’to the
associated with angels. Syriac, v.;y, ‘ayylif, or &y, ‘iyyzif.
The phrase ‘ the host of heaven ’ generally denotes the stars
(zK.l7162135234f:Dt.419 1 7 3 J e r . 8 2 1913 Zeph.15; cp ( b ) $a?, K&Z (Job 99 3831 Amos 58) is generally
Gen. 2 I Ps. 33 6 Is. 40 26 45 12) ; but in some cases, especially in supposed to denote O RION ( q . v . ) , the most remarkable
late writings, invisible agencies are also denoted by the same
term (T K. 22 19 Is. 8 4 4 Neh. 9 6 and perhaps Dan. 8 IO). Cp of constellations, both on account of the brilliancy and
also Is. 2421 and the fine poedcal statement in Job387 (cp colour of the three principal stars.P and the striking
C K E A T I O N , 5 2 1 , e). resemblance of the figure to a gigantic human form
Special stars or constellations mentioned in the Bible equipped with belt and sword. The position of this
are as follow :- group, a few degrees S. of the Ecliptic, renders it a very
( a ) by, ‘dyiS(Job3832) ; on the versions and on the conspicuous object as viewed from the N. temperate
zone, and among the Greeks and the Romans it was
supposed
.. form dy, ’& (Jobgg),
.. ., see ARCTURUS.The much observed as a sign of the seasons.
3. Special stars allusion to the ‘ children ’ of ‘ d y i f Thus its heliacal rising, southing, and setting are severally
limits the possibilities of interpretation connected with different agricultural operations (Hes. OpP.
Or groups* to such constellations as can be 5 9 5 8 , -8,6148); but, especially, the time of its setting
marks the commencement of wet and stormy weather, when
pictured under the form of a mother with children. navigation becomes dangerous (Hes. OpP. 6188; Hor. [email protected] ;
Among the ancients there appear to have been two Virg. E n . 1535 4 52).
such-Ursa major, and the Pleiades. The mention of the bands of Orion’ in Job 3831 is
In favour of Ursa major is cited the Arabic title perhaps an allusion to the three stars of the belt, and
for this constellation. refers to the chains with w-hirh the giant-‘dull-witted
This is nu‘;, ‘ the bier,’ the four stars forming the quadrilateral obstinate’ giant--($m) wasthought tohave beenconfined
being regard:d as a bier, which is follpwed by three mourners, by the Deity. If man can loose these bands-the poet
bundf nu‘:, the daughters of the bier.
seems to mean-he may then hope to gain control over
It is, however, quite impossible philologically to those changes in the season which the constellation
connect the Arabic word nu‘s’ with the Hebrew ‘dyir; marks. In Job 99 Amos 5 8 kPsiI appears to be cited
nor is there, in the passage of Job in which ‘dyit on account of its great b r i l l i a n ~ y . ~
appears, any trace of the idea of bier and bearers or (c) ny?, k i m i h (Job 99 3831 Amos 58) is translated
mourners. It is the merit of M. A. Stern1 ( * Die
Sternbilder in Hiob 3831f: ,’ in Geiger’s liid. Zeitschr. ‘ Pleiades ‘ by EV and many moderns, in accordance
3 2 5 8 3 ) to have been the first among moderns to adopt with the rendering of 6 in both passages of Job,‘
the interpretation ’ Pleiades,’ and to have stated his case Symm. and Vg. in Job 3831, and Symm. and Theodot.
with great cogency. Stern disposes of the claims of in Amos. If, however, the grounds upon which ‘dyiS
Ursa major by pointing out that ‘dyis’, with the three has been identified with the Pleiades can be considered
other constellations mentioned in Job3831f:, is cited sufficient, it is evident that we must look elsewhere for
by the poet on account of its meteorological import- the constellation represented by kimih. Stern presses
ance. the claims of Canis major with its bright star Sirius-
This is evident from the context. In w . 22-30 we have by far the largest of the fixed stars-known to the
mention of snow and hail, light and east wind, thunder-shower Greeks as r b durpov p a r
and lightning, rain and dew, ice and hoar-frost. Then follow A constellation of so great a meteorological interest
the three w. ;I-33 with reference to certain constellations ; and as Canis major and possessing a star of such brilliancy
in immediate succession, iurther notice of meteorological
phenomena-clouds and the outpouring water, lightning and as Sirius, may naturally be expected to find mention in
the bottles of heaven. Job 38 ; and the identification with k i m i h is rendered
Thus the inference is clear that the constellations plausible by the close connection with k‘sil, just as the
mentioned are such as have special significance as Great Dog lies nearly to the S . of Orion and close to
weather-signs. Now Ursa major, as a circum-polar his feet. A further point is the allusion to the ‘ chains 6
constellation, never passes below the horizon in the N. of Kimih’ (ny? n i q g ) , which on this interpretation
*
hemisphere ; and, being therefore a conspicuous object yields a good sense, since Canis major is the hound of
at all seasons, could never be regarded as possessing Orion.
any kind of meteorological importance. Thus its ( d ) The meaning of nii:n (Job 3832; see MAZZAROTH),
mention in such a context would appear to be quite is highly uncertain. By most scholars the term is sup-
misplaced. posed to be identical with niQ (see MAZZALOTH), the
On the other hand, the Pleiades, though but a small
group, possessed for the ancients great meteorological worship of which, in conjunction with that of the sun, the
significance. 1 The same rendering is employed for wr,Job 9 9 , h,Job
By their rising at dawn the Greeks and Romans divined the 1527, h, Amos 58. The Talmudic Knl’,flfhd(note above),
approach of summer whilst their setting at dawn heralded the
approach of the we; and stormy season cHesio6 Ogg. 383f: perhaps represents the same word with rejection of y.
571J 6 1 9 8 ; Virgil, Georg. 42313:; Ovid, Fast.5;993). The a a& Orionis named Betelgeuse Rigel and Bellatrix : the
expression ‘ ‘kyicwith her children ’ bears close resemblance to first and the secbnd, of the first magnitude f the last, among the
the name ‘ hen with her chickens ’ applied to this group of stars largest stars of the second magnitude.
among both eastern and western peoples and actually em- 8 On the phrase ‘their L&Sm ’ (OD”??) in Is. 13 IO see
ployed in this passage as a translation of the Targum (59 ~ n j l l ORION.
jimin ~ n n v d . 3 4 In @ Job 9 9 6 TO& IIAer68a KaI’Emepov ra; ’API[TO+OY
I(& Ta&a N~To;, it is quite clear that the order of the con.
The name ‘dyiS may then be thought to denote, not stellations has been changed, np3 being brought to the
the group as a whole, but the principal star, known to beginning and rendered IIAerh8a a s in 38 31, whilst cy, which
astronomers as Alcyone. It must be deemed uncertain thus stands second is translated‘Eumpov as in 3832. This
whether the Massoretic vocalisation d y is correct. The change of order, which seems to have been overlooked by critics,
1 Stern is followed by G. Hoffmann ( Z A T W 3 107,f) and by

is substantiated by Pesh. )Id0 &? od,
Nddeke (Bi6. Lex. 4 yo).
9 Cp Homer, Od. 5 275, olq 6’dppopb &L AoarpSv ’ Q r r a v o k
b - L b iJo J-0.
6 For the ancients Sirius marked the time of greatest summer
Virg. Georg. 1246, 4rctos Oceani metuentis aequore tingi. heat (Horn. 11.2227.31, Hes. Ojj.417, Sc. 397; etc.) and its
Ovid, M e t . 13727, Arcton aequoris expertem. connection with this period is still preserved in the ‘popular
.--
3 It is also worthy of notice that R. Yehiida’s explanation of
as as ~ n i , , p i f h d(BZrZkhafh 586) is interpreted by later
ex re5aion ‘the dog days.’
f The rendering ‘sweet influences’ AV, RVmg. can he traced
Talmudists as & 211, ‘the tail of the Ram ’ (i.e.,Pleiades), or hack to Sehaetian Munster (1535 A.u.), hut appears to be philo-
&iyi u ~ i‘the , bead of the Bull’ (it., Hyades). logically untenable.
4781 4782
STARS STARS
moon, and all the host of heaven, was put down by Josiah but this is certainly inferior to the derivation adopted
(2 K. 235) ; and d in both passages employs the trans- above (see further MAZZAROTH).
literation p u ~ o u p w 0 , whilst Targ., in accordance with ( e ) The expression, ' the inner chambers of the south '
Kings, uses in Job the rendering K - ~ D ? ~ w . In Rab- (Job 9 g 1 p n w n , &d7i themin), is too indefinite to b e
binic Hebrew the maazdhith are the twelve zodiacal signs taken as a reference to any special star or group of
(BZrdkhCth 324 ; Shabbdth 75a), but also the planets, stars, such as the bright star Canopus or the constella-
regardedasstarsofgoodorillfortune(BlrZshiLh rub., § IO, tion of the ship to which it belongs (Stern). Probably
IOC, etc. ). In agreement with this latter signification, Dillmann is correct in suggesting that the author of Job,
we have, according to the restoration of de VogiiB, the as a man of travel, would know that in journeying to-
dedication oy1 answering to the Greek 'AyaO?j wards the S. more and more stars and constellations
~ L i x yin a Phcenician inscription from Larnaca of about appear in the heavens, and might therefore reasonably
the 4th century B . C . ( C I S 1 95). It is doubtful, how- refer in such terms to the stars of the southern hemi-
ever, whether we can safely argue back in explanation of sphere.
the earlier useof the expression. I n h b i c m a n z i l d e n o t e s (f) On &an as a representation of the planet Saturn (Am.
a 'lodging-place' or 'mansion': and theplural a2-mandzil 5 2% L t Z d (?) as the planet Venus, and Diosncn'as the constella-
is used of the twenty-eight ' mansions ' of the moon. tion Gemini (indirectly referred to in Acts 28 IT), see CHIUN,
LUCIFER, CASTOR A N D POLI.UX. [There is according to Crit.
In Assyrian, according to Friedr. Delitzsch (Ass. H W B ) , Bib., reason to think that the Arabic name of Saturn, zu?aniu,
manzazu denotes ' a place of standing,' from the root underlies the $~li-, of I K. 10 15. It is held that the ' Hamel'
nazdzlr ' t o stand' ; just as in Heb. nip?, ' place,' is referred to was probably a N. Arabian, not a Syrian, king.
Adkuc snbjkdice lis est.]
derived from olg Manznzu occurs on the fifth table It is highly imprcbable (cp CALF, GOLDEN) that the
of the Babylonian Creation series ( s e CREATION, § z )
which begins 1 ' H e made the mansions (mansaei) of
L_ -
Hebrew tribes in EwDt came under the influence of the
4. Star-worship. Egyptian religion, which was based
the great gods.' Further, there is a fem. form of uDon the worshiD of the sun.
nanaazu-viz., manzaltu ( = manzaztu), mazaltu. For But such place-namks as Beth-sh;mesh in SW. Jndah,
this Delitzsch quotes 3 R. 59 35a : 'The gods in heaven Har-heres Timnath-heres, and Heres on the E. of the Jordan
in their mansions (man-eal-ti-&nu) set me. ' Jensen permk th; inference that t h e local Baal of the Canaanite, whose
cults confronted the Israelites on their immigration into Canaan,
(KosmoZ. 3 4 7 5 ) mentions the same facts. Whilst, was sometimes connected with the sun. See, however S U N
however, Delitzsch identifies these manaalti with the and on this and other dificult points which here sugges; them!
zodiacal stations (Pml. 54), Jensen thinks that they selvesfor consideration see ASHTORETH,BAAL, PHCENICIA $ 11.
were perhaps iifty in number,* corresponding to the On the much disputed statement of Am. 526 see CHI"; AND
SICCUTH, SALMA.
number of the great gods, and represent, not merely Am. 526 introduces us to the subject of star-worship.
the signs of the zodiac (cp Lockyer, Dawn ofAstronomy, The compiler of the Book of Kings regards the worship
1338), but rather certain fixed stars and planets, lists of of ' all the host of heaven '-doubtless introduced from
which are to be found in the inscriptions, but of which the Babylonia-as one of the causes of the fall of the
identification appears to be possible only in a few cases northern kingdom ( z K.1716). In the case of the
(15-osm. 1 4 6 f ) . ~ Here, then, it may be supposed that kingdom of Judah we possess fuller information. Star-
we have the original of mazzdl6th of 2 K. 235 ; though, worship was here, apparently, not introduced before
as is plain from the diverse opinions noticed above, the the time of Manasseh ; but of this king it is related that
precise reference of these 'mansions,' as objects of he built altars to all the host of heaven in the two courts
worship borrowed by the people of Judah from the of the house of Yahwb ( z K. 215). Priests were
Babylonians, still remains uncertain. appointed to offer sacrifice to the sun, the moon (see
With regard to maazdr3fh. Stern is undoubtedly MOON), the mazzdZc2A (see above, 3 [dl), and all the
correct in stating that in the words of Job 3832 ' Canst host of heaven, and special horses and chariots were
thou bring forth maeair6th in its season (my?) ,'
maasl- dedicated to the worship of the sun, probably to be em-
76th in conjunction with ' in its time' (my>)' denotes a ployed in processions (2 K. 234 5 11). Cp NATHAN-
plurality which can be spoken of as a unity, and so a MELECH. It was not until the reformation in the 18th
group of stars which form a single constellation. This year of J&ah (B.C. 621) that measures were taken to
consideration, which gains weight from the connection of root out this Babylonian astral worship (2 K. 23). owing
mazzdr6th with'dyif, krsil, and KZmdh, each of which de- to the influence of the book of Deuteronomy which
scribes a single special star-group, cuts at the root of the contains special injunctions against the worship of the
identification of mazzd76h in Job with maazdZ6th as men- sun, moon, and stars (Dt. 1723; cp 419).
tioned in z K. 235,upon the view which has above been Josiah's efforts, however, were by no means wholly
taken of the latter. The special constellation represented successful. The new cult seems to have been largely
by mazzdrzfh can, however, in default of evidence, be embraced by private individuals, who worshipped the
merely conjectural. Stern's view, that the word de- heavenly bodies upon the roofs of their homes, burning
notes the Hyades, is not open to objection, and is to offerings and pouring out libations (Zeph. 1 5 Jer. 82
some extent supported by the position of mazzdr3th after 19 13). More especially does the worship of the QUEEN
Rimdh and i 5 i Z and before'dyif, acccording to the posi- OF H EAVEN (q.n.)-i.e.. probably, IBtar as a celestial
tion of constellations in the heavens. But that this is the goddess-appear ' t o have enjoyed popularity among
intention of the order of citation may be questioned, women2 (Jer. f 18). The reformation of Josiah, which
since in such a case the more natural method would be must have been mainly concerned with public and
to reverse the order, and to speak of Pleiades, Hyades, national religious abuses, could not eradicate such
Orion, Canis major, according to the order of rising. private cults. Ezekiel (writing in the 6th year of the
The Hyades were of meteorological importance to the captivity of Jehoiachin, 591 B. c. ), pictures the worship
ancients, who regarded their heliacal rising as the of the sun as carried on a t Jerusalem within the Temple-
portent of wet weather (Ham. ZZ.18486 ; Hes. Opp. 613 : conrt (Ezek. 816$)3 and, as Jeremiah assures us, even
Virg. &n. 1744, etc.). Stern, who would identify after the fall of Jerusalem the Jews still persisted in the
mazsdrfith and mazzdZ6th, attempts to connect mazzdi@h worship of other gods, and especially of the queen of
with the verb $?! (hiaail) in the sense 'rain-producers' ;
1 Also in 379, reading with Duhm, v7F foiR@, and omitting
1 See Jensen Kormol. z88j? ; Schrader, COT 115. n in ling. For the nri.3Z-m of the corresponding clause (EV
2 The of the n/unmzi appears to have originally 'north '), cp MAZZALOTHand on this p.assage and on 38 31-38
been given in the Creation tablet. see Che., J B L 17 103fl (18981.
3 Jensen finds allusion to the zodiacal signs in the Ma& stars 2 See Che. Jer his Lz fl a n d Times 198.
of I. 2 of the Creation table: above cited. The word misrritu 8 The holdingof the<ranch to the'nose 'in worshipping the
sun is commonly t r d to a Persian ori& SN, however.
&digin of
not .~wahz)or i p 3 a which occurs in 13, cannot, with hyce
Bub. 389),'be identified with Maurirdfh. TAMMUZ.
4783 4784
STARS STEPHANAS
heaver1 (Jer. 44). The reference in Job 3116f: to the reference of 'his star' would not necessarily refer to the con-
adoration of sun and moon by kissing of the hand junction taken as a whole, hut rather to one men.ber of the con-
junction, which, by its peculiar position, was calculated to cast
sufficiently shows the danger which still beset the Jews the nativity of the King of the Jews.
when the poem of Job was written. For star-worship see further N A T U ~ W E O R S H I P , $ 5. Cp
The only distinct reference to astrology in the O'r Campbell l'homson, Rzflorfs ofihe Magiciaas ana'dstrologers
occurs in Is. 4713, where the exilic writer, in predicting of Niii. and Bab. in the Brct. M u s . (190.). c. F. u.
6. Astrology. the imminent downfall of Babylon, STATER. The word CTATHP means properly a
advises her in mockery to resort to her weight, and was used generalIy by the Greeks for the
astrologers, if perchance -they may save her from the unit of weight, corresponding to the eastern sk@eZ.
impending catastrophe. Several peculiar expressions There is no reason to douht the current derivation of the word
from the r o d m m - ,to weigh ; the attempt to connect it with
are used (see ' Isa.' SBUT). The phrase ' dividers of Ktar (Jensen, Zii 14183, and Johns, A s s y ~Deeds
. nnd Docu-
the heavens' alludes to a division of the sky for the ments, 2 *E.+), apart from philological difficulties, rests on the
purposes of astrology, and the reference of * the monthly assumption that money was originally coined in Nineveh, and
prognosticators.' or, ' those who make known at every that some early coin might hear the head or figure of the city
goddess Istar.
new moon ' seems to be to the official reports drawn up The word is used in Mt. 1 7 2 7 (AV ' piece of money,'
by the Babylonian astrologers to be sent in to the king RV 'shekel '), where it means a stater or four-drachm
month by month (see M A G I C , 5 3 151). Many such piece of the Phcenician standard. As regards the actual
Assyrian reports are stiil extant, and one of them gives coin intended, it must have been a stater either of Tyre
us an astroiogical calendar, each month or day of which or of Antioch. since at the time concei-ned these were
is noted as being lucky or unlucky for the commence- the only mints issuing coin of the right standard.
ment of a campaign, or for other operations.' Under SHEKEL (8 5 ) will be found an illustration of
The interest and importance of astrology to the Baby- the silver didrachm or half-stater of Tyre; the figure
lonians is well known. According to the Chaldean given here represents a silver stater of Antioch.
priest Berossus (quoted by Pliny, NH 7 57) astronomical
observations had b&n carried on by the Babylonians
for 490,000 years before his day. In the sixteenth
century B.c., a great astrological work was drawn up
on seventy clay tablets, and deposited in the library of
Sargon of Agade (see Sayce in TSBA 1458 ) .
The word n+?@, &&ifl&m, which (in its Aramaic as well as
its Hebrew form) occurs several times in the Book of Daniel, is
rendered 'astrologers'by AV (RV 'enchanters'); hut this inter-
pretation is merely assumed. The word is of Assyrian origin
(mYa& aSa& etc.), and means rather sorcerer, ckarmer
(COTon Dan. 2 4 ; Del. ProZeK. 141 ; cp Syr. k 3 j k 5 ) .
A late e r i d e n e of the celebrity of Babylonian as-
trology appears in the narrative of the Messiah's star Stater of Antioch.
in Mt. 2. [On the star cp NATIVITY,§ IS.] For what-
ever the description && &N~.TOAC%P( ' from the East ') The obverse bears the head of Augustus with the title
KAI2AAPOS XEBAZTOY. On the reverse is a figure of the
maymean, the title magi (&a: see ZOROASTRIANISM) Fortune of the City of Antioch seated on a rock, wearing a
implies that the lore of the wise men was Babylonian. mural crown, and holding a palm branch ; at her feet is the
The star which they saw at its rising (& 4 ~ P ~ T O X ? ) river-god Orontes, in the attitude of swimming, half-emerging
from the waves. (This type is a copy of the famous group by
was evidently such as to be regarded as a portent onIy the sculptor Eutychides set up soon aftef the foundation oi
by practised astrologers. Herod and 'all Jerusalem' Antioch.)
appear not to have noticed the phenomenon until their The min is dated ' in the thirtieth year of victory'-
interest was aroused by the inquiries of the strangers, i . e . , of the era of Actium- -and , in the thirteenth consul-
and then the king had to 'inquire diligently the time ship ' of the emperor ; hence it belongs to the year
of the star's appearance. Thus the hypothesis which 2-1 R.C. Thisspecimen weighs 229.5 grs. troy. Others
represents the star as a cornet or new star of exceptional of other dates bear the name of Antioch ('AVT<OX&JV
brilliancy may be considered to be excluded. Kepler fLTTpoP&€WS).
(De 1.Chr. sematoris nostri two anno nafaZitio, 1605 Staters or shekels are probably meant by the word
A.D.) thought of a close conjunction of the planets cipylipra used for the I thirty pieces of silver ' (Mt. 26 15
Jupiter and Saturn in the constellation Pisces, which 27 3 5).
occurred in the year 747 A.c.c . , and in this view he has That denarii (see PXNNY, $ I) cannot he meant is proved by
found many followers (cp Ideler, Hazd6. d. Chronol. the analogy of Ex. 21 32 (thirty shckcZels of silver the price of a
servant gored by an ox) and Zech. 111 2 3 (where denarii are out
2 3 9 9 8 ) . " A similar conjunction in the year 1463 A.D. of the question). On the other hand, the 50,000 pieces of silver
led the Portuguese Rabbi Abarbanel ('437-1509) to of Acts 19 3 9 (the value of the magical books) may have been
infer (Comm. on Daniel) that the birth of the Messiah denarii, as indeed the Vulgate translates them. G. F. H.
was shortly to be expected. J. H. Stockwell ( A s k STATUTE (Sn, fi?! ; Jppn, a to engrave,' and SO
]OUT. Nov. 26, 1892 ; quoted in Nature, Dec. 1 2 . 1892) a sfafufc fixed by being c Tanen, or inscribed, on .sane dur-
argues in favour of a conjunction of Jupiter and Venus Hhle surdce ' Dr. Ut. 62),%t. 5 5 8 11. See generally L AW
wrhich took place in the spring of 6 ac. L ITERATUR E); LAW A N D JUSTICE.
I t should he observed that the objection of Meyer (Comrn. STEEL. For nt@n!, n2h&th; "R?, ntk5fah.
nd loc.), that the hypothesis of such a conjunction is excluded
hy the singular A m + , is quite alien to the question, since the see B RASS : and for lli$s.pPZa&fh, Nah. 2 3 [&. see
1 [In Is. 47 13 W. Muss-Amok (AJSL 16 123 [ r p l ) , de-
IKON, 2, COl. 2174.
veloping an idea of Zimmem, would read 0'3V3 n*,: ' those STEPHWAS (CTE+ANAC [Ti. WH]), a member of
who scan the heavens,' ,973 being regarded ==EN the As- the Corinthian church. His ' household (cp the house-
syrian class-name for the soothsayers called seers. Another hold of C~ESAR [F.v.]), ' the first fruits of Achaia,' had
view, proposed in Crit. Bib.,is to read Iine a of stanza 5 of the been baptized by Paul, and its members had after-
Song of Triumph tbm, wards distinguished themselves by the zeal with which
hill*'BOP 1 hYUV* ?l?h ?@fWl'l, they had set themselves to minister to the saints (I Cor.
'Let the spell-repeaters of Ishmael, the diviners of Jerahmeel 116 16 I S ) , the ministry intended being doubtless chiefly
deliver thee,' supposing 533 to mean the capital of J e r G e e l that of hospitality. Of Stephanas personally, all that
N. Arabia. T. K. C ] we learn is that, along with Fortunatns and Achaicus, he
9 See, on the o t h a hand, the dam+ criticism of th\s view
by C. Ritchard in Smith's OB, 'Star o f t h e Wse Men ; also had brought news to the apostle at Ephesus which had
Alem. Roy. As. Soc. 25. ' refreshed his spirit ' (I Cor. 16 173).
4785 4786
STEPHEN STEPHEN
(see LIBERTINES, D ISPERSION , $117 f., 22, CILICIA,
STEPHEN 3, PROSELYTE, 3f., also the Lucan touch in Lk.
The narrative in Acts The speech (5 4J). 21 16, ‘ delivered up 6y kinsmeii ’). The circumstances
(§I I f : 7). Style of the narrative (8 8). of their origin rendered Hellenists often somewhat
The charge (5 3). Significance of episode (8 9).
Bibliography (%IO). suspect in the eyes of rigid Palestinian Jews. Hence,
Stephen (CT&&NOC) in the N T is the name borne by the operation of a common psychological law, many
by an early Christian agent in Jerusalem, who was the of them-so far from being more liberal and open-
first to suffer for his faith. As narrated in Acts (61-83, minded-cultivatedexceptional strictness and suspicious-
cp 1119 2220) the pregnant and tragic episode of Stephen ness in the practice of their religion. Just as the
falls into three sections : ( a ) the prologue (61-15), con- convert frequently outdoes those born in the faith by
taining an account (i. ) of Stephen’s appointment as one his eager zeal to accentuate the difference between his
of the Seven, and (ii.) of his subsequent arrest ; ( b ) the past and his present, so Hellenists were by no means
speech (7 1-53)which he is represented as having delivered ipso facto emancipated from the particularism of the
upon that occasion ; and ( c ) the epilogue of his murder Jewish faith. Their colonial life’ did not naturally
and its effects (7 54-8 3). Although by common consent create an atmosphere in which ’ the hard lines faded
this narrative is regarded critically as undeniably histor- and the ideal depths were opened.’ In practice and
ical, it requires to be subjected to a close analysis before theory, as the subsequent narrative shQws (cp 929 21 27
it can be employed as evidence for its period. 2 2 3 f.), they often attached themselves to the most
The isolated character of 6 1-6 [7] indicates that pronounced and bigoted habits of Judaism practised by
the editor here has a special source or tradition before the Pharisees. And this throws light at once upon their
1. acts I-7. him. Note the first occurrence of antipathy to Stephen, who perhaps bad set himself to
‘ disciples,‘ paOr/nd, the solitary instance labour among his former associates ( S g f . ) , no less
(in Acts) of ‘ the Twelve’ (cp Lk. 81),the church still than upon his own exceptional character. To their
meeting as one small body (as against 44 514), the scrupulous conscience he appeared a renegade, a dis-
conception of communal charity (cp COMMUNITY OF
credit to them personally and a revolutionary force
GOODS, 5 , and 0. Holtzmann, Ztschr. fz2r K i r c h n - within the religious praxis of the nation. They were
gesch. 14327-336) and the strange position of the Seven the first to detect and challenge this liberal preacher,
(ACTS, 5 IO ) who, though ostensibly appointed to the and their antagonism proves that his wider outlook and
delicate and responsible subordinate task of superintend- unique grasp of the spirituality of religion were by no
ing charity and money-matters (see Field, Otiuna means an inevitable product of his training. As in the
Noruicense, pars tertia, 1899, p. 113), really do as case of Paul, so with Stephen : Hellenism furnished
spiritual work’ as the apostles (cp 68J 84f. 218; merely the soil of the religious growth (65 8 IO).
Holtzmann, H C l a [1901], 52-54). The irrelevant The dual nature of the narrative in 68-15, fluctuating
summary of 67 is certainly an editorial addition which, between the riotous justice of a mob and a trial before
like 514, interrupts the run of the narrative. For the a. Acts 68-15. the Sanhedrin, is patent.% As almost
increase of the church has nothing to do with what all the critical editors are agreed, the
immediately precedes, and the conversion of priests has conception of a trial is editorial or subordinate, and the
no connection with what follows. 68f. is the original alternatives are to regard the passage as a combination
and natural sequel to 6 1-6. 6 1-6 has, indeed, a retro- of two sources or as a single source edited and modified.
spective glance. It sums up the primitive Jerusalem- In the case of a single source, the alterations and
period (IS) of the history, as 67-where otherwise the additions (possibly due to a correct enough impression
words ‘in Jerusalem’ (& ‘Icpouuah~p)would be super- of the speech and situation) are to be found in ZV. I I ~ .
fluous-is meant definitely to show ; but its main object (13) 15 (in whole or part) ; so e.g., Weiss, Wendt, and
is prospective. The editor’s aim is to introduce two Moffatt. In the case of two sources, it is most tempting
new figures in Philip (84-39; see col. 3697-8) and to agree with those (Spitta, J. Weiss, Hilgenfeld) who
especially Stephen (68-83), whose activities form the find the second (inferior) source in I&-15 ( m b - 1 4 , Jiingst).
pivot of the next stage in the early church’s history, a s The isolated allusion to miracles in v. 8, and the better
well as to connect Antioch (65 1119-21)with the new connection of v. g with either 5 or 7, suggest that v. 8
mission-impulse. There may be a dramatic touch in is also editorial.3 Why the Sanhedrin-notion was intro-
6 ~ f,.where the preceding outward success of the young duced, it is not easy to say. Probably the editor regarded
church is set beside the first sign of inner friction. Yet the Sanhedrin as the representative body of the Jews, just
the immediate interest of the historian is not this juxta- as he concluded the apostles to stand for the Christian
position or even the office of the Seven-a vague order, community, and considered that here as hitherto any
who drop out of sight at once-but with the man who Jewish prosecution must proceed from or at least through
was their most prominent member, and who found them, to be judicial and regular. Whether this idea was
before long that his energy led to his arrest 68-15. purely pragmatic, or based upon some independent oral
Like some or all, perhaps, of his fellow-officials 1 Martineau (Seal of Aufltorify, 631), who goes on, however
Stephen was probably a Hellenist-Le., a Greek-speak- to point out that the fusion of Jewish and heathen thought i:
ing Jew resident in some Greek city (HELLENISM, 5 2)- Hellenistic culture could not of itself have produced the Christian
universalism. That reaches hack, past Stephen to Jesus and
and it is significant that his opponents (probably in- ‘his infinite longing to open the soul of man to t i e life in God,
cluding Paul himself, 223) came from his compatriots unhindered by the mediation of priest and ritual. Thus the
fountain of catholicity is in no confluence of philosophic, no
1 The pragmatism of the editor is shown in 6 6 where he combination of external conditions, but in the unique personality
suggests that the apostles’ ratification was needed for every new of ems of Nazareth.‘
office and departure (cp 13 1-3) in the church (even though in JSimilarly in the account given by Josephus ( A n f .209) of
this case the recipients of their blessing were already full of the James’s murder some thirty years later (see JAMES, 8 3 : and
Spirit, v. 5 ) and that those who afterwards became preachers to von Dohschutz, Die Urchrisllichcn Gemeinden (1902) IIO I:
the Gentilgs were sanctioned by the heads of the Christian IZIJ, 272). I t is curious that these two martyrs, whd repre-
community. I t is certainly not Stephen’s efforts in charity sented the opposite Wings of early Christian sentiment, should
organisation which involve him in the controversy of 6 91: On die-or be represented as dying-in somewhat similar fashion.
the other hand, the incident of this internal disc-ission and its 3 Bacon drastically regards 6 11-7 I (reproducing Mk.1455-60),
satisfactory treatment indicates not merely a certain liberality of 7 55-565sa-60 8 I a c, 3 (reproducing Acts 22 41: 20 26 IO Lk. 22 9
spirit-however tardy-on the part of the Hebraist majority but 23 ;4 46) as editorial modifications added to bring the speech into
also an absence of ecclesiastical pretension on the part of the line with the general Lucan scheme ; whilst the reference to
apostles, since their action showed that the church was to he miracles in 68 has been substituted for the substance of 9 29
a church indeed : ‘not a mere horde of men ruled absolutely ’unhistorically-cp Gal. I 21-~4-transferred to Paul), and the
by the Apostles but a true body politic, in which different words ‘ and of them of Cilicia and Asia ’ (K& T&Y brb K C A C K ~ S
functions were askiqned to different members ’ (Hort, Chvistian ral ’ A d a s ) in 6 g are an editorial (cp 7 58 8 I) addition to a
Ecclcsia, 52). Both of these ideas were probably present to the source which knew of only one synagogue (i.e., an Alexandrian
editor of Acts (cp C HURCH, D TI). Cp also T Pet. 4 11. )r North African one).
4787
STEPHEN STEPHEN
tradition which alluded to an appearance of Stephen resented his looser attitude as bitterly as a Roman
before the Sanhedrin, or an inference from the r6le procurator's public insults. Like one of their number,
undoubtedly played by it in the subsequent persecution, who afterwards recanted, they were shrewd enough to
we are not able to determine. l h e slight obscurity anticipate disastrous consequences to Judaism, if such
resting on the details shows that the editor's distance liberal ideas prevailed (Gal. 113f:).
from the period prevented him from supplementing in In its extant form the speech put into the mouth of
strictly accurate fashion the gaps in his source. For- Stephen is, like the other addresses of Acts, the com-
tunately the haze does not blur the main outlines of 4. The speech : position of an author who possesses
\\hat happened : Stephen's arrest was the result of a considerable historical insight into his
popular Cmeute. which restrained itself just long enough its nature. subject ; the diction, style, and general
to allow him to defend himself before a suspicious and standpoint of the address are sufficient to show its
exasperated audience, which numbered-perhaps un- Lucan colouring and ability (cp 1316-41,and the fre-
officially-several members of the Sanhedrin. quent analogies to Lk. 1-2, Acts748=1724, etc.). In
Stephen's persistent propaganda had created quite a the nature of the case, too, it is impossible to think of
iiew situation. T h e people (6IZ cp 2 47 5 13) were now up hearers taking down a verbatim report, or of the author
3. The charge in arms againit Christianity, and the having access to such archives of the court as furnished
in in st stephen. charge was both grave and religious. later martyrologists with graphic and accurate details
Whether 611 or 6 1 3 f. be taken as of a Christian's last defence and struggles. But, from
the original source, the accusation was that of rank the verisimilitude of the contents as a whole1 and the
blasphemy against the Mosaic law and the temple- points which differentiate it alike from Petrine and from
cultus. 'To rigid high-churchmen, like these Pharisaic Pauline speeches, it is plain that the source drawn upon
Hellenists (cp APOCALYPTIC L ITERATURE . §§ 56, 58), by the editor, to say nothing of such oral traditions (from
and indeed to the people as a whole, especially in the Paul and other eye-witnesses, like Philip) as may have
capital, where prejudices naturally ran hot and hard, it reached him, mnst have sprung from the vivid memories
seemed a horrid impiety to suggest that these ancestral of some early Christians, possibly Hellenistic refugees
privileges (law and cultus) were neither final nor abso- at Antioch or Czesarea; judged on the principles of
lutely essential means of grace. Stephen had probably comparative historical criticism, the speech therefore
appealed to the authority of certain familiar sayings of takes high rank as substantially exact. It is not
Jesus, analogous to, if not identical with, those cited in difficult to suppose that so memorable a death-
Mk. 713-23132 1458 (cp 1529 Il.)l Without suggesting memorable for its consequences to the early church, as
that Stephen spoke disrespectfully of the law or of the well as for its intrinsic details-made an exceptionally
temple2-which would have been untrue to the spirit of deep impression upon contemporaries,2 and that this
Jesus (particularly w-hen Lk. had expressly maintained impression passed rapidly into some literary shape.
the genuinely Jewish piety of Jesus and his attendance Certainly the speech, as it stands, does not give one the
on the temple, Lk. 22z-4g), as well as out of keeping impression of an unpremeditated reply, and (as many
with the normal tone of contemporary Christianity-Lk. scholars have noticed) it hardly lies in line with the
implies that Stephen had assumed an attitude less of historical situation presupposed, even when the latter is
antagonism than of comparative indifference to such critically analysed. But though the report is probably
national institutions, refusing to treat (e.g.) the sacrificial inadequate, it echoes an impromptu survey of history
system as of absolute validity for Jew: who believed in delivered from a familiar position. Elaborate rather
a Messiah about to return and establish a spiritual era. than extempore, yet with gaps for all its elaborateness,
Zealots are angered as much by a refusal to echo their it is an outline or authentic summary, representing in
beliefs to the letter as by deliberate opposition : to all likelihood ideas often repeated by Stephen in his
ignore their tenets is as keen an insult as to attack them ; synagogue-preaching as he encountered objections urged
and it is a fair inference from the historical data to by people who, in ostentatious reliance upon the
assume that the negative and positive aspects of Stephen's authority of Moses, found the rejection of Jesus by his
preaching were alike interpreted by the sterner fanatics nation an insuperable barrier to faith in him as the true
as a danger and a defection. Their fierce attachment Messiah, and also cavilled at his attitude towards the
ancestral law and teniple of the land. The speaker
1 Cp Keim /. v. Naz. (ET) 171f: 5 ~ ~ 6 . 2 3 0 .There can he does not seize the occasion to preach repentance to the
little doubt (dut cp S ON OF MAN)that Jesus did actually antici-
pate a messianic triumph for himself which involved at his return audience. Nor doen he even attempt to clear himself
the downfall, not merely the supersession, of the Jewish temple : specifically from the charges brought against him, being
and yet a passage like Rev. 11~ f indicates
: how unable certain sensible from the first that the case was hopeless. His
Judaisticcircles of primitive Christianity were to sympathise with aim is to say all he has to say,3 and he manages to do
this outlook. I t is true that, even beyond the Essenes (ESSENES
5 s), there were abroad in Judaism movements of thought whicd this 'by giving a reading of history in the light of
attached quite a subordinate value to the sacrificial cultus and religious experience-a light that is intensified as the
the temple itself (cp Holtzmann, N T Theol. 1'04 f: 391 J). speech proceeds, and hurriedly closes with a flash of
These, however could hardly be very influential in Jerusalem
although the Alkxandrian culture of Stephen probably made h i d lightning.
ausceptible to such tendencies parallel with the teaching of Jesus. In several details of this speech, as elsewhere, Acts illustrates
He does not notice, what a modern reader would be impressed
by, that the very temple in question (6 13) had been erected by
a man whose sympathies could not be termed-in any sense of
the term-Jewish by conviction (see I S RAE L, $ 88). A rather 1 ' I n psychological truth it has not its like in all Acts ' (Spitta,
ancient reading which adds, after 'nation' (Zevw) in Lk. 23 z rr7). At the same time this long speech, the longest in the
'and destroying the law and the prophets' (rai ra.rd6ovra ~ b : whole book, is evidently meant and (less evidently) arranged hy
v6pou K a i T O ~ Fwpo++as)-is found not only in some Latin the author to suhserve the general apologetic motives of the
MSS hut also in Marcron. volume. The writer's sense of the situation and the literary
2 The greater prominence assigned to the temple in Stephen's ability he displays here are the kind of evidence which makc s
oration is due historically to the fact that Jesus, to whom he it not irrelevant to say that Acts is 'the only one of the IiT
appealed as his authority, had-once at least-spoken more books which anyone would think of calling clever' (W. H.
explicitly upon the cultus than upon the law, and intrinsically Simcox, Eady Church H i s f o y , 41).
to the fact that the one involved the other. Since the exile ' the 2 I t is certain, however, that Stephen died under the stones.
cultus was hut a portion of the law, to he minutely maintained The narrative lends no support to the idra (Wendt) that be
no doubt, hut maintained because the law ordained it. God's recovered (cp 14 193) in time to breathe hls last among pious
glory and Israel's were realised, not in the temple-worship, hut Christians who heard him repeat his testimony. The devout
in the fulfilment of the law of which that worship \vas but a men who buried him were, in all likelihood, respectable Jews
part' (Montefiore, Hi66eri Lect. 387). Notice that if Lk. uho had littl: or no sympathy with the fanatical excesses of
omits Mt. 17 24-27 he also omits Mt. 13 6. On the early Christian their fellowatizens.
conception of God's spirituality and the universalism it implied, 3 Con5onant with the Lucan idea of Lk. 21 13, where the
see Titius, Die aulrtire Anschauung =ton der SeZigkeif i m sense of Rlk. 1 3 9 is altered into that of arrest giving ar.
Urchvist. 8j: (IF). opportunity for witnessing to the gospel.
153 4789 4790
BTElPHEbT STEPHEN
tbe midrashic tendency which had already embellished OT the temple, he argues (40-43 44-50) that neither law nor
stories with rabbinic modifications and en- temple had come until comparatively late i n the
6. Midrashic largements (see CHRONICLES, 6, HISTORI. s national history, the temple in fact only in Solomon's
elements. CAI. L ITERATURE , $8 14f:). No significance
attaches to the apparent confusion of Horeb reign ; yet, previously to that, the spiritual ;evelation of
and Sinai ( y z g x , cp Ex.31: MIDIANS INAI ) the use of the God had been carried on in foreign lands (for Abraham,
round number 4" in v. 6 (as occasibnally ig Josephus) the
divergence between 729 and Ex. 2 14f: (cp Heb. 1127) the ioose v. 2, Moses, V Z J . 30 33, and Israel, v. 38). Even the
version of z S. 7 zf: in Acts 746 and of Ex. 1 16 22 in A;ts 7 19. or temple itself, as the prophets testified, formed no
the alteration of 'Damascus' into ' Babvlon' (v. 41). Other adequate or absolute medium for such a spiritual
variations and innovations 1however aremore &rib&. Thus
(a)in 7 z the theophany t d Abraham'is antedated (as by Philo revelation (the tacit inference being, of course, that it
and osephus), nor can an interpolation (Blass, St.KY. 1896, could not therefore be any blasphemy or treachery to
4 6 0 A be suspected ; (6) Terah's initiative is ignored and his death OT religion to assert, as Jesus had done, that even the
antedated in 7 4 (as in Philo : see rabbinic traditions cited by temple was not indispensable or final).' And as for the
Hamburger on this point) :(c) Jacob's family is numbered (v. '4)
not after the .Massoretic (7o=Gen. 46 27 Ex. 15) but after the law ofMoses ( b ) , with its divine vitality and power (to
@ text (75 : known already to Philo) ; (4 Shechem is confused which, answering 6 13 f:, Stephen does ample justice,
(v. 16) with Machpelah in Hebron and all the patriarchs- 38 53), not only had it, like the temple, been preceded
instead of Joseph only-buried at h c c b e m (perhaps a Lucan
home-thrust [see GOSPELS, 5 1091 a t the contemp;t felt by rigid by revelations (e.g., of circumcision), but its founder
ews for the Samaritans : see Lk. 9 51f: 10 33 17 I I ~ Acts : 18 had been misunderstood (7 25 Lk.2 so), rejected, and
a curious divergence not only from the OT narrative hut thwarted by the very people (in Egypt 24-35, in the
even from the tradition followed by Josephus who buries them wilderness 36-39) to whom God had sent hiin as ruler
all at Hebron ( A n i ii. 8 2 ) : (e) 7 m 20-24 are tinged with the
ewish legends (MOSES, 68 zoA), current also in Philo and and redeemer. Thankless, perverse, and obtuse :
h osephus, upon Moses' beauty eloquence (in contradiction to
x.4 .of:), wisdom, and m a r t h prowess, v. 25 (acquitting
Moses of rash violence and making his chivalrous interference
such had been their nature all along. Hence their
failure to welcome Jesus with his authority and creative
power to establish a new and final form of worship
the first step in the deliverance) being reproduced from the
tradition in Philo, Vit., Mos. 18f: and Jos. Ant. ii. 9 Z J ; cf) which should correspond to the ideal of the OT. This
the rabbinic division of the lawgiver's life into three eriodi of resistance. so far from being loyalty to religion, spelt
forty years each, is followed in m. 23 36 : (g)the ' k e d Sea both unfaithfulness and disaster to it, representing
(v. 36) is an Alexandrian tonch(Wisd. 10 18 197 I Macc. 4 z Heb.
11zg), taken evidently from Ass. M o s r S 'nonne hoc est indeed a conservatism to the letter and the form of
quod testabatur nobis turn Moyses in profetiis, qui multa passus religion which the fresh and fuller current of the spirit
est in &gypto et in mari rubro et in eremo annos uadraginta' ; would leave stranded. Moses predicted that the
(h) the association of angelic agency with the l a w (7 36 53),
though free from the depreciatory spirit of Gal. 3 29 Heb. 3 2, Messiah would be a second Moses, and Stephen
etc., is like them (cp Everling, Diepuul. A n dologic, 61-65) argues vehemently (in quite a characteristic Lucan
due to the rabbinic development of Dt. 33 2 d (c Jos. Ant.
xv. 5 3) : and (i) the citation from Amos in vu. 4 z ~ r e p r c d u c e s
fashion, cp Lk. 1629 J 2427 f: Acts 2 8 2 3 , etc.) that
the mistranslation of an obscure and corrupt original (cp AMOS, the true observance of the Law would lead its devotees
ti 13, CHIUN,MOLECH~ f I), Stephen arguing-in opposition to to Jesus ( S I -53) : real loyalty to the Law and the
the normal and traditional view-that while the wilderness prophets culminates in Christian faith, the line of con-
period had its divine means of grace (v. 4 ) it wa4 yet a period tinuity running from the O T prophets to the gospel of
of idolatry and apostasy punished by the & h e .
Such phenomena, though quite minor in importance, indicate Christ. Whereas, he grimly suggests, Jesus had been
a speaker or an author who is drawing upon hi6 memory of indeed a second Moses : his rejection, due to the same
popular religious tales and has been trained in the spirit of obstinacy and rebellions spirit (SI f:)that Moses and
that Alexandrian Judaism which for all its reverence could sit
wonderfully free to the letter and even the traditions bf the OT his successors' (sa) encountered, is really a proof of his
records. genuine Messiahship. In short, the argument ends with
In his brilliant and skilful address (72.8 9-16 17-43 a flashing retort. Stephen hurls back the charge of
44-50 51-53),- I
Stephen urges one or two extremely disloyalty on his accusers, implying, in characteristically
B. Contents. effective &d apposite arguments, which Alexandrian and yet also in OT fashion, that the Jewish
amount to a counter-accusation against
his opponents. In the opening sketch of patriarchal 1 Stephen's reference to the Solonionic temple is curt and
cool but intended to depict its relative worth rather than its
history, which is quite in keeping with the senten- ut& incompatibility with OT religion. His point, driven home
tious and discursive style often affected by Orientals by the citation from Is. 68 ~f:,is that God is not bound to the
in unfolding some grave issue, the speaker is mainly temple in Jerusalem, but free to reveal himself in wider and less
concerned to explain the origin of the covenant and external ways : compared to the spiritual worship of God given
by esus ( I 8), even the temple service is merely another
promise which culminated in the Mosaic legislation golden calf? f t b obvious that, in a book circulated after
and the Solomonic temple. But he manages indirectly 70 A.D., this line of a r ument would be specially a t, proving
to express his personal reverence for God (611,cp that the destruction o f t h e temple was no irreparagle loss to
religion.
7 2 55) and the temple (613, cp 77). as well as the 2 v. 37 is of cardinal moment to the a r ument ofthe speechin
common ancestry of Jew and Christian alike ( P U T its extant form, since it destroys the yewish claim that the
father, 7 2 , cp 12. etc., also Lk. 173). Then comes the Mosaic cultus and legislation were final. The prophet-Messiah
development of two leading ideas : one already sug- as a second Moses, nt least equal to the first in authority mus;
have the right t o supersede or transcend previous revelhions.
gested, the other novel, yet both showing his desire to True, the Jews had rejected him whom Stephen claimed as the
justify himself by an appeal to the original basis and true Messiah. But that was no decisive argument against him,
trend of O T revelation. ( u ) Charged with depreciating for they had done the same to the first Moses. Thus, although
u. 37 has all the appearance pf a parenthesis or editorial addi-
1 The use of 6r~hquiu (38, cp 8 I 3) is deliberate. The author tion o f Lk., even sn it would only sharpen an idea already
hints at the normal position of the earlyChfistians. who never present in the original and (like 6 XI) reflect a correct reading of
dreamed of founding a sect hut of continuing and developing the rimitive source.
the ancient people of God-to whom thay served themselves as
lineal heirs.
350 the L u c w addition (7 I?) 'and wisdom' rai oo+iav (,cp
z d = Lk. 2 40 52 (Bncon)? The idea dominates the CZelnentznc
2 C p Rom. 9 4 ' Israelites, whose is the glory [Acts 7 21 and Rec0gnition.s (e.@, 136). Cp Acts3 134'7 35 (Lk. 6 z i t ) . Of
the covenants [cp Acts 7 81 and the givin of the law [Acts 7 38 531, course the.MessiFic interpretation of t. 18 sf, repro uced in
and the [divine] service [Acts 7 71 and %e promises ' [Acts 7 51- Acts 737 IS a misap lication of the original sense, which refers
(,'IupuqA?~=~,+y 6 S/&u, sat a b 6 r 5 h i ~ a b .rai 6 vo+drub, *ui not to aiindividual gut to a succession or order of prophets in
q harpsla K U U~ Lmuyydiur). The allusion to theother prerogative Israel.
of the 'inheritance' (6 xAqpovo@ia Acts 7 ) is too incidental to 4 Why the prophets (42.5z)P Because W R S OTIC agq$)
afford any basis for a theory (Bacbn) whici regards this section they had vainly hut vi orously proteste6 against the' formal
in the speech as an attempt to show the Alexandrian spiritualis- tendencies of OT piety w%ichwith the temple became crystallised
ing of the territorial 'inheritance' into a nos-local worship into et more ceremonial wnrshi Without pronouncing the
(Lk. 173.75). 7 5 is answered by 7 45. Ste hen does not, like estahxshment of the temple itselpa fresh token of the nation's
the author of E#. Bum., s iritualise 'the inferitance' by deny- sensuous bias, the speaker plainly hints that the Levitical ritual
ing any local material fnlkiment of it ; he merely a r ues that, had thereby acquired a fatal prominence which tended to
however real, the local and national culmination o t i t in the obliterate that s iritual worship for which the rophets stood.
history of Israel was not final, implying that its fulfilment lay and to produce t i e further effect of rendering $e worshippers
in the far future (cp Heb. 4 I& 8-11). incapable of estimating God's better and spiritual revelation.
4791 4792
STEPHEN STEPHEN
rejection of Jesus was an integral part of the sensuous violence was illegal-has failed to notice it. The fairest
temper and esternalism with which they had all along solution of the critical problem is to suppose that
been blind arid dull to the spiritual significance of the Stephen perished in a fanatical riot, the account of
Law and the prophets.l Circumcision they had had ; which ended with 82. The editor, however, has added
but it had brought no moral devotion (8, 58). Prophets not merely SI,$, 15 but also 758 816, 3 to the original
they had had ; yet only to disbelieve and persecute (37 source, drawing in the latter interpolations upon a
42 48 52). -4spiritual and heavenly law (Xbyra @ V W , tradition which was no doubt accurate.
‘ vim vitalein habentes,’ Blass) they had received ; yet The editorial hand, or a different source, in at least
only to prove unfaithful to it (38f.. 53) by turning it 758 8 18,3 is widely recognised-e.g. by Bleek, Weiss
into a dead letter. (adding 7 5 5 596~). Clenien, Sorof, Kruger ( TLZ
As we possess only an epitome of the speech, it is 1885, 299). Wendt, Hilgenfeld (adding 56, 59).
useless to inquire whether an. 5 1 - 5 3 ~imply some Schmiedel ( A C T S , § IO), Moffatt (HistoricaZ New Test.,
,. Acts 754-83, interruption on the part- of the 429, 431,667-670), and Bacon. Originally the source
angry audience, now awakening to ( s 8 J ) ran ‘ they stoned Stephen,’ etc. ( & 1 9 0 p 6 h 0 ~
the speakcr’s drift, or-whether some part of the source T O Y ZT&+UVOYK.T.~.) ; the insertion of 586 left ‘ stoned’
has been omitted by the editor (Schwanbeck). The without an object, and necessitated its repetition
words are abrupt and final. This curt, stinging thrust, awkwardly in 59. Again 8 1 a is obviously parenthetic,
which formed the climax of the harangue, roused a whilst 8 3 repeats the proleptic 8 16 c unless the latter be
heat of anger in the audience which, at Stephen’s also excised (as by Weiss and Schmiedel). It is plain
further blasphemous cry (561, passed into a scream of that Stephen died, not on the testimony of witnesses
horror. Nothing is said about any formal conviction ( 6 1 3 7586), but on account of his own recent word and
before the Sanhedrin. The offender is simply stoned confession. The references to Saul, which are quite
to death outside the city-the regularmethod and place authentic, link the source to what follows, and it is
of punishment for blasphemy (Lev. 2414-16, cp Lk. 429). needless to dwell on the dramatic effect 1 of this silent
For the Jews to put any criminal thus to death upon figure watching the opening struggle of a campaign in
which he himself was presently to play so diverse and
their own responsibility was utterly illegal (cp Jn. 1 8 3 1 ) ;
and the difficulty of the story is enhanced by the prominent a p a t 2 A similar result in general is
absence of any explicit evidence to show that a year or reached by those who bisect the w-hole narrative-e.g.,
two after the death of Jesus Roman authority in the Feine ( 6 1-6 12-14 72-21 29-34 44-50 57J 8 1a 3 with 6 II 15
capital was seriously relaxed, or that -as afterwards 7 2 - 2 8 35-43 51-53 54-56 59J 816-z), Jiingst (69 f. IZC-14
(61. 62 A . D . ) at the murder of James the brother of 71-21 29-34 44-50 586-60 816 c , with 61-6, 7b c-8 I I 15
Jesus-an interregnum between two procurators was 7 22-28 35-43 51-58a 8 ra 2-3), and Spitta (6 1-6 g - n a 72-54
taken advantage of, or that the sentence of the 57-58a 816-2, with 67f. 726-15 7 1 5 5 J 58b-60 8 r n 3), or
Sanhedrin was formally connived at, if not ratified, by less radical investigators such as BIass ( 7 596. a Lucan
by the Roman officials. At the same time, the broad touch) and Rainsay ( 7 58 8 I , Lucan touches reproducing
unquestionable fact that the Jews proceeded to persecute Paul’s agonised confession when Philip narrated the
the Christians without hindrance, whilst the Christians episode, 69-8 39, at Czesarea). If one is disinclined to
not merely fled from Jerusalem, where the Roman follow those who (Spitta, J. Weiss, Hilgenfeld. etc.)
power was strong, but never had recourse to the civil adhere to the substantial integrity, as to the’historicity,
power as a shield against their tormentors, suggests of the speech, the most tenable alternative is to consider
that the Jewish authorities must have had some sauctiou that it represents a single source more or less edited
or other for their outburst, although the historian- (€3. Weiss, Wendt, Holtzmann) : it is quite in keeping
\\ishing perhaps to convey the impression that such with the author’s practice in the third gospel (Wernle,
1 Stephen makes no attempt to explain the cause of this Synoptischc Z;vagle, 18,cp 146) to deal more freely with
obduracy. H e seems toregard it as innate. In E t . Barn. 9x> narratives than with discourses in the traditional
where the allegorical interpretation of the Mosaic customs is materials which lay before him.
propounded as their original sense, the failure of the Jews to The chief linguistic terms characteristic of 6 143 (especially
apqrehend this is attributed to the influence of an evil angel in the speech), which do not recur elsewhere either in Acts or in
(euo$c<w ahodc) and to their la se into idolatry. Stephen’s the reSt of the NT literature, are :-‘defend ’ t&pdvm ( i 24) ;
speech, upon the other hand (as gabatier rightly points out), is ‘murder,’ t b c i p w r c (8 1 ) ; ‘resist,’ t&mdm;w (7 51); ‘uncir-
a t once the complement and the development of Jesus’ parable
in Lk. 2OgJ As a historical retrospect it is unduly severe;
hut as a word for the immediate situation of the speaker it 1 The whole story is full of admirable effects produced by an
posiessed a telling force. The thought of 7 SIXis remarkably author who could write effectively as well as piously ; e g . , the
in line (cp 0. Holtzmann, Leden / e m , 336) with Lk. 13 34f: literary art shown in the sonorous opening of the speech:
(cp 11 491, where Jesus speaks in the name of God, who has dramatic touches like the glow of 6 15 ‘ they understood not
repeatedly sent messengers to the Jews, and finally the Messiah ‘ andkept if not,’ and ‘ befPIZnsZee?”(contrasting this death
onlv to meet the same fate. See E’. Barn. 5 II ‘So the Son & with the three already mentioned, viz., Judas, Auanias and
Goa came in the flesh in order that he might sum up and com- Sapphira), the vision of 7 59 with Jesus sfandins (not ‘sit&
plete the sins of tho5e who persecuted his prophets to thedeath.’ zs usual) to welcome his martyr (cp Rev. 56), the contrast of
2 Stephen does not go nearly as far as Ef.. Barn. (46-8)which Stephen’s denunciation and his forgiving spirit, and the
flatly denies that the Jews possecsed the real law of God : ‘ours oratorical handling of the various themes in the harangue.
it is, they lost it’ by the idolatrous aberration mentioned in 759f: seems to echo a helief that the spirits of the dead
Acts 7 39-41. H e distinctly upholds the living authority of the (especially the martyrs) passed directly to God : cp Titius, 45 ;
Law (in contrast to Paul, Gal. 3 21); only, whilst E?. B a n . Schur. Hist. ii. 2 I&.
141-4 denies that the Jews ever cot this divine covenant, 2 See P A U L , 0 7. Mommsen (ZiVW, 1901,85fi), taking ;v 73
Stephen argues that they got it and failed to keep i,t (Acts 7 53). river pou (Gal. 114) in its local sense (=birthplace, c p Acts 426
So 4 E4d. 1 4 2 9 3 from the Jewish standpoint : our fathers 8 2 14). considers that Paul directed his attack upon the separa-
received the law of life which they kept not, which ye also have tists(inc1udingc.g. Andronicus and Junias? Rom. 167) in Tarsus;
.
transgressed after them also Acts 15 IO.
3 Lucan close to o r i g h (&so), Holtnnann Z W T (1865)~
which gives a godd sense to Gal. 1 2 2 but hardly fits in with
Acts 8 3 9 IJ In afamous passage (E& on ‘ Secret Societies,’
434.435. McGiffert finds in them the theme of the speech, viz., Works [1863] 6 285-289) de Qqincey discusses the uneasiness
that temple-worship is not enough, demanding obedient and and fascination stirred by such martyrdoms in some of the more
spiritual hearts among the worshippers. But there is nothing thoughtful spectators and argues that the radiant countenance
distinctively Christian in such an attitude. of Stephen ‘bringidg down to earth some revelation of a
4 Though this finds no support in the words ‘ I gave my vote,’ brightness in the sky, the fountains of which were intercepted
xanjveyyo +j+ou (26 IO), whlch are merely a rhetorically vivicl to Paul, perplexed him ; haunted him sleeping, troubled him
expression of agreement (8 I). Paul was not a member of the
Sanhedrin.
.
when awake. . . Upon this we may be sure that Paul brooded
intensely and that the noonday scene on the road to Damascus
6 Consonant with his usual tendency to emphasise the Jews did hut 4uicken and ante;date a result which would at any rate
as the real enemies of the faith and to avoid blaming the have followed in the end. [Cp col. 4081$] The psychologica1
Roman authorities. The first martyrdom of Christianity was nexus, alluded to in this passage, is reflected in the narratives of
brought ahout by false evidence and tumultuous justice on the Acts, and probably formed one of the suhordinate aims which
part of the Jewish authorities(as 12 IJ, etc.), and betokened no the writer had in view as he fused the Stephen-source and the
collision of the Roman authorities with the ncw faith. Pauline tradition together. See further below.
4793 4794
STEPHEN STEPHEN
. .
cumcised.’ t&reoirunros (7 41): ‘mash,’ tSp6rw (7 94): come
I
‘ new faith only served to accelerate the extension of that
after ’ &r&iop;r (7 45) ; umpkereT’t8rraunjs faith to the Gentiles. Rut, further, it was an epoch when
8. Linguistic (7 27’35) ; 1 expose,’ eK@€TOF (7;g) ; I coming,’
features of ZAruurr (7 52) : ‘thrust out 2 & d d o (7 45 persecution broke upon the Church in general as well
narrative. [27 3911): ‘beyond,’ t & & d (743) ; ‘daily; as upon individuals, owing to the fact that the Jewish
ra6’qpe tvdr (G I ) ; ‘ ill-usage,’ tra’rours (7 34) ; authorities for the first time (within a year or so of the
‘deal craftily,’ trarauo&’&.car (7 19); ‘possession, tKara’q6mc
(7 5 45: ; ‘ lamentation,‘ t r o m r d r (8 2 ) ; ‘ ravage,’ Aupaivopar Crucifixion-;.e., 30-31 A. D. )realised l the radical con-
( S 3) ; redeemer,’ thurpwrrjs (7 35 ; cp Heb. 9 12 Lk. 168 2 38) ; sequences of the gospel as preached by more outspoken
remove,’ tperorri<o (7 4 43) ; ‘ make a calf,’ p o q o r o i d w (7 41). Christians, who could appeal honestly to the authority
.
‘ neglect,‘ rapdmpdw (6 I) ‘ corn,’ u i r i o v (7 12) ; ‘ stiffnyked,; of Jesus himself. Hitherto these distinctive principles
t rrAqporpbmAor (7 51) ; ‘stir up,’ U U ~ K W ~ W(6 12) ; bury
‘
u v y ~ o p l < o(8 a ) ; set at one,’ mvdha’uuo (7 2 5 ) ; ‘slain beast:: of Christianity, with their far-reaching issues, had been
tr+a‘yrov (742); ‘suborn Qro@a;\Aw (6 I;) ; ‘sustenance, tolerated mainly because they had not been adequately
ty6pTaup-z (7 TI); ‘ buy,’ ’t&viopai (7 16) ; appeared,’ t&+@ expressed. Hence the fitful and comparatively in-
>f sudden human appearance 726). Of these 31, no fewer
than 18 (marked t ) come from 6 e L X X or Philo a fact which effective attempts of ‘the authorities to keep the new
(especially as the citations are loose and unintentid.nal) corrobor- movement in check, as well as the general popularity
ates the impression of Hellenistic or Alexandrian colour.1 enjoyed by the Nazarenes in Jerusalem. The twelve
Even more remarkable is the absence of such distinctively lacked neither courage nor sincerity. For various
Lucan traits as dv with optative, S i ral, 6y6vero with infinitive,
Iv ~iwith infinitive, ~ djpdpav, ’ r a i a i d s , bv&a?t, r.2~ (8ras) reasons, however, they do not appear to have shown
i,Aak, TLC with a noun, and r b or 78 before prepositions. anything of the same insight into the tradition of
At the same time, the Lucan phraseology of the passage Jesus which they preserved, as outsiders like Stephen,
shows that if a written source underlies the record it has been
worked over2 by the editor: see the following favonrite or Philip, and Paul. Upon men like these fell the brunt
characteristic Lucan traits (words peculiar to Lk.-$cts marked of the advance which had to be made, if Christianity
with an asterisk)-‘holy,’ i y ~ o r(6 13 7 33); ‘bring, 2yw (6 12) ; was ever to be anything more than a Jewish sect. With
[ivciyw741]‘ ‘bringup ’*bvaipd+w(720); ‘men brethren,’??pw the spiritual freedom and universal range of the new
b?eA$al (7 2 ; ; ‘look sieadily ’ arcvi3o (6 15 7 55); ‘till,
(718) ; ‘and there arose,’ Iy&o (?:$\
6.‘ (8 ;); ‘hahe,’ flpd+or faith, as urged by Stephen and others, the twelve
ministry,’ S i u o u i a ( G I 4); ‘o,pen, Sravoiyo (75:); cut, probably were in essential sympathy ; indeed there is
*Srarpio (754); ‘scatter abroad *8raureipw (8 I); arrange,’ every reason to suppose that Stephen carried the
Srara‘uuw,(744); ‘just,’ *Sr.aiop (Messianic title, 3 14 752 22 14);
‘seventy, *GflSopjuovsa (7 14). sipi with dative (7 5 44) ; majority (yet cp 21 2 0 - 2 2 ) of the church, willingly or
d r e v S i (7 I 33) ; ‘ expose,’ * I K T ? @(721) ~ c ; ‘before,’ IV&HLOV reluctantly, with him in his outspoken statements. It
(6 5f: 7 46) ; ‘ the following [day],’ “sir & 0 6 q [jpCpql (7 26) i is one thing, however, to approve a course of action,
‘in &os, days,’ i v rak jpdpars radrarc (f I ); send forth,
I&mroudhhw (7 12). ‘year ’ &or (7 6 34 z ) devout,’ *dAap$s another and a nobler thing to start it. All credit for
z ) ‘find grace,”&pim? X & ~ P L(746 V Ek.;l30, cp Heh. 416); the more difficult step, with the wisdom and courage
‘8rejoice,’ &+pa+ (7 41) ‘ come upon ’ I + b n ) p r (6 12); ‘having which it involved at this period, is due to Stephen,
kneeled down, Beic sh’ ydvara (7 60’ cp Lk. 22 41) ; ‘ named, whose stand had a further liberating effect -hardly
‘
: d o 6 p s v o s (7 58) ; behold,’ raravodo (7 31, cp Heh. 3 I 9 24);
contemplated by himself-of forcing the early Christians
famine,’ Arpds (7 11); ‘after these thi?gs,’ psrh iairra (7 7);
‘summon,’ *percrxa’Aeo (7 14); ‘month, prjv (720); ‘younp into a consciousness of their real relation to the orthodox
man,’ *veavias (758); vopi<o=suppose (725=Lk. 244); now, Judaism, side by side with which most of them had
v i b ( 7 4 3 4 5 ~ ) ~‘house
; of Israel,’ &o~,’Iupa$A (742); ‘with
oneaccord, opoBupa86v (757); ‘sight, Bpapa (731); BP in hitherto lived in peace. The break had to come,
attraction (716f: 45); ‘at the feet, Tap& rods rr6das (758); although as yet both sides had been for different reasons
rA+r (6 2 g=community, Deissm. Neue BibeZsturZien, 59); slow to disturb the status ‘There is an inner
‘multiply,’ d p v o (61); ‘except,’rAX.iv (S I ); ‘full of the freedom which may grow side by side with an allegiance
[Holy] Spirit drjpqs rxw. [d low] (6 3 5 7 55); ‘ avenge,
*rors;v I ~ S i ~ q b TWOS iv (Lk. 18 7f: Acts 7 14); ‘betrayer, rpo- fostered by birth and custom, prejndice and piety.
L ;.nls (7 52 Lk. G 16 2 Tim. 3 4 only); ‘ show before,’ *rporaray- But men first become conscious of this freedom when a
yCAAo ( i 5 z ) ; ‘go before,’ ‘rrporopaliw (710 Lk. 176); ‘unto,’ demand is made that restricts it, or when it is assailed
zpp6s, of speech $73); ‘word, ;<pa (611); ‘host, “urparia
(742 LF.2’3); kindred,’ *UY dvrra (7314 Lk.161); m’u on account of some consequence already deduced from
g 35); seize,’ *uuvapprL<o (6 r z r ‘Tpprove,’ ~ V ~ U S O (8 K ~I );W it by the enemy, but not as yet patent to the mind
‘stop,’ UUY.‘XXO (757); ‘deliverance, u w r q p i a (7 2 5 Lk. 171); that cherishes it’ (Weizslicker). Such a n awakening
m (6 7 12 7 26 8 3) : ‘ of forty years,’ *rfuufparovradnlr (7 23, cp
1318); 705 with infinitive (719); roirrov=him (735, cp 223 came to early Christianity at the martyrdom of Stephen.
5 I); Qra’ o (75j); ‘[the] Most High,’ *[&Iii$.ruror (T48, cq H e first expressed a latent antithesis of principle,
$. ds.
132 7 I): ‘voice,’ +wvr) with yiyvopar (731); keep,
+uAa‘uuo (753 cp Lk.1128). widow,‘ Kfpa (61); ‘region,’
grasping the gospel of Jesus with a thoroughness and
penetration which enabled him to formulate certain
~ d p a(SI); k L w h e n ( 7 a 3 ) ; &si(615), impf. yith ptc. (81);
besides the proper names like ‘ Libertine, *hrfleprrvoc questions, afterwards elaborated differently yet along
‘
‘ Chaldean ’ Xd8qios; Hellenist ’ ‘EAAqvror$s; and ‘ Rephan the same line by one who had been an accomplice in
Pc+av ; the‘ phrase ‘ Son of Man ,’ (7 56= Lk. 2269, almost only his murder. This is all the more remarkable. because
use of name outside gospels), 1 9 = 5 17 (Clem.Rom. 4 x ) ; the the stimulus originally came not-as in later contro-
conce tion of Jesus as the prophet like Moses (737, cp 3 2 2
and Ek. 7 16 39 16 29/: 24 27) Acts 7 27 = Lk. 12 14 ; ~ K O ~ C L V versies-out of practical exigencies due to the unlimited
with ptc. (712, cp Lk.4f3) ’Acts61o=Lk.2115 Acts7zz= preaching of the gospel, but entirely from the inward
L’i. 24 rg-‘preserve alive too oveialkr (Lk. 17 33 Acts 7
T Tim. 613, only); ‘visit,’ f a L d $ a d m r (7 23, cp Lk. 1 7 8 7
and one instance of the Lucan partiality for Is. 40-66 (Acts 7 47J;
149 fidelity of one man (who had not belonged to the
original disciples) to the principle of religious freedom
as in Barn. 16 2 with i j r i c for rai aoior and odxi for ya’p). in the spirit and sayings of Jesus.3
The significance of this eDiSode for earlv Christianitv The dependence of the Stephen-narrative upon several of the
9. Significance is thus twofold. It fo;med one df
those outstanding crises when, as the
best authenticated portions of the Synoptic tradition (for the
Johannine see Wendt’s Le,& Jew [ET] 2 3 jx) has been
of episode. historian of Acts loved to show, the accounts already nAed ;4 the general similarity of sivera1 details in the
-~
of his death and of the trial of Jesus (e.g., Lk. 22 66=
fanatical and malicious opposition of Judaism to the 1 One early tradition, followed by Usuardns, Petavius, and
1 Peculia: to Hebrfws and Lk.-Act: (includipgActs 6-8 3) are : other medieval and later scholars, put Stephen’s martyrdom in
‘ goodly a u r a o s . star,’ dwrpov ; custom, ~ 6 ’ 0 s (except Jn. the same year as the Ascension.
1940) ; ‘ p g in,’ kua‘ e i v e d a r (except Jn. 18 16) ; ‘trembling 2 As the subsequent history, down to the third century,
for fear, r‘vrpopor ; J e d Sea Epu6’$ BbAauua ; ‘devout, shows, there was a recurring tendency to gravitate hack into
tlrAa&jp (group); ‘ h e that beardrul?’ j y d p s v o c (except ,Mt. 26 Judaism on the part of certain Christian circles (cp Harnack‘s
citation) ; ‘rest ’ rarara6cw -01s ; change,’ or ‘remove, pera- Dqpengeschichte, E T 1294,9.
rr8hvar (excepr j u d e 4) ; sojourn -er, r a p o d w -oc(literal sense): 3 In its account of the persecutions conducted by that
‘ patriarch,’ r a r p r l p x q s ; hand of God(except I Pet. 5 6) ; ‘ made ‘inimicus homo’(L?., Paul), Clem. R e c o p . 1 7 0 3 , like Hege-
sippus, ignores Stephen ; James is for Hegesippus the proto-
2: erporoiqrop of temple (except Mk. 14 58). See also
?a;qd&b. 8 2-5.
a This is perhaps betrayed also in the occasional roughnesses
martyr, though in Eus. HE v. 2 5 Stephen reappears as the
model witness of Christ.
of construction-e.g the change of subject in 4 (‘removed, 4 I t de ends upon the critical view taken of Jn. 421.24,
p e r & m f v ) 8 (‘begay’ 6 dvvqusv) and IO (‘made,’ Kardurqueu), whether &at passage be regarded as a later expansion of the
tho;gh Wiiss goes tdo Jar in t a k n g passages like IOC-16 and idea suggested in Acts 7 48x, or as embodying a genuine logion
19 1-23 u,26-29, 3 6 J , as editorial additions inserted in view of of Jesus (cp Jn. 2 19-22) to the effect that only spiritual worship
Lk.’s Gentile-Christian audience. in his name answered to the true ideal of the OT revelation.
4795 4796
STEPS STOICS
Acts6 12) is not unnatural in a historian who is concerned to z. *n*>pab-jl, Gen. 15 2, a difficult phrase, on which see
describe how loyalty to the authority and ideas of the great E LIEZER , I, and cp Dillmann, Delitzsch, and Crit. Bi6. ad lor.
proto-Martyr brought one of his followers to a like fate. Such
conformation was inevitable, though it is not easy to determine 3. jag, Is. 22 15 R V w . (EV ‘treasurer ’), applied to S HEBNA
how far it was conscious and literary. It is distinctly curious (4.v.).
however, that false witnesses and an allusion to Jesus’ sayink
about the temple should be introduced here by an author who
4. .J?G,Dan. 1 TI AVw. ; see MELZAR
deliberately omits both facts from his narrative of Jesus’ trial. 5- Ye, I Ch. 28 I RV ‘ruler.’ See P RINCE, 3.
and also that the authentic-saying on the Cross (Lk. 2 3 3 4 a t - 1 6. O ~ K O V ~ ~ Gal.
O S 4 2 RV, etc. Hence O;KOVO+&, Lk. 16 2
s
which does not form part of the original third gospel (see H i s t . E V ‘stewardsdip.
New Tesi. 654)-should be reflected in Acts 760 (cp Lk. 6 28 7. ~sZ‘rposos,Mt. 208 (of the master of the vineyard) Lk. 8 3
Acts3 17 13 q ) , just as it was actually’quoted by the brother & (up CHUZA);see P ROCURATOR.
Jesus at his martyrdom (ZO8q~e TA y6uaTa he‘yov APLE Be6 1~Lr.p 8. C ~ ~ X ~ X L T ~ Jn. ~ , M E ~ L S8
W O See
28.
~ K ~ , 11.
d+cs ahsois’ oV$p o l l a m TZ‘ nwouuiv, cp % z),.and by the Lyons
martyrs (Eus. E V. 2 5). There is one very significant change STEWPAN (D!?’?), Lev. 113sf RVmg.. See COOK-
however, in Acts 7 59 (= Lk. 23 46), emphasised h the precedini ING ,9 4 ; cp POTTERY, § 4.
words ‘calling upon,’ & L K ~ O ~ + W O V (sc. ‘I8qvo;vf The similar
parallels between Stephen and Pant (6 13=2l28 69=212127 STOCKS. For punishments involving restraint of
cp 3412) are of no literary significance whatever, nor i; the person, see L AW AND JUSTICE, 5 12 (end), and cp
Stephen’s speech a literary expansion of certain Pauline ideas. C H A I N S , PRISON.
For, whilst criticism has learned to do justice to the powerful
impression (see above; also R. H. Hutton’s TheologicaiEssays, The word is used to render :
3 1 8 5 , and Feine, Das Geseizesfreies Euang. des Paurulus, 1899, I. n x m ; see col. 3850 (7).
pp. 165 8 8 5 ) made by Stephen’s religious consciousness upon 2. DXJ, Prov. 7 2 2 AV; see ANKLETS, col. 171, and n. I .
Paul, Stephen cannot be described as a forerunner of Paul 3. p y x ; see COLLAR, 3.
without serious limitations. In Stephen an original element 4. l D , Job 13 27 33 1 1 E V (probably an Aramaic loan-word),l
worked like a ferment, which differentiated him not simply
from his leading contemporaries, but from the line subsequently here mentioned specifically as an instrument for confining the feet.
followed by Paul. The very occurrence of similar ideas-e.g., in 5. @JAov, Acts 16 24, lit. ‘wood. On the ‘inner prison ’ into
Rom. 9-11 (Acts 7 52 = I Thess. 2 1 4 5 , see Origen on Mt. 1357)- which Paul and Silas were cast on this occasion, see PRISON,
is one of several proofs that such ideas were widespread in 8 I (end).
certain circles of early Christianity, and the points of difference STOICS ( CTOIKOI [Ti.], CTWIKOI [WH]. Acts1718).
are upon the whole more tangible than the points in common The Stoa was founded at Athens, about 300 B . c . , by
between the two men. Paul was not interested in the cultus-
question at all; Stephen was. Vet Stephen never raised the Zen0 ; and many of its distinctive doctrines were added
question of the Gentiles,l as Paul did from the first. Nor did during the third century by Cleanthes and Chrysippus.
he like Paul in general view the Law as superseded by grace ; Stoicism was brought to Rome by Panzetius about 140,
in ’Hellenistic fashion itephen traces a spiritual current through
Jewish history, believing that a proper interpretation of the and many distinguished Romans learnt its principles
Law, and obedience to the spirit, would have saved the Jews from Posidonius (about 86-46). It was the leading
from their ancient lapses, even from the culminating lapse a t philosophical school in the early empire; the chief
the crucifixion. Per contra, as has been already indicated
(88.3, 6), Stephen had not advanced to the position which in later writers are Seneca (4-65 A.D.), Epictetus (flor. circa
writers may be termed distinctively Alexandrian. IOO), and Marcus Aurelius (121-180). The Stoic
The scanty and worthless legends upon Stephen, collected doctrine was divided into logic, physics, and ethics.
by Tillemont (Mimoires; Eng. ed. 1735, pp. 353-359)! main1.y I n logic its most characteristic feature is the search for
cluster round the placeand time ofhisdeath, and the findingofhis
relics. According to one tradition of the fifth century, he was a criterion of truth, and the placing of this criterion in
buried, thanks to the friendly intervention of Gamaliel at Kafr the feeling of certainty. In physics the Stoics returned
Gamala in presence of the lamenting apostles. Hi; festival to the crude pre-Socratic views, and especial!y to those
seems to have been held generally on the 26th of December the
day following Christmas ; which occasioned Augustine’s d y i n g of Heraclitus. They were strict materialists, and con-
that unless God had first become man to die for men, men would ceived God, or nature, to he in essence a fiery process.
never have found courage to die for God. Epiphanius ( H e y , In ethics, Zeno formulated the end of life as T Nbpoho-~
204) numbers Stephen among the Seventy, and one curious y o i i p b w s {Gv, ‘ consistency’; but this uas expanded
tradition (followed by Dante, PUP- 15)describes himasa youth.
In addition to the critical editi&s of Acts, ad loc., the mono- by Cleanthes into a life consistent with nature,’ and by
graphs on source-criticism (ACTS, # IT), and various biographies Chrysippus into ‘life according to our experience of
of Paul see especially *Baur’s Paulus what happens by nature.’ Thus ethics was set on a
10. Bibliography. (ET), 1139-62 ; *Zeller’s Contents and basis of theoretical knowledge-though the physical
On*n of Acts (ET) 1237-246 2175-176;
Ewald’s Histoy of Israel, ET 7 155-164 ; Gfrorer, Die heilige theory does not furnish any very obvious ethical guid-
Sage (r838), 1408,f: Renan, Les Apbtres, chap. 8 ; Raucb ance. Virtue alone was good, vice alone bad. Other
St.Kr. (1857), 352-368 ; F. Nitzsch, i6id. (1860), 479-502 ; *Wit=: things were indifferent-cg., life and pleasure, death
]DT (1879, 588-606 [finding the red thread of the speech in
748 ./I: W. Schmidt, Bwicht d. Ap.-gesch. *her Sfeph. and pain. But of these the former were normally
(1382); Sahatier, L’ap6tre Paul (ET), 39-46; Pfleiderer, Das preferable to the latter-only normally, however, so
Urchrisienthum (1887), 559J:: Feine, 1PT (189o), 89-108. that when life was blighted suicide was laudable.
Beyschlag, N T TheoZ. (ET), 1 3 2 7 5 ; Ramsay, St. P a d th;
Traueller, 372.377 ; J. Weiss. St.Kr. (1893), 489-501 ; A6sicht, The Stoics were the first to introduce into morals the idea of
10.15 ; *Kranichfeld, Sf.Kr. Qcjca), 541.562, ‘Der Gedanken- law-which is law for man hecause it is the law of the universe.
gang in der Rede des Steph. ; *E. W. Bacon BibZicarul and I n passing from a end ‘ to ‘ duty,’ from ‘ virtue ’ to .conscience ’
Semitic Studies (Yale Univ., U.S.A., ~goz),’ 211.276~ and they are the forerunners of modern ethics. But in abandonink
Grieve, Hastings’ DB 4 6 ~ 3 - 6 1 ; 5 Harnack, die Mission und the Greek standpoint they fall into rigorism, and set up in the
uer6reitung des Chnkteniums (rgog), 34-37 ; and on the apocry- passionless sage a colourless and uninviting ideal.
phal RmeZaiio sancti S., P. v. Winterfeld ( Z N T W , 1go2, p. It was entirely in a practical spirit that ethics was developed
358). The papers by K. Schmidt (Beweis des Glau6ens, 18 2, pp. by the Romans. Seneca dwells chiefly on the wickedness of
69-86); E. H. Plumptre (Bi6Zicd Studies, 347-375), and 36sgen man and on the constant war which must be waged against sin.
(Neue K i x h . Zeits. 1898, pp. 661.687) are unduly conservative, Epictetus’ teaching is summed up in his maxim C;v&ov rdr
and the older sketches by Krause (1786), Luger (1836), and Arr6pv, and that of Marcus Aurelius in the words, ‘ t o be
Thiersch (1849) have been largely superseded by more recent sufficient unto oneself by doing justly and thereby having calm.
critical researches prompted here, as in so many lines, by the Stoicism owes something of its character to Hsra-
penius of Baur. Adequate materials for historical study may clitus, something to the Cynics, something to the
be found in the monographs marked by an asterisk, supple-
mented by Spitta’s A#-gesch. (1891), q6-123, and discussions such political indifference of the times. But its preoccupa-
as those of Weizslcker Das Aposf. ZeitaZter (ET), 162-75, and tion with conduct it probably owes to a Semitic origin.
McGiffert, Apostolic Age (1897), 76-93. J. Mo. Zen0 came from Cyprus, and was commonly called the
STEPS (i’l\!J<f2), 2 K . 2 0 1 1 = 1 ~ . 3 8 8 R V ~ g .EVDIAL.
; Phcenician ’; Chrysippus came from Cilicia. Baby-
lonia, Palestine, Syria, Cilicia, Phrygia, and the Phce-
STEWARD. A convenient and familiar term used for: nician colonies were the homes of the sect, of which
I. n*,-iy@~,lit. ‘the man over the house‘; cp Gen.4319 European Greece produced not a single distinguished
I K. 16 g (see ARZA).
member. Naturally then there are resemblances between
1 One proof that the speech rests on a special source ; for the Stoicism and some of the post-exilic biblical writings.
idea of universalism was thoroughly Lucan (cp Lk. 24 47 Acts The author of Ecclesiastes had probably a gcncral
28 q/r). In 7 42 another comparatively isolated feature occurs,
in the reference of sin directly to providence (Titius, z3J). 1 Cp POTTERY, 5 3 (2).
4797 4798
STOMACHER STONES (PRECIOUS)
acquaintance with Stoic ideas (see ECCLESIASTES, §§ The first step towards identification of ancient
IO, 13). Some of the apocryphal writings-4 Macc. 'precious stones' is to record what
and the Wisdom of Solomon-display rather more than 3* stones are actually fonnd to have been
this. Seneca has very many sayings which recall the
words of Jesus (especially in the SERMON ON THE gFzTo in use on ancient sites of different
the anciente. ages and countries: as in the table
M OUNT [ q . ~ . ]and
) of the Epistles (and above all those below.
ascribed to Paul). Many of the parallelisms are more From this it will be seen ( I ) that universally the
apparent than real ; but the frequency and closeness of commoner have preceded the more ' precious ' stones ;
those which remain exclude the hypothesis of mere (2)that even quartz and its varieties (chalcedony, sard,
coincidence, and it is almost certain that the influence agate) were not much worked, except in Egypt, until
was reciprocal. Seneca may well have met Christians late Babylonian and Assyrian time; ( 3 ) that really
and heard Christian views at Rome. And Paul must hard hones, such as bevyl, are very rare until the time
have known something of Stoicism, of which Tarsus of Alexander the Great; and (4)that it is only after
was perhaps, next to Athens, the headquarters. Stoicism his time that the wealth of the farthGr East became
would have its attractions for a Pharisee. Paul can available except by accident. For this latter period,
quote the Stoic Aratus (Actsl7z3), and he has at least however, the centre of the Hellenistic jewel trade was
two conceptions which owe something to Stoicism-the in Alexandria : the translators of the LXX were there-
world-wide city of God ( I Cor. 1212f. 27 Gal. 328 Eph. fore most favourably situated for the collection of
2 19 Col. 3 11). and the a h d p ~ e i aof the Christian ( 2 Cor. authentic evidence as to the names of the stones.
610 98 II Phil. 411 13 13). See HELLENISM, §§ 6, IO. It is not to be expected, therefore, that the hiblical vocabulary
W. D. R. will he either copious or recise; or that the Hebrew terms
being of (at lowest) pre-Ilexandrine date, will he found t;
STOMACHER ( ~ J ~ A B IS.
) , 324t. See MANTLE, .
correspond accurately with those of @ for the latter belong to
§ a (9). a period when the influx of gems from 6 e far East had recently
depre&ted many stones which thitherto had been relatively
STONES, FIGURED, AND SACRED. See IDOL, 'precious.' Still more is this the case as between the ancient
§ If.
versions and AV, the vocabulary of which represents a similar
period of acute transition, due mainly to the recent exploitation
STONFS (PRECIOUS) of the sea-routes to farther Asia and to America ; moreover AV's
Vague terms (I I). Hebrew names classified (84). vocabulary seems to be used quite at ranfom-e.<. the persisten;
Uses of stones (0 2). interchang;e of 'emerald ' and carbuncle ; and the use of ' ruhy
Greek names (0 5). for 'coral. RV is equally erratic, but without the same excuse.
Stones known ($ 3). H. Priest's breastplate ((is 6-20).
i. #de% ($ 7). ii. $i+h (0 3). iii. dErt?&?h (0 9). The Hebrew phrases (e.g.,I Ch. 29 2) clearly include
iv. n&hek (I IO).
vii. ZKem (B 14).
v. suppir(( TI).
1%. JZbd ($ .
vi. y~G#hrik(5 mx).
ix. uhhimrilr (I 16).
4. Hebrew all ranks of valuable stones, from 'stones
)
:
I to be set ' and treasured gems to the 'stones
x. iar&J($ 17). xi. &am (B 18). xii. ya/uilcim ($38 12-19). names. of divers colours ' which are coupled with
Result (8 20) Covering of King of Tyre (ij 22).
Kudkad (5 21) Foundations uf New Jerusalem (5 23). 'marbles' (abne &fyiYiS, w ; v q ~ s , d p i o v , rnarmoi
Bibliography (0 24).
STONES ACTUALLY KNOWN T O ANCIENTS
I n addition to the more specific names for (mad d with crosses)
precious stones to be discussed later there occur -
t h i following more general terms :- Quality. Place and Period,
n??' ]?v, '&en yZ&nih, hi0os dpros, Zapis

pretiosus gemma, 2 S.12 30 I K.10 2 IOJ r Ch. 20 z
29 2 z Ch. 9 T gf: and frcq. L&drcih,
1. Vagueness proh. orig. 'heavy' ; cp I Ch. 3 6 ;
then 'rare'; cp I S. 3 I]: cp '>>K
I I
of terms.
y?n, 'a6M &&he:, hieovs &hwro+s, Name and Colour.
Zapides desidera6iLz.s, Is. 5 4 1 2 [cp Pr. 315 8111;
175, '&hen hZx, p d b s ~ ( l p k w v(!), gmrnu gratis- -
sima Prov. 17 8 ; O'U+ Vlg, 'a6nnC miihZ'im [from H h
'fill up'], hieaus e k r;lv yAu$+, gemmas adornandurn
[ornahrm], Ex. 257 359=703s hieous n i s rrhVpSuews,
gemmas, E x . 35 27 ; $95 J':+, 'aha2 pak, hi0ovs mi-
riAovs, [Zu#ides] diversorurn coZorum, I Ch. 292 : the
last-named passage gives several of these phrases to-
gether. See also M A RBLE , COLOURS, and the names of Red-
~~
2
i,:
__-
/
& e 6
8
3
X I X w"
particular stones. Marble .

Porphyry a d F&a;
.... .... x
x
It is only with long experience, and wide Jasper
Garnet .
. .. . . , , .. .. ..
x x ..
knowledge, that the distinction between ' pre- Sard, Carnelian, Agate x x ..
cious,' ' fine,' and merely ' ornamental ' stones Jacinth (zircon) . , .. .. ..
-
becomes established. The majority of the
'precious stones' of the modern world were
unknown in Western Asia, and still more in
the Mediterranean, until Ptolemaic and Roman
times : and even then they were regarded merely
as rare varieties of the commoner stones which
Yeclaw-
. .. . .
Serpentine
Jasper
Cairngorm (Y.
Chrysolite (Peri ote)
Topaz.
GTYCX-
. . .
serpentine and Marble
-
1 1:
x x x
.. x ..
::.. ;. 9
klx x
Porph ry and Felspar.
most nearly resembled them-eg., the many MalacKite . . . ..
x ( xx x
varieties of snnvngfur known to Pliny, which,
even so. do not include the modern ' emerald.' : I:
x ' x ..
.. .. ..
'n'
Natural stones which are in any way re-
markable-for brilliance, coloiir, crystalline form,
2. Uses. or any other property-are prized and
treasured by many primitive peoples ;
eithcr simply for ornament, or, more commonly,
for use as charms (for real or imaginary in-
BZw-
Turquoise
Lapislazuli
Amethyst
SaDphire
... ... ...
. . . fi
__
x x ..
x x x
xixi..
x x ..
fluences) ; as engraved seals (for their hardness -
and resistance to wear) : or as currency (for
their rarity, value in exchange, and extreme
portability).
::I::I::
t Cut acmss the bands, not doq them
4799 4800
STONES (PRECIOUS) STONES (PRECIOUS)
Parium), and were used simply ‘ t o garnish the house.’ a. ?@, ndphck, Ex. 28 18, etc., has heen compared with Eg.
N o hard and fast line, however, can be drawn between rn-yk-t and Ass. l u p d k u . The latter is more probable: see
these ornamental stones, and the ‘ precious stones’ in E MERALD, and @ IO below.
the stricter sense; and the word S&WJZ in particular, 3. “!p?, pitdah, Ex. 28 17, etc., seems to be Ass. @ipindu.
though it occurs in the ‘ breastplate’ of the high priest, The Skt. pita, ‘ pale-yellow,‘ is unlikely ; see TOPAZ, and 6 8
and is used for the engraved ‘ onyx-stones ’ (AV) on below.
4. SZ66 (see 6 2 , d3, above), Ex. 28 rg may be Ass. sirbu:
his shoulders. seems also to be used generically for the but perhaps also Ar. ‘ red ’ ; or the place-name ‘ Psepho,’ see
whole category of variegated or brightly coloured stones 6 and d above.
(see 8 18. below). 5. ?$W:, piiijh&, Ex.28 PO, etc. seems to be Ass. ym&
The interpretation of the several names does not m j u : and perhaps also=Eg. 4-s-p-d,see S 13 below.
take us much further, except to classify the qualities These vague terms [see also PEARL] obviously give
for which different stones w-ere prized. Of the little information ; and in no c a ~ edo we know the
descriptive names : - (u) the majority refer ,simply to colour of the Assyrian and Egyptian equivalents. If
bviZLiinnce and must he restricted to transparent or any conclusions, therefore, are to be drawn from them
translucent stones ; they give no clue as to colour. at all, it must be by means of the renderings of 6.
I. i ? p , d&+&efh,Ex. 28 I 7, etc., from J‘ flash ’ ; see % 9. The Greek vocabulary may be classified in the same
2. p!, ekd& Is. 54 12, from J‘kindle‘ [cp CRYSTAL]. way as the Hebrew.
C6 arises
AiOop K ~ U W T ~ A A O U from confusion with n??, &a?&, (a)BriLZiance is denoted only by &@pat and uptipay60~.
’ ‘adpat ‘hot coal ’ for nbphek (5 4 e 2 above) ; upcipaydor
‘ice ’ ; Aq. A. rpvrrauropoir gives the sense ‘kindle by rubbin ‘dazzling:‘ for b&&h (5 4, a I, ah&),’ and also for S6haG
-i.e., either ‘polished’ or ‘striking sparks.’ Compare E&. ($3 4 6 3 above), Ex. 289 35 27 396 (c p a p a y i o ,
281416, ‘stones of fire’ (!&-.!.?E, on which, however, cp 6. &reek pap&&,
=. and perhaps pappa+iu;8,.
kata is a derivative like It. ssmrralrta and
mum-
C HERUB, 8 z, n. 2, with the Assyrian reference).
Enp. emerald; up. itself may be a corruption
3. 1313, kadkad, Is. 54 IZ Ez. 27 36, from .#strike &e‘ ; oi biirdkefh above).
hut perhaps=Ar. ‘red,’ or a place-name. C# variable: see 5 21 (6) $lour gives G ~ K L ~ OMS o, s b npduivos, xpua6npauos and
[and cp C H A L C E ~ N11.Y, XpuuoArf3m; cp aoipdrm below (only in NT : from the 6Zuc
(6) Next come descriptions of colou?: without refer- flower of that name : the Ind. jacut seems to be a derivative,
like Eng. ]ucinflr).
ence to brilliance. though not therefore LO be confined to n p l u ~ v o p(A. b np. for Jdhaln [%4, 63, above], Gen. 2 I Z ; cp
opaque stones : these names are rare and doubtful. x p u & r p u o s Rev. 21 w), ‘ leek green.’
I. O?k, &?cm, Ex. 381.1. etc., properly ‘red’; Qr aoipbov ‘
xpvm5AiBos’(for tarshhh [O 4 , d4, above]), gold-stone.’
(cp Pers. z e d , ‘yellow-led ’) ; hut perhaps a place-name
9) Other qualities give thy €allowing :-
a&pav.irv& ‘intractable. I n class Gk. =‘steel-like.’ For
‘Edomite stone’ ; see 8 7. 4
Mmir ($3 4 E above), fer. 17 I ; c p uzcpia w & p , Ez. 3 9, and
2. h W , &%a, Ex. 2819, etc., may perhqs=Ar. ‘red’; hut i s the corru$&2 nawbr ( ~ S ~ I I W T O SEa ) , 8 9.
more probably a loan-word or a place-name ; see below, 5 IS. ,ipd&uvx ‘charm against drunkenness’ ’ for QhLimdh (g 4
3. D$9, ?:ham, Ex. 28 20, etc., from J‘pale’ = AI. &urn,
c I , above), t i e Greeksupers!ition takin the ;lace ofthe Hebrew:
Kpcpdara)iLOp, *ice’-i.e., crystal. Pn 1s. 54 12 a misreading
or perhaps Ar. musa&lram striped garment’ (Ges.), which if
established would be decisive in favour of a danded stom : or of i T p (see p 4, az, above). In Rev. 46 22 I a simile for clear
Ass. S l i m t i , a dark stone from Melubha in W. Babylonia (Del. water ; in Rev. % uorahhi<wri, ‘turning into crystal.’
11, K I
WlVB S.V. and Schrader C O m 130 [cp, however, BERYL, -t *finger-nail &or ~dham[S 4 63 above]. Popularly
9 41) : br a & . = - n a m e: or ;orrupt ; see ONYX, and # 18 below. sup&d, later, to be descriptive(P1in.’ A d 3 7 aq) ; but probably
a loan-word, see below.
(c) Other names describe qualities M user other than aap86vv-i.e. ‘ sard-onyx’; Rev. 21 zot,but cp Vg. sardanyx
brilliance or colour :- for &%hamLv &xi, Job28 16.
I. ”“nu, a&Zdmrih, E x . ZS 19,etc., perhaps From %/‘dream,’ (d)Piade-names are responsible for the following :-
a d q p (=&%a [$ 4, 6 2 , d3,e+]), from the river Achates in
which identifies the stone as the well-known charm against Sicily.
?ad dreams and drunkenness=@ bpd0uu~m the mod. Aryliprov (=/d?em [B 4, e I, aboven, from Liguria in N. Italy.
amethyst. [But see AMETHYST, end, and H & n e l , A H T The descriptive talismanic huypfiprov does not occur in @.
205f: 283.1 udpS~ov(=‘idemL$ 4, 6 I, ds,above], popularly derived from
2. 1’80. sappir, Er.2819, etc. from J‘engrave’; the Sardis in Lydia : but probably originally a loan - word ; see
‘ inscription stone ’ par excclZence (Tg. says tbe Tables of the below (e).
Law were made of it) ; or perhaps akin to Ass. supur thumh- xah~li&sv(Rev. 21 1st onIy), from Chalcedon in Bithyuia.
nail’ signature--i.c. signet-stone, see II 5. I t is described as Cp Bapusis, pap&, and xcpxop transliterated, and the
‘ like the body of hca:-en,’ Ex. 24 so ;and Q unr+tpos identifies rapXpS6vravofSymm. inIs.541~(=kadkad[$4.a3,d1IIauwrs).
it as Zupis lazrli. See S APPHIRE. (e) Loan-words finally are the following :-
3. l’p?, Siimir, Ezek.39, e t c , from <sharp,’ ’hard,’ Eg.
,
&Ilp&hro* (=&am [%(4 6 alovel, ar?d [by error] yriGphPh
[I 4, 8 5 , ahovel, see below?; Pers. dillaur, Skt. vaid4rya,
u.s;ner Gg. ap$p~s,Germ. Smirgel, Eng. em-. is not strictly Prakt. v e d d r ~ a Pesh., 6-7-7u-&a.
a ‘ pre)cious stone ’ though translated ‘ diamond ’ in Jer. 17 I laamp (=pi2j%%),Heb. cp Ass. mpu.
AV, and ‘ adaman;’ in Ezek. 3 g Zech. 7 IZ ; see A DAMANT . adn$scpos ( = s u p f i r [B 4 c z above?) Heb.
4. &,: y a M / a m , Ex.28 18, etc., from J‘strike hard’ : cp uapBrov(=’&+m [a 4, b I,’ d5: above) ihough actually obtained
perhaps &alZritnis’ ‘ flint,’ and Ass. eZmGrf, a hard stone used near Sardis in Lydia, IS probably from’ Pers. zwd ‘yellow-red.’
T O T ~ < L O Y (=jifd&z 10 4 e 3 above] perh. Heb., ~p Ass.
for rings and on chariot wheels ( Z D X G , 4 O p ) . [To the
references in FLIXT (p.71.) add ZDMG46 570.1
&@in&; but &rived by ’Pliiy (HNd78) from the word ‘ t o
seek ’ in the langnage of the ‘ cave-dwellers ’ of the Topaz-island
( d ) Others again are clearly $ace-nams, denoting in the Red Sea. In Ps.ll91a7 ~ o n d < ~ o v = wd3rov=paz ~b (is),
the source of supply : ‘ refined gold ’ ; cp *a< in Cant. 5 I I [on which see GOLD, 5 13;
I. kudkad (see a,3, above) for which C6 has x j o p in Ezek.
T OPAZ 8 2 n. I ; UPHAZ].
27 16. I n Is. 54 12, Symm. has K ~ ~ X $ ~ V ~;Ocp V 8 1 .HN37 30
, &ut:b&)(rov (popularly derived from Buv# ‘ finger-nail ’) is
for the ‘ Carthaginian carbuncle,’ and Pesh. karkadnb for fT6.3 probably Ass. unku, ‘ring,’ cp kunuku ‘cbnical seal’. cp
in Ex. 25 19 39 12. Eg. anak (Muss-krnolt, Sem. Words, 139;. The explanahon
2. ilinn!, mi’mdfh, Ezek.27r6 Q papop, Vg. se&um, RV suvt=‘tinger-nail,’ occurs first in Pliny, “37 24 (quotin;
‘coral,’ need not he a stone a t all. [See CORAL,but cp also Sudines), and is supported by theremote resemblance of a pale
RUBY.] onyx (the black onyx was not worked till late Hellenistic times)
3. Z6.3 (see 62 above), En.2819 3912 may be the +$o, to a finger-nail with its lunula in the flesh beneath. But the
‘ Psepho,’ of Strain, 822, Theophr. 34, a i island up the Nile, word is as old as Ktesias (ahout 400 B.c.) and may have arisen
from the Assyrian custom of using the impression of the thumh-
S. of MeroE, celebrated for its gems ; but it is perhaps a loan-
word : see below, # 15. nail (supur; seesappir, above) as the signature of a clay-tablet :
6vv$ would then mean ‘ thumb-nail stone’ in the sense of ‘ signet.’
4. $W??, far;!;, Ex. 28 20, etc., cp ‘stone of Tarshish,’ Ezek.
10 9, etC. i see TARSWISH. For the interpretation of this Greek vocabulary, we
5 and 6. ’&iey (‘Rdom,’ set 81,&OR) and &am (see 6 3 , have fortunately a good and slightly earlier authority in
above ; sakim, Soiyim ’ in Yemen) may also be place-names. the treatise of Theophrastus, m p i XiOwv (about 300
(e) Finally, several names, which have no clear B.c.), which sums up Greek knowledge on the subject
significance in Hebrew, are probably Joan-words :- just at the moment when Alexander’s conquest had
I. CWk, Zdshcm, Ex. ZS 19, etc., recalls Eg. reshem (Homrnel, thrown open the farther East, but before its effects had
A H T , 283). [For another view see JACINTH.] become generally felt. For the interpretation of the
4801
additional terms added by the Apocalypse, we have its superior hardness, from ' false topaz,' or yellow rock-
again a nearly contemporary commentary in Pliny, who crystal, it is possible that the latter is meant. The
represents the abundant materials, but mainly empirical T O H ~ J ~ O V of the Greeks was a translucent, golden-
classification, of the lapidaries of the Early Roman coloured ( X ~ U U O E L ~ &dSa o u d X ~ o v+Pyyos, Strabo, 770),
Empire. That the vocabulary of the LXX is probably or yellow-green, stone ( e virenti geneye, Plin. HN
trustworthy, is suggested by the general uniformity of 37 B), probably the modern chrysolite,' or ' peridot '.
its rendering. S o uniform, indeed, are these, that in This was a noble variety of olivine, and consequently
the four cases in which serious discrepancies occur (see of the yellow ' serpentine ' (Ar. 'aTfafar, ' yellow '), which
under AGATE, BERYL, O N YX , and below), it is prob- was in common use for scarabs and cylinders of all
ably safe to assume that it is the Hebrew text which is dates. It is identified by Petrie [and independently by
at fault. The phrases in the Apocalypse, also, display Cheyne; see GOLD, 8 I b ; OPHIR, I ; T OPAZ, § 21
close acquaintance with current terminology, and supply with the original pitdih; the only objection to this bein-
more than one striking confirmation of the conclusions that dipindu was a ' flashing ' stone. This ' chrysolit:
derived from the comparison of M T and the LXX. was found in the Levant, and occasionally in consider-
We may, therefore, proceed to discuss the identifica- able masses; but the ancient supply came from an
tions supplied by the LXX renderings. Of these, by
~~
island (~orrd&osvfuos) in the Red Sea, which was the
far the greater num&r are contained monopoly of the kings of Egypt (Strabo, 770; Diod.
6. High priest's
in the description of the high priest's Sic. 339 ; Plin. "378 634). Like olivine, 'chrysolite'
breastplate. breastplate, Ex. 2817 j,?, to be read is soft and easily engraved-eadem soia nobiiium Iimam
with the parallel passage Ex. 3 9 1 0 8 and the corrupt sentit (Plin. HN378).
variant, Ez. 2813 (the 'covering of the king of Tyre'). iii. BZrdketh, updpay8or, smaragduss Ex. 28 17 39 IO
I t will therefore be convenient to take these stones in
the order in which they occur, and to append (I zxf.)
(Ez. 28 13, . . . : but birdketh
- uwipay8os . rsmaraadusl
- I _
changes
'9. Ba6keth. places with yahiiMm [iaspis], cp 5 1; f.
those which do not occur in the breastplate. below-) : Rev. 21 20 has udoav8os, sma-
Two preliminary considerations should be noted. ragdus, in the place of bZrt@eLh, and'Rkv.43 has
( I ) The B REASTPLATE ( g . ~ . ) ,when folded for use, tpis ... 6poias 6pduEi uyapuy8lvy. In Ex. 289 3527
measured a span (about 8 in. ) in each direction. The 396. ufidpay8os translates S&am (Vg. onyx) where it is
space available for each stone with its setting was there- used of the high priest's shoulder-stones. Both biirdkefh
fore as much as 2 x 24 in. ; and if the same proportion and updpaysos originally denote briZZiance only ; e.g.,
was observed between stone and setting as was Herod. 2 4 4 describes a urfiXq (probably a columnar
customary in ancient jewellery, the stones themselves natural crystal) upapciy8ou XlOou X ~ ~ T O Y T O &E S V~~KTRS
may have been as large as z x 14in., and cannot have phyaOos,' 'so large as to give light at night,' but says
been much less than half that size. They were there- nothing of the colour either of the stone or of the
fore each a good deal larger than the average size of gleam. Of this same ufidpay8os Theophrastus ( 2 5 )
the common Babylonian cylinder or Egyptian scarab. says that it was of the ' Bactrian' variety, Ei p+J &pa
We are therefore probably safe in excluding, on the $euB+Js updpay8os, and he adds (24) other instances of
ground of sire alone, stones which are really rare and gigantic specimens which came to Egypt, PY 8Ljporo
'precious,' even if these stones themselves could be rap& TOG Baj3uXwvlwv p?auiXPos. but confuses them all
shown to have been known. ( 2 ) Each stone was with the ' copper-emerald ' (dioptase) of Cyprus and
engraved with the name of a tribe, and some of these Chalcedon (XUXK@WV, Rev. 2120). Now, only two
names are of some length. This again postulates a large brilliant stones occur in such columnar uTljXuc-the
surface and low hardness. The private Jewish name- 'rock crystal,' and the ' beryl.' In favour of 'rock
signets vary from 8-14in. in length, and are of a very crystal ' we may quote ( I ) the comparison of the rainbow
moderate degree of hardness ( 7 or less). with updpay8os in Rev. 43 ; ( 2 ) the statement of Pliny
i. 'Odem, udp8tov, sardius, Ex. 2817 3910 (cp Ez. ( H N 37 64), quoted by Petrie (Hastings' DB), that Nero
28 13, and sardius, Rev. 21 20). Both names signify used a updpay8os to aid his sight-a statement to be
' r e d ' (see above, $5 4, 6 1 , gd),-and
'' Identification the stone is no doubt the modern
Of s ~ ~ ~ & . o' redT or orange ' sard,' the commonest
compared with the superstition, which survives, that
better spectacles are made from rock crystal than from
glass ; (3) Martial's association of smaragdus with
of all engTaved stones in ancient adumas (v. 11 I ) ; (4) the probability that hexagonal
times (cp Plin. H N 3 7 106). The best of them came in beryl in its paler varieties was regarded as a harder and
Greek times from Sardis and Babylon, and a fine deep greenish variety of ' milky quartz ' ; (5) the certainty
red kind from Yemen (hence perhaps [cp SARDIUS] that, as early as Theophrastus, a very large number
' Edornite stone,' from the proximate source of supply). of stones, all brilliant, and of all shades of green, from
The material (translucent quartz stained with iron) is aquamarine to dioptase (XahK@ov), were included
quite common, and merges in the clearer and lighter- generically under updpay8os.
tinted ' carnelian ' and ' red agate.' As this is probably In favour of e beryl,' on the other hand, are the
denoted by 2.45 bxdrqs (5 IS), it is not impossible that following consideration<. ( I ) From Theophrastns
'&'em may originally have meant the opaque blood-red onward the updpay8os was more or less definitely
jasper,' which is common in early Egypt, was used in coZoure&Theophrastus, however, does not say what
Babylonia and Assyria, and also in Greece, and was colour-and was believed to originate by the action of
valued as a charm against hemorrhage. water upon green jasper (i'aums, Theophr. 27. see $ 13).
ii. Pitdih, T O H ~ ~ ~ Otopazius
Y , (Ex. 28 17 39 IO, cp Ez. ( 2 ) Both the 'beryl' and its deep-green 'emerald'
28 13 ; in Rev. 21 20 r o ~ d f i o vis exchanged with uap86vuf, variety have been universally believed to give relief to
the eyes ; but this was through their restful colour, not
*. see below) is identified with Ass. bipindu, a
flashing stone' which recalls the a stones through their refractive powers, and 'beryls' in particular
of fire' in Ez. 281416. and the abni e&&@ in Is. 5412. had already given rise to It. bareZZe and High-Germ.
The rendering TO&{LOY makes it clear that the LXX briLie, before the invention of spectacle-glasses. ( 3 ) The
understood bypitdih, a stone which was ( I ) translucent, Budge kindly supplies the further information 'we have no
( 2 ) yellow. As the modern ' topaz ' was hardly known * cylinders which may be certainly called topaz, but I have seen
before Greek times, and is indistinguishable, except by several in Mesopotamia among the natives' ; he adds that nos.
128 and 679 (of Pehlevi time) are of 'topaz.' In PEFQ, 1g0z;
1 So F. Petrie, in Hastings'DB, S.V. 'Precious Stones'-a valu- p. 326, the announcement is made that a fragment of ' emerald
ableand suggestive commentarybasedlargely upon new material. has been found in a pre-historic de ocit at Gezer; but no
* Brit. Mus. Guidc t o Bad. anddss. A n t q . (p. 136) gives both authority is given for the mineralo~icaPdeterm~~ation.
'emerald' and 'topaz' in a list of materials used for cylinders' 1 So MSS. ; see 'Stein (1881). Wiedemann defends the
and nos. 27 and 39 in the Babylonian Room are apparently of conjecture p y h w r shining with great brilliancy,' and ascribes
variety of base emerald or beryl ('mother of emerald'). Dr. the glow to ancien; use of a phosphorescent paint.
4803 4804
kindred belief that ' beryl ' shed a light of its own was and Greece from prehistoric times, and was frequently
known to Theophrastus (Z.C., 23), and has survived in sent i ~ sa present from Babylon to Egypt in the Tell-
It. bri.?zare (Low Lat. bcvilZarex) and Eng. driZZian2. el-Amama period. As its Hebrew name implies, it is
( 4 ) The probability that updpayhs could be imitated easily engraved, and occurs in large enough masses to
(+eua;ls up., Theophr. 25) suits the prevailing greenish make tablets like the ' Tables of the Law ' (acc. to
tinge of ancient glass better than a quite colourless Targ. ; cp the temple dedication on lapis lazuli, Brit.
stone ; cp, moreover, Rev. 4 6 , Odhaaua irahlvv bpoia Mus. [Depart. Assyr. Antiq.1 ~- No. 91013).
- .. rCp
- .
K ~ u u T ~ X X C ~(.5 ) The collocation of K ~ u u T ~ X Xwith
~ SAPPHIRE.]
upapuy6iuy in Rev. 4 nu. 6 3 suggests that after all this vi. YahZZim, faoars, iaspis (Ex. 2718 3911) ; in
writer distinguished e rock crystal ' and ' smaragdus.' Ezek. 28 13 i'auars remains, but yahu'lim [Vg. iaspisl
As to bdrd@th, the probability is ( I ) that originally changes places w-ith hir&th-[sm&ag~
it meant the colourless flashing 'rock crystal,' which 12.YahM6m dus] see 9). It is most improbable
was commonly used for engraving, in Egypt of all and YaiBphGh that yG@hFh ( 5 13) could have so far
periods, in Mesopotamia from the later Babylonian in BIT. channed its sinnificance that fauais
time onwards, and more rarely in prehistoric Greece ; should be used by preference to-render yahZZn. [Cp
(2)that this meaning did not wholly die out even after JASPER, ad3n.I. Either Oaaais, therefore, or yah81i.n
the LXX translation was made, but survived in the must be transferred to the twelfth place ( 5 IS), and
use of uphpaysos in Rev. 43, and in the confusion with we have seen reason already (under bdrd&eth, 5 9) to
yahZ.?~%in M T of Ez. 2813 (see below, 19) ; (3)that suppose that ydSiphZh should be restored here, and
the obvious likeness between the words, and the current yahu'Zim transferred to no. xii. For other reasons
confusion between the hexagonal forms of ' quartz ' identifying y a h d l m with no. xii. see below, 5 19.
and pale ' beryl,' caused the LXX to render bdr@eth by YaS@hZh, which is a loan-word (Ass. yaSp8 ai@,
updpay&s, and provoked the substitution for ydI@hZh Eg. 0-s-p-d), gives no clue, save that a@& was large
of yahZZ5m in MT, so as to separate what now were 13. ysgBpheh. enough, and not too hard, to be
two adjacent green stones. emuloved for the roval seal of ASur-
iv. N:phek, divepat, car6uncuhs (Ex. 28 18 3911); in b8ni-pal (Nabunahid stele). That -Oauais, on the
Ez. 2813 &vBpat remains, hut niphek [Vg. carbuncuhs] other hand, was ( I ) a dull or opaque stone, is shown
Ndphek. changes places with suppir [sapphirus]of by the combination idoar& Kai aapSiy in Rev. 43 (see
11. In Ez.2716 the LXX mistrans- 23. below), by the compound terms iaspachates and
lates, and Vg. has simply gemmam; Rev. 21 20 substi- iasponyz known to Pliny ( H N , xxxvii. 1 0 5 4 9 3 7 ) , and
tutes XahK?jc?wv). If ndphek could be identified with by Martial's association of iaspis with sardonychus (v.
Egyptian m-f-k-t (see E MERALD [end]), either malachite 111 ix. 6 0 2 0 ) ; and ( 2 ) that it was a green stone is
or turquoise would be meant ; and this is supported by probable from association with the u p d p a y h of the
the equivalent XahK?jc?wu(copper-emerald)of Rev. 21 20 ; Cypriote copper-mines in Theophrastus (27 ; cp iduarc?r
see 23,below. But this identification would ignore the KpvurahhL~ovsr, 'jasper turning into a clear ice-like
uniform rendering of both the LXX and Vs. ; and as stone,' Rev. 21 11) and from its medizval character (see
divepat (carbunculus) is descriptive and appropriate, JASPER). Hut ( 3 ) it had many variants ; among them
whilst ndphek (probably a loan-word) gives no clue, it a red (fuuars=kadkid Is. 5412, cp Symm. h-apXv66vrov.
is better to accept the identification of the LXX r i t h a cp iaspachates, above), a yellow (fuZna, Virg. An.
translucent red stone. This latter, since the ' ruby' of 4261), and an opalescent, perhaps actually the 'opal'
Ceylon and Burma, and likewise the true ' carbuncle,' (opahs, Plin. H N 3721 : .\/Skt. opaha,' stone'). [ C p
were unknown to Theophrastus (see C ARBUNCLE ), must JASPER.] All this combines to show that yaf&hZh..
denote the large class of red 'garnets' ( ' pyrope,' ' alman- fauars, is the modern jasper ' (opaque massive silica),
dine,' etc.), which are found in abundance and of very and especially its green variety, which is widely distri-
considerable size, were known in Egypt from prehistoric buted, often of considerable size, and easily engraved,
times, were commonly used for signets in Hellenistic being used commonly for Egyptian scarabs of all periods,
times, and are easily engraved. As to n$&k itself, the for Babylonian and Assyrian cylinders, and for the seal-
alternative derivation, from the Zupakku of Am. Tab. stones of prehistoric Greece (for engraved specimens
202 16 [cp E MERALD , 23,may probably he accepted. Of from the Syrlan coast [in Louvre], see Ledrain, Notice
the colour of this Zupukku we have no information ; but Soinmaire des Monuments PkLniciens, Nos. 408 427. ~
we know that it came as tribute to Egypt from Ashkelon 432J 437). All varieties of jasper are liable.to occur
- L e . , from the NE. This fact is compatible with together, and are associated, and easily confused, with
the occurrence of niphek among the wares sent from the green chalcedony ( ' plasma,' ' prase ' ; the common
Syria to Tyre in E z . 27 16. 'bloodstone' is plasma spotted with red jasper), with
v. Snppir, uda+erpos, sapphirus (Ex. 28 18 39 11) ; the more opaque varieties of agate, and with the opal
in Ezek. 2813 uda+erpos remains, but sappir [vg. group, which all have practically identical composition.
ll. SappIr. sapphirus] changes places with n a h e k , The green jasper, being the rarest, was not unnaturally
[carbuncuZus] [I I O ] ; Rev. 21 20 has the most prized in antiquity, and gave its name to the
uda+apa). The true ' sapphire ' (blue corundum) was group. As the Cypriote passage (Theophr. 27) shows,
almost unknown before Roman Imperial times, and green jasper was not clearly distinguished from the
when known was included, from its clear blue colour. harder varieties of ' malachite ' and other green copper-
under 6duuBos2 (see 523, below). The adamas minerals (see § 18, below).
C j p i u s , which occurred in the copper-mines and was vii. Lk.kSem, Xrydprov, Zipuius (Ex. 2819 3912) ; in
known to Pliny for its sky-blue colour, was probably Ezek. 2813, d has oipydprov Kai xpuuiov KaL X q . ; MT
'azurite.' Zda+erpos, on the other hand, is identi- 14. Lbem. Vg. omit. ending the list with z d h 6
fied (Theophr. 3 7 ; cp 55, Kdavos mdt'vs, and Plin. ( a u r u m ) in the tenth place, see § zz.
H N 3 7 1 z o 'optime apud Medos'), with the opaque below (Rev. 21 20 gives Xpuuhrpauos in the correspond-
blue 'lapis lazuli' of Turkestan. and the uknu of ing place : see § 23). LdSem, probably a loan-word
Babylonia and Assyria, which was known also in Egypt (? Eg. reshcm, but cp J ACINTH ), gives no clue.
Ary6pprov was taken by some to be a place-name, and
1 The 'oriental emerald ' (green corundum) is in any case out the stone seems to have been confused with 'amber,'
of the question. I t does not seem to have been known in anti-
quity, and Sanscr. mnrakata apparently a loan- word from from its electrical qualities (which are possessed by
Gk.,suFgests that, when discdvered, it was regarded merely as several different gems) ; but Theophr. 28 gives Xry-
a superior variety of rg ' ay6oaos. yodprov ( i t - . X U Y K ~ Sndp6v) with a folk-tale about its
2 The only indubital?e description is that of Solinus, see
King, Naf. Hist. of Prec. Stores, q 5 f : ; the earliest specimens srigin, and a distinction between a clearer and a
are noted in
King, Z.C. 2 5 j . darker tinted variety. RV gives 'jacinth' (with mg.,
4805 4806
‘ or, amber ’) ; but there is no evidence that the jacinth The rendering dv8pu: may be a reminiscence of the
was either found in Liguria, or was known at all till Carthaginian ’ carbuncle ’ (Plin. H N 37 z j , see § 21,
Roman times. Probabiy a clear yellow stone is meant, below), ‘ ‘Tarshish ’ being taken for Carthage ; and
like ‘cairngorm’ or ‘false topaz ’ (iron-tinted quartz). 8dKrvBor similarly may point to either ‘ sapphire ’ or
The rendering of Rev. 21 20, ~ p w b ~ p a u o ssuggests
, a ’ zircon ’ as one of the products of 2u eastern ‘ Tarshish ‘
greenish yellow stone, and perhaps serves to differentiate towards India (see TARSHISH).
the adjacent yellow xpuu6XcOos (S 17). [For other solutions of the problem of the Tarshish-stone (to
viii. SA%, d x d ~ q s achaies
, (Ex.2819 3912 : in Ezek. retain the traditional name), see TARSHISH, S TONE O F .]
2513 6 has d x d ~ q 6 ~ : M T Vg. omit ; Rev. 2125 in xi. &ham, PqpLiXXrov, onychinus (Ex. 2720,onyx, Ezek.
16. geba. tce corresponding place has 8drtrvOor). 25 73 ; in Ex. 39 x3 b v l i ~ i o v ,onychinus: &pdAA~ov being trans.
ferred c 0 19. osephus too (BJ v. 6 7) gives
SZb’bd may be a loan-word (Ass. Subu) or 18, g6ham. 6vvE A n i for yu~Zldnz,S,; 6AAcov ; but he also
the place-name *e$&, an island S. of Meroe, noted for makes S&? and ahlrinzrih ciange places as also
its gems (Theophr. 34, Strabo, 822). [Cp CHALCEDONY, sujjir and yddlc?m [iauarsl. E‘lsewhers also, i&awz’is very
variously rendered in B, by updpaySw, Ex. 28 g 35 27 396 (of
2.1 ’ A x ~ T ~ sa place-name) is definitely the ‘Sicilian
(also the high priest’s shoulder-stones); AiOoc b rrpdcivor, Gen. 2 IZ ;
agate.’ Pesh. kai-hednd in Ex. 2819 3912 may be a A. uapSiov, Ex.399 (same context as 396; perhaps for
corruption of m p x q G h o s (cp Symm. on Is. 54 12, upzpdy8ov miswritten upapdpaov, perha s a variant for bvvxrov,
RadkCd, and 21, below), or of hadkid itself.
( I ) Sicilian stones going eastward would probably travel
For c p sardonyx Job 28 r6 Vg.) . bvvf
I Ch. 2Y a (wiih 5 I uoo~=S&u I“
ob 28 16 ; AiOos b v v ~ 6 c ,
tran)s iterated). Vg. has onyx
or onychinus everywhere ; except Job 28 16, surdonyx, where
uid Carthage, ( 2 ) similar ‘agates’ may have been found 6,however, has bwp. [Cp BERYL, $5 4, ONVX.]
in N. Africa, ( 3 ) a Carthaginian ‘ carbuncle ’ is known Thus the versions everywhere vary between ( a )a green
to Pliny, H N 379295. What particular variety of stone (X1Bor 6 T ~ ~ U I P O S )whether
, clear ( u p d p a y b o s ) of
‘ agate ’ (banded translucent silica) was exported from cloudy (pqpbhXtop),land ( b ) an opaque banded stone
Sicily is not known : but banded agates, particularly (6vu(, sardonyz ? udpbrov), the rendering adopted in
of the deeper red varieties (approximating to surdonyx EV. Between these two renderings we must decide
and inspachztes) were in common use in Egypt through- according to ( I ) the evidence as to !;hum itself, (2)the
out (the source here may well have been q q 5 w on the evidence as to yahdlim ( M T ydS@hhEh) in xii. (§ 19),
upper Nile), in Greece from prehistoric times (esp. which likewise shares /3qpirXXrov and dvirxtov in 6 , and
common in early Crete), in later Babylonia, in Assyria has probably contributed to the confusion.
throughout, and on the Syrian coast (engraved specimens I. The word Sthant has no clear meaning. It may be
in Louvre, Ledrain, Z.C., Nos. 413, 420, 422, 440, a loan-word ( a )from Ass. d m f u . the ‘dark’ or ‘cloudy’
449 red ; 409 white). stone, (1) from Ar. ‘pale’ (Ges.), which suits ’onyx’
ix. ‘Ahlimihih, dpCBuunx, amethystus (Ex. 28.193912 ; (see 19,below) or I beryl ‘ (the conimoner varieties,
in Ezek. 2813 @ has Ctxd~q9; M T Vg. o m ~ ;t Rev. and the ’aquamarine,‘ not the deep green ‘ emerald,’
16. ,ulam9h. 21 20, CtpkBuuTos). The folklore of the u p d p u y b o ~ almost
) equally well, (c) from Ar. musa(z/lam,
Hebrew and Greek names identifies ‘striped garment’ (see 9 41 31, which, if it were
with the modern ‘amethyst‘ (transparent purple quartz). established, would be decisive in favour of a banded
which was commonly used, and freely engraved in stone ; or it may be, ( u ) a place-name (cp Ar. So&im
Egypt throughout (esp. under XII. dyn.), in Greece in Yemen), which would not be inconsistent with the
from prehistoric times, on the Syrian coast (Ledrain. indication in Gen. 212 that S6hnm (Xi80s 6 ~ p d u r v o ~ )
Lc. Nos. 407, 414,cp 392, 421). and more rarely, in came from HAVILAH(9.v.). It is clear, however (from
Babyloniaaud Assyria. [See also references in 8 4 ( c ) , I.] passage like Job 29 16 and I Ch. 292, cp Ex. 257 359
x. TarEJ, xpwu6hrBos, chrysalifhus (Ex.2820 39x3 : 3527),either that the word had a wide generic sense
in Ezek. 2813 6 has ~puubXiBoshere; and M T ‘Tarshish,’ ( e , f . , ‘ variegated stones ’), o r that some form of S h m -
17. Tariu. Vg. 2rysolithus at no. iv.. see 3 22, stone was important enough to deserve separate mention
below; in Ezek. lo9 Vg. has chlysolithus, apart from ordinary ‘ stones to be set. ’ Moreover, in
but 6 iivt?pag [perhaps by identification with the I Ch. 292 Soham is coupled with abni pzik, ‘ stones of
Carthaginian carbuncle of Plin. HN, 3725, see W 21, pigment,’ which is likewise generic, and here idhum
below]; in Dan. 106, Bapueis, chrysolirhus; in Cant. might well mean ‘ variegated ’ or ‘ striped ’ stones.
514 6 e a p a e l s , Vg. hyacinthus; Symm. has SrdKivBos Now there is one such stone, not yet accounted for in
here and Ezek. 116 2813 ; in Ezek. 116 @ has Oupuels, our list of identifications. It was common in Egypt in all
Vg. visio maris). TarSiS is simply a trade-name and periods, obtained from the Sinaitic mine-country, and
gives no clue. XpuubXrBor i s vaguely descriptive. A used throughout, both solid and a s a ‘stone of pigment.’
stone may be a ‘gold-stone’ in three different ways. It was known to Babylonia and Assyria, probabIy from
( I ) It may apparently contain g a i n s of gold-e.g., the copious Siberian source. At the same time it is
‘ avanturine quartz,’ and the epithet ~ p u u b ? r a u ~ oapplied
s green enough (though only rarely and partially trans-
to ‘sapphire’ (Theophr. 23,cp Plin. N N 3 3 3 1 . ‘aurum lucent) to be compared with v p d p a y G 0 9 (which we have
in sapphiro scintillat.’ 3738, ‘ aurum punctis conlucet ’). seen was regarded by Theophrastus as the ‘ noble’
( 2 ) It may be golden yellow and opaque-Le., yellow offspring of the opaque green h u m s ) and still more
jasper or yellow serpentine. T h e former is adopted here with the cloudy ‘beryl‘; and also opaque and striped
by Petrie (Hastings. DB,S.V. ‘ Precious Stones ’), and enough to be described as a variety of onyx.’ This
both were used commonly in Egypt and Babylonia at stone is the ‘ malachite’ (green copper carbonate) with
all periods, and in prehistoric Greece. (3)It may be its wavy or concentric bands and cloudy (sdmtu)patches
golden yellow and transparent. This would be inartistic of light, vivid, and dark green, and its occasional
in juxtaposition with the transparent yellow Z&m, Xrylipiov crystalline varieties. It is soft enough, like ‘lapis
(3 r4), but would agree better with the later uses of lazuli,’ to be easily engraved, and occurs in large
chrysoZithus, which seems to represent the modern enough pieces to serve as a tablet for a six-line inscrip-
’ topaz ’ (as fopazius is the modern ’ chrysolite,’ see 5 8 , tion like that of the high priest‘s shoulder-stones. If
above), and was found of very large size in Spain &am (A. 6 ~ p d u r v w p, a r excellence; cp the later Gk.
(‘ Tartessus ’), Pliny, HN 37 17.Petrie notes that the ~ A u x ~ ~ ‘c marsh-mallow
s, stone’) be identified with
topazius of the ancients (peridote) is actually a ‘ noble ’ ‘malachite’ (the Eg. m-f-k-t, according to W. M.
variety of yellow serpentine, and so may have taken its Muller) the association of Siham with sapPir in Job
place as the Istone of Tarshish’ in course of time; 28x6 (e6 v q 1 n,ufq(y rrul uam#dpcp) would find a close
compare the correlation of fhuris and updpysor parallel in the I pyramids of green and blue s t o m ’
(opaque and clear green) in Theophrastus, 27. 1 Whence Petrie (Hastings, DB, ‘Precious Stones’)concludes
1 For the bearing of this on Rev. 21 20, GdmvOos, see below, in favour of (I) ‘green felspar,’ passing later into (2) ‘beryl :
8 2.3. cp the argument in favour of the latter S.V. BERYL (q...).
4w 4808
which are quoted to illustrate the wealth of Rameses Thus the high-priestly breastplate, as a whole,
111. (Brugsch, Gesch. 596). 20. prir-L,- may be conceived as having
In Greek times, ' malachite,' owing to its compara-
tive softness, and its profusion in Cyprus and other breastrl-'
bources of copper, either ceased to be held in regard,
or was confused with green jasper ( L u a r s ) . Meanwhile, H IGH PRIEST'S BREASTPLATE
other ' striped stones '-namely ' onyx,' ' sardonyx,' and iii. BBrBketh ii. Pitdah i. &em
<banded agate'- came rapidly into vogue, as soon I . ROCK CRYSTAL I. F A L STOPAZ
~ ? R ED JAWER
as the art of engraving through a surface-layer was white: rlcur yellow : clear red : opaque
perfected ; and consequently &zm came to be rendered 2. G KEEN BENYL 2. CHIIYSOI.ITE SARD
green : clear. yellow : char. red: dull.
either by words for ' green ' (pr)ptXXcov, u p d p a y S o r ) o r
by words for ' banded ' (6vlixcov : surdonyx). Conse- vi. [Y&s&phGh] v. Sappir iv. h h e k
quently, confusion arose on the one hand between GREEN JASPER LAPIS LAZULI G ARNET
S&zm (onyx)and its neighbour yahzlcim (which includes green : ojaqur. blue ; opaque. red : crew.
~~
the w-hite-faced ' onyx ' ; see below), and on the other, ix. m1-a viii. &b6 rii. L&em
between &am (green malachite) and yd?&hZh (green AMETHYST R ED AGATE CAIRNCORM
jasper), as soon as yahliMm and ydf@ht% were iuter- purple : clear. red : opaque yellow : clear
changed owing to the ambiguity of b&dketh in No. i. stn3ed. ? CHRVSOYRASE
(see above, 5 9). (Rev.)
dlow-green : dull
2. For the correlative argument from yahdlcim, see
nest 1. xii. rPahU6ml xi. Sdham X. Tariig
YHITE CARNEI.IAN MAIACHITE I. YELLOW
xii. YahZZam (Ex. 28 20 39 13, MT y&"ip&h: Ezek. 28 13. or green : opaque S ERPENTINE
MT &rpkrth)=(~)&p6AArov Ex. 39 13 Josephus (=Vg. 6eryZ- zARNELI.4N-FACED striped. yellow : ojaqzre
Ius, Ex. $8 20 39 13 f 6cnlZus, Ezek. 28 13): ONYX 2. C HRYSOLITE
19. PahU6m. = ( z ) bd;yrov (Ex. 28 13 Ezek. 28 13 c p 5 18 ; white : opaque. yellow: c k w .
Vg. has derylhrs throughout). The trans-
position ofyahdZ8m has been discussed already in 5 12, above or. in order of colours :-
where the L X X Iaams presumes an original y&Zp&h. Fo;
xii. the balance o f textual evidence favours bvliyrov in the .gPaqw clear
LXX, just as it favours fJvpdM~ovin xi. ; and beryllus in Vg. Red
Yellow 1 ' DEhl
T.4~515
1
N~PHEK
PITDAH
may result from the same source as that followed by Josephus. ~~ ~ ?greenish L&hi
Green B ~ R ~ F E T Hstriped
* &HAM
The word yahdzcim seems to be connected with J u h . (later)
'strike hard,' and (possibly) with d&c, &llamiJ, Blue AHLAMAH (purple)
' flint' ( a h p a m e p l a , Job 289, d ~ p b r ~ p' abrupt-
~ ~ , White BAR~KETH*
I I (originally) I
edged,' Ps. 1 1 4 8 ) : with Ass. e l m t h , Aram. ' a h i s ;
and with Greek ' pyrites '-( i.e . , ' fire-striking stone '). One stone remains, which does not appear in the
[Cp F LINT, but also D I AM O ND]. The Assyrian breastplate, but is mentioned in several other passages.
eZm2fu was a hard and probably colourless stone 21. Klldk~d.This is kadkcid (AV ' agate,' RV ' ruby '),
(nowhere either 'clear' or ' brilliant ') which was which & rendered in Is. 54 12 by t'auacs,
used, with gold, to decorate chariot-wheels (cp the iaspis, Symm. KapXvS6vrov, and in Ezek. 27 16 by x o p x o p ,
'stone of Tarshish,' Ezek. 116 [RV 'beryl']) : and chodchod. The word kadkcid may be from Jii strike
~
also alone, for whole rings (Del. ProL 8 5 , H W B . fire' (cp Ar. red ') ; but the renderings x o p x o p and
s . v . ) . What is wanted, therefore, for yakdltm is a ~ a p x q 6 6 v r o v suggest confusion of d and Y ; cp Pesh.
hard stone, colourless or of indifferent colour ; of which karkednd for 2 b t . [ d x O i ~ ~ pin] Ex. 3819 3912. The
whole rings could be made ; and recognisably akin to rendering xapX7$6vmv suggests the ' Cartliaginian
the ' fire-striking stone,' to the hard stone for hammers carbuncle' of Pliny; and if, as seems probable, a red
and pounders, and to ordinary ' flint' or chert.' The stone is intended, the Luircs of Is. 5412 must be inter-
alternatives are rock- crystal and white chalcedony ; preted as a red, not a green jasper. See Yd?@hPh,
the one clear or milky, the other milky or opaque. 1 3 above, and cp AGATE. RUBY.
Both were fairly common, in association with either For Sdmir ( ' emery ') which is not a ' precious stone,'
quartzite or flint ; but both were rare in their ' nobler' and for the descriptive 'ekduh and rd'rnCth, see
varieties. Both were used for whole rings, as well as above, 5 4.
for engraved seal-stones, in prehistoric Greece, and in 4 distorted version of the ' high priest's breastplate '
Egypt of all periods; and also commonly for later is offered by the ' covering of the king of Tyre '1 in
Babylonian, and for Assyrian cylinders. 22. ,covering Ezek. 2813, the individual stones of
At this point it should he recalled that the etymology which have already been discussed
ofTyre.,
King of above.
4 finger nail' for 6vuE (3 5) cannot be traced back earlier In this passage the LXX
than Pliny-Le., among Roman lapidaries, who took over repeats its list of Ex. 2817-20, in
an apparently Greek word, and gave it its Greek sense, the same order, but inserts K a i dp-yfiprov ~d xpuulov
though it is not at all an adequate description of the between t a m s (vi.) and hyciprov ( v i ) . This arose
majority of ' onyx-stones.' Meanwhile the compound probably through ( I ) a misreading, apryploN for
uap66uuf shows that to denote a white-and-red ' onyx' hlrypION, and ( 2 ) a misunderstanding of the last word
it was the red which must be specified; the white in the list in M T (zMdb=Vg. aurum), which would
surface therefore is the essential character of the generic be facilitated by the double meanings of both h y . and
' onyx.' On the other hand, the etymology, 6vu$= $XEKT~OY. On the other hand, M T followed by Vg.
Assyrian un&, 'ring.' would make &vu.$ an obvious gives only nine stones, and in a new order, as follows ;-
equivalent for a ' ring-stone,' like elm& or cognate dah, pitdah, yahliZ5m ( = t h e 'first row,' (i.) and (ii.)
words-especially as dmKu was apparently colourless, of Ex. 2817f., followed by (vi.) interchanged with (iii.),
and 6vuf meant a stone which had a surface, at least, by confusion of yahdZ5rn and bardketh); then turZf,
of ' white carnelian ' or ' chalcedony.' It follows from &zam, ydC&hZh ( = t h e fourth row' [x., xi., xii.] of
this identification that yahdZnt was liable to be confused Ex.) ; so that yi2phZh is brought into its right place
on the one hand with bdrt?keth (in the sense of 'rock- at (vi. ) of the present list ( = Zauarr of 6 ) ; then, su;npir,
crystal') ; on the other (together with d v u f ) with &am n&hk, bird&th (=the second row ' of Ex.,but with
(in the sense of ' striped stone ') ; and yet again with sappir and ndphek transposed, and bdrd&h instead of
yi!@ht?h, when later study had once revealed the many v u h Z h z ) ; thentihdb (Vg.aurum, 'gold') as notedabove.
intermediates (e.g. Pliny's imp-achates, ;asp-my% and 1 [Cp C HERUB, 8 2, PARADISE, 5 3, and Cn't. Bi6. where
sard-achates, HAJ, 37 54). the text of Ezek. 28 1 2 3 is considered.]
4809 4810
STONES (PRECIOUS) STOOL
These derangements are instructive. That they The confusion between u a p 8 h u ~and T O T ~ & O ~suggests
represent an old text is clear from Vg. ; but that the that the authority, which is followed, read /3~pLiXArovfor
corruption is later than 6 is probable, firstly because 6 fibam at no. xi. ( 5 IS), and dvu,$, or uap8bvug for
follows Ex. 2 8 1 3 8 (the variant dpy. K . xp. being ynhiiZ5m at no. xii. (§ 19). ( 2 ) The X C L X K $ ~ W Vwhich
mainly explanatory of Xty.), secondly, because the takes the place of &vBpaE at no. iv. substitutes a green
derangements are all explicable on the single sup- gem (’dioptase’ or copper silicate) for the red ‘garnet’ ;
position that they are intended to remove difficulties giving some slight support to the discarded rendering
which are raised by the identifications propounded by m;f-k-t (‘ malachite ’ ) for n$hek, but confirming the
the LXX. view that upcipay8os in Rev. does not mean a p e e n
( I ) The identifications ddem=udp8tov, and nahek= stone merely-for XUAK$GW was itself regarded as a
._
dvBpaE, brought two red stones together. So long as
odem, which is ’red ’ in any case, meant red jasper, it
variety of cpdpay8os. Zpdpay8os here, therefore, may
perhaps still be translated ‘ crystal’ as in its primary
was opaque, and gal-e a certain contrast. ’Sards,’ meaning. ( 3 ) The ~puub~ppauos which takes the place
however, are often nearly clear. Hence a difficulty, of Xtydptov and is not otherwise found in O T or NT,
which was removed by transposing niphek and sappir; belongs, like X U A K T ~ ~ Wand U uap8bvu(, to a more
the further difficulty thus created, that the red nophek is advanced stage of experience, when intermediate tints
brought next to the red S&i, ~ X ~ T V not S , being felt, were recognised ; it may represent either a greenish
because, as we shall see, the ‘ third row’ dropped out a chrysolith,’ or, more probably, the opaque applegreen
altogether. * chrysoprase ’ (chalcedony tinted with nickel oxide),

( 2 ) The identification air!&th = updpuy8os had which is intermediate in tint between a yellow serpentine
already brought about the transposition of yEf@hU or yellow jasper, and the A M o s 6 rpdurvos (cp ~ U X U X Z T ~ S )
and yuhdl5m, so as to separate the two green stones, of Gen. 212. The modern ‘prase’ (deepgreenchalcedony)
and had caused the confusion in the LXX between and its variant the jasper-spotted ‘ bloodstone ‘ were
6vlixtov and j3t)pliXXrov in xi. and xii. In M T it has used for scaraboid gems as early as the sixth century
had the further result that 6arJkefh in.the old sense of B.C. in the Levant (e.g. Myres and Ohnefalsch-Richter,
a clear colourless stone became interchanged with the Cyprus M u s e u m Catalogue, No. 4581), but are not
opaque colourless yahdZ5m. Moreover Birdketh, if it clearly to be identified even in Pliny. (4)The QdKtvBos,
meant updpuy8os, meant ‘green’ ; and Paums was which takes the place of LixdTVs, is similarly mentioned
’ green,’ whereas updpay8os was ambiguous, and in OT or N T only here and in Rev. 917, 6aKivBrvos ;
yahiiZim had no special colour. So on all grounds cp Enoch 7 1 2 (of ‘streams of fire’). Pliny (3740)
darlketh went down to (vi. ) and yahdZ5m up to (iii). represents it as a dull sort of ‘amethyst.’ Solinus
(3) Further, to restore y i f l p h i h to its proper place describes what is evidently the modern ‘sapphire
at (vi.), and perhaps as an alternative method of (blue corundnm) and says that it came from Ethiopia ;
separating &‘ern and nbphek, the whole of the ‘fourth probably he is thinking of a port-of-exchange on the
row ’ was interpolated between rows one and two. Red Sea, and consequently of the true Indian gem.
(4)Finally and Consequently, the ‘third row’ fell Later, the meaning expanded, including many different-
out altogether ; Z e m , kyliptov, being taken for coloured varieties (five according to Epiphanius, six
qhcupov-i.e. dffliprov KUL Xpuuiov-and confused with according to Ben ManStir [quoted at length in King,
the z i h i b ( =Vg. aurum), which actually ends the Nat. Hist. of Prec. Stones, 250&]). But the use of
description both in M T and 6. hyacinthus in Vg. Symm. to render tn&F in Cant. 5 14
Another distorted version of the same list of stones is (where the LXX has &vBpaE) as well as by Symm. in
supplied by the Foundations ‘ of the New Jerusalem, Ezek. 116 28 ‘3 (where the LXX has the normal xpuub-
23. Founds- in Rev. 2119f: Here, as regards the XtBos) snggests that an early use of GdKtvBos may have
tions of New order, the problem has been, how to been to render the native Indian word which appears
Jerusalem. adapt the twelve stones of the breast- in Arabic as yikzit-this denoting the modern ‘jacinth,’
plate, in their four rows-of-three, to the a a noble ’ variety of ’ zircon ’ (zirconium silicate), which
foundations of a ‘foursquare ’ city. The result is as is a transparent deep-red stone. Now the GdKtvBos of
follows : - Rev. 2120 takes the place of a dark-red translucent
I. taunts uCi?r+srp Xahr*jSov. stone, iP65, ~ X ~ T V S The . epithet GaKrvBfvous of Rev.
11. upCipaySos uapSdvv6 uCips10v. 9 17, too, is coupled with rupfvous ‘ fire-like ’ (cp Enoch
111. XpvudArBos &p6hArov mrr&<rov. 71 2 , above, and the equation hyacinthus= &vBpac in
IV. Xpvu&rpauos ir&ivBos ApIcBvuTos.
Cant. 5 4 , so that in both cases ‘sapphire’ is out of
Of these rows-of-three, the first row is the second the question, whilst the sultry glow of the ‘jacinth ’ is
row of the ‘breastplate,‘ given in reversed order, (vi.), exactly what is wanted. Moreover, both GdhrvBos and
(v.), (iv.), with xaXK?fSwv for (ntphek) &vOpa: at (iv.). dxdm~smight very well stand as parallel attempts to
The second row is the first row of the ‘ breastplate,‘ also transliterate y i k u t , and the displacement of the one by
in reversed order (iii.), (ii.), (i.), with uap8bvu( exchanged the other becomes in every way intelligible.
for T O T ~ C at ~ O(ii.).
~ The third row is the fourth row Other passages in Rev. dealing with ‘ precious stones ’ have
of the ‘breastplate’ in direct order (x.), (xi.), (xii.), but been noted already above-e.g. t a u m s , ~ p v u ~ a M i < o v21 , II
with T O T ~ ~ ~ Oexchanged
V for uap8bvu( at (x.). The (5 19) ; 7pts 8poros dpa‘uer u p a p a y h 8 4 3 (5 y) i B M a u u a Bahivq
d p m a ~pvmCiAAy 4 6 (5 9). The striking simile 8poros dpo‘ufr
fourth row is the third row of the ‘ breastplate’ also in AL9y LLuarS‘ rrai uap8iw recalls the portrait statues of Roman
direct order (vi;.), (viii.), (ix.), but with ~puu6rpauosfor Emperors and others, in which the raiment is worked out in
Xtyliprov at (vii.) and irdKtuBos for ~ X ~ T VatS (viii.). hard-coloured stones-a fashion introduced in the last years of
the Republic from Ptolemaic Egypt. J. L. M.
. .. ... That is to say, the ‘ Foundations ’
C. W. King Natura2 Hisf. of Precious Stones; Antiglu
,l. alll.I are conceived as in the diagram Gems (1866); 2. Menant GZyjfique OnintaZe (1883); N. Story
xii. iv. appended, and to describe them Miskelyne, CataZope&thr Marl60rough
the writer has started from the 24. Bibliography. Gems (Introduction); J. H. Middleton,
xi. IV. 11. v. angle * between sides 11. and 111. Ancient Gems (‘E?); ?linden Petrie,
‘Precious Stones’ in Hastings’ D B ; urtwangler, Anfike
H e has first described 11. and I . , Gemmen (1900).
X. Vi. in correct sequence ; but when he
ix, viii. vii. reached 11’. and III., he has STONING. See L AW AN D JUSTICE, 5 12.
recurred to the traditional order STOOL, in z K. 410, represents K D 3 , kissE (Al@poc),
within each of the ‘rows-of-three,‘ or has perhaps on the original meaning of which word see T H R O N E , I .
attempted to work outwards again from his starting- On the rimy, Wndyim (RV ‘hirthstooI’), of Ex. 1 1 6 cp
point at the angle between 11. and 111. P OTTERY 8 8, and Baentsch‘s note, with the references in
This account also adds several minor points. (I) BDB, e v :
481 I 481a

Spiritual Gifts Stool

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Spiritual Gifts Stool

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Spiritual Gifts Stool

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPIRITUAL GIFTS SPIRITUAL GIFTS

1 Stern is followed by G. Hoffmann ( Z A T W 3 107,f) and by

n??' ]?v, '&en yZ&nih, hi0os dpros, Zapis

particular stones. Marble .

altogether. * chrysoprase ’ (chalcedony tinted with nickel oxide),

You might also like