Você está na página 1de 25

SIN, WILDERNESS O F SINAI AND HOREB

etymology given in his time to the old name by Jewish Ibelow), and it is, therefore, impossible to speak with
scholars. It seems quite plausible that Ezekiel's Sin any definiteness as to the relative frequency of the two
was a fortress similar to (perhaps not very far from) names or their connotations. On the other hand, we
Pelusium, but of a somewhat ephemeral importance. In are able to arrive at a quite clear perception of the idea
the critical sixth century R. c . , fortifications and garrisons i that was connected with their use in the circle of legend
along the entrance to Egypt between the sea and the and of the facts which caused the change of usage.
modern Balllh-lakes seem to have changed consider- In the thought of the ancient East every land that
ably, and even before the great revolution caused by can be looked upon as a geographical or political unity
the Persian conquest i n 525 B.c., the withdrawal of the a. cosmological -and so also ' the promised land '-is
large garrison to a better location may have reduced a
populous city to the position of an obscure village.
This must have been the case with Ezekiel's Sin, as d :
1 ezczed. regarded as a reflected image of the
earth and of the cosmos ( K AT ( 3176);
)
the points which fix the limits of the
could no longer identify it.' w. M . M. ~earth as a whole must, therefore, reappear also in the
[Cp C r i f . Bih. on Ezek. 29 I O 30 14-16, where an underlying 1 lesser cosmos, the country, and once more, again, in
P17d is supposed. That Ezekiel's prophecies have been worked the district. It is precisely by this that the land is
over by a redactor who changed the geographical setting, is shown to be a natural unity-Le., a unity determined
pointed out in P ROPHET $ 27. The 'Shunem' supposed t o be and ordained by God. According as a twofold or a
referred to would be tba; in the Negeb. See SHUNEM.]
fourfold division is adopted, the earth is defined by two
SIN, WILDERNESS OF (I'D 737p),Ex. 161, etc. or fonr points : E. and W . , or N. and S., or else ,E.,
See G EOGRAPHY , 7 ?and W ANDERINGS . S., W., and N. So also the year and the day are
SIN OFFERING (RKpp), Lev.43, etc. See divided into two halves or four quarters in accordance
with the corresponding points in the course of the sun.
S ACRIFICE , 2 8 8
Any one of these two or four points can be taken as the
SINAI AND HOREB beginning of the year or of the course of the sun ; the
year can begin in spring as in Babylon, or in winter as
Two names ($ I). 10s).
Hebrew traditions (8
Oldest Arab. civilisation (0 12).
with us (following Egyptian - Roman reckoning), in
Cosmological theorz,(s ?). autumn as in the time before the rise of Babylon (end
Bearing on Horeh- mal (5 3). Moses story (5 13).
Babylon and Egypt (5 4). Mount var~ouslyplaced ($5 rq' of the third millenium B .c.) in Hither Asia, and, there-
Musri (# 5). 16). fore, with the Canaanites and the Israelites ; lastly, in
Minkans and Sabieans (S 6). Early sacred places (0 17). summer. The beginning selected corresponds with the
Magan and Meluha (f 7). SerbZl and J. Miis5 (S IS).
Amarna period (5-8). Gal. 425 ($ 19). nature of the divinity who is principally worshipped.
Ma'in (( 9). Various views (5 20). Because Marduk is the god of spring the year is held to
Sinai is the usual name for the mountain where, begin with spring, and because in the W. the western
according to one tradition, Yahwb had his seat and ( L e . , the autumn) god prevails, an autumn new year
where, accordingly, Moses received the divine com- prevails in western lands, including Canaan, as long as
mands. Sinai is, therefore, the mountain of the giving there is independence.
of the law. In this connection between the year-i.e., the course
Even the most superficial observation does not fail of the sun-and geographical conceptions we can
to note that the mountain where Yahwk dwells has also already discern the essential character of all oriental
1. The two another name-Horeb. In pre-critical religion and science, which is to regard all that is and
days the explanation offered and accepted all that happens as flowing from the activity of the
names* was either that Horeb was the name of deity. But the deity reveals himself primarily and
the whole range and Sinai that of the individual before aught else in the heavenly bodies and their
mountain, or, alternatively, that Horeb designated the motions; for the deities of Babylon and of all Hither
northern part of the range and Sinai the southern, and Asia-as the OT itse!f abundantly shows-without ex-
more especially the highest point of this. Criticism ception bear an astral character.l The heavenly bodies
shows that the various sources can be sharply dis- which most plainly reflect the deitv in its working, in

ing the Sinaitic Peninsula and the adjacent parts (see thus the universal order. When the division is by two,
Mars and Saturn are eliminated ; the reckoning in that
1 a ' s reading Says (*.D) for 0'7 would furnish a good emend- case is by the two solar phases from equinox to equinox
ation, but is forbidden by the place being described as a fortress (spring to autumn, or autumn to spring). The sun,
X?,in l??. There is nothing in the Hebrew corresponding
1 F~~,,,hat follows cp wi. A O F 3 Is5fl, and in Dev
~~~~
SINAI AND HOREB SINAI AND HOREl3
moreover, is regarded as the god of the underworld, for Gerizim is the mount of blessing, Ebal that of cursing,
the stars as they approach the sun become invisible, in that is, of the light and dark halves respectively, of
other words, have their ‘abode in the underworld. good and evil omen (right and left are the lucky or
Now, this ‘ underworld ’ aspect of the sun corresponds unlucky sides according to the orientation) ; on each
to Saturn (Nergal), the winter sun or the god of the mountain stand six tribes, for each half of the year has
underworld (Pluto). T o the moon accordingly (since six signs of the zodiac or six months.’
the full moon is in opposition to the sun) belongs the When the two summits of the Sad matbtc are the
opposite pole of the universe and the opposite planet N. and S. points of the cosmos they belong respectively
Mars (Ninib), which represents the summer sun. By a to the moon and to the sun. If Sinai takes its name
complete reversal of all our modern notions, the sun is from the moon-goddess Sin, Horeb is derived from the
the deity of winter or the underworld, the moon the sun, for the name means Mountain of Glowing, Heat
deity of summer and the upper world. ( x i n and y,in), the sun at the most northerly part of its
Now when the sun takes up the position which course (our sign of cancer, summer-solstice) is the glowing
properly belongs to it in the universe, that is, when it is sun. Thus Sinai and Horeb both express like cosnio-
a winter sun, it is at the most souther& point of its logical conceptions.
course in the zodiac ; and the corresponding full moon Making the moon point the most northerly of the
being in opposition is at the most northerly point. I n ecliptic belongs to the old Babylonian order of ideas,
other words, the sun is at the Saturn-sun point, the S. 4. Babylon and according to which the moon stands
pole of the ecliptic, the moon at the Mars-moon point, at the head of the pantheon and the
the N. pole of the ecliptic. Egypt‘ sun is regarded as god of the under-
T h e course of nature shows a similar cycle ; day is world. The opposite is also equally admissible, the
succeeded by night, summer by winter, and in the moon being regarded as the star of the night and the sun
larger periods of time, the aeon, a similar procession is as the power that quickens nature, as the star of the upper
repeated. Everything that happens is divine ordering, world, and as supreme deity. In this last interpreta-
the godhead is constantly manifesting itself anew in tion, and, indeed, as the sole expression of the god-
changed attitudes and changed activities. Thus Marduk head, Chuen-aten (Amen-hotep IV., see E GYPT, 4 56)
becomes Nabu in autumn, and conversely. The same sought to carry out a monotheistic worship of the sun.
holds good of the N. and S. phase (summer and winter) This would be of importance if it were held proven that
of the sun or of the godhead in general ; they pass each it is Chuen-aten that is intended by the Pharaoh of
into its opposite. Further, the four (or two) quarters of Joseph.a It would seem, in any case, as if a like view
the world present themselves in various aspects accord- underlay the designation of Sinai (as of Horeb), for the
ing to the character of the worship exercised at each mountain upon which Yahwk reveals himself lies on the
given place, and according to the different methods of S. of the promised land. If, now, Yahwk has his
reckoning there employed. The Babylonian view, with dwelling on the moon-mountain situated in the S.,
the Marduk (or spring-) cult, takes as its point of clearly the underlying cosmic orientation is the Egyptian
orientation (Mohammedan @Zu) the E. ( = t h a t which one which regards the S. as being above (corresponding
is before, n i p ) , and thus for it the N. is to the left, the to the course of the Nile), whilst the Babylonians had
S. to the right, and the W. behind. T o the older the conception (conesponding also to the course of the
view, which faces westward, the N. is to the right and Euphrates) according to which it is the N. that is above
the S. to the left. Thus arises for a later time the -the N. pole of the cosmos, as also of the ecliptic
possibility of an interchange of diametrically opposite (this last the moon-point). For the highest godhead
points, according to the point of view assumed by each dwells above on thesummit of the Sad mltkte. T o it,
writer in his theory. Hence the phenomenon constantly therefore, belongs the highest part of the ecliptic (the
observed in all forms of mythology, and therefore also path of the sun) as of the sky ; the portion which lies t o
of cosmology, that opposites pass into one another, that the N. of the zodiac and thus around the N. pole.
a given form bears also the marks of its antithesis. T h e Egyptian view presupposes the opposite conception,
T h e selection of the two names, Horeb and Sinai, and, therefore, looks for all these things in the S.
and their cosmological meaning thus become clear. As The assumption, accordingly, which should look for
soon as scholars discovered the import- the seat of the highest godhead in the S. of the country,
3. Bearing on ance of the moon worship in ancient would rest more upon Egyptian conceptions. though at
Horeb and Babylonia, and the name of the moon- the same time for the present we must hold fast that
Sinai. goddess Sin, the explanation of the the Egyptian doctrine and the Babylonian alike are
name Sinai as Mountain of the Moon became natural. daughters of a common view of the universe, and that
Proof, indeed, for this explanation of the word can be their relation to this is somewhat the same as that of
had only when the significance of this mountain in the the political doctrine of two modern European civilised
cosmic scheme as a whole has been made out ; but this states to European culture and conception of the
is accomplished precisely by means of the other name universe ; diverse in details, the views of the two are on
of the mountain of Yahwb-Horeb. the .whole identical. It is in agreement with this that
T h e earth-and so also on a smaller scale each land the rise of the nation of Israel is carried back by legend
and each separate district-is imagined as a mountain to Egypt ; and that the region where the nation found
with two summits,’ the ’ mountain of the countries ’ of its god-i.i, the expression of its political unification
the Babylonians and Assyrians (fad mktdfe, ursng Kur- and its political-religious nght to an independent exist-
Rurnz). According to the orientation in each case (and ence as a people, in other words, to sovereignty-was
as regulated by this the time at which the year was held still known to legend as MuSri (see MIZRAIM, M OSES).
to begin, and so forth) these two points are conceived of Egypt and Musri alike are also in the Babylonian con-
as E. and W. (equinoctial), or as N. and S. (solstitial). ~

T h e E. (or N . ) point is that of the light half of the day at Shechem. who is identical with Tammuz-ie., the god of the
or year, the W. (or S.) that of the dark half. For two halves of the year. Joseph and Joshua are the correspond-
ing heroic figures : \Vi. GZ 2 7 5 8 . 9 6 8 Joseph is mentioned
when the sun is in the E. the day (or the year) begins, principally in connection with Shechem, Joshua’s life-work cul-
when it is at the northern point of its path it is midday minates in Shechem (Josh. 24). For Joshua the attainment of
or midsummer, and so on. This is the thought which Shechem is what the arrival at Mt. Nebo was for Moses;
Marduk (Moseq) dies when the sun reaches the western point
lies at the bottom of the religious observances on where the kingdom of Nahu (winter half of the year) begins.
Ebal and Gerizim2 (Dt.1129 27x18 Josh.830#); 1 The number twelve always symbolises the twelve signs of
the zodiac.
1 Cp Hommel, Aufssiitzeu. A&zndlwqm, 3 4 4 8 ; Winckler 2 The deduction would be that the doctrine of Yahwism con-
in MVG r g o ~ ,241,283. sciously links itself on to this monotheism as Its predecessor:
2 Bodare brought intoconnection with the goddess worshipped see K A T(31211.
4631 4632
SINAI AND HOREB SINAI AND HOREB
ception the land of the sun, representing as they do the All that we as yet have come to know in the way of
S. so far as the earth is concerned ; but the S. of the actual historical fact regarding the Sinaitic peninsula
sky is the celestial underworld where the snn has his place and adjacent regions, is still in the highest degree j n -
during winter, and thus in the Babylonian conception adequate. The oldest nionuments are the Egyptian
in the case of arevelation of the deity in Musri a reference inscriptions in Wsdy Magh5ra and those of Sarbiit el-
to the Egyptian doctrine of the sun is presupposed. Kh2dem (E GYPT , § 45). The Pharaohs designate the
Fresh light would certainly be shed on this side of people whom they have SulJjugated there by the name
the question should we ever come into possession of of Mentu. The still estant mines show how it was that
6. Musri. fuller information as to the state of civilisa- the much prized mofkat (malachite, or ‘ kupfergriin ’)
tion and the religious and political con- was obtained. The oldest known Pharaohs exploited
ditions of the region in question (Musri) in early times. the country for this : Snefre (first king of the Fourth
In the present state of our knowledge all that can be Dynasty), Chufu (Cheops, the builder of the Great
affirmed is that, the higher the antiquity we reach, the Pyramid), various kings of the Fifth and the Sixth
higher also the civilisation so far as the ancient orient Dynasty, Usertesen 11. and Amenemhe‘t of the twelfth ;
is concerned. The Amarna period-that which comes the last whose name is recorded in any inscription is
under consideration in the present discussion-already Rameses 11.
seems to presuppose a retrogression so far as Palestine Babylonian references can be adduced only in a
is concerned, and this would imply like conditions for general way in so far as already in the earliest times we
the S. also. It is quite a mistake to picture to oneself
the Sinaitic peninsula and the adjoining parts of Arabia
’’
and
have evidence of a lively coninierce
Magan between Babylonia and the whole of
as having then been under the same conditions a s Arabia ; the information in our possession
prevail to-day. W e already know enough to justify us does not enable us to go into details. The Babylonian
in affirming that these parts in ancient times were not designation for Arabia is ‘ Magan and Meluba ’ and the
wholly given up to nomads, and that the country two expressions are used distinctively, the one ( Magan)
possessed ordered institutions and seats of advanced to denote the eastern and southern part-that situated
civilisation. The Nabatzean state about the time of nearest to Babylonia, the other (Meluha) to denote the
the Christian era, and that of the Ghassanids at a later N. and W. The district of Sinai would thus form part
period had their earlier predecessors (see K A 2Y3) 1368). of Meluba. It need hardly be said that in the many
All of them were states in touch with the civilisation of centuries of Babylonian- Assyrian history the relations
their respective periods- pre-eminently with that of with the two countries waxed and waned in importance
Egypt and Assyria-Babylonia-just as much as that with the fluctuations in political power and in the
Nabatzean kingdom with which we are in some measure developments of trade; so also did the degree of
acquainted through the monuments that have come knowledge regarding the regions of w-hich we are
down to our day and through the notices in classical speaking vary and the connotation of the names grow
authors. It is by no means impossible that we may or shrink. Thus at certain times what was spoken of
yet come into possession of monumental evidence with as Meluha will have been not much more than the
regard to the region of ancient Musri dating from times northern fringe and the road to Egypt. The derivation
which we at present ordinarily think of as completely of the name of the characteristic product of the Sinaitic
without either history or civilisation. This, at least, is peninsula-malachite-from Melnba seems obvious.
even already clear, that long before the period assumed The ideas of antiquity as to the form of the earth are
for the sojourn of the Israelites oriental civilisation had very far removed from the actual facts. Thus it is an
been at work in these parts in a higher degree than was essential element in the Babylonian conception that the
at a later date shown by Islam.‘ whole of the southern part of the earth is regarded as a
Above all, it has to be pointed out that we are in no continuous territory stretching from utmost Nubia
position to decide definitely as to the state of civilisation (Ethiopia) through South Arabia to India. The Red
of those -regions during the times in Sea and the Persian Gulf have nothing like their true
6.
~

and sabaaans.question, as long as the countless re- importance assigned to them. Thus if e Magan and
cords of s. Arabia, the inscriptions of Meluba’ in the widest sense covers the whole of what
the Minreans and the Sabaeans, have not been made lies to the S. we must include in Magan India and in
accessible and investigated. T h e commercial states of Meluba Ethiopia (Ka4T ( 3137).
) This will explain how
S . Arabia exercised political ascendency also in these it is that Cush, the name of the upper valley of the
regions at the time when they flourished ; they extended Nile-thus the land to the S. of Mnsri=Egypt-
their civilising influence as far as to the havens of the designates also those lands which in Arabia are situated
Philistines and the gates of Damascus,2 and even left to the S. of Musri.
behind them in those parts a civilisation that can be It is often possible, therefore, in cases where there
directly traced to t h e m a Very specially it is from the are no special indications to guide us, for us to be in
Minrean-Sabrean inscriptions that, after what the cunei- doubt as to what special regions ought to be understood
form inscriptions and Egyptian documents have yielded by the names Magan, Meluha, KuS, Musri-precisely
or may yet yield, we may hope for glimpses alike into the as we are when we hear ‘ America ’ or ‘ Africa ’ vaguely
political relations of the Sinaitic peninsula and adjacent mentioned. It is thus beyond our power to determine
regions, and still more into their civiliszition-in other with precision whence it was that Gudea prince of
words into the spiritual development of the peoples and LagaS derived the material for his buildings which was
times by which the occurrences of the period of Israel‘s brought (we are told) from ‘ Magan ’ and from ‘ Meluba. ’
sojourn in Sinai were determined. It is chiefly on W e cannot be sure whether the usual opinion, which
these inscriptions that we must depend for any know- takes Sinai with its malachite to be meant by Meluha
ledge as to the civilisation and manner of thinking- as the mountain of the samtu stone (11. R. 51a 6 17),is
the ’ genius ’ (g&t. ghie)-of the Semitic peoples in that correct, for we are not in a position to say what the
quarter, where they received their purest development, samtu stone really is.
and from which, in a certain sense, the tribes of Israel The Amarna Letters seem to show that, essentially, the
also took their origin ( K A7Y3) 8). Egyptian sovereignty did not extend beyond the borders
1 Against the notion of Arabia and the ‘Arabian spirit’ as s. Am-a of southern Palestine. This is in agree-
being the sole haiis of ‘Semitism’ see Winckler, ‘Arabisch-
Semitisch-Orientalisch’in MVG, 1p14-5. ,
period. ment with the supposition that it was
precisely in these times that the newly
2 The ‘Harra’ inscriptions are in an alphabet which shows a
prevailingly S. Arabian influence. immigrating tribes of the ‘ Hebrews ’ from North Arabia,
Cp the ‘Lihyin’ inscriptions (ed. D. H. Miiller, Bpi- to which also the Israelites. belonged, pressed forward
grajhische Denkttziiler arcs A r d i e n , 1889). h t o the regions of civilisation. We may take it,
4633 4631
SINAI AND HOREB SINAI AND HOREB
accordingly, that this period was marked by a retrogres- with the doctrines which then dominated the East and
sion from the prosperity of a somewhat earlier time. It Arabia with it.
is impossible to tell with any certainty who were the Tradition itself brings this out very clearly in so far as
' Melu&t-peopl-' whom Rib-Addi, prince of Gebal, it has not been artificially shaped with the design of
summoned to his aid along with the Egyptians ; it is, lo. Hebrew representing the nation of Israel as a
however, likely, in the known circumstances, that the tradition. purely religious community, but still
Egyptian troops did not consist in the main of hands proceeds upon the ordinary presupposi-
of Bedouins from Sinai and Midian; more probably tions as to the national conditions of national life;
Nubians are intended. the older tradition does so. To the sphere of Mnsri
With the single exception of the inscription of belongs the region of Midian and this last comes
Rameses 11. in WHdi Maghsra we have no information within the sphere of influence of the S. Arabian states.
9. writ'ra.from these times relating to the regions at The Elohist' here also exhibits the original and
present under consideration; but this is natural view. He presupposes that Israel was heathen
precisely the period which covers the time of Israel's before MosesZ and that Yahwh first revealed himself
sojourn in Sinai. It is what usually and naturally to Moses during his sojourn at Horeb before the
happens ; of times during which great states have not Exodus (Ex. 39-14). In E J ETHRO the father-in-law of
dominated the border lands we hear nothing. So far Moses-whom, however, the author never calls priest of
as our present light carries us, however, it would seem Midian 3-still appears quite clearly in a r61e which con-
that to this period also belongs the development of the nects him with the worship of the god of the place-the
power of the S. Arabian kingdom of Ma'fn (Minaeans). Yahwh of Horeb (Ex. 18). When the Yahwist proceeds
For this kingdom was annihilated sometime in the to make him priest of Midian he is giving true expression
eighth or seventh century B.c., and its beginnings must to the dependence of Mosaism on the civilisation pre-
therefore be carried back at least as far as to the vailing there (writing of course from the standpoint of
thirteenth century.' A period of weakness in the great his own tiiiie-the eighth century-when MuSri actually
civilised states has also always been favourable to was a state ; see K A T'") although in turn he suppresses
the rise of petty states and to the development of the old representation, made by the Elohist. of a con-
separate kingdoms on the borders of the region of nection between Yahw-&and the older culture of these
civitisation ; and a period of prosperity in the trading regions in favour of a more spiritualised doctrine thrown
states of S. Arabia so far as we are able to trace into stronger contrast with the ancient religions.
their history also occurred precisely at such a time. Every historical delineation, however, can only depict
W e may venture, therefore, to hope some time or past conditions in terms of the conceptions of the
other to obtain some information regarding the ll. Value of historian's own time. Our oldest source
regions of Sinai from the inscriptions of the Minzeans traditions. can indeed conceive and set forth the
just as we are indebted to a Minzean inscription of subjects it deals with in the lively colours
about the ninth century for an illustration of the con- of its own age ; but the question as to the value of the
ditions prevailing on the S. Palestinian borders (Halevy, historical contents of its narrative is to be carefully
535=Glaser, 1155).* W e must, accordingly, figure to distinguished from that as to the correctness of its
ourselves the Minzean rule in those parts as having been apprehension and representation of the milieu. The
after the manner of that of the Nabataeans. Just as historical value of the accounts themselves is to be
these bore rule in the Sinaitic peninsula and left settle- judged of solely by the autiquity of the date-Le., by
ments and inscriptions behind them, so we may be the possibility of a genuine historical tradition. The
certain that the rule of the Minaeans had a deter- date at which the sources E and J were finally fixed in
mining influence on the civilisation and therefore also writing is to be sought somewhere in the eighth century ;
on the religion of those parts. As the Minzean rule in how far these in turn rest on written authorities-the
el-'Ula in N. Arabia has left its traces in numerous only ones possessing historical validity-we do not
inscriptions, so we must suppose Minaean settlements know ; but in no case can they be supposed to go so far
to have existed all along the caravan routes to Palestine back as to the days before the monarchy. An oral or
and to Egypt. popular tradition about earlier times possesses no direct
W e must conceive of the relations between the regions historical value ; no people preserves definite recollec-
of Sinai and S. Arabia in those days, then, somewhat tions of its career going more than two or three gener-
after the analogy supplied by Islam ; they were not ations back. What any Israelitic or Judahite source
a mere El Dorado of Bedouin tribes who had remained hands down to us from the tradition of its own people
stationary in some primitive phase of development and must always be judged therefore by reference to the
had remained wholly untouched by the civilisation of the possibility of historical-i. e . , written -sources having
orient and its knowledge (which is identical with its been used (KAT(3)z04$). What does not rest upon
religion). Of course we are to believe that Bedouin these possesses no other value than that of the purely
tribes also did live there, and these were doubtless not theoretical doctrine of an ancient writer upon a subject
genuine representatives of old oriental civilisation exactly of which he knew nothing. And such theories are of
asthe peasant of to-day does not represent modern science course of less value, not more, than those of modern
and philosophy ; but they were just as far from remaining science.
untouched by it as any section of a population can be A Judahite-Israelite historical tradition in the sense
from remaining altogether outside of the influences of just indicated is excluded for the times of the sojourn
an enveloping civilisation. And the higher the oldest in Sinai ; even were we to regard these as historical we
civilisation, the more lasting must have been its effect could not carry the tradition back to the Sinaitic time.
upon all sections of the population. True, the Bedouin On the other hand. in the present case, as with the
is never anything but a bad Moslem ; still he is one : whole body of tradition relating to the patriarchal period
his religious and other conceptions are influenced by
Islam, and if anywhere among the Bedouins of Arabia 1 According to the present writer's view the oldest source;
see K A T(3).
any intellectual or political movement, any impulse 2 Stade GVI 1131. Gen. 35 ; Josh. 24.
towards higher forms of development arises, it must in 3 Whether his name%was Jethro in E, or whether he was not
these days associate itself with Islam, just as in those rather callcd Hobab the Kenite may be left an open question.
days any similar movement was inevitably associated On Hobab see Nu. l0zq udg. 116 4 11. For our present
inquiry it is indifferent whicl! name belongs to E and which to
J. The view which speaksof him as a Kenite appears to be the
1 KATP) I I 0;Weber in AIVC,1901: 1. older and in that case would belong to E. This however
2 See wincher
Hommel, A ~ f i a t ku. AbhndZr q o f i (Hommel would k i d
.
~Iu.ri-'lclu:ia-?rla'in in MVG, 1898 1 would imply that Horeb was thought of as being'not in th;
Sinaitic peninsula but much nearer the Israelite territory, in the
the inscription an earlier date). region of the tribe of Kain (cp 0 15).
4635 4636
SINAI AND HOREB SINAI AND HOREB
(Zf24Tl3) as above), we have always to apply the dis- The activity of Moses-or, if you will, the
tinction drawn bemeen ‘nation’ in the ethnological sense political developments which form the groundwork of
and the same word in its Rulturgeschidtlich and there- 13. The lvIosesthe Moses legend-must be regarded
fore also its religious sense. In the view of antiquity and as having been a movement of this
therefore of Judah there was no such distinction, and story’ sort. The Sinai-period would in that
hitherto the tradition has always been followed. The case represent in some sense the &owning of the work,
nation is alone the bearer of religion, of truth, of civilisa- the giving of the charter, in a word the political
tion, and thus of the right that alone is divine, and all organisation of the movement. As such it is repre-
tradition as all thought is valid for this people alone, sented even in the legend, and there can be no doubt
alongside of which no others possess any right in any about the matter. For the theophany, etc., see MOSES,
truth. In reality every nation, like every individual, § 13.
belongs to the world around it in all its ideas and in the The attempt at a historical criticism of the Exodus
treasures of its material and spiritual possessions. The legend and its culminating point the legislation at
nation of Israel is therefore in an ethnological sense to Sinai, proceeds on the assumption that the Bedouin
be distinguished from that spiritual movement -or manner of life with its forms of organisation must
religion-of which it is represented by tradition as supply also the key to any historical contents this
having been the bearer, but in which in its purity episode may have as also to those of the whole legend
neither a complete nor an exclusive part can be claimed of the early history of Israel. The Semitic peoples ’
by the nation as an ethnological whole. T h e religious are regarded as ‘ nomads ’ who develop their distinctive
idea in its punty was grasped only by the spiritual views and so also their religion from the midst of their
leaders in Israel, and these, as we now know, and as primitive surroundings. The essence of their forms of
indeed is i n itself self-evident and in accordance with organisation is held to find its clearest expression in the
the nature of things, stood in spiritual connection with Arab Bedouin life as this is disclosed to us in Arabian
those of the great civilised nations. It is therefore poetry and in the tradition of Islam based upon this.
possible that for the Sinai-period, as well as for the rest On this view the form of organisation that lies at the
of the body of patriarchal legend, the historical tradition root of the Israelite national consciousness is the tribal.
a t bottom has a connection with older extraneous It is indisputable that this is the view presented also in
sources, a connection, the object of which is to set forth the OT, and that Israel also in actual fact, exactly like
the relations between the religion of Yahwk in its other peoples of the East in a similar comparatively low
principles and the religious and spiritual movements of stage of culture, is not unacquainted with this view and
the leading lands of civilisation : Abraham comes from this form of organisation. This being so, the god who
Babylon ; Joseph goes to Egypt : the revelation of was to be the God of Israel, had of necessity to
religion. the close of the development, takes place in the be the god of the leading tribe which laid hold on
region of a third civilisation, and is brought into clearly the hegemony, and thus made its tribal god into a
expressed connection therewith in the oldest tradition national god in the same way as its chief or sheik
12, Oldest by means of the figure of Jethro. Thus raised himself to the position of king of the nation.
for the special question as to how we are Stade (GVZ 1 1 3 1 ) supposes Kain to have been such a
Asabian to picture to ourselves the life of the
civilisation. tribe, because the father-in-law of Moses (see above) the
tribes of Israel before the immigration we priest is brought into connection with Kain. Carrying
are again led back to investigation of the history of the this further, we should then have to snppose that the
oldest Arabian civilisation. Whether we may venture sanctuary of the god, and thus the tribal centre of
to hope for a satisfactory answer to this question, worship, must be thought of as being at the place which
whether we shall ever find in that quarter the definite the corresponding legend thinks of as Sinai (Wi. G I
starting-point for those movements of a combined 1298 ).
religious and political nature which are presupposed in rhis. however, would give only the one side of the
the figure and the activity of a Moses, may perhaps legend, that which corresponds to the ethnological
seem doubtful when it is considered how far we still are character of the entire conception, and looks upon the
even in the case of the Babylonians, notwithstanding nation of Israel through the eyes of antiquity. All that
the much greater fulness of the information we actually follows from this is that in Judah-Israel, that is to say
possess or may still hope for, from having reached any in the historical period or period of the monarchy, a
indication as to the historical facts of which perhaps tribe, royal house, and worship was in the ascendant
tradition is taking account in what it hands down to us which traced its home to the Sinai-region. The
respecting Abraham and Jacob. Possibly we are some- religious or KuZturgeschichtZz’ch side of the question
what better off in the case of Joseph (see J O S E P H , will have to be kept quite separate. Whence did the
COl. 2591). worship, which is that of the nation of Israel in the
Thus, for any conception as to the general lie of kuZturgeschichfZich sense, receive its real contents, its
things, the conditions under which this great movement doctrine ? Legend answers the question with the word
(to assume its historicity) may possibly have been revelation ; but if the matter is looked at from the
bronght about, we must be content to fall back upon historical and genetic point of view, it is necessary to
historical parallels ; and these are very numerous. The assume a doctrine which had grown up on the soil of
first rise of Islam, and many of the religious political the ancient civilisations. For it is peoples of civilisation,
n~ovementswithin Islam, enable us to form a conception not nomads and peasants, that develop new and
of the manner in which also the national unification of higher ideas in the struggle with those of a lower and
Israel mnst have come about. The nation must have now no longer sufficient view of the world-Religion,
a god, and therefore also a worship; in this manner ;.e., ethic and law.
only does it come to possess a claim to an independent The question which arises out of the possibility that
existence as a political unity. The law according to Sinai or Horeb had been the centre of worship of a
which it lives and without which a nation cannot exist
is in all oriental antiquity revealed by God and in
every case rests upon (divinely imparted) knowledge.
-
:;’ clan or tribe that had the predominance
in Judah-Israel leads us to consideration
rarionsly of the position of this mountain. For
All knowledge and all law is thus of divine origin, even though we are able to prove that
-is religion. Hence political movements generally cosmological ideas are here involved,
assume a prevailingly religious character, the secular many analogous phenomena show that the localities so
demands being based upon divine right. So it was viewed need not necessarily be pure figments of theory,
with Mohammed and many other prophets in Islam ; that, on the contrary, a localisation of these theo-
so also in our own Middle Ages down to the Reformation. retical ideas is the general rule. As is usually the case,
4637 4638
SINAI AND HOREB SINAI AND HOREB
however, so also in the present instance,.a comparison limited only by the bounds of the civilisation of Hither
of the different sources shows that relative objects of Asia.
worship, or the earthly copies of heavenly places, are The writing which arose ont of such ideas as these is
located by the various sources or traditions in very what is now known as P ; we could, almost, therefore,
diverse situations. This holds good of the mountain have guessed beforehand that the transference of the
upon which Yahwi: dwells, exactly as it holds good of cosmic idea of Sinai as the seat of Yahwi: to the
any other seat of deity. Every nation, or every tribe, Sinaitic peninsula proceeds from this source or from
must necessarily point to it within its own domain; the view upon which this source is based. It finally
but, as in every nation and state various strata of became the basis for a conception of Israel-of its
culture and population are represented, and in the proper significance and of its past-which could never
course of time also various doctrines arise, so, in like have arisen in the times in which Judah had a
manner, different localisations can be handed down in national existence. All those alterations and trans-
the various strata of the tradition. A classical example positions of geographical ideas which extend Israel's
of this is presented by Mts. Ebal and Gerizim (see power far beyond its historical frontiers' are post-
above, 3 ) . T h e tradition (5) which places them exilic. With this it would agree that the list of stages,
beside Shechem has held its ground victoriously. I n the precise itinerary of Israel's journey to Sinai and
their cosmic meaning, however, as the two summits of from Sinai to Canaan, is peculiar to P.
the Mountain of the World, they can be shown to have The localisation of the Mt. of God in the Sinai
been held in reverence also in other seats of worship, peninsula must thus at the earliest belong to a late-
in the territory of other gods as well as at Shechem that is, post-exilic-date. Thus we cannot assign to it a
(Ephraim). So, for example, in the domain of worship historical value, nor can it prove anything for the know-
of the once more extensive tribe (Winckler, G Z 2 ) of ledge of the older views of Israel. or of the religious and
Benjamin, in the region of Bethel. This is the meaning cosmographical conceptions of Judah before the exile.
of the gloss in Dt. 11 30 (cp GERIZIM, 2): they are For the intellectual contents of the Judaism codified by
situated near the Gilgal, the political centre of Benjamin P, however, the inquiry as to the site assumed for the
which stands in connection with the sanctuary of Bethel. mountain by P would be unimportant ; the essential
Ebal and Gerizim are other names for Jachin and thing to notice is that it has been transferred from
Boaz in so far as these stand for definite cosmological regions which the national consciousness had regarded
ideas (N. and S., or E. and W. point) precisely as as adjoining (in the S. ) to regions more remote.
Sinai and Horeb do. Thus no difficulty ought to .be Yet in this case we must also leave it open as a
felt if the mountain of Yahwi: also is placed in various possibility that the transposition was not made in a
15. Pre- localities. The view which brings it into wholly arbitrary manner. T h e old orientals knew
connection with the Kenite tribe and which their world, and even the waste mountain massif of
exilic. we must regard as the oldest, doubtless has Sinai was not for them a mere land of fairy tales in which
in mind not the Sinaitic peninsula, but the region to the all things &e possible. J u t as little as the localisation
S. of Judah, that is to say Edom. This still finds clear of Ebal and Gerizim beside Shechem or beside the
expression in the Song of Deborah (Judg. 5 4 ) : Yahwi:, Gilgal (Bethel) was possible without some definite point
when thou goest forth from Se'ir and comest down from of attachment in the adjacent cults, would it have been
the mountain (nii~=Ass. Jadd; see FIELD, I )of Edom ' ; possible for the mountain of Yahwb to be transferred to
similarly also in Dt. 33z1 (see PARAN,and cp We. the Sinaitic peninsula without a similar reference.
PToZ.(~) 359, and Di. ad Zoc. ). In like manner I K. 198 On this point, also, history fails us as well as the data
originally placed Horeb (thus belonging to E, the of archaeology ; we possess no fact from the older time
oldest source on which Dt. rests) in the region of which would enable us to prove the existence of a centre
Edom, that is, of Ken, for Elijah cannot have under- of worship in the Eeninsula of Sinai. About this time,
taken any remote desert journey when he is already in all likelihood, Kedar ( K A T ( 3 )ruled) in the then
at the point of fainting at the close of a single day.2 Musri and Meluba as predecessors of the Nabataexns.
T h e forty days were first introduced in order to estab- In view of the likeness of all oriental worships in their
lish a parallelism with the Moses-legend.3 The words fundamental thought, it is very easily possible that in
of the Song of Deborah (Judg. 5 5 ) indicate that even the pre-Christian times also the same spots which Judaism
tradition which used the name Sinai was influenced by the pointed to as its Sinai, and Christianity afterwards
same view with regard to its situation. This would go took over were already holy. What we can learn
to show that the Yahwistic tradition also-for Dt. follows of the cults of those regions shows the same forms of
E (cp. 1)-1ooked at matters in the same light. J and worship and secret doctrine as Christianity has taken
E, however, comprise the whole tradition which comes over from the ancient East. The worship of the
from the times of Judah's national existence. This -
morning-star .(Lucifer-ie., the 'Athtar of the southern
would be in entire agreement with all that we have to Arabs) is to be supposed to have ex-
presuppose for a period, the conceptions of which l,. Early isted there from the earliest Minaean
must have confined themselves within the limits of the .sacred places. times, and all subsequent conquerors
16. Post- actual and possible. T h e free play of fancy, successively took it over in its essential features. 'Athtar,
as well as the enlargement of the claims of however, is, alike in substance and in form, essentially
exilic. Judah to territory outside of its proper identical with the Marduk of Babylon. Marduk is the
limits, could first come to their rights only after the spring sun and the morning sun, which is also repre-
nation had been torn away from its native soil, when sented by the kindred body which is the morning star,
Judah had come to be no longer a nation but only a according as the sun is regarded-as in Babylon-as a
religious community, the sphere of whose activity was masculine divinity, and the morning planet IStar as the
feminine, or 'Athtar is regarded as masculine and the
1 [Cp Dt. 33 16, where Renan, Wellhausen, and Steuernagel sun as feminine-as with the Arabs (see K A T[3)).The
read .?'D '!?V, 'he who dwells in Sinai.'] worship of the morning star is borne witness to by St.
2 Wi. GI 1 2 3 ; Smend, A TZich ReZ.-gesclL.(2)35. [See also Nilus about 400 A . D . as being that of the Saracens of
PROPHET $5 7 9. Kittel ( H K , Kan. 150) still supposes the the Sinaitic peninsula, and the Naba%ean DuSara merely
Horeh oflthe narrative to be in the gave to the primeval deity a Nabatzean name. The
yon Gall, AZtisraeZ. Kultstztten, 15
viii. 1, Abschn. 1, p. 576). A some mystic d5ctrines of his worship are exactly the same as
the text, however, is adverse to this view (see Crif. Bid. on those of the vernal god at all his seats and the same
I K.198). Cp the remark on col. 1272. lines @-T. K. c.] as were taken over by Christianity. Thus Isidore
8 Ex.24 18 [ 91. The forty days of absence in the wilderness
(cp the temptation of Je5.s). On the significance of the number 1 The conce tion of Aram as Damascus, of 'eber ha-nahar as
see Wi. W 2 83 aj (cp N UMBER, g 8). Syria, and so grth. See Wi. GI 2.
4639 4640 .
SINAI A.ND HOREB SINAI AND HOREB
Charncenus (see Hesychius. S.V. Aouuapp) knows him Many Sinaitic inscriptions,l which essentially contain
as 'Dionysus,' that is, the son of the virgin Semele, merely the names of passing pilgrims and date from
who as summer and winter deity is the Tammuz of Nabataean times onwards, are found in by far the
the Canaanites-Le., the Marduk (and Nebo) of the greatest numbers in the WHdy Mokatteb (Valley of
Babylonians, the Horus of the Egyptians (MVG, 1901, 'Inscriptions) of the Serb21 group; the Mus2 group
p. 278). This is not, as might perhaps be thought, a comes far behind it in this. The inscriptions cannot,
copying of Christian doctrine; on the contrary, both however, be regarded as the idle scribblings of passing
alike spring from the same root, the primeval oriental trade caravans ; without a doubt they are connected
one. S o too, we hear in the regions of the Sinai with the sanctity of the spot, and for the most part are
periinsula down to the time of Mohammed, a t Elusa ( = the work of pilgrims.
Halasa) of the worship of the ahone God w-ho is wor- If in these circumstances the question as to what
shipped as dhu-'l-&alaju and whose designation ulti- mountain was thought of in later times is, in itself con-
mately means, as indicated, the only God.' Here, sidered, one of little profit, we have the additional
also, the assumption of ' Christian influence ' is merely a difficulty which stands in the way of the identification
distortion of the question ; we are dealing with ancient of the other sites which might be supposed to be made
oriental doctrines and seats of worship which, with new certain by the narrative of Exodus (Rephidim, etc. ).
masters, changed only their names, not their forms or It is doubtless true, indeed, that Judaism, like the
the fundamental thoughts underlying them. If, accord- ancient East in general, had a definite conception regard-
ingly, that writing and body of doctrine of Judaism ing the lands of which it spoke. If, accordingly, any
which sets forth monotheism in its strictest and most one wanted to describe a definite route as that of the
abstract presentation, namely P, removed the seat of Exodus, he was quite able to do so. But the Exodus-
Yahwb to the peninsula of Sinai, it may very well have legend, like all O T narratives, is full of mythological
connected it with actual seats of worship which in their allusions, and in order to bring in these there is never any
worship set forth doctrines similar to those of Elusa. aversion to that arbitrariness which is so irreconcilable
Thus arises, finally, the question as to the value to with our modern ideas of geographical fidelity. If
be attached to the identification of the mountain in the Sinai was thought of as the earthly image of a definite
Is. 8erbBl Sinaitic peninsula for which the claim is cosmical idea then must also the legend-which also
made that it was the mountain of revela- lay before P-indicate on the way to Sinai the corre-
and
~ ~ J.s B tion.
. If what has already been said be sponding phenomena of the heavenly path to the cul-
accepted, the only possible question is as minating point of the universe; but it may well be
t o an identification of the doctrine of late exilic Judaism questioned whether, when this was being done in a
with localities that had already, a t an earlier date, been representation so condensed and so excerpt-like as that
rendered sacred by a worship that was analogous so far of P, sufficient points of attachment would be given to
as outward form was concerned. render possible a comparison between the writer's
By tradition two mountains have from the first been representation and the actual geographical facts.
put forward, each as having been the mountain of For the partisans of Jebel hIusR there still remains
revelation, and the question between them has continued the secondary question whether the actual Jebel Mas%.
under discussion down to the present d a y ; these are itself was the mountain of the giving of the law, or
Mt. Serb21 in the W. and Jebel MDsZ in the heart of whether (so Robinson) this is not rather to be sought in
the niountain massifof the peninsula. the R2s es-Saf@f, N W of Jebel MBs2.
If we are to attach any value to the tradition at all, From the point ofview of historical criticism the Sinai ques-
then unquestionably Mt. Serb21 has most to be said in tion has, in common with so many other questions of biblical
archzeology and geography, received but little attention. That
its favour. The oldest witnesses, from Eusebius down the separate particulars regarding the occurrences and dates of
t o Cosmas Indopleustes, testify to it, and the numerous the Sinai episode have but a limited attestation lies in the nature
Zuuras or monastic settlements show that the first of the legends themselves, and in the form of their development.
It is, however, upon an uncritical faith in these that all those
centuries of Christianity paid honour to the holy sites researches and constructions rest, of which the most important
in Serb21 and in W2dy Flrin near the episcopal town are those of Lepsius (Re& won Thte6en Mach de^ Hailinsel des
of Pheirin situated there (which is mentioned by Sinar], and the works of travel by Burckhardt, Riippell Fraas
Ptolemy in the second century). Jebel MnsH was first Robinson, Palmer. The geographical details are p:esente$
clearly but uncritically in Ebers (Durch Gosen Z U M Sinai). As
declared to be a holy place by Justinian (527-565). who the Sinai-peninsula is pretty frequently visited by tourists, the
there founded a church in honour of St. Mary the handbooks also (see, e.g., Baed. PaZ.,l5)I ~ X give
) the needful
Virgin. There is no earlier tradition in its favour. On particulars as to the topography of the region. An attempt to
apply the principles of geographical and hi4torical possibility to
the other hand, the reasons are transparently clear why, the explanation of the biblical narratives was made by Greene,
from henceforth, the dignity thus conferred upon the The €fedre70 Migration from ( 2 ed. London 1883).
new site should remain with it. The stay in Egypt is, as usual, taken to be historical, ahd then
it i$ conclusively shown that a 40-years stay in the desert and
The monastic settlements on Serbs1 were exposed to the the march through the Sinaitic peninsula are impossible that
attacks of the Saracens and were more than once devastated by therefore an exodus from Egypt to Palestine cannot havl been
them (so, for example, in 373 and again in 395 or 411, of which achieved otherwise than by the ordinary caravan-route (Greene
latter incident Ammonius and Nilus have given us accounts as proves his point ; only, the real historical impossibilitylies rather
eye-witnesses). Justinian supplied to his argument in favour of in what he assumes : the stay in Egypt). Although he takes no
t h e sacred site the necessarysupport by erecting a fort also which account of variety of source?(cp B IO) Charles Beke (Uiscm,eries
gave the monks the protection they needed against the Bedouins of Sinai im A r d h and of Midian, London, 1878) is led so far
so that they gradually withdrew from Mt. SerbZl to the safe: by his sound sense on the right track in his attempts at identifica-
neighhourhood of Jebel MBsl. The true reason for the tion as to find Sinai in the territory of Midian. Only, here LOO
abandonment of Serbal and the transference of its associations all the data of the legend are treated as available for geographii
elsewhere, however i3 most likely to he sought in the fact that cal definition.
in the fifth century ;he monks of Pharan were threatened by the
orthodox synods as Monothelete and Monophysite heretics. The allegorical interpretation of Sinai as Hagar by
Justinian's measure was therefore dictated by policy and was Paul in Gal. 429 rests doubtless upon the same astro-
siinply a confirmation of the decisions of the councils. 19. 425, logical and cosmological identifications
Even if we choose to assume a connection of the as does the double name of the moun-
post-exilic but pre-Justinian identification with the tain. For if there is also a play upon the name of
institutions of an older cultus. the sole witnesses that Hagar. that in the writer's mind cannot be the Arab.
we have, the N a b a k a n , testify decidedly for Serb21. eagav ( ' stone ')-for this does not mean rock-but the

1 See MVG, I ~ I , 278 on the meaning of dhd'l-hala- in 1 The Sinaitic inscriptions are discussed by M. A. Levy in
the same sense as Mofimmbd's ahlas (Sur. 112). ElusaZHalasa ZDMG 14 (1860), 363-480 after the copies of Lepsius in Den&
according to Tuch (cp WRS, Rei.' Sem.12)). On Hal&a s;e r n k 7 e ~aus A'gypfem a<. Athiopie-n etc 6 Blatt 14-21(Inscrip-
Palmer, Deserl of the Exodus, 423 [also BERED,~ ~ E G E Bs, 7, tions of WPdy Mokatteb). The in;crip;jons have been collected
ZIKLAG]. by Euting, Sinaitische Inschriften, Berlin, 1891.
4641 4642
SINIM, THE LAND O F SINITE
Arab. hagr, 'midday,' i.e., culmination point.' Thus it much learning (see Strauss - Torney in Del. fes. P)
becwnes synonymous with Horeb. T h e culmination 6 8 8 3 , cp (4) 4 8 8 8 ; Che., Projh. Is.@) 2 2 0 3 ; Terrien
point-i.e., the N. point of the ecliptic-corresponds, de Lacouperie,l B O R l [1886-71, 4 5 8 1 8 3 8 ) , but the
however, in the old cosmology to the N. point of the philological and historical difficulties have decided recent
Universe (the N. pole), and this is represented upon critics against it (see Di1lm.-Kittel, Duhm, Che. in
earth by the terrestrial Jerusalem, of which the heavenly SBOT, Marti). China became known too late, and
~ 7fi POP
antitype is the heavenly Jerusalem ( U U Y U T O L X E6P we should expect c y y . In accordance with his theory
'IepowaX+p). H. W. of the place of composition, Duhm thinks of the
[Von Gall (AZtisr. KuZtstutten, 15) regards the iden- ' Phmnician Sinites ' mentioned in Gen. 1017; Kloster-
tification of Horeb and Sinai as a post-exilic confusion mann, Cheyne (in SBOT),and Marti would read pji.q,
ao. vhous (see Mal. 322 Ps. 106 19). Originally and see a reference to S YENE [ g . v . ] - i e . , Assouan on
they were distinct. Horeb lay in the the Nile.
views* Sinaitic peninsula, Sinai in Midian, on If however ( I )the view expressed elsewhere (P ROPHET ,
the W. coast of Arabia (cp We. f r ~ Z . (359 ~ ) ; Moore, 5 43) is correct, and the Prophecy of Restoration relates
Iudges, 140, 179 ; Stade, Entst. des VoZkes Israel, 12). to the return of the Jews from a N. Arabian captivity,
But see remarks above on 1K. 198, and cp MOSES, 5 5. and if (2)the geographical horizon of Gen. 10 has been
Not all critics, however, admit that the prevalent expanded, so that only a keen observer can discern its
opinion is free from serious objections. Holzinger original limitation to the Negeb and Arabia, the problem
( K H C , E x . , p. 66) remarks that there are difficulties of ' S h i m ' is solved, and the remark of Skinner and
attending all attempts to locate the mountain of legisla- Marti that it is a hopeless enigma is refuted.
tion. If we had only Judg. 5 4 before us, we should Critically investigated, the ethnic names of Gen. 10 15-18a
naturally seek for the mountain near Kadesh ; a t any (which have been transformed by the redactor) are probahly as
rate, 1K. 198 does not favour a site in the Sinaitic follows :-
peninsula. Captain A. E. Haynes, R.E. (of the Kenaz (or Kain) Missur Rehohoth Ishmaelite Arammite
Geshurite, H&ite,'Jerahrn;elite, Sinit:, Aradite (0;Arpadite?):
Palmer Search Expedition) placed Mt. Sinai in the Migrite, Maacathite.
desert of Et-Tih, on the way from Egypt to Kadesh That the name ' Sin ' was firmly rooted in the Negeb
(PEFQ. 1896,p. 1758). Sayce (Cn't. Mon. 2638) is shown by the occurrence of ' Sin' for a wilderness
considers a site in the Sinaitic peninsula to be excluded (Ex. 161) and of 'Sinai' (in MuFri ; see MOSES, 5
by the presence of a n Egyptian garrison in charge of 14, S INAI, 8s 4, IS) for a mountain. From this point
the mines, and places Sinai in the eastern mountains of of view, Duhm's theory was a step towards the true
S i r . Cheyne ( E . Bib., col. 3208)prefers some moun- solution. Whether, however, Sin, Sini, Sinim are
tain-group near Kndesh on text-critical grounds, which original, and connected with Sin the Babylonian moon-
favour the supposition that the Moses-clan was admitted god, may be questioned. Analogy favours the view
to the jus connubii and to religious communion by a that Sin like Zin (p)is a corruption of s ~ y n a (Ishmael)
. ;
tribe of Misrites (not Midianites) or Kenites which see S INAI , 20, and cp SHEM.
dwelt near Kadesh.2 Filling u p one obvious lacuna, the passage now
As to the names 'Sinai' and ' H o r e b ' the most becomes-
different theories have been offered. Gesenius (Thes. Lo, these come from Jerahmeel (jxnnvn),
948a) suggests ' muddy ' as opposed to > l n ' dry.' T h e And lo, these from Zaphon,2
usual critical theory connects *YD with p, 'Sin,' the And [lo, these] from Arabia (o*pyn),
And these from the land of Sinim (or, Ishmael?).
moon-god ; the plausibility of this is manifest (see 3), T. K. C.
even without referring to the fact that as late as the end
of the sixth century A.D. moon-worship was practised
SINITE (*?*Pg-i.e., the Sinite: ACBNNAION [AEL],

by heathen Arabs in the Sinai peninsula (Bathg. Beitr. c e l ~ ~ l o[Jos.


y Ant. i. 621 ; S I N ~ U M ) ,a Canaanite
105 : Z D U G 3 z o z f l ) . The article Z IN , however, sug- (Phoenician) tribe, Gen. 1017=1 Ch. l r j (om. B, ACEN-
gests another explanation ; both 1's and iyy may be ~ € [L]).
1 In Ass. inscr. (Siannu), as well as in O T ,
corruptions of $xyaw (parallel corruptions are frequent) ; the name is grouped with Arka (ARKITE), and
consequently *JT may be a corruption of h p t ~ ,This .~ Simirra (Z EMARITE). in the former sometimes also
would correspond to >?fi, regarded as a corruption of with Usnu (e.g.,KB i. 172 ii. 27 26) which Fried. Del.
(Par. 282) proposes to find in Kal'at eZ-&'osn NE.
Sprnns (see MOSES, 5 5) ; tradition knew no other name of 'Tripoli and W. of gem!. In spite of the different
for the sacred mountain than ' Jerahmeelite,' ' Ishmaelite.' sibilant it is no doubt the same as the land of S i - a - i ~ a - a i , ~
A more obvious explanation is ' drought ' (from J m n , mentioned in the monolith of Shalmaneser II., im-
* to be dry '), or as Wiuckler explains, glowing (heat )'; mediately after Irkanat (A RKITE , n. I ) , Arvad, and
see § 3, end. Lagarde, however (Uebers. 85), con- Usanat (cp Usnu); the king bears the characteristic
nects with Aram. >??, ' to plough.'-T. K. c . ] €w. I.
name Adunuba'li (cp $ y x i x CZSi. no. 138, etc.). I t
SINIM, THE LAND OF (nyD p y ; r H n f p c w N is less certain whether Sin is to be found in the list of
[BKAQ] ; terra austrazis; Pesh. vi.), Is. 4 9 1 4 . N. Syrian cities visited by Thotmes IIL4
Apart from such help as the above evidence yields,
Formerly biblical geographers were inclined to see here
the site of ' Sin ' is uncertain. The identification with
a reference to China-the land of the Sinae or Thinae Syn near the Nahr'Arka (see G EOGRAPHY, § 16 [ z ] !
of the geographer Ptolemy (Ar. and Syr. sin). It was not
finds some support in the Targ. rendering ' Orthosia,
supposed that the writer knew of Jewish exiles in China,
but that he wished to express the idea that from the 1 This clever and much-regretted scholar thought of the tribes
very farthest possible point the children of Zion should of the Sina on the slopes of the Hindu-cush. 'They are enumer-
return. The theory, first suggested by Arias Montanus ated in the laws of Manu, in the hlahabhsrata, the great epos
(16th cent.), has been both defended and opposed with of India, in the Lulifu ~ k ? u r uin, t h e Ramayana, the Puranas,
and elsewhere, a body of evidence which goes back to the times
1 [On the reading of Gal. 425 and on the bearing of the text- before the Christian era. They are now, it is added, five in
critical prohlem oil the question'here discussed, see HAGAR, P, 3.1 number, and still live in the same or nearly the same region.
2 The theory is that this is the view of things out of which 2 Duhm and hlarti (cp also SBOT)omit p9$'?, as an inter-
the representation in our Hebrew text has arisen. It is based polation from Ps.107 3. This arises from their not rightly
on a new criticism of the form of the hfoses-narrative.
3 The alternative would he to connect 35~ynuwith the name
understanding iigs (see Z APHON), and involves inserting a new
of the Bahylonian Moon-god. The same connexion would then stichus, y l ~ nnypn hi. See C n f . Bib.
have to be supposed for the other meK5ers of the group of (proh. 3 So Craig, K B 1 172194 ; the older reading is Si.zu-na-ui, cp
ably) related n a m e s - h i n w , h i 3 w 5na 5ixw (cp S A w . KAT(? 196.
SHOBAL, SHEMUEL).On the groiind'of num:rous phenomenal 4 Viz. : S+i'-nu-r-Ku-y(207) and Spi-'no-ru-g-n-na ( z ,I) : the
not all of which are indicated in the present work, the write; former may mean ' Sin the hinder ' (cp Ass. arks: ' behind ') :
hesitates to suppose this connection. see WMM, As. u. Eur. 289.
4643 4644
SION SIRACH
the ruins of which town are probably situated a little to the necessity of correction. 9 3f. 10 2 11 6-8 are provided
the S. of the N a h r ‘ A r k a (see O KTHOSIA ). This, how- with vowel-points and accents, and a few other words
ever, seems too close to ‘ A r + u , and it might be are pointed in whole or in part.’ It thus appears that
better to look further N. and find a trace of the name the passage has been revised by a scribe who, un-
in the N n h r es-Stn (or Nahr-eZ-J4eleelek) about two hours fortunately, did not possess the material or the ability
N. from BiniyBs on the road to eZ-la‘dikiyeh (Laodicea) ; to correct the more serious errors of the text. Doublets
so 411. But the Ass. siannu ( = s i d n u ) pre- occur in 8 1 9 3 103oc,d-31 1 1 2 5 2 7 a , b 1127c,d-28; in
supposes the form ’go (cp Fr. Del. Z.C.), which is 8 I the second clause is corrupt in the first couplet, correct
certainly older and presumably more correct than the in the second, and, as the first clause of the second
MT (with which d Vg. agree), and the dificulty couplet is nearly identical with the Syriac (S)-employ-
ing the word n v p in a Syriac non-Hebrew sense-the
of reconciling the two forms is a grave objection to the
verse may have been revised in accordance with the
identifications hitherto proposed. T h e same applies
Syriac, or it may offer a variant reading which was
also to the suggested connection with the fortress of
followed by S ; 1030c,d is defective, v. 31 is complete
Sinna (Strabo, xvi. 11 18 ; Di. ; BDB). S. A. C.
and independent of @ and S ; 1 1 25=S, n. 27a, 6 = d
SION. I. fa9@;CHWN[BAF],CIWN[L]; Dt.448. nearly (emend H i 3 y to iwy7yn); l l ~ 7 cd, = S , n. 2 8 = 6
See SIRION. nearly (6renders n,lnN badly by ‘children’). The
2. (TIWY, I Macc. 4 37, etc. See ZION. agreement of the two couplets of a doublet with d and
SIPHMOTH (ningy [Gi.], nine@ [sa.]), one of S respectively may suggest imitation of these versions
the places where David, when in Ziklag, had allies, I S. by H , and in some cases doubtless there has been
3028) ( C ~ @ E [B],I but also, in a doublet [see v. 291 On the other hand, in a number of couplets,
c a @ €;~C A @ & M ~ C[AI, c E @ e i M w e [L]). T h e idea as 7 3 3 (unless in is error for in) 8 6 7 b 1 1 1 4 1 6 9 4 1 1 1 5
that the name may be connected with n? ! (Nu 1 0 5 7 1 0 x 7 f. 22 1 1 2 8 , in spite of the occurrence of a
34 IO/ ) is rejected by Wellhausen as impossible. But couple of Syriasms, it is clear that the text of H is not
there is reason to think that the geographical references dependent on d or S. The obvious cases of depen-
both of Nu. 3 4 2 . 1 ~and of I S.3027-31 have been mis- dence are rare, and the impression made by the passage
understood and consequently misrepresented by the as a whole is that it represents a genuine, though cor-
editor ; originally both passages referred probably to rupt, Hebrew text.
That the MS has passed through the hands of an Aramaic-
the Negeb (cp R IBLAH ). speaking scribe is shown by the occurrence of Syriasms :
In Nu. 34 II Shepham and Rihlah (Le., probably Jerahmeel) (8 I), nim (8II), my apparently (94 , and probably in’s i y Nvn
are mentioned together. So too in I S. 3029 (6B) Ua@, which (9 18, cp S anis $y 30323. There is no case of an Arabism in the
corresponds with Siphmoth is mentioned after Ksrpo.8 (= present text ; but there is an indication that in the text from
Maacath, a reqion in the Neieb), and in E ). 28 MT and 6 agree which our S was made the word p$n occurred in the sense of
in combining Siphmoth (ma+) with Eshtemoa ( c d e r r [u. 281, ‘create’: in 1018 H reads: ‘pride IS not becoming’(niN]), for
BctpaB [v. 291) and Racal (Kapp?hoc)-i.e., Jerahmeel. We also which 6 has, ‘pride was not created’(N,XJ), whilst the 155 of
find a gentilic SHIPHMITE [ q . ~ . ] ,which certainly belongs to the S represents Heb. p i n ; it would seem, therefore, that in some
far S. This view may require us to substitute ‘ Rehoboth’ for
‘Hebron’ as David’s first centre after leaving ‘Ziklag,’ and to Heb. MS or MSS y k was employed in the sense of ~ 1 2 . 4 An
suppose ‘ Eshtemoa’ to be identical with SHEMA [q.~).]. I t is at example (8 I ) of apparent translation from Syriac is given above,
any rate plausible. T. K. C. and a probable second example is found in 1125c, which seems
to be a corrupted douklet (n*nn for 1.1,). For quotations from
SIPPAI (’BD), a Rephaite slain by Sibbechai the this portion of Ben-Sira in Saadia and the Talmud, see below
Hushathite: I Ch. 2 0 4 ( c a @ o y ~ [ B ] , c e @ @ i [A], carr@t (5 3).
[L]). In 2 S. 21 18 he appears as Saph (ID ; oo+ [B], ( a ) LPvifragment.-The fragment 3624.38 I (CL“i),
edited by LBvi in RE/,Jan.-March 1900,with facsimile,
m + e [A]). The Pesh. in the superscription prefixed to
Ps. 1 4 3 [144] has: ‘ T o David, when he slew Asaph translation, and annotations, offers a new recension of
[Saph] brother of Gulysd [Goliath] ’ (cp a). In z S. material already published (by Schechter and Taylor in
their ‘ Ben-Sira,’ and G. Margoliouth in JQR, Oct.
. .
21 18 dLreads P T ~ T ~ E . robs .?‘.rrruuuqypPuous TGU
b a o y ~ u w u... which, as Klostermann has shown, pre- 1899). Unlike the latter it is written astichometrically ;
this, however, is a difference to which no importance
supposes the form y+ ( a name analogous to the further
can be attached. It abounds in scribal errors, has harsh
abbreviated A S A P H ), and this may be near the correct constructions (as in 3 7 1 ) , and employs late Hebrew
reading, N being easily dropped after the final * of 9 ~ 2 ~ .
expressions (for example, 1 9 1 , 37 2 , in the sense of ‘ grief,
SIRACH. The present article will deal with those misfort~ne’).~ In general, however, it is superior to
portions of the Hebrew text of Ben-Sira that have been the text of MS B of Schechter and G. Margoliouth. It
1. Extent published since the completion of the article sometimes accounts for the errors of the versions ; for
of ECCLESIASTICUS (March 1900). T o the example, its ~ 2 iiii s in 3626 shows how the readings
material. list of new fragments given there (col. 1166. ~ b r & u yand
n. 4) we have up to this time (Jan. 1903)
& b t arose. In a couple of cases
t o a d d only1831-33 1912205-713 3 7 1 9 2 2 2 4 2 6 published, 1 Saadia remarks that the text of BS known to him was pro-
vided, like the biblical books, with vowel-points and accents.
with facsimile, translation, and annotations, by M. If the statement is to be taken literally it points to a MS written
Gaster in JQR for July 1900. T h e material now pub- more carefully than those that have come down to us.
lished includes 3 5 d - 1 6 2 6 1831-33 1912 205-7 13 2586 13 2 On the interpretation of doublets see the remarks of Noldeke
17-24 261 zu 3011-333 3 5 9 - 3 8 2 7 3 9 1 5 - 5 1 3 0 : about two-
in ZA TW 1900, p. I . D. S. Margoliouth in Ex#. T, April igor
calls attenbon to a doublet in Ben-Zev’s translation of Ben-Sir;
thirds of the whole book. (40316), in which one couplet agrees with S, and the other with 6.
The new fragments agree in the main in character win (94) is probably scribal miswriting for loon.
with those- previously known, but also 4 SoLevi in/QR, Oct. 1900. NBldeke(ZATW,I9oo,p. 1)and
a. New differ from them in some interesting par- Houtsma (Th.T, 1900) hold that pin=‘create’ is a genuine
ticulars. Hebrew stem. The fundamental sense of the stem may be
‘divide, cut up’ (as Nnideke suggests), whence, on the one hand?
( a ) Au‘Zer fragment. -The passage published by ‘number arrange create ’ and on the other hand, ‘destroy.
;Idler, 7 2 9 - 1 2 1 ( AAdler),is written astichometrically, These Aeanings ’are v&ous(y distributed in the Semitic
agreeing in this regard with MS A of Schechter and languages : but no Nofth-Semiticdialect, as far as our documents
g o , employs the stem in the sense 'create'-this particular sense
Taylor (ASch.). The text is corrupt ; but in most cases is found only in Arabic, in which it is the usual one. Still the
it is possible to emend it with considerable probability. Kqssibility, of th’p sepse in Hebrew must be admitted. Cp
It has one k&S ( 8 2 ) and one marginal note ( 1 0 1 3 ) and onig, Dre Ongrnahfnfd. hc6. Sivachtextes, 6 9 8 , and Ryssel
over several words (10 I, etc. ) are placed dots indicating in St. KY.,1901,p. 579.
5 1.1 here appears to he identical with Aram. p i ‘anxiety’
This suggests that Sin has derived its name from the moon- ; the writing 1’ may represent a local pronunciation, or
god (Sin). may be a scribal error for 111.
4645 4646
SIRACH SIRaCH
{ 3 i 26 28) L agrees with H against 6. T h e most interest- Hebrew text-that is to say, against the supposition
ing feature of this fragment is that in niany cases its text that it is a translation from versions.
is identical with the marginal readings of MS B, whence ( a ) TaZmud.-The question of the quotations from
it appears that these readings are not the emendations Ben-Sira in the Talmud is complicated by the corrup-
of the scribe but are derived from another MS. This tions of the Talmud text as well as by the peculiar habits
M S was not identical with CLtvi since it sometimes differs of the Talmudic doctors : their frequent disregard of
from this latter ; but the two are derived from one earlier literalness, and their fondness for grouping clauses or
text. It is probable (as LBvi points out) that the couplets from different parts of the book and adding or
marginal readings in the rest of B (the Cowley-Neubauer interweaving passages from the canonical books. Their
fragment) come from the same or a similar source, and citations are not necessarily authority for the wording of
we thus have an indication of the existence of a third the original, but may testify to a form or forms current
family of Pen-Sira manuscripts in addition to those in the Talmudic period, and may help to establish the
represented by A and B. original text.'
( 6 ) Selech'ons.-Still a different type of text is presented There are indications (though, for the reasons men-
by three fragments containing selections from Ben-Sira : tioned above, these are not clear) that the two Talniuds,
one, containing 423b 30f: 54-7 9-13 36 ~ g a25 17-19 22-24 the Jerusalem and the Babylonian, had, in some cases
26 I za and bits of 258 13 20 f: published, with annota- at least, different texts of Ben-Sira. Thus in 321 Talm.
tions, by Schechter (in /QR, April 1900); a second, Jer. Hug. 77c, agrees with H in the first word (where
containing 6 18drg 28 35 7 I 4 6 17 zo f: 23-25, published, Talm. Bab. and Saad. have a different word) and also
with translation and annotations, by LBvi (in RE/, in the last word, but in the rest of the couplet has a
Jan.-March 1900); and a third. containing 1831 (one wholly different reading (perhaps based on Job 1 1 8 ) 2 ;
word) 3 2 5 1 9 1 J 205-7 3719222426 2013, published, in the same passage Bah. Talni. Hag. 13n (and so Midr.
with facsimile, translation, and annotations, by Gaster Rab., Gen. 8) has a doublet, in which the first couplet
(in JQR, July 1900). Possibly a number of such is identical with the form in @ and S, whilst the second,
selections existed ; this would be a natural result of the although diverging from Jer. Talm., 6 ,S , and H.
popularity of the book. Groups of couplets, taken from agrees with H and Saad. in one peculiar expression
different parts of Ben-Sira, occur in the Talmud; for (nai30) ; in this doublet we may have an indication of
exaniple, in Sanhedrin, 1006. I n such cases the object at least two forms of the Ben-Sira text in the fifth century,
is to bring together the aphorisms relating to some one one of which is here represented by d and S, and the
subject (women and the household in S a n k 1006); these other b y H (there being also in this latter scribal variants) ;
need not have been taken, and probably were not taken, possibly, however, both couplets are original, and H has
from a book of extracts ; but they may have suggested taken one, and 6 the other. I n 717 the.'hope' of H
the compilation of such books. In the fragments under is supported by A-bJfh 4 7 (against d and S 'fate'), but
consideration, whilst the couplets show a variety of A-bJLh and the versions agree in reading ' humble thyself'
subjects, a certain unity is observable; in that of instead of H ' humble pride ' ; in both cases the readings
Schechter the chief points are the desirableness of moral of the versions are the better. A noteworthy group of
firmness and the wickedness of women ; in that of LCvi, selections from Ecclus.9 occurs in Talm. Bab. Sanh.
the pursuit of wisdom and the cultivation of humility ; 1006,Y8bim. 636, the order of lines being : 8a. 36, ga.6
i n that of Gaster, the characteristics of the wise man. (in part), 8c (to which is added Prov. 7266) ; 8 n = H
For the sake of distinction these books of extracts may (emended), @ ( S being different) ; 3b (where H has a
be designated by the letter E. doublet) agrees in part with one form of H , in part with
T h e Schechter fragment (ESch.,=his C ) is in tolerably the other ; in g the text of Bab. Talni. seems to be in
good form, having only two badly corrupted passages, disorder, or to be very free ; it has ' beside her ' ( n k x )
511 and 513 (1). ( = 3 6 1 g a ) . It accords now with the instead of 'with a married woman' (6,S. and, by
Greek, now with the Syriac, differing in this regard emendation, H n$iy,), and ' to mingle' instead of ' do
sometimes in the same coup1et.l Often it goes its own not drink ' ; 8c is a slightly expanded form of emended
way, being sometimes (as in 5 1 2 ) of a curtness that H (=S). In 11Ib q a 1325 the Talmudic text is sub-
suggests originality ; and its irregular oscillation between stantially the Same as that of H and 6, S. It is in
6 and S indicates that it is not based on either, of these general more correctly written than H, which is full of
versions. It is in general agreement with the Greek in scribal blunders; yet the tw-o are sufficiently alike to
several cases in which MS ASch. agrees with the suggest that our H rests on a genuine Hebrew text.
Syriac. We cannot be surprised at scribal errors, doublets,
'The LCvi fragment (E1-dvi, =his D)coincides in material omissions, and additions in a text of the tenth or the
with part of MS As*, and gives a better text than that eleventh century when we find similar occurrences in the
of the latter. From 618to 7 2 0 it is nearer to Qi than to Talmud as well as in the versions.4
S , and in the remaining couplets is nearer to S. It is (6) Saadia-The resemblance between Saadia and
carefully written; there are two or three scribal mis- H is very close, the differences between the two being
writings of letters, and a word is omitted in 76 and little more than variations of diction, and the advantage
probably also in 7 2 s . It contains no Syriasms or lying sometimes with one, sometimes with the other ; in
Arabisms, and has the tone of an independent text. 5jf. ( H i ~ i Saad.
, riy) and 66 ( H SVJ, Saad. 3 5 3 ) the
The Gaster fragment (EGaster) resembles ESch. in wording of H is the better, but in 66a the order of words
agreeing sometimes with 6,sometimes with S. In in Saadia is the more correct ; on !he other hand, in 67
several couplets ( l 8 3 2 f : 191 206) it serves to explain 1311the Aramaic p i of H is probably to be emended
the errors of one or both of the versions ; clearly in into the ZDD and ?D>D of Saadia. H e appears to have
some cases these last are free renderings of H. T h e
1 On the quotations in the Talmud and Saadia, in addition to
Hebrew text is corrupt or defective in 1926 2 0 5 , and the authors mentioned above, col. 1172, n, 2, see Bacher (/QR,
has apparently one Syriasm ( 3 i 19, O J ~ Ifor a w ) . Jan. I~.o), Edersheim (in Wace), Levi (CO?H712. and RBI and
With the light got from the new fragments we may [QR) and Ryssel (in Kautzsch's Ajokryphen and Sf. KY.,
I ~ O I . I ~ O Z ) : cp Schechter inJQR 3 and 4.
now speak more definitely than was possible two years
3.0eiuineness ago of the conclusions to be drawn
a Bacher suggests that' Jer. Talm. yin is an erroneous com-
pletion of the abbreviation 'in, which should be read wiin.
of the Heb. from the whole of the Ben-Sira Hebrew 3 Rashi, &, SIP(. The text of Bab. Talm. should perhaps
material. In the first place, we may be emended after H and the versions. But in 78. 9, where H has
consider the facts that make for the genuineness of the mly 'strong drink' and @BNAC only 'wine' (S 'old wine'), Bab.
Talm. has both terms, possibly accounting for the differences
I In 2.5 17 it agrees with @ K Ain,the
~ Zexprescion 'like a bear,' between H, @, and S.
while &5B a n d S read 'like sackcloth ; if &pmc is Gk.corruption 4 On the Syriac of Ecclus. SEA see Levi, in/QR, Oct. 1900
of vcirmv, H here follows a Greek text. P. sf:
4647 4648
SIRACH SIRACH
h a d a text that was substantially identical with ours ; e"* is relatively free from faults ; parts of and B
his citations may be considered to establish, as far as are
"' .
greatly disfigured. The blemishes testify mostly to
they go, a text of the tenth century, though of its history the number of hands through which the MSS have
we know nothing.' Its special similarity to that of our ' passed, not to the work of a translator. The aphoristic
Hebrew MSS may be a result oi the proximity in time curtness of style of the fragments has been referred to
of the two. Saadia also quotes as from the ' Wisdom of above.
Eleazar ben Irai ' a passage that is found in our Ben-Sira On the other hand, whilst the fragments produce a
(321f.), and the text quoted by him differs from that of , general impression of originality, the text appears in
our Hebrew in only a couple of unimportant forms ( H 4. employ men^ some passages to have been translated
n i x k , Saad. &in>; H v iim. Saad. ~ w H z ) ;the or conformed to that of a Version
natural conclusion is that the book of Eleazar ben Irai
~
of versions from
and or of the Talmud. Some instances of
(if this name really belongs to a separate author and is probable and apparent imitation of
not a corruption of ' Eleazar ben Sira ' ) contained ex- Versions are mentioned above (E~CLESIASTICUS, § s),
tracts from Ben-Sira or from some work based on Ben- and others have been pointed out by critics ; most of
Sira. the examples cited relate to the Syriac, a few only to
( c ) Relation of H to @ and S.- It is a common the Greek.l These cases, which are relatively not
remark that the Hebrew MSS of BS fall into two numerous, do not prove a general translation or
divisions : those that more resemble the Greek, and imitation, but exhibit the procedures of particular scribes
those that are nearer the Syriac ; to the former division in the passages in which they occur. The same remark
belongs the B-group, to the latter the A-group. This is to he made of cases in which H appears to follow the
classification holds in a general way, but may easily be Talmud ; * such imitations by late scribes are natural.
pressed too far. Even in the earlier A and B material T h e corruptions of the BS text began early and con-
there are a number of passages that are adverse to such tinued a long time; there was little to restrain the
.a classification, and many more appear in the new fancies and the negligence of copyists. Taking into
fragments. 'The division into these two classes has, consideration the two sets of facts-the evidences of
however, been held to indicate that our Hebrew is a originality and the evidences of slavish imitation-the
translation from the Greek or the Syriac. With the more reasonable conclusion seems to be that the text of
new material at our disposal it may be said that this the fragments is in general genuine, but full of cor-
supposition, as an explanation of the Hebrew as a whole, ruptions.
seems to be definitely excluded. It appears to be set It is hardly possible a t present to make a helpful
aside by the irregularity of the accordance of H with d classification of the Heb. MSS of Ben-Sira : for such a
o r S , by its not infrequent divergence from and correc- 1. classiflca- classification we need more Heb.
tion of both the versions, by its relation to the quotations of material. Aq obvious and simple
in the Talmud and Saadia, and by its tone, which in ~ p L . principle of division would be the rela-
YIP-.
many places is free and independent and is charaeterised tion of the fragments to the two main
by an aphoristic curtness that a translator would not be groups of Greek texts ( @ W C etc. and or to the
likely to attain. W e must rather account for the general two Greek and the Syriac. But, in addition to the fact
relation between H and the versions by supposing that that the relations of the versional texts to one another
H is the descendant of early texts, some of which and to the original Hebrew are not clear, there is the
were the basis of 6,others the basis of S. The difficulty that the fragments show a confusing variety of
omissions in S call for fuller treatment than they have similarity and dissimilarity to the Versions and to one
yet received. They may be due in part to the frequent another. This is true of all the Heb. MSS so far
fondness of this version for clearness and condensation, published: in the same paragraph, and even in the
in part to the defectiveness of the M S from which it was same couplet, the text sometimes turns from one
made. version to another, or, abandoning both, goes its own
( d ) Diction. -The testimony of the new fragments independent way. It is obvious that it has experienced
confirms the judgment of the language expressed under a variety of fortunes, and that, whilst it sometimes
ECCLESIASTICUS. After allowance has been made for corrects the Versions or is corrected by them, it in some
obvious scribal errors the diction of H does not differ cases goes baok to sources different from theirs. It
materially from that of Koheleth. Aramaisms and New- can be, therefore, only a rough classification that is
Hebrew forms and expressions may well have been em- based on resemblances to the Versions. The direct
ployed by Ben-Sira himself (such forms occur even i n the testimony to the Hebrew text is contained in the Talmud
Book of Proverbs), and, as regards the fragments, there (about 700 years after the coinposition of Ben-Sira's
was no time, from zoo B.C. to 1000 A . D . , when Jewish book) and Saadia (about 400 years after the Talmud).
scribes would not be likely to insert familiar Aramaic T h e Talmudic readings differ a good deal from our H,
words-the more that the text of Ben-Sira was not pro- but Saadia is substantially identical with the latter ; the
tected by canonical sanctity. T h e vocabulary of the differences between the citations in the Talmud and
fragmxits furnishes abundant material for lexicographical those in Sandia may be taken to represent roughly the
research. The limits of the ' New-Hebrew ' vocabulary changes undergone by the Heb. text in the interval
are not sharply defined : at present it is hardly possible between the two. The text of the Talmud is in general
to draw the line distinctly between ' Neohebraisms' and accord with the unglossed Greek (6"). but is free from
' Syriasms,' and there is a similar indistinctness (though the scribal variations that crept into the latter ; it may,
a less clearly marked one) as to Arabisms. In respect thus, represent a Hebrew text (perhaps as early as the
of purity of style the fragments differ among themselves : 2nd cent. of our era) which was in substantial accord
1 The question whether the ' Sefer ha-Galuy ' (in which the with the Gk. text that underlay our two niain Gk.
citations occur) is the work of Saadia is discussed by D. Mar- recensions. This Heb. text was probably the basis
goliouth, Harkavy, a n d Bacher in J Q R 1 2 (~89g-rgw). There
seems to be n o good reason to douht its genuineness.
1 Here, as elsewhere, Saadia is nearer than H to the classic 1 On the acrostic 51 13-30, see Taylor, in Schechter and
usage ; the scribes of H (except in CL6vi and AAdler) are fond Taylor's IVisdom
1899, gives a numher
2 Ben .Tim, p. Ixxvi
of
Levi, in REI.
cases of imitation. But 4ti 20 is not a
of the short rel. pron. w. But this usage, though distinctive for
a given MS, is not a mark of the date of a Ren-Sira text, since case in point. H 171 is not a translation of corrupt S,but a
it is common in late OT writings and in the Talmud. variant of earlier H ~ T N which , was a scribe's corruption of
3 On this point cp the Comms. of Levi and Ryssel; the original H n q n ~ . If H had translated S ( n m i ~ ) it , would
articles of Noldeke and Houtsma (see above, col. 4632 n. 4) ; have written "1~. See REJ 59 188.
Schwalby, Idioticon d. ChristL;dal. Amwz. (1893) ; Fraenkel, a A probable example is given by Professor Levi in JQR Oct.
i n MGWJ, 1899; Jacob, in ZATlV, 1902; art. A RAMAIC 1900, p. 15, and another by Professor h.largoliou;h, in E.&.T,
L ANGUAGE, above, col. &I,% ; and various discussions in 3QR April, igcz. Cp Bacher, in JQR, vol. 12 (1899-1gw), p.
and REJ. 2868
4649 4650
SIRAH, WELL OF SKIRT
of our fragments. W e may suppose that the Heb. 3 g Ps.29 6. It is also recognised by Pesh. in Dt. 4 48 (I;@
(handed down through Jewish circles) and the Gk. for IN’V); and in Jer. 1 8 1 4 ~by Gratz and Cornill,
(made 132 B.c., and transmitted by Alexandrian according to whom, to show the unnaturalness of
Jews and by Christians) did not differ materially Israel’s desertion of YahwB, Jeremiah asks, ‘ Does the
from each other in the second century A. D . After snow of Lebanon melt away ( a r ; ~ ) from the rock of
that time they went their separate ways: the Gk. Sirion ’ (read )iqg i r for~ 3 7 ? ’a, ‘ from the rock of the
(under what circumstances we know not) fell into
two divisions, with one of which the Syriac stood in field’)? It is not clear, however, that ‘Sirion’ is the
some close relation ;I the Heb. was not similarly right f o r m ; it is hardly confirmed by the Ass. siraya
divided into families, but was roughly treated by scribes, (KA? 159, 184 ; cp Del. Par. 101, 1033).
I t IS probable that ‘ Hermon ’ was also a designation of the
who obscured its readings, and in a few cases copied or mountains of ‘Jerahmeel. Dt. 3 8f., in its original form, seems
imitated the Versions, especially the Syr.a Our to have described ‘the territoiy of Cusham, where Oc (p.~.)
Hebrew fragments, after they have been freed, as far as reigned; similarly Dt. 448. ‘Sirion’ can now be explained.
possible, from scribal errors, must be classified accord- Like ‘ Hermon,’ it represents an ethnic-perhaps \*yb, (Israel).
T. K. C.
ing to the degree of their purity or impurity, and
according to their peculiarities of diction.3 Such a (’P,PQ,or ’DbD [see Gi.];
SISAMAI, RV SISMAI
classification, however, yields no very striking or COCOMN P A ] . CACIMEI ’[LI). a Jerahmeelite ;
important results-the differences between the fragments I Ch. 2 4 0 t .
in correctness and style are not great. They must be Baethgen (Beifr. 65) and Kittel on I Ch. 2.c. call attention to
examined and judged every one for itself. So far, they the Ph. name ~ D inD a bilingual where Gr. has ueupaos ; and
Baethgen following Renan accepts ODD as a divine name.
have not contributed much to the restitution of the But in sphe of Kittel’s implied suggestinn (see SHALLUN, 3) it
original text in passages in which the Versions are may well he questioied whether Sismaican he = D D D 73 ‘ servant
obscure. They often confirm one or more of the Versions, of (the god) Sisam. Of all the other names in I t h . 234-41
and sonietimes correct or explain words or lines ; but there is hardly one which cannot he at once with some confidence
pronounced to he a clan-name. The names which follow Sismai
in general the text of Ben-Sira remains nearly as it was are Shallum, Jekamiah, and Elishama, names which may
before the discovery of the fragments. These, however, plausibly be regarded as related to Ishmael and Jerahmeel.
apart from the emendation of the text, have called forth DID and D-DiD have sometimes arisen by corruption out of
renewed study of the book. and have added to the WEI and D‘@D ; it is possible that ’CDD represents ‘at?, ‘one
vocabulary of the Hebrew language. from Cusham ’ (=the N. Arabian Cush). Cp p i (Sheshan ??),
In addition to the works on Ben-Sira given above (col. 1178) o. 34 the name of a Misrite slave, which m y represent p
the following may he mentioned tRaehiger Efhice ajocr. (Cusian); see, however, SHESHAN. T. K . C.
(r838); Dauhanton, in Th& Stud. 4(1886);
6. Literature. Houtsm?, in Th.T 343 (.go.); Ryssel’s SISERA (K?p’D, 5 51 ; on meaning, see below ;
Comm. In S f . Kr. (1ym.02) (completion of CEICAPI [B], C I C A ~ A[AL] ; in Judg. 520, IHA [A]).
his comm. on the Hebrew text); Grimme Me‘freset s f r o j h s d. I. The leader of the Canaanites opposed to Deborah
1.fragntenfsheb. d. Manuscrif A . d.rEc& (Fr. trans.)(igor);
Kartz, Die SchoZien d. GreK. AbuZJ Bar-Heb. z. Weisheifb. and Barak (Judg. 4 f:). T h e narrative, however, is
d. /osua b. Sira (1892); and various short arts. in JQR, RE], inconsistent, and presents Sisera in a twofold aspect ;
Z A TW, Rm. BibZ., Th. Rundschau. C. H. T. according to the poem ( 5 ) he is the greatest of the
SIRAH, WELL OF (n?’p;! lh, walled cistern ’ ? confederate Canaanite kings, whilst the prose account
cp on l n D , P RISON , 5 z (g)), z S . 326, the name of the (4) represents him merely as the general1 of Jabin
spot from which Abner was enticed back to Hebron, after king of Hazor, and as having his abode in Kadesh (so
he had concluded his interview with David (see A BNER ), Marq., see H AROSHETH). See further D EBORAH and
and had set out on his return journey northward. SHAMGAR. I n the latter article the difficult name
Josephus calls it ,@[p]qpa--i.e., me iFF-and says that Sisera is considered ; it has probably not a Hittite but
it was 20 stadia from Hehron (Ant. vii. 15). Rosen a N. Arabian origin. If the Nethinim are really (see
has called attention (ZD”WG12486) to a spring and Che. Amer. J. of ThoZ., July 1901, pp. 433 8 )
reservoir, situated about a mile out of Hebron, a few Ethanites or N. Arabians, the explanation here offered
steps to the W. of the old northern road, and now will be confirmed (see, however, N ETHINIM ). See 2,
called ‘Ain S2ra. Grove (DB,(2)S.V. ’ Sirah’) and below. T h e royal city of Sisera (or Jabin) is (ex
Conder (Tentwork286) agree that this may be the hvp.) not the Hittite city Kadesh (see HAROSHErH)
ancient well of (the) Sirah’ ; indeed, Conder goes so but the place known as Kadesh-barnea (Kadesh-jerah-
far as to say that ’ this may be considered one of the few meel).
2. The name of a family of (post-exilic) Nethinim : Ezra 2 5 3
genuine sites in the neighbowhood of Hebron.’ It is
true, the original form of the name may have been (B om. uiuapa[al [ALI) ; Neh. 7 55 (crerupa0 [AI, ueua.tBN1,
om. L]) ; I Esd. 5 32 (ucpap [BA], ASERER [AV], SERAR[RV]).
” T ~ D , Sehirah ( ; . e . , ‘ enclosed’?), for gives ( d a b
SISINNES (CICINNHC). ‘governor of Syria (Ccele-
T O O $p!aros) TOO ueeipap, where p may of course be Syria) and Phcenicia,’ I Esd. 67 71. T h e name is also
disregarded (cp u+wp=Shiloh), bL ... $p. ueeipa, that of a faithful courtier of Darius, Arr. i. 253 vii. 6 4
Vg. a cistern2 S i r a ; Targ. unimi N X D ; Aq. d r b (Xiutqs). On its possible origin, see TATNAI (the
T O O X ~ K K O U r?js ~ T O U T ~ U(,ng.).
~ ~ S It is more prob- corresponding name in Ezra, Neh.).
able, however, that ‘ Hassirah’ covers over some
gentilic or ethnic, and if ‘ Hebron ’ is a corruption of S I S U (-pDD),I Ch. 2 4 0 t RV, AV SISAMAI.
I Rehoboth,’ and David‘s first kingdom was really in the SISTRA. See M USIC, 5 3 (3).
Ne eb (as some recent articles in the present work
a s d m e ) , some gentilic or ethnic of the Negeb-such as SITNAH (n@ ; sxepla [ADL, om. E]), the name
i i n i N , Ashhur (cp m, Heres)-is to be expected. of one of the contested wells in the story of Isaac and
T. K. C. Abimelech, Gen. 2621. T h e name still lingers ; see
REHOBOTH.
SIRION (liip, ]\”$; C A N I W P [BAFL] in Dt. :
0 HrarrHMENoc [BKARTUI--i.e., )jlpt, in Ps.), a SITHRI (’?nu),Ex. 622 RV, AV Z ITHRI.
‘ Sidnnian ’ or Phmnician designation of Hermon, Dt. SIVAN (ll’p ; Esth. 8 9 ; Bar. 18). See MONTH,
1 eor some illustrations of the diversities of Gk. readings se: 2.
N . Peters, ‘Die sahidisch-koptische Uebersetz. d. B. Ecclus.
5 7 p in BibZ Stud. 3 3 (1898). SKIRT. I. 2, 59~
(Ex. 2833 RV [AV ‘hem ‘I. Is.
The acrostic, 51 13-30, seems to he the only example of 61 RV‘W [EV train’]).z The word, like the cognate
copying on a large scale ; the other cases, not numerous, affect
only single words or expressions. 1 This seems to he not original; cp JABIN and see JUDGES,
3 On palamgraphic peculiarities see Schechter in Schechter 0 7.
and Taylor’s Ben Sira,and Gaster inJQR for Jdly, quo. 2 In Is. ti I the Tg. and @ avoid the anthropomorphism of the
46.9 4652
SKULL SLAVERY
J&=Z ( b $ , Is. 47 z f , RV ‘ train ’) is derived from a root origin was unlimited. He could sell them, or give
meaning ‘ t o hang down.’ It is only the mantle that 3. Master and them away to Israelites or non-Israelites
has a skirt or train, and in this lies the whole point of slave. as he chose. Yet these slaves, too,
Is. 47 z ; the ’ tender and delicate ’ maidens remove the were by no means left absolutely
veil and flowing robe to perform the work of slaves. defenceless to the capr<ce of their owner. T h e old
2. hdnrifh, w,rather ‘corner’ or loose-flowing end. See consuetudinary law interposed energetically on their
behalf. The master was not entitled to kill them ; the
FKINGES, and cp S ACK .
killing of a slave was a punishable offence-a provision
3. peh, “5. See C OLLAR, z (col. 858). I. A.
which becomes all the more noticeable when it is
SKULL. See C ALVARY, GOLGOTHA. remembered that in the case of children the father did
SLAUGHTERMEN (Gen. 3736 AVmg., etc.). See possess a limited power of life and death (see L AW A N D
E XECUTIONER, I. J U S TI C E , I O 14). With the Greeks and Romans this
SLAVERY. The word does not occur in EV. power was, as regards slaves, a matter of course. The
‘Slave’ is found only twice in AV (Jer. 2 q, and here only in master’s right of punishment was, in Israel, further
italics as an explanation of n:g 13t [‘home-born slave ‘1 ; Rev. restricted, and the slave protected from serious mal-
18 13 for umpLrmv), and twice in R V (Dt. 21 14 247. + lQYn?, treatment, by the rule that the slave became entitled to
’deal with as a slave [rnarg. chattel]’; AV ‘make merchandise his freedom if his master in chastising him had done
of’). The Heb. i l y , ‘ebed, is rendered ‘ ssrvanc’ ( I K. 2 39 etc.). him some lasting bodily injury, such as the loss of an
Among the Hebrews, as in the ancient world in eye or of a tooth (Ex.2126J). Even in such cases,
general, there was no such thing as free labour in the indeed, the principle that the slave was the property of
1. Hebrew modern sense; men-servants and maid- his master was not lost sight of. The law exempted the
servants were the property of their master from punishment if an interval of at least a day
meaning. masters-in other words, were slaves. had elapsed between the maltreatment of the slave and
W e must carefully dissociate this word, however, from his death. The presumption was that the death had
certain ideas inseparably connected with it in the modern not been intended, and it was held that the master had
Christian world. In the Hebrew conception there was suffered penalty enough in the loss of his property, ‘ for
no such profound difference between the slave’s relation he is his money’ (Ex. 21 20 [ z z ] ) . The killing or maiming
to the head of the house, and that held by the other of another man’s slave was also regarded only as injury
members of the family. Free-born wives and free-born done to property, for which compensation was required.
children are legally all alike under the power of the Thus, if a slave were gored by a vicious ox the owner
master of the house. The father can sell his children of the ox had to pay a compensation of thirty shekels to
as well as his slaves to another Israelite. The slaves the owner of the dead slave for his negligence in not
are not regarded as beings of an inferior order, but are looking after an ox known to be dangerous. (The sun1
true members of the family, and, though destitute of mentioned clearly represents the average value of a
civil rights, are nevertheless regarded as fellowmen, good slave at the time of the enactment. ) T h e owner
and, indeed, if of Israelite descent, are held in as high of the ox was not liable to any further penalty, however,
esteem as freemen who a t the same time are foreigners. though when a free man was killed in like circumstances
Considered in itself, therefore, there is no degradation the case was one of murder and the owner of the ox
attaching to slavery. This is sufficiently shown by the was punished with death (Ex. 21 2 8 8 ). The runaway
one notorious fact that a man would not infrequently slave also enjoyed the protection of ancient custom.
sell himself into slavery, and voluntarily remain in that T h e prohibition of extradition indeed is not met with in
condition. express terms earlier than Dt. (23155);but we may
In the legal and actual standing of the slave the safely take it that ancient custom, at least, did not
point whether he was an Israelite or not was exceedinrrlv
., require extradition as a matter of course. The decision
a. : their jmportant. Thc bulk of the slaves in each case, as it arose, lay in the discretion of the city
in ancient Israel would seem to have to which the fugitive had betaken himself. Shimei, for
position, etc. belonged to the non-Israelite cate- example, must in person come and fetch his slaves who
gory. I n the main they had become slaves-as all had fled to Gath ( I K. 2 3 9 5 ) . Lastly, the slave was
ancient law sanctioned-through the fortune of war. protected against over-driving by the institution of the
There existed, indeed, also in Israel the barbarous Sabbath, which, in the view of the ancient law-giver,
custom of the @ern (see BAN). T h e war being re- aimed specially a t the benefit of slaves and the lower
garded as a war of YahwA, the entire booty was often animals (Ex. 23 12 Dt. 5 12 8 ) .
devoted ‘ to YahwL.’ ; that is to say, every living thing The legal position of the foreign female slave was
was put to death, and every lifeless thing destroyed (see, still better. She was often her master’s concubine-as
e.g., rS.15). In the otherwise humane Dt. even, is shown by the loan-wordpiUgeS (ti:$?; Gr. TCAAUKLS),
only the women and children of conquered towns are which the Hebrews doubtless got from the Phoenicians.
to be spared-ic., made slaves. Desire of gain doubt- Dt. (21108) gives precise regulations for the case of an
less often interposed as a practical corrective of this Israelite owner who seeks thus to appropriate a female
cruel precept, and it is probable that, as a rule, the captive. H e is not allowed to take her a t once;
custom was to turn to account as slaves the men as she must after coming into his house shave her head
well as the women ( I S. 15 I K. 20395 etc. ). Israelites and pare her nails and bewail her father and mother for
also, we may be sure, had frequent opportunities, if so a full month, after wrhich her master may espouse her.
minded, for buying slaves in foreign markets. Their This regulation, also, we may safely assume to hare
Phoenician neighbours, with whom they always had rested on ancient custom.
active commercial relations, were famous throughout It must further be remembered that t o ancient feeling there
antiquity as slave-dealers (cp Am. 16). T h e ‘strangers was nothing degrading in the idea of the master of a female
within the gates ’ must also, occasionally at least, have slave being lord also of her body, any more than there now is
in modern Ishm. As is shown elsewhere (see M ARRIAGE B I),
found themselves compelled to sell themselves or their the freewoman also became a wife by purchase, and there’is no
children. And, lastly, the slave population was con- essential difference in the position of a secondary wife. The
stantly augmented by the birth of children to slaves in positjon of the concubine is superior t o that of the ordinary slave
in this, that her master is not at liherty to sell her again. As
the home of their master-theyXid? adyith (n:? .+) of regards the foreign concubine indeed this is expressly laid down
Gen. 1414-children who, of course, were themselves only in Deuteronomy : her master must free her if he desires to
also slaves. put her away. But this also certainly comes from ancient
practice common to the Israelites with other Semitic peoples.
The master’s right of property in his slaves of foreign Even now it is held among the Arabs to be a shameful thing for
a master to sell a slave who has been his concubine, especially if
figure by rendering n*?p* 7.1 (‘the brilliancy of his glory’) and she have borne children to him ; and this had the sanction of
W a respectively. antiquity even in Mohammed‘s time (cp WRS, Kin. 73).
4653 4654
SLAVERY SLAVERY
Slaves of Israelite descent were in the minority. in every ho&e (cp e.$, I S . 1913 ; see T E R A PH I M ).
Kidnapping of slaves within the tribes of Israel was The ceremony can have had no other meaning than
severely prohibited both by law and by ancient usage that the ear of the slave-that is, his obedience-is
(Ex. 2116), though this did not prevent its occasional firmly nailed to this house and pledged to it for all time
occurrence (Gen. 37z6Jf), in which case, however, it coming.
was prudent to send the victims abroad. There were, Elsewhere also boring the ears is met with as a sign of slavery :
however, other ways in which Israelites could become e.g., among the Mesopotamians (Juv. 1 zq), Arabs (Petr. Sat.
IOZ), the Lydians (Xen. A w 6 . iii. 131), and others (see Di. on
the property of Israelites. T h e Hebrew parent was at Ex. 21 SA).
liberty to sell his children into slavery, only not to a Deuteronomy advances a step (15 13f.), and requires
foreigner; and doubtless there were many cases in of the master that he shall not send his slave away
which poor men availed themselves of this right (Ex. empty but shall give him a liberal present from flock
21 7 J f ) . T h e insolvent debtor also was sold (zK. 41 and threshing-floor and winepress. Here we catch
Am. 26 86 Neh. 55 E). So too the convicted thief, sight of another motive which may have often induced
who was unable to make good his theft (Ex. 22zf.) ; the slave to remain in voluntary bondage : the emanci-
according to Josephus ( A n t . iv. 82) he was in this case pated slave, if quite destitute, was in worse case in a
given to the person he had robbed (cp a provision in the state of freedom than before-left to his own resources,
law of the twelve tables). Finally, in cases of great exposed to every hardship and oppression. T o the
poverty, a last resort was for a man to declare himself man who had no land of his own the position of a free
and his farnily the property of some well-to-do person working man, or any other favourable opportunity of
(Lev. 2539 47). What is related of the patriarch Jacob earning a livelihood, was hardly attainable at all, or, if
nray also have frequently occurred ; a suitor who was attainable, only to a very limited degree. Many a man
unable to pay the mFhar or purchase-money demanded might therefore prefer slavery with comfort to freedom
for the bride would voluntarily hire himself as a slave with destitution. T h e precepts of Deuteronomy are
for a fixed time to the father of the girl (Gen. 2918 ; cp not complied with. T h e legislator himself feels that he
MARRIAGE, 1I ). is leaving much to the discretion of masters, and therefore
T h e position of such Israelite slaves was considerably exhorts them all the more earnestly (v.18) : ' I t shall
better than that of those of foreign origin. T h e main
4. lanumission. difference, so far as the law was con-
. .
not seem hard to thee ; . for Yahwk thy God shall
bless thee [therefore] in all that thou doest.' What we
cerned, lay in this, that the foreign read in Jer. 3 4 8 8 is significant of much; in the time
slave remained a slave all his life, whilst the Hebrew slave of a great distress, when Jerusalem was under siege,
had a legal right to manumission, and within a definite Zedekiah ordered the inhabitants of the city to free
time had to be released for nothing. According to the their Israelite bondmen and bondwomen, :md so t o
Book of the Covenant the slavery of an Israelite lasted fulfil the commandm;nt that had been so neglected.
six years; in the seventh year he again became free But hardly had deliverance come and the siege been
(Ex. 2 1 1 8 ) . The story of Jacob warrants the con- raised before the liberated slaves were again reduced t o
jecture that in the original custom the Hebrew slave bondage.
served for seven full years, and that later, under the P will not have any such thing as slavery for an
influence of the Sabbatical idea, the beginning cf the Israelite. If an Israelite finds himself driven by
seventh year was taken as fixing the date of the release 5. Year oi poverty to sell himself into slavery, he is
(cp Stade, GV11378). By the seventh year of couTse is Jubilee. not in reality to be regarded as a slave, but
meant, not the Sabbatical year of a still later time, but a s a free wage-earner orgt? (Lev. 25 35 39f. ).
a relative term reckoned from the date of the beginning For all Israelites together are the servants of Yahwe, who
of the bondage. If the slave had brought a wife along brought the nation up out of the land of Egypt ; they
with him, she, and doubtless also their children, became must not therefore treat one another as slaves (Lev.
free along with himself. If, however, he had entered 2542). I n the matter of emancipation, indeed, the
into bondage alone and afterwards a s a slave had law had to yield to the force of custom ; but the eman-
received a wife from his master, she and also the cipation of the Hebrew slave was no longer TO occur in
children remained the property of the master (Ex. the seventh year of his slavery, but only in the year of
2 1 7 8 ) . Manifestly, in the case of a wife being given Jubilee, every fiftieth year. In this year (see JUBILEE)
t o a slave, only a foreign woman could be intended ; all land reverts to its original owner ; the liberated slave
for the Hebrew female slave the master had either to thus has the means of subsistence secured for himself
take to himself or give to his son (see below). A and his family.
characteristic light on the whole position of the Hebrew The attempt (Oehler, PREP) 14 341J) to interpret this law as
slave is shed by another fact ; the law can presume that having in view only those slaves who, when the year of Jubilee
in many cases the slave will prefer not to use his legal came, had not yet been six years in bondage, and that thus the
Jybilee release coexists as an institution wnh that of the seven-
right to his liberty, but will voluntarily elect to remain years' release, finds no support in the text itself; neither can we
in bondage. T h e rule just mentioned, regulating the (so Di.) interpret the law as relating only to those slaves who,
retention of wife and children, must ffequently have previously, at the seventh year's release, had voluntarily re-
mained in bondage, and who now in any case have to g o free in
produced such cases ; another cause will be mentioned the year of Jubilee ; had this been meant, it would have been
later. If the slave desired to remain with his master in said.
perpetuity, his master was to bring him before ' 615him ' It is only in the case of his having been compelled to
and there fix his ear with an awl to the door-post (Ex. sell himself to a gZr or foreigner in the land that the
21 5f: ; cp Dt. 15 16f:). Interpreters are not agreed as to law offers the Israelite the possibility of an earlier release
whether by ' 616him ' we are to understand the sanctuary, (in such a case he cannot reckon on the same brotherly
and that the declaration could only be duly made treatment as with a brother Israelite). Here a redemp-
there. See col. 3224, note 2. Deuteronomy says tion was possible, the right of which belonged not only
nothing about the sanctuary, but doubtless assumes that to the nearest kinsman, the brother or uncle on the
the ceremony will be in the house of the master. This father's side, but also to the bondman himself if in the
might be a result of the concentration of the cultus at meanwhile he had come into possession of means. T h e
Jerusalem ; but it might equally well be held to show price of redemption also was fixed by law, and in a
that neither also did the ancient custom reflected in the sense very favourable to the slave or his redeemer. T h e
Book of the Covenant prescribe a ceremony at the purchase-money originally paid by his present owner
sanctuary, and that by ' %him ' are meant the house- was to be regarded as a sort of hire paid in advance for
hold gods,l the Penates which in old times were found the years of service from the date of purchase till the
next jubilee,' and above this a sum proportionate to the
1 [See Nowack, HA 177, and especially Eerdmans, Th.T,
' D e beteekenis van elohim in het Bondsboek,' ZS27zfi (1894).l 1 An indirect confirmation of what has already been said-

4655 4656
SLAVERY SLING
'
time which may have been Spent up to the time of the to mske peace with David-quite against the will of the master
of the house-and she follows his advice (I S. 25 14K). Eliezer
Jubilee .year was to be paid as redemption-money, so in the patriarchal legend figures as the comptroll&"othe house-
much for each year (Lev. 2 5 4 7 8 ) . Such a regulation hold, and is invested with a sort of guardianship over Isaac, the
clearly presupposes post-exilic conditions. Before the son of the house (Gen. 24 18)Compare . also the relation of
exile the case of an Israelite being compelled to sell Ziba to Meribbaal, Jonathan's son (2 S.9 1816 18)The .
slavecould even marry the daughter of the house ( I Ch. 2 34/:),
himself to a foreigner was hardly conceivable. T h e and, failing a son, becoine the heir (Gen. 15 2 3 : ) .
foreigners in the land were few, and were themselves In the last resort this favourable position of slaves
in a position more closely approaching that of the slave arose from the fact that as members of the family they
than that of the freeman (see L A W A N D JUTSTICE, were admitted to the family worship. T o the ancient
5 146). Since the exile, however, a large non-Jewish view this came as a matter of course. The slave could
population had settled in Judaea, and, to the great not have his own worship, his own god ; as housemate
niortification of the Jews, had attained a position of he must necessarily participate in the worship of the
wealth and prosperity in marked contrast with that master of the house. So Eliezer prays to the God of
of the poor returning exiles. his master Abraham' (Gen. 2412. etc.). T h e Priestly
I n so far as these laws are bound up with the idea of Code expressly demands the circumcision of slaves
a year of jubilee they of course were never carried into ( P n . 1712). This, too, must have been in ancient
practical effect any more than the year itself was oh- times a matter of course. Otherwise the alien slave
served. But the idea underlying them nevertheless would have been a continual source of religious pollution
gained the upper hand ; the idea, namely, that for an for the whole house. This also is the tacit presupposi-
Israelite to own his brother Israelite as a slave is irre- tion of Deuteronomy when in its humane concern for
concilable with the essential nature of the theocracy. the slave it requires that he be allowed to participate in
The poor who had sunk to such a degree of poverty sacrifice and feast (1218 1611). T h e non-Israelite, the
realised the ignominy of such a position as they had uncircumcised person, could not possihly be admittecl
never done before ; essentially they knew themselves to a share in the sacrificial meal. The slave, being
the equals of their rich brethren and the possessors of admitted to the family worship, becomes (in the earliest
equal privileges. When in Nehemiah's day the severe times when ancestor-worship comes in) capable of con-
stress of the times had compelled numbers of the poorer tinuing this worship and thus of inheriting (see above).
people to pledge themselves and their children to their It is in this standing which the slave enjoys as a co-reli-
richer brethren to save themselves from starvation, the gionist and fellow-worshipper that the most powerful
situation was shocking to them, and they turned to possible motive is found for his master to treat him with
Nehemiah. Nehemiah took their part, censured the kindness and fatherly care, just as to-day, in Islam,
nobles and wealthier classes for their impiety, and slaves as fellow-believers are treated with all humane-
succeeded in inducing them to free their poor brethren ness. T h e brotherhood in the faith in Islam now, as
from their mortgages (Neh. 5 13). This fundamental in Israel of old, is not, as unfortunately it has come to
principle-that no Jew can ever be a slave-was taken be in the Christian world, a mere empty phrase, but a
over by the later Talmudic law ; even the thief, who very real force.
had been sold for his crime, was not to be regarded as a See, besides the handbooks of Hebrew archeology, Michaelis,
slave (see Winter, up. cit. IO$). And when themanifold 240s. Rcrht, 0 127J ; Saalschiitz, Das mosnische Rerht, 2 2 9 8 ;
wars of Seleucids and Ptolemies again and again reduced the articles on slavery in Winer, Schenkel,
multitudes of Jews to slavery under heathen masters, 7. Bibliography. Riehm, Herzog-Plitt, Guthe : the mono-
graphs by Mielziner (Die VcrhziZtnisseder
their redemption was regarded as a sacred duty and a SKZamtl deei den alten NcbrEem ,859) Mandl (Das SkZanen-
nieritorious service ( I Macc. 3 4 1 z Macc. 811). rechl des A 7' 1886) Griinfeld (hie ShZZung der SKZawen bet'
The same legal principles apply substantially to the Israelite den /u&n A h 6 i d . n. taZmud. QueiZen 1886) Winter (Die
female slave ; but in the older period the release at the end of Stellu~ dy~ SkZauen dei d m / d n ' in &htZichw u.
the sevenyearscould notapply, thewoman being hermaster'scon- geselisc flZzc/Ier Beziehunx nuch falin. QueiZen, 1886).
cubine. If an Israelite girl was sold b her father to a master- I. B.
which of course happened only when ge w a s unable to sell her SLEEVE (DB),Gen. 37 3 8 2 S. 13 18 R V W See
t n a husband-the purchaser was bound to treat her,as his wife in
respect of 'food and raiment and duty of marriage. If he failed T UNIC , g I.
in any of these respects he had to set her at liberty for nothing.
If the urchaser did no; desire to many her at all he could give
SLIlU (pn, ACC$AATOC'; in Ex &cC$AATO-
her t o g i s son as concubine. If, however, he did not wish this n l c c a ) . hCmdr, as distinguished from &fwcer, 'mortar,
either, then he could sell her only to a purchaser who wished clay,' always denotes the raw material, RVmg. correctly
her for a concubine, not to a foreigner; but, holding this ' bitumen ' (Gen. 113 14 IO [where Var. Bib. suggests
osition, she could not become a freewoman in the seventh year. ' naphtha '1, Ex. 23t [see PITCH]). On the philology of
h o t till we reach the time of D do we find the privilege of relea-e
in the seventh year claimed for her with the option of voluntarily the two termssee Fraenkel, Auan. F~emdw.161,a n d o n
remaining in slavery. It appears that in the time of D the the biblical passages cited, see B ABEL [TOWER OF].
ancient custom according to which the female slave had the SODOM A N D G OMORRAH , and MOSES, § 3 (col. 3207),
position of concuhine no longer prevailed. According to
'l'almudic decisions a wife can never be sold as a slave : but the respectively, and cp generally B ABYLONIA , 5 15 ; B ITU-
father had the right to sell his daughter as long as she was under MEN ; C LAY ; D EAD S EA , $j6 ; M ORTER .
marriageable age (cp Winter, o j . cit.). SLING. Two Hebrew words have been so rendered.
From what has been said it will be manifest that the I . v>?, kdki, u+v86y [mrp0,46Aor in Job41 zol,fu&; I S.
lot of slaves, in its legal aspects, was not specially 174050 25 29 2 Ch. 26 14 Job 41 10 Zech. 9 15 Ecclus. 474.
hard, and custom, even if in various 2. X xp, maT2imih, u4ev66vq. Prov. 268t, AV and RVms
6. respects often coming short of the law, (RV 'heap of stones'; so Frankenberg). 'The least im-
in other important respects demanded more. From probable translation is that of AV ' (Toy, ad lor.) ; but the sense
everything that we read about slaves we gather that they of ' sling ' seems incapable of proof. Like n ~ ]ini Ps. 68 28 the
were treated as members of the family, and that the word is probably corrupt.
head cared for their well-being a s for that of his own 3. ~+evS6vq, r Macc. 651 ('instruments for casting fire and
stones, and pieces to cast darts and slings 7. See SIEGEg 4.
children. The whole manner of their relations with [In I S. 14 146 the text of which in MT i s corrupt (as H refer-
their masters shows that they were treated, not as ence to .4V an$ RV will suggest), 6 introduces a mention of
dumb, driven creatures, but as men with minds of their 'pehhles,' apparently meaning sling stones. The words are ( v
BaAiur K a i I& rrerpoS6Aorr rai ?VI r 6 ~ A a & v mii ar6lav. For
own which they were free to express.
Saul is indebted to his slave for his information about Samuel n?k?'mr @ seems to have read 'p??, 'and with flints (of
the seer and his importance and it is his slave who lends him the plain).' But this does not at all suit. 'We must look further.
the prophet's fee ( I S. 963): I t is J. slave who advises Abigail There are many parallels for this correction of ;na'Inx (RV 'in
~~

that the law knows nothing of a xelease in the seventh year. 1 Derivation unknown. Possibly Semitic, though the sng-
Otherwise the reckoning would have to refer to the seventh year gested connection with the root found in the Heb. f+hl, 'be-
RISO,and not merely to the year of Jubilee. smear,' does not commend itself.
4657 4658
SLING SMYRNA
an acre of land’; cp ACRE), into 2 9 : , ‘the garrison’ (see SLUICE (lgy),
Is. 1910 AV, after Tg. Most
D. 15). The scribe first wrote 2x13, and then, having omitted the moderns render, ‘ all those who work f o r hire (la@) will
article, wrote it again more correctly ~ m n .Out of >xn,i 2fi13, be grieved ( m ~cp, POOL, I ) in soul.’ So virtually RV.
by transposition and corruption, n i w i n y arose: ‘ Pebbles’
(KdxAaf) also appears in I Macc. 10 73 ; slingers, It is implied,
would find a lack of sling-stones in the Philistian plain (cp SMITH. I. ~ T Q ;see HANDICRAFTS, 5 I ; cp
FLINT).-T. K. c.] CHARASHIM.
From its simplicity, it might have been inferred that 2. l p ,mas@; z K.24 I 16 Jer. 24 I 29 Z , everywhere il d l n
the sling (ysp), an improvement upon the simple act of ( I . aboGe).
throwing stones,’ was one of the earliest forms of SMYRNA ( C M Y P N ~W H , ZM. Ti, Rev. 1 1 1 ; k
weapon. It is not surprising, therefore, to find that Z p b p v g , Rev. 2 8).1Smyrna is avery ancient town ; its
it was employed in quite remote times by shepherds history falls into two distinct periods,
as a protection against wild animals, by agriculturists of
1. old city. associated with two distinct sites. Old
to drive away birds (Wilk. Anc. E g . 1381). and also by Smyrna (3 IraXard Z p G p v a , Strabo, 646 ;
hunters (Dennis, Cities and Cemeteries of Btrui-ia, 1 312 cp Paus. vii. 51)stood at the NE. corner of the bay
[ 1 8 7 8 ] ) ,and by the light-armed soldier in warfare (z’bid. under Mt. Sipylos above the alluvial plain of the mod.
1210; for the Arabians cp Doughty, A r . Des. 2176). B u ~ n a 6 u t . It was said to have been built by the
In Palestine the shepherd carried a sling, in addition to Amazons (Strabo, 550). in whom we may trace a
his staff, and a bag to hold his smooth stone bullets tradition of the Hittite occupation of Lydia. T o them
( I S. 1740) ; and the Benjamite warriors are supposed also was ascribed the foundation of Ephesus, Cyme, and
to have been renowned for their effective use of this Myrina.a
weapon, employing it as well with the left hand as The Amazons were primarily the priestesses of that Asiatic
with the right (cp Judg. 2016 I Ch. 122). In Judith nature-goddess whose worship the Hittites introduced into
western Asia Minor (see EPHESUS DIANA). Upon the arrival
97 it is mentioned as one of the weapons in which the of the Greeks in Asia Minor thk town was occupied by the
Assyrians trusted. northern section, who are called the A3olians ; but the Colo-
W e possess illustrations of the sling from Egypt, from phonians seized it by treachery, and thenceforth it ranked as an
Assyria (Layard. Nineveh [1852], 3 3 2 ) , and from Ionic city (Herod. 1150). Its position gave it the command of
the trade of the valley of the Hermus which flows into its gulf,
Rome. The Egyptian slinger is in the act of throwing and made it the most powerful rival of the Lydian capital,
(Wilk. 1210). The sling is made of a plaited thong,2 Sardis, which lay on the middle Hermus, about 54 R. m. to the
the centre being broad enough to form a receptacle (12, East. Hence a primary object of the policy of the Lydian
dynasty of the Mermnadae was to make themselves masters of
kaph, I S.2529) for the s t o ~ e . One ~ end seems to be Smyrna and the other Greek towns on the coast (see LYDIA).
attached to the hand, the other being simply held ; the Smyrna successfully resisted the attack of Gyges
part of the sling in which the stone is lodged is loosely (Paus. iv. 215 ix. 2 9 z ) , but succumbed to that of
supported by the other hand. T h e sling is swung over Alyattes (about 580 B.C. ; Herod. 116). Smyrna was
the head (cp Ecclus. 474), apparently with some such destroyed, and its inhabitants dispersed in villages ; ‘ it
motion as in bowling, the loose end flying into the air. was organised on the native Anatolian village system,
T h e stones are carried in a bag which hangs from the not as a Greek s b h r s ’ (Rams. Hist. Geog. A M 6 2 , n. ; cp
shoulder. I n the illustration from Rome the sling Strabo, 646, A u S G v S.? K a r a u a a u d v r o v r+v Z p d p v a u
( f u n d a )seems to be of the same kind (see Rich, Dirt. HEpi TffpaKbura &Lr?] &ET&cJEV O l K O U ~ V L r ? ] KWpLr?]66V).
under ‘ funda ’ ) ; but only one hand is employed, whilst T h e trade of Smyrna was taken over by Phocaea, which,
the stones are held in a fold of the slinger’s mantle by like the other Greek towns, was absorbed in the Lydian
the other.4 T h e slingers seem to have worn, as a rule,5 empire ; when Phocaea in its turn was destroyed hy the
no armour, and to have carried no other weapons Persians, Epliesus became the chief commercial city in
(Erman, Anc. Eg. 524 ; cp Rich, under ‘ Funditores ’). this region. Some of the extant early electrum or gold
-4. Lang (Homer and the Epic, 3 7 5 J ) explains why coins with the lion type, usually classed as issued by
there are so few references to the sling in Homer Sardis, may really be mementoes of the early com-
(see ZZ.13599 716) by the remark that Homer ‘ scarcely mercial greatness of Smyrna (so Rams. op. cit. 62).
ever speaks at all of the equipment of the light-armed Alexander the Great, warned, it is said, by a vision
crowd’ ; the sling ‘ was the weapon of the unarmed (Paus. vii. S I ) , conceived the design of restoring Smyrna
masses, as of David in Israel.’ This design was actually
2. The new city. as a,city.
The sling is still used in Syria, in Egypt, and in Arabia. You carried into effect by his successors
may still come upon young Syrian shepherds practising with their Antigonus and Lysimachus ; the earliest undoubtedly
slings (see e.g. Harper, In Scriptere Lands, 140); Doughty Smyrnzan coins are in fact tetradrachnis of Lysimachus,
speaks of brad boys ‘armed as it were against some savage
beast with slings in their hands’ (Ar. Des. 1432). hut Thomson bearing the turreted head of Cybele with whose worship
(Land and Book [r8g4], 572) only saw it used at Hzsheiya, on Smyrna was always prominently associated. New
Mount Hermon, by boys In ‘mimic warfare.’ Smyrna thus arose, nearly three hundred years after its
It was long in use among Europeans too even the simplest
form of it (see above) surviving. T h k i; was used by the destruction. The new site, about three miles (Strabo,
Anglo-Saxons, though ‘whether for warfare or the chase alone, 6 3 4 , m p l E ~ K O U Iu r a 6 i o u r ) S. ot the old site. was on the
it is not easy to determine’ (Hewitt, Ancient A m o u r in shore of the gulf, at the foot of Mount Pagos, the last
Europe, 158J, fig. on p. 59). Hewitt also gives later instances western member of that chain of hills which, under
(1 156; see the interesting plates, xxvii. 1. 11.); it was used in
battle as late as the sixteenth century (3605). M . A. c. various names (Olympus, Tmolus), divides the valley
of the Hermus from that of the Cayster. The natural
1 Still skilfully exercised by the Arabs (Doughty A r . Des. beauty of the mountain-girt plain was remarked by the
2 238402) as it was amongst the N. American Indians (School- ancients3
craft, as huoted in Keller, Luke Dwellings [ET], 1141; ‘ there The architecture of the city was worthy of its setting.
is evidence to show that, as an amusement, it was “very The streets were laid out in straight lines at right angles
common amongst the ancient races”’). The practice seems to
have continued, even among the Romans, in addition to the
other ; the accensi, as distinguished from the fundifores threw 1 2pJpvav is read in the ‘western ’ text for Mdppa in Acts 27 5
the stones with their hands (see Rich, Dict. under ‘)Fundi- in D. The more ancient form of the name, down to the end of
tores ’). Trajan, was Zpdpva or ‘ I p d p v a ; later it was written in the
2 Slings were also made of ‘twisted hair, sometimes human familiar form 2pdpva (Cfidpva). See the coins, and cp Furneaux,
hair‘ (Schliemann Zlios, 437 [r880]). note on Tac. Ann. 363.
3 Cp Keller, LLke DweZZings [ET] 1141, ‘broader in the 2 The part of Ephesus which owed its foundation to the
middle in order to keep the projectile ds in a hood or cap.’ Amazons was called Samoma or Smyrna (Strabo, 6 3 3 J ) . And
4 ‘ Like the bow, the sling gained its real importance after th: Myrina is evidently the same word, initial Z being lost, a s in
Carthaginian wars, owing to the skill of the Balearic allies prxpds for u p ~ x p d s(Sayce on Herod. 1 13).
(F. Haeffer, The Lzye of the Greeks and Romam [ET], 574s). 3 Pliny, HN5 31 ‘montes A s k nobllissimi in hoc tractqfere
5 There were, no donbt, exceptions. Cp F. Haeffer, The esplicant se’ ; Strabo, 646, r d h h q T&V rrau&v, p k p o ~p w TL
LzYe of the GreeRs and Romans [ET], 574f: i p v u a irr’ ; ) p a ~rrer,ytupdvov,x.T.A.

4659 4660
SMYRNA SNAIL
to one another, after the system of Hippodamus of Miletus were called ‘OpjpeLa (Strabo, 646) and perhaps reproduced
who had so laid out Thurii (443 B.C.) and the P i r d some statue in the Honterium. 1: addition to the worship of
for Pericles (for the ‘IrrnoSapros rpinas see Aristot. Poi. the Sipylene Mother (Cybele) to which the epithet ZmvAvvrj on
4 (7) II = 1330 6, 21 A). Extending from the temple of certain coins reiers, the cult of the Nemeses was largely
Cyhele, the ‘Golden Street’ ran right across thF city to the practised in Smyrna, and on some coins are seen figures of two
opposite temple of ‘Zeus upon the Heights. The only Nemeses appearing in a vision to Alexander and charging him
drawback was that, being unprovided with drains, the streets to restore the city (Paus. vit 5 .A). The Griffin, a frequent
were sometimes flooded by storm-water (Strabo, 646). Many Smyrnaean type, symholises this worship, Just a5 the Lion
temples (those of Cybele Zeus the Nemeses Apollo Asklepios symholises that of Cybele.
and Aphrodite Stratonjkis ;ere the chiif) a dadium a; Points of contact between the above and the address
Odeum, a Public Library an Homeriunz dedkated to Hm : er
a Theatre (one of the ]&est in Asia Minor), and several two! in Rev. 28f: are not very obvious, though not entirely
storied Stoai (Strabo, I.c. uroal peya’har rc.rplywvor, &irrcSoi Probably many phrases would
re ~ i8 mi p i ) o c ) made Smyrna one of the most magnificent cities 3. NT refer- wanting.
fall upon the ears of those for whom the
of the Eat.’ Few remains of this ancient splendour survive.
Smyrna also possessed a good harbour, which could be closed message \vas intended, with a force which
(Strxbo, I.c. A L ~ +K A P L V T ~ F ) . Apart from the prosperity arising is now quite lost. Especially may this have been the
from the fact that the hulk of the trade of the Hermus valley case a t Smyrna, where much importance was attached to
passed through its port, the territory of Smyrna was very fertile a method of divination from chance phrases (Pans.
and produced much -:le.
T h e people of New Smyrna were gifted with political ix. 1 1 7 , ‘ divination by means of voices .. . is, to my
sagacity which stood them in good stead in dealing with knowledge, more employed by the people of Smyrna
the Seleucids and afterwards with the Romans. The than by any other such people’). Outside the walls
decree is still extant (243 B.C.) in which mention is there was a ‘ sanctuary of voices.‘ It has been sug-
made of the temple of Aphrodite Stratonikis. which was gested, therefore, that the words with which the message
(by a sort of false etymology or play upon words) opens would come with peculiar force to those who
associated with the honour paid by the Smyrnzeans to perhaps had heard similar phrases in the pagan mysteries.
Stratonice, wife of Xntiochus I. (see CZG 3137=Hicks. Similarly, the phrase ‘crown of life’ (a.IO, T ~ Va r t ! ~ a v o v
M~znrral.no. 176). In return, Seleucus 11. declared 79s {w+) must inevitably have suggested or have been
both the temple and the city to have rights of asylum. suggested by a prominent feature of life a t Smyrna-
By this pronouncement the city was removed from his the public Games (cp Paus. vi. 143J for a striking in-
jurisdiction and probably exempted from the necessity cident occurring a t one of the celebrations held at
of providing troops or of receiving his garrisons (see Smyrna, in 68 A . D . ) . I t was on such an occasion
Holm, Gt. Hist., E T , 4449). During the war with that the Asiarch Philippus was forced by popular clamour
Antiochus the Great the Sniyrnsans embraced the to doom the aged Polycarp to death (155 A. D. ). The
Roman cause and were, upon its conclusion, granted Games were characteristic of pagan life, and socially,
the privileges of a civitas (sinefedere) libera et immunis though not politically, they would serve as an effective
for their loyalty (cp Polyb. 2148 and CZG 3202, 3204f. ). touchstone of sentiment. T h e fact that on the occasion
When the Romans finally occupied Asia, Smyrna became the of Polycarp’s martyrdom the Jews also took part in
centre of a conventusjuridicus which embraced the region from accusing him of enmity to the state religion, is strikingly
Myrina to Teos and the skirts of Mount Sipylos as far as in accord with the words of Rev.29, where the Jews
Magnesia (Pliny, “531 ; Cic. Pro Fhcc. 29). In the war
with Mithridates it retained its loyal attitude (cp Tac. Ann. 4 56). of Smyrna are called ‘ a synagogue of Satan.’ ‘ H e
The sole exception to the course of rosperity arose when that ovrrcometh’ must also be used with reference to
Trebonius, one of Cresar’s murderers, toof refuge within its walls the gymnastic and other contests familiar to the Smyr-
and was besieged by Dolabella, who finally captured the city nreans. I t would, however, probably be a mistake to
and put Trebonius to death (Strabo, 646; Dio Cas. 4729 Cic.
Phil. 11 2 ) . confine the suggestiveness of the phraseology too
According to Tacitus (Ann. 456),the Smyrnaeans had, narrowly.
as early as the consulship of Marcus Porcius Cato (195 The ‘crown of life,’ for example, may also have associations
B.c.), erected a temple dedicated to Roma. On the connected with the complimentary crown bestowed upon
municipal and other officialsfor good service. It is also note-
ground of their constant loyalty, and this display of it, worthy that many Smyrnrean coins show a wreath or crown
they made claim before Tiberius in 26 A . D . to the within which is the Lion symbol, or a magistrate’s name or
privilege of erecting a temple to the emperor. Out of monogram (see illustration in Head, Hist. Numm. .jog). This
emblem also might enter into the complex associations of the
the list of the contending Asiatic cities Sardis and words, which it is the task of historical imagination to revivify.
Smyrna were preferred, and Smyrna won the day (see Smyma, now Istnir, is the commercial capital of Turkey.
N ~ o c o ~ o s )There . is estant a Smyrnzean coin bearing Plan, with very full account of ancient remains and modern
on the obverse a figure of Tiberius in the centre of a town, in Murray’s Handbook of Asia Minor, 7 0 3 Fur the
older Smyma, see Curtius, Beitr. z. Gesch. und Topographi#
temple, with the inscription X e ~ a u r b sT+?&pros (Eckh. Kleinasiens, Berl. 1872. W.J. W.
2547).
I t is not surprising to find, therefore, that, Asia Minor SNAIL occurs twice in the OT as the translation of
being under the Empire the paradise of municipal two terms.
vanity’ (Mommsen, R G 5302). Smyrna vied with its I. D<>h, &&#e; (Lev. 11 30), where, however, some kind of
neighbours in the accumulation and assertion of empty L IZ A R D (q.v.) is meant (RV ‘sand-lizard’).
titles. Like Sardis, Pergamos, and other cities (see 2 . %?@, fabbZIZiZ (Ps. 588 [g]), a word of uncertain
Momms.-Marq. R6m. Stuutsve~w.1343), she held the etymology, which is found in the Targ. under the form
title of metropolis.
Her great rival in this respect was Ephesos, who enjoyed the N%YF The rendering ‘ snail ’ is probable and is sup-
high-sounding titles rrp6,q rrau2v K a i p y l u q , and c q r p 6 m A ~ s ported by the Talm. Shabbath, 7 7 b , where Rashi, in
n j s ’Aulas. What exactly the possession of the title rrpJn) his commentary, explains it by Nmuce. Ewald, with
implied that the mutual strife for this ‘primacy’ (rrporr2a) less probability, follows 65 and Vg. ( q p b s . cera) and
should have been so keen (cp Aristides, Or. 1771, Dind. ; Dio
Chrys. Or. 2 148 R.) is not certainly known ; but probably it was renders ‘melted was.’ Some land snail is probably
connected with the question of precedence at the games of the referred to, and the allusion to its melting away may
r o t & ’Aulas (see ASIAPCH). The strife between Smyrna and have reference to the trail of slime which the mollusc
Ephesus continued until the emperor Antoninus settled the
dispute (Philostr. Op., ed. Kayser, p. 23124, cal drrrjh0fv
++va r i rrpwrrza vrxiua).
+ leaves behind it as it crawls, or may refer to the retire-
ment of these animals into cracks and crevices, where
Thc coinage of Smyrna richly illustrates the above points. they are no more seen, at the approach of the dry
From the time of its ruin by Alyattes to that of its restoration, season. The land and freshwater mollusca of Syria
there wa4 of course no issue of coins. The usual silver coins of
Roman Asia, the Cisfo&wi, in the case of Smyrna bear the are fairly numerous and varied, and it is interesting to
legend ZMVP, with the head of Cyhele as a symhol. The im- note that the Dead Sea contains no molluscs, whilst the
perial coins bear the honorary titles N C W K ~; npJrou
~ W V ’Aulas, sea of Tiberias has a rich molluscan fauna. Bliss ( A
or r r p i ~ w v’Aslas y’ v c w d p w v r& ue@aur&w& M e r r a i peyL08rr
(the third Neocorate here asserted begins towar65 the end of MmmZ of Muny Cities, 1 1 0 ) found a quantity of snail
Sept. Severus). Certain coins bearing a figure of Homer seated shells ; ‘ snails had doubtless been used for food.’ [A
149 4661 4662
SNARE so
strong protest is raised against the prevalent view of the passage records the slaying of two Jerahmeelites ($N~N,x+
text of this passage by Cheyne, Ps.W.1 In Maacath-‘arab-i.e., Arabian Maacath, on the day (*.e.,
famous battle) of Ishmael. See Crit. Bib.
A. E. S.-S. A. C.
South of Hebron snow is rare, and along the sea-
SNARE. For t&b,rncikt1; nB, pa&; $7, Fbhel; board of Philistia and Sharon, as well as in the Jordan
also fJp6xos (= nrb&G) and rayk (=ma@; and $a&),see FOWL, valley, it is altogether unknown. In Jerusalem it is to
5 9. For ”$lXp, m Z p d Z h , see NET, 4, and for mx?, @&zh be seen in the streets two winters in three ; but it soon
(Job 18s AV), see NET, 5. For nns,jLt&aU (Lam.347 AV), disappears. Very snowy winters. however, do occur.
Cp PIT, 7. In the winter of 1857 the snow was 8 inches deep and covered
SNOW (2$@, Meg; Bib.-ham. I$?, Mug; Ass. the eastern plains for a fortnight. The results were disastrous1
Nearly a fourth of the houses of Damascus were injured and
Ad,,u; X I W N ) . Like rain and hail, the snow was tradi- some of the flat-roofed bazaars and mosques were left in Leaps
tionally supposed to be kept in store-chambers in the of ruins. The winter of 1879 was still more remarkable; 17
sky (Job3822). It is at God‘s command that it falls inches of snow, even where there was no drift, are recorded.2
(Job376 Ecclus.4313); it is he who ‘plucks out snow T. K. c.
like wool’ (Ps. 14716, read pnh). Its sure effect in
SNUFFDISHES (ninnQ),Ex. 2538 etc. See C EN -
fertilising the ground supplies a figure for the certainty
SER, 2 ; CANDLESTICK. 5 2.
of prophecy (Is. 55 IO$) ; its brilliant whiteness, for the SNUFFERS. I. nhplp (JlDl, ‘ t o pluck’?),
clear complexion of those exempt from agricultural toil m&ummZrdtk I K 7 50 2 K. 12 13[14] 25 14 Jer. 52 1s 2 Ch.
(Lam. 47), for a conscience free from the sense of guilt 4zzt, c CA~DLESTICK, 5 2.
(Ps. 517[9] Is. 1IS), for the appearance of lepers (Ex. 2. O;lJ&,meZka&kyim,Ex.3’123. RV ‘tongs.’ See TONGS,
46 Nn.12ro zK.527),for the shining raiment (Dan. C ANDLESTICK, $3 z ;C OOKING, 9 4.
79) and hair (Rev. 114) of a heavenly or divine being. so (Hib ; cHrmp [B], C W A [A], on bLsee below ;
No less than five references to snow occur in the Book Vg. Sun). I n 2 K . 174 we read a the king of Assyria
of Job. In describing the treachery of his friends, Job found conspiracy in Hoshea, for he had sent messengers
refers to the ice and snow which help to swell the to So, king of Egypt.’ This happened in, or directly
streams from the mountains in spring (Job 6 16) ; and before, 725 B.c. Egyptologists formerly lookcd to the
twice again he refers to the snow water (930 2419 [not first two names of the Ethiopian or twenty-fifth dynasty
in a]). of Egypt, Shabaka or his successor Shabataka. In ac-
The phrase ‘it snowed on Zalmon’ (so Driver, Par. Ps.)in cordance with an erroneous chronology, that dynasty
Ps.G514[15]ispuzzEng; we should haveexpected‘onHermon.’ was believed to have begun in 728,and the conquest
Appearances point strongly to the view that the passage is cor-
rupt. See Z ALMON. of Egypt and Hoshea’s embassy seemed to coincide
A beautiful proverb (Prov. 25 13) reminds us how veryremarkably.s In the first place, however, the names
enduring Oriental customs are. of S/tubo(or bi)ku (Sabnku in cuneiform transcription,
Like the cooling of snow [in a drink] in time of harvest, S a b a k h in Herod 2 137, and in Manetho) or Shnba
Is a trustworthy messenger to him who has sent him; (or 6i)tuku (Sebichos, Manetho) could not satisfactorily
H e refreshes the soul of his lord. be compared with So, which would have been an
One could think that this proverb had been written unparalleled mutilation, not to mention the insuperable
in Damascus; sherbet cooled with snow was hardly difficulty of Egyptian 6 as Semitic s. In the second
a summer drink at Jerusalem. Indeed, ‘snow’ and place the chronology must now be considered impossible.
‘ summer ’ to an ordinary citizen of Jerusalem suggested W e know, as the only firm point for the chronology of
incongruous ideas (see Prov. 261, 6 6p6uor). Jeremiah the Ethiopian kings, that Tirhaka-Tah(a)rl:B died in
refers to the eternal snows of Lebanon (Jer. 18 14 ; see 668/67and that his successor (Tandamani) was expelled
SIRION). and in the eulogy of the pattern woman it is from Egypt during the following year. Manetho gives
said (Prov. 3121 2, that she needs not to be afraid even to the first three Ethiopian kings, 40 (Africanus) or 44
of ‘snow’ ( i e . , of the coldest days of winter) for her years (Syncellus), Herodotus 50 years to the only
hoiisehold because ‘ they are clothed with scarlet ’ (or, Ethiopian king whom he knows, Diodorus 36 years to
‘with double clothing’ ; see COLOURS,5 14). I n a all four kings. T h e monuments insure 12+26 (not
famous passage ( z S.2 3 2 0 I~ Ch. 1122) Benaiah, the son more) + 3 f3 (alleged, and not counted) years to the
of Jehoiada, is said to have slain, not only two lion-like dynasty. T h e maximum for the beginning of the
men of Moab (so AV) and a ‘goodly’ Misrite (see Ethiopian family in Egypt would thus be 712 ; probably
MIZRAIM, 2 6, col. 3164), but also ‘ a lion in the it is rather to be assumed some years later (about 709 ?).
midst of a pit in time of snow.’ Why the snow is Consequently, Samaria had been destroyed and Hoshea
referred to, however, is not clear. An old French had perished before the Ethiopians conquered Egypt.
Hebraist (Vatable in Cril. Sac. 22462) says it is because As kings of Ethiopia alone, they could not come into
lions are strongest in the winter. T h e Hebrew, consideration for Syrian politics. Winckler ( M V AG,
however, has not ‘in time of snow,’ hut ’ i n the 1898,p. 29) has made it probable that Shabaka, the
on some one day on which Ethiopian conqueror of Egypt, lived in peace with As-
heavy snow had fallen.’3 Such a snowfall might be Syria, exchanging presents with Sennacherih. Further-
mentioned as something remarkable from its rarity. I n more, we should expect the title ‘ king of Kush-Ethiopia’
I Macc. 1322 we read of ‘ a very great snow’ which in the case of the alleged .Ethiopian ruler, or Pharaoh
hindered the movements of Trypho, the opponent of in the case of a true Egyptian prince.
Jonathan and Simon the Maccabees. It is conceivable The cuneiform inscriptions of Sargon tell us of S i r e ,
that a lion ‘ h a d strayed up the Judzean hills from a turtanu-Le., general or viceroy-of Pir’u, king of
Jordan, and had been caught in a sudden snowstom.’ Mugri, who vainly assisted the rebellion of Hanunu of
(GASm. HG65), and that Benaiah went down into the Gaza against rZssyria and suffered a complete defeat at
cistern into which the animal had fallen and killed it ; Raphia (Rnpiki)in 720 by Sargon. W e see from the
but the passage is full of textual errors. cuneiform orthography that the biblical form So ought
Flostermann and Budde read thus (cp ARIEL)- to be vocalised Scwe or, better still, that the w is a
The same (Benaiah) slew two youn lions near their lair;4 corruption for b and the original reading was Sib’e.
he also went down and slew t+ (paren3 lion in the midst of the
pit on the day of the snow. More probably, however, the Winckler’s first suggestion of the possibility that this
S i b e was not a petty Egyptian prince hut a Musrite, a
1 Cp Geikie, The Ho& L a n d and U e Bible,1 124.
2 @B, however has no mention of snow. 1J L. Porter(Kitt0 Cyc. Bi6. Lit‘ S399).
3 H. P. Smith ’gives the very improbable sense, ‘He used to 9 Geikie The Holy Land and the Eibie 2 5s.
go down (12) and smite the lions in the pit on snowy days.’ 3 The piesent writer was still under this impressioii when pre-
4 oFiCG-5.5r! ’y; -:a (KIO., BU.).
paring the article EGYPT (8 66 a). Wiedemann (Gesck, Aeg-. 587)
compared So with the fabulous Sethih of Herodotus.
4663 4664
SOAP SODOM AND GOMORRAH
representative of the king Pir'u (not Pharaoh) of Musri / [BL], EiuoYXw [A], Jos. Ant. vi. 9 I UWKOUP). Socoh
-Le., Northern Arabia-was in A O F 126(cp GZ 1170) ; was fortified by Rehoboam ( z Ch. 117 Shoco AV,
in MG'AG, 1898,pt. i., he finally treated it as certain 1 UOKXWO [BA], U O K X W [L], owxw [Jos. Ant. viii. 10 I ]),
(see now KA TP) 146). The correctness of this view is but. according to the Chronicler. was taken bv the Philis-
evident (cp HOSHEA,col. 2127). although the old, tines inthe regnof Ahaz ( z C h . i 8 18[Shocho k V , U O K X & ~
iiiipossible theory (see above) is still frequently found [L]). T h e site intended is no doubt esh-Shuweikeh (as
repeated. if a diminutive form of nji&1). T h e ruins which bear this
Very remarkable is the form of 2 K. l f 4 in bL, which name occupy a strong position (I 145 ft. above the sea
substitutes ior S o , Adramelech, the Ethiopian, residing level) on the S. side of the great valley of Elah (see ELAH,
in Egypt ( ' A 8 p a p X q rbv A l e h a rbu KaroiKodvra ?v V ALLEY OF),a t the pointwhere the WEdyeS-SClr becomes
Aiydrry). Seductive as this piece of information looks theWZdyes-Sant(cpGASm. H G z 2 8 8 ; Che. Aids, 85).
--only the name Adramelech could never be treated as Perhaps this Socoh was the birthplace of the Antigonus
an Egyptian or Ethiopian name-it is shown by the who came after Simon the Righteous and preached dis-
data of the cuneiform inscriptions to be an exegetical interested obedience ( P i r g A-bGth, 13. i ~ r o W*N 011ru31).
addition, quite in harmony with the paraphrastic char- The gentilic is plausibly found in the ' Sucathites '
acter of @ which presents such an analogy to the (Socathites) of I Ch. 2 5 5 ; see JABEL.
Targum. It is quite remarkable that the Jewish [The trend of the present writer's criticism, however, is to show
scholars who inserted this addition knew enough about that the geography of the OT narratives has often been mis-
understood and consequently misrepresented by the redactors
the history of Egypt to think of that Ethiopian dynasty spoken of above. Saul's struggle with the archenemies of his
(the date of which they, like modern Egyptologists, put people (the Zarephathites, miscalled the Philistines : see S AUL
too high, see above) and to conclude that an Egyptian B 4c) was in the Negeh. The fight described in IS. 17 was i;
the valley(?)of Jerahmeel (';me& hn'-'iZ*h, and 'e;dkes daamnziaz)
ally of Israel could have been only a governor under near Maacah-' which belongs to Jemhmeel '-and Azekah. A
the king, residing in remote Napata. This imperfect Socoh or perhaps rather Maacah in the Negeb was probably
(cp the &ate and the impossible name Adramelech) mean; in the other passages refirred to above as they were
knowledge cannot be accepted, however, as historical originally read. The Suwthites too ( I Ch. 255; should rather
be designated the ' hfaacathites. See SHABBETHAI.
evidence outweighing the direct testimony of the monu- T. K. C . ]
ments. [See further Crit. Bib.] W. M. M. 2. A second town of this name is grouped with
SOAP, or SOPE, in modern language, means a Shamir, Jattir, etc., in the mountain district of Judah
compound of certain fatty acids with soda or potash, (Josh. 1 5 4 8 uwxa [B]). and is identified with another esh-
the potash forming the 'soft,' the soda the ' hard' Shuweikeh, situated IO m. SW. of Hebron and E. of
soaps of commerce. Soap is believed to have been in- the WEdy el-Khalil ( B K 2 1 9 5 ) . According to the
vented by the Gauls, and became known to the Romans ordinary view of the sphere of action of Solomon's
a t a comparatively late date. Pliny s a y s j t en sebo et twelve prefects (see, however, SOLOMON, 6, note I)
cinere, and that the best is prepared from goat-tallow this is probably the Socoh which formed part of the
and the ashes of the beech-tree. A soap-boiling estab- prefecture of B ENHESED [q.v.] ( I K. 410 RV, AV
lishment with soap in a good state of preservation has Sochoh, u o ~ h w[A], uopLqvXara [KAL] ? uapLqvXa [R],
been excavated at Pompeii. apLqxa [L ?I).
The Egypt. sa-u-kci,Sir-o-kb in the list of SoSenk can hardly he
The word ' soap ' is used in EV to translate the Heb.
identified with either of the above. From its position in this
65rith (n'?Z, a derivation of &TI, cp 12, ' cleanness ') list a more northerly situation seems necessary (cp WMM
'
in two passages (Jer. 2 2 2 Mal. 3 z t ) which allude to the As. u. Bur. r b o f : 166).
cleansing of the person and of fabrics respectively. It SODA (lna), Prov. 2 5 ~ 0RVmg., E V N ITRE ( q . ~ . ) .
is not possible to ascertain exactly what substance, or cp S A P .
substances, are intended. As a rule the ancients
cleansed themselves by oiling their bodies and scraping SOD1 (?'ID ; coyA[e]~[BAF'L]), father of Gaddiel,
their skins, and by baths, and they cleaned their clothes Zebulunite (Nu. 13 IO).
by rubbing with wood ashes and natural earths, such as
fuller's earth, carbonates of sodium, etc. They cleansed SODOY AND GOMORRAH
their wine and oil casks and their marble statues with Biblical references (8 I). New theory (5 7).
potash lyes2 Natural carbonate of soda (see N ITRE ) Critical analysis (S 2). Stucken's ' dry' deluge (5 8).
was also used, as well as the juices of certain plants Lot-story not historical (f 3). Judg. 19 15-30 (I 9).
Possible classification(8 4). Res+ (8 IO).
(see below) which, owing to the presence of saponin, Difficulties(B 5). Religious suggestions (f 11).
form a soap-like lather with water. See L YE , NITRE. Text of Gen. 19 24x, etc. (5 6). Literature (9 12).
Canon Tristram states that considerahle quantities of soft
soap are, at the present day manufactured in Palestine by boil- SoDon4 (DiD ; COAOMA [RKADEQZI'],. plur.),
ing olive oil with potash, prbcured by burning several species of COhOM[E]ITAl Gen. 1 9 4 , and GOMORRAH (~QDP, yo-
SaZicorniu (glass wort) and Salsolu (salt wort) especially MOPPA [BAL], in 0 1'sing. and pl&. ;
S. ityali, which abound in the neighhourhood of th'e Dead Sea
and in the salt marshes which fringe the coast. Cp Lijw, 43. 'eferences* in N T (AV GOMORRHA) plur., except
A. E. S. in Mt. 10 15 according to Treg. [but not Ti. WH], wiih
SOCII0 (\>ib),I Ch. 4 1 8 AV, RV Soco, a name in CDPL [DL rOMOpac, SO r O M O P A Jer. 2314K]), two
the genealogy of the b'nE JUDAH,cp SOCuH, I. cities represented in the traditional text of Gen. 1310-12
SOCOH ( 3 3 8 in Josh. Kt. ; but Kr. \>\bas in Ch., 1925 as situated in the 'Circle (V?,AV 'plain,' RV
where RV has Soco; in S. and K. n j b [Kt.] \>b[Kr.]
; uoxo ' Plain ') of Jordan,' and less distinctly in 1 4 3 as in the
[BAL]). Vale of S I D D I M (9.v.). According to thesame text, the
I . A town i n the Shephelah of Judah. grouped with kings of Sodom and Gomorrah and their allies were de-
Jarmuth, Adullam, Azekah, etc. ; (Josh. 15 35 u a o x o feated by CHEDOR-LAOMER, king of Elam. andhis allies,
183).and mentioned with Azekah in the description of who carried away both the people and the goods of Sodom
the encampment of the Philistines in I S . 17 I (cp and Gomorrah, but were forced to give these up by the
EPHES-DAMMIM), where AV has Shochoh ([&I uoKxwB rapid intervention of the warrior ' Abram the Hebrew '
1 In both passages @ has n o i a or rod, N* bya curious mistake (Gen. 14r-16). In Gen. 1816-33 191-29 w-e have the
i n Mal. 32 ~ A o i a('grass ') ; Vg. in J e . has herbum doriyh, in account of ( I ) a dialogue between Abraham and, first
Mal. hrrba fillmunz. of all, the ElZlhim who visited him, and then Yahwk
2 Fullers also used putrid urine, which was so offensive that
they were compelled to live beyond the walls or in remote parts alone, respecting the fate said to be impending over
of the city of Rome.
3 The reading Por8wO represents a plur. form ; cp Eus. U S P ) et alter in campo situs, qui Sochoth nuncupantur. Both Euse.
293 32 (POXXWrSpar r X 660. .. i p2v Ivorkppc, $ 8 1 ~ a ~ o r e ' p a bius and erome strangely confuse Socoh with Succoth-benoth
~ O K X x O @~ p q w a r ~ < o v u a rand
) ...
Jer. ib. 151 21 unus in monte ( 2 K. 17 30j.

4665 4666
SODOM A N D GOMORRAH SODOM A N D UOMORRAH
Sodom and Gomorrah ’ (virtually equivalent to extent admit the theory of independent literary strata.
’ Sodom ’) ; ( 2 )the circumstances leading up to the cul- Fripp, therefore, was justified in attempting to show
minating act of wickedness committed in Sodom ; and that in the earliest form of the story Yahwe himself was
( 3 ) the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and other the only speaker and agent. Comparing this story,
cities, and the escape of Lot and his two daughters. however, with analogous stories in Genesis and else-
T h e sin of Sodom is oftcn referred to as typical of where, it is much more natural to suppose that in its
horrible and obstinate wickedness, Is. 1IO 39 Jer. 23 14 original form three nien--i.e., three ‘ Clcihhim ’-were
Dt. 3232 ; and its destruction as a warning, Is. 179 1319 spoken of, and that the distinction between YahwB (who
Jer. 4918 Zeph. 29 Dt. 2922 Am. 411 Lam. 46 (for EV’s remained-see 18 zzb-to talk with Abraham) and the
‘ iniquity’ and ‘ sin ’ read ‘ punishment ’). Sometimes, ‘ two ma2’6kim ’ who went to Sodom ’ was due to the
too, it is mentioned alone as the destroyed guilty city, same later writer who, as Wellhausen (CH27J ) has
Gen. 1913 (‘this place’=Sodom) Is. 1 7 39 Lam. 46 (cp rendered probable, introduced 18 17-19 and 2za-33n. a
Gen. 14178 [but in z. 17 bLinserts ~ a i & u .yop.], where passage which reveals the existence in the writer’s mind
the king of Sodom figures alone); but Gonrorrah of doubts a s to the divine justice, such as we know to
is often mentioned too, Gen. 1310 1820 192428 Is. have been felt among the Jews in later times. There is
1 9 .f. 13 19 Jer. 2314 Am. 4 11 Zeph. 2 9 Dt. 3232. also reason to think that the references to Lot’s wife
‘ Nerghbour cities ’ are also referred to in Jer. 49 18 (19 r 5 J 26 ; contrast v. 12) and the whole of the Zoar
5040; cp Ezek. 1 6 4 6 8 (‘Sodom and her daughters’). episode, together with the account of the birth of Moab
In Hos. 11 8 Admah and Zeboim, and in Dt. 29 23 [zz] and Ben-ammi (?), are later insertions, though by no
Sodom, Gomorrah, .4dmah, and Zeboim are given as means so late as the two insertions in ch. 18 mentioned
the ruined cities ; cp Gen. 1019 and 142, where in like above. a
manner these four cities are mentioned together. In Here, however, we are chiefly concerned with the
Wisd. 106 the inexact phrase ‘ Pentapolis’ is used (see contents of the Lot-story (ch. 19). W e are told that as
RV). The description of the sin of Sodom in Ezek. a punishment for disregard of the sacred
3. Lot-
story not law of hospitality, and for a deadly sin
16496 5oa is evidently based on the legend known to us
from Gen. 19, and similarly that of the punishment in historical. committed at least in intention, ’ Yahwe
Dt. 2923[22] agrees with that given in the traditional rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah
text of Gen. 1924.26. Allusions to the fate of Sodom brimstone and fire from YahmP out of heaven, and over-
appear to occur in Ps.116 [but see below] 14010[11] threw those cities, and all the Plain, and all the inhabit-
Job 1815 Is. 349 f: Jer. 2016 Ezek. 3822. Curiously ants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground’
enough, in a geographical passage (Gen. lO19), Sodom (1924 f. RV). Is it possible to explain the origin and
and Gomorrah and Admah and Zeboim are spoken of meaning of this story, accepting provisionally the form
as if still in existence. These are the data relative to in which it is given in the traditional text ? 3
the history of Sodom and the other cities supplied by That the story is historical (however laxly the word
the traditional text. be interpreted) ought to be at once denied by those
The references to Sodom (Gomorrah is rarely added) in ;he who have read the earlier legends of Genesis in the
Apocrypha and in the N T are as follows--a Esd. 2 8 5 7 t 36 light of the comparative critical method. If the Deluge
Ecclus. 168 Wisd. 19 14 Mt. 10 15 (Mk. 6 I I [not in best texts]
Lk. 10 12) Lk.17 29 Kom.9 29 (quotation) 2 Pet. 2 6 Jude 7 Rev. is not historical, and if Abraham and Lot are ultimately
11 8 (cp Ezek. 23 3, etc.). the creations of the popular imagination, how can the
Before proceeding further it is necessary to refer strange story in Gen.19, for which, as we shall see,
briefly to the critical analysis of the section in which there are so many parallels in folk-lore, be regarded as
Sodom-story is contained (Gen. 18- historical? It is surely no answer to appeal to the
a. critical the
1928). That v. 28 belongs to the Priestly accordance of the phenomena of the catastrophe of
analysis. Writer is admitted ; its true place is prob- Sodom with those which have happened elsewhere in
ably after 13ma ( P ) , which states that ‘ L o t dwelt in ’ similar geological formations,’ or to the justification
the cities of 1333 ’ (rather hnni*, ‘ JerGmeel ’). With of the traditional description of that catastrophe by
regard to the rest of the section, it is admitted that there ‘ authorities in natural science’ (but not in historical
has been a prolonged process of editorial manipulation. criticism) and by some competent critics of the Or.
Only thus indeed can we account for the singular com- For the narratives of the Hebrew Orz&nes must be ac-
bination of passages which refer to Yahwe as the cepted or rejected as wholes. Plausible as Danson’s
speaker and actor with other passages which indicate view4 may he, that the description of the catastrophe
three men as charged with representative divine func- of Sodom is that of ‘ a bitumen or petroleum eruption,
tions, and for the not less singular fact ( I ) that whereas similar to those which on a small scale have been so
Abraham’s hospitality is claimed by ‘ three men,’ Lot destructive in the region of Canada and the United
receives into his house only two men, who are called States of America,’ and the more ambitious theory of
in the present text of 191 ‘ t h e two mal’rikim (EV Blanckenhorn. that the catastrophe, which was a real
‘angels’),’and ( 2 ) that in 1917, whereas the first verb is though not a historical event, began with an earthquake,
in the plural (‘when they had brought them forth‘), continued with igneous eruptions, and ended with the
the second is in the singular ( ‘ h esaid’; so again, v. 21). covering of the sunken cities by the waters of the Dead
I t was long ago suggested (and the same idea has Sea, it would require great laxity of literary interpreta-
lately been worked out by Kraetzschmar 2 , that there tion to assert that this is what either the Yahwisti
have been iniperfectlyfused together two versions of the narrative, or the earliest references in the prophets,
story of ‘ Sodom,’ in one of which Yahwe was said to intend. As Lucien Gautier remarks (above, col. 1046),
have appeared in a single human form, and in the other ‘ The text of Genesis speaks of a rain of fire and brim-
in a group of m e n ; n-hether we regard these men as stone and a pillar of smoke rising to heaven, but neither
‘Clbhim’ (cp Gen. 126 322 117) or divine heings, the
chief of whom is YahwB, or as ‘ mal dkim ’ (commonly 1 Combosition o f flre Book ofGenesis., ” --.
50-52 (18ozl. andZA T W
rendered ‘ angels ’), does not affect the critical inquiry. 1 2 2 3 ~i18gz).
.
2 In an essay in the New Wodd, 1243, only the geological
It is impossible, however, to work out this theory to a myth in z. 26 relative to the pillar of salt is regarded as an ac-
satisfactory result ; the original narrative may have cretion. Gunkel ( H K ,Gen. 188Y.) holds that Lot’s wife played
been modified by editors, but we cannot to any large no part in the original story, and that the Zoar episode is also
a liter insertion, but he claims w . 306-38 for the original story.
1 Regretfully we abstain from drawing out the beauties of 3 Knohel has, at any rate, noticed that the Sodom catastrophe
the story in chap. IS. For parallels to the divine visit see closes the second staee in the early narrative, corresponding
. - to
Grimm, Deutsrhe My~kologiie,pp. xuxiv-xxxvii, and 312 A; cp the Deluge.
’ also Hom. Od. 17 4 8 5 8 4 Expositm, 1886 ( I ), p. 74 ; Modern Science in Bi6le Lands,
a ‘Der Mythos von Sodoms Ende,’ZATW17sr-92; cp .?-mu 486.
World, 1236. 5 Z D P V ( s e e end of article).

4667 4668
SODOM AND GOMORRAH SODOM AND GOMORRAH
of an earthquake, nor of an igneous eruption, nor of From the point of view which is here recommended
an inundation.' Nor can we venture to pick and choose it is all-important to bring the Sodom-story into the
among the details of the story in Gen. 19. right class- of myths or semi-mythic
It is of no more use to justify with some plausibility two or 4. Possible
I t is not necessary that
three expressions in a part of the Sodom-story by means of classification. mythic
legends.
stories of the same class should
'scientific' lore than to make it out to he, modestly put, not
impossiblethat 'Chedorlaomer, king of Elam ' may have invaded all give the same particulars ; it is enough if they agree
Palestine at a time when Abraham may have)lived. If 'authori- in some leading ' motive.' Lack of space prevents us
ties in natural science' sometimes speak as if Gen. 19 were in from mentioning more than a few such stories. Let us
part historicall (more plausibly, based on a tradition of a real
occurrence), we must remember that historical criticism and refer first to the story of the punishment of the guilty city
natural science are both studies which require a special training Gortyna. ' The people of this city led a lawless exist-
and if critics of the OT even in the nineteenth century h a d ence as robbers. The Thebans, being their neighbours,
were afraid, but Amphion and Zethos, the sons of Zeus
and Antiope, fortified Thebes by the magic influence of
Amphion's lyre. Those of Gortyna came to a bad end
to-day has to throw off the weaknesses which it has inherited through the divine Apollo.' ' T h e god utterly over-
from the past. threw the Phlegyan race by continual thunderbolts and
The chief extra- biblical passage in which distinct violent earthquakes ; a n d the survivors were wasted by
reference is made t o the destruction of the cities as a pestilence.' Usually, however, it pleases the creators
historical is in Strabo (xvi. 244), where, after describing of folk-lore to represent the punishment of wicked cities
the rugged and burnt-hp rocks, exuding pitch, round as consisting in their being submerged by water.
about MoaudcYa ( i . e . , the stupendous rock-fortress Homer (1.l 1 6 3 8 4 8 ) speaks of the pernicious floods
Masada, near the SW. shore of the Dead Sea), the which Zeus brings by autumnal rain-storms on godless,
geographer mentions the native tradition that here unjust men. T h e well-known story of Philemon and
thirteen cities once flourished. T h e ample circuit of Baucis (Ovid. Met. 861r-724) belongs to the same sub-
Sodom their capital can, he says, still be traced. I n division. Similarly a place on the Lake of Thun is
consequence of an earthquake, and of a n eruption of popularly said to have been destroyed because a dwarf
hot springs, charged with bitumen and sulphur, the was refused hospitality during a storm by all the inhabi-
lake advanced suddenly (+ Xlpvr) ~ p o ~ P u o;r )some of tants except a n aged couple who dwelt in a miserable
the cities were swallowed up, and others were deserted cottage.3 A French journal of folk-lore contains a long
by as many of the inhabitants as could flee. Josephns series of folk- tales about these swallowed-up cities,
(BJiv. 84). speaking of the lake Asphaltitis, npon which most of which have a moral.4 It is true, the moral
the country of Sodom borders, uses similar language :- may be omitted. Thus, according to Prof. R h y ~each ,~
' There are still the remains of the divine fire, and the of the Welsh meres is supposed to have been formed
shadows ( U K L ~ P )of five cities are visible as well as the b y the subsidence of a city, whose bells may even now
ashes produced in their fruits.' It is hardly possible t o sometimes be heard pealing merrily.
avoid taking these reports together, and assuming that For further European examples see Tobler, I m neuen Rei&,
Strabo's informant was of the Jewish race. If we reject 166 8 (1873); Grimm, Deutsche Mythdogie, 546 A, and cp
the claim put forward by critics in behalf of the state- Usener, Religionsgesckichti. Untersurhungen, 3 246. A story
ment in Gen. 1924,f, we must still more certainly reject similar to that of Lot told by the Chinese Buddhist pilgrim,
Hiouen Tbsang, who travelled in India (7th cent. A.D.), may be
the statement of Strabo as historical evidence.3 added. There was a city called Holaolokia, which was very
rich but addicted to heresy. Once an Arahat (one made free
1 E.g., besides the late Sir J. W. Dawson, Canon Tristram 1,y insight) came there, and was treated inhospitably : earth
(The Land of Israei, 356). Describing a valley at the N. end and sand were thrown upon him. Only one man had pity on
of the salt-range of Usdum, he says 'The whole appearance him, and gave him food. Then said the Arahat to him, 'Escape;
points to a shower of hot sulphur, and an irruption of bitumen in seven days a rain of earth and sand will fall upon the city,
npon it, which would naturally be calcined and impregnated and no one will be left, because they threw earth upon me.'
with its fumes : and this at a geological period quite subsequent The man went into the city and told his relations; hut they
to all the dilurial and alluvial action of which we have such mocked him. The storm came, and the man was the only one
abundant evidence. The catastrophe must have been since the who, by an underground passage, escaped (Paulus Cassel,
formation of the valley, and while the water was at its present Mi.cchie SindAad, 7 [Berlin, 18881).
level-therefore probably during the historic period.' Blancken- A similar story is also told in Syria. T h e well-
horn, however, IS more in touch with biblical critics. In his known Birket RBm, tWo hours from BHniSts, which is
second article he expresses his adhesion to the views (then just
published) of Kraetzschmar, and says, ' This makes it plain that evidently the crater of a n extinct volcano, is said to
while it is certainly very probable that the account in Genesis cover with its waters a village, whose population, under
points to a natural occurrence which was real hut not "historic,"
.
the Yahwistic form . . is altogether different from the original
aggravating circumstances, refused hospitality to a poor
traveller. Usually, however, such villages or cities in
tradition, which is rather to he songht in the references and
figurative statements of the prophets' (ZDPY21 6 9 [1898]). Arabian legend are classified as mekZ&bit ' overturned
Whether this stress on the prophetic refereuces, only two of ones,' which at any rate implies destruction by other
which can he at all early, is justifiable, need not here be dis- means than a flood ; one thinks a t once of the technical
cussed.
a See also Tacitus, Hisf. 537. The reference may be (I) to term mnhpikuh ( ' overturning ') used in the O T for
the fruit of the 'osher-tree rzGar, Calotropis pmcera, of the Sodom and Goniorrah, and of Job1528 where the
family .4sclejiducee), which Hasselquist (Travels, 1766) calls wicked man is described as dwelling in desolate cities
&ma sodomitica, and found in abundance about Jericho and
near the Dead Sea. He says that they are sometimes filled . . . which were destined to become heaps.' E. H.
with dust, hut 'only when the fruit is attacked by an insect Palmer tells us6 how the Arabs of the neighbourhood
which turns all the inside into dust, leaving the skin only entire, account by a myth for the blocks of stone at the base
and of a beautiful colour.' The tree, says Tristram (NHBqEq), and on the summit of Jebel Madara ; stones here take
grows to a height of from twelve to fifteen feet, and the fruit is
' as large as an apple of average size of a bright ye!low colour the place of the brimstone and fire in our present form
hanging three or four together close to the stem. It easil; of the Sodom-story. Nor is it only in et-Tih that
bursts when ripe, and 'supports a very singular orthopterous stories of ruined cities are handed down among the
insect, a very large black and yellow cricket, which y e found
in some plenty on all the trees, but never elsewhere. But (2) Arabs, and that the desolation is accounted for by the
Tristrani's suggestion that the fruit of the colocynth is meant
deserves attention. See GOURDS [WILD]. The fruit, though But, a5 A. von Gutschmid (Beitr. ZUT Gesch. des Orients, 26)
fair of aspect, has a pulp which dries up into a bitter powder, ointed out the Assyrium stagnum is certainly not the Dead
used as medicine. But to suppose that the phrase 'the vine of 8ea hut th; lake of Bambyke (Mabug or Hierapolis).
Sodom (Dt. 32 32) has any reference either to the colocynth or 1 'So in effect Pherecydes (Fragnenta, 128).
to anv other botanical Dlant. is nlainlv a mistake (see the com-
L . . ~
2 Pausanias 9 36 (Frazer).
mentators). 3 Tobler (0;. cit.).
3 Still more ohviously worthless for critical purposes is the 4 R e y e des tradifioirs locales, ~Sgg-igoo, 'Les viller cn-
statement of Trogus (Justin, xviii. 33) that the Phaenicians were gloutees.
forced to leave their home beside the Assyrium stagnum by an 6 The Arfhurian Legend, 3 6 0 8
earthquake. Bunsen took this stagnum to he the Dead Sea. 5 Desert of the Exodus, 416.

4669 4670
SODOM AND GOMORRAH SODOM AND GOMORRAH
infidelity and the abominable deeds of the former a few miles to the S . of Jebel Usdum ; Jewish and Arab
inhabitants.' Wetzstein (in Delitzsch's fob, Ger. ed. traditions fix on the S. ; and, finally, the natural condi-
197) gives a number of such stories ; one of them tions are more suitable there than on the N . to the
contains a detail illustrative of the pillar of salt ' which descriptions of the region both before and after the
was once Lot's disobedient wife. At the source of the catastrophe, for there is still sufficient water and verdure
RakkiTd (in the Jauliln) this explorer saw some erect and on the eastern side of the Gh6r to suggest a gul-den of
singularly perforated jasper formations, called el-fan'da, the Lord, while the shallow bay and long marshes may,
' t h e bridal procession.' Near them is its village, better than the ground a t the N. end of the sea, hide
U f i n a , which, in spite of repeated attempts, can be no the secret of the overwhelmed cities.
more inhabited. It remains forsaken, according to the 'Such is the evidence for the rival sites. W e can
tradition, as an eternal witness that ingratitude, especi- only wonder at the confidence with which all writers
ally towards God, does not escape punishment. dogmatically decide in favour of one or the other. '
To put aside such facts (of which only a selection has been It may be added that Grove (in Smith's DBW, art.
given) as irrelevant, and to substitute for them me speculations ' Salt Sea ') has argued at length for a northern site as
of ' authorities in natural science' unversed in critical researches,
would involve a serious lapse from sound critical method. The the real one. H e is supported by Canon Tristram
case of the Sodom-story is parallel to that of the Creation-story ( L a n d of ZsrueZ, 360-363) and Prof. Hull ( M o u n t
and still more of the Deluge-story, in the Hebrew Origines, t; Seir, 165). The latter writes thus, ' From the descrip-
explain which in any degree by taking account of the subtle tion in the Bible, I have always felt satisfied that these
theorisings of geologists would detract from the clearness and
validity of the approximately correct solutions of t h e critical cities lay in some part of the fertile plain of the Jordan
problems involved. It is now beyond gainsaying that naive to the N. of the Salt Sea, and to the W. of that river ;
races, in viewing certain striking phenomena of nature, sugges- and when visiting the ruins of Jericho, and beholding
tive of special divine interventions, are led, by a mental law
to form mythic narratives respecting 'calamities which hav; the copious springs and streams of that spot, how
happened to individuals or to populations under circumstances applicable to it would be the expression " that it was
which in the most widely separated regions resemble each other. well- watered everywhere " (Gen. 13 IO), the thought
The Sodom-story in the traditional text can he in its main occurred, May not the more modern city (ancient
features explained as such a mythic narrative, and cannot other-
wise he accounted for in any way that is not open to well-founded Jericho) have arisen from the ruins of the Cities of the
critical objection. Plain?' W e may add that the name ' Jericho ' most
There are no doubt several difficulties which still probably comes from nm? (Jeroham, Jarham) = s~~n.1.
remain to be dealt with. ( I ) There are some features (JerGmeel).
6. Difficulties. in the Sodom-narrative which remind U p to this point we have accepted the biblical texts
11s of the strange story in Judg. 19 ; in their present form. The gains of the criticism based
the introduction of these features requires explanation. upon these texts haye not been trifling
( 2 ) There is one reference (Gen. 143) to the site
of or unimportant ; but the difficulties
of the ruined cities which suggests that they were 19, etc. connected with the story of the de-
swallowed up by the waters of the Dead S e a ; if struction of Sodom have not all of them been overcome.
the text is correct it appears to contradict the state- The passages which have now to be criticised textually
ment in 1924, which makes no reference to a flood. are Gen. 1019 1310 1 4 1917-25 1930 Am. 411 (Is. 1 7 )
( 3 ) T h e expression 'overthrew ' ($?m) in 1925 is, strictly Hos. 1 1 8 Zeph. 29 Ps. 116.
speaking, inconsistent with the representation in v. 24. (a)Gen. 1019 defines the territory of the Canaanite
Blanckenhorn, it is true, has a speculative justification as extending 'from Zidon in the territory of Gerar, as
for the expression. But the fact that 'overturning' far as Gaza; in the direction of Sodom, Gomorrah,
became the ' technical term ' in literature for the de- Admah, and Zeboim, as far as Lasha.' But can this
struction of Sodom may well make us hesitate to follow be right? Zidon, Gerar, Gaza, Sodom, Lasha? That
this eminent geologist. (4) It is almost as difficult to the rest of Gen. 10 has first of all become corrupt
localise Sodom and Gomorrah as to localise Paradise. and then been manipulated by a n ill-informed redactor
It is only on the last of these points that we are is clear; can v. IO be an exception? Evidently
tempted a t present to dilate; but here we prefer to ' Canaanite ' should be ' Kenizzite,' and most probably
adopt the clear and full statement ( H G , 505-8) of Prof. the names in v. 196 should be Ishmael, Jerahmeel,
G. A. Smith. ( I t should be mentioned. however, that Shad.
the question is, for us, of importance only in so far as it (6) Gen. 13 IO. The awkwardness of the clause 'before
opens up problems as to the successive phases of the YahwB destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah' has been
Sodom-story. The historical character of the narrative noticed by critics ; how could Lot know anything of the
could not be rescued even if the geographical difficulty impending catastrophe ? Other interpolations have also
referred to were removed.) been noticed and yet neither the true limits of the
d There is a much-debated but insoluble question passage, nor its meaning, have been fully understood.
whether the narratives in Genesis intend to place the If we apply the right key, a full solution of the problem
cities to the N. or to the S . of the Dead Sea. becomes possible. Read-' And Lot lifted up his
' For the northernsite there are these arguments-that Abraham eyes and beheld that Jer+meel was everywhere well-
and Lot looked upon the cities from near Bethel that the n a m e watered [before Yahwk, etc.], like the garden of Yahwe,
Circle of Jordan is not applicahle to the S. end o i t h e Dead Sea [like the land of MiSrim in the direction of Missnr].'a
that the presence of five cities there is impossible that th; The description derives its points from the circumstance
expedition of the Four Kinxs, as it swept N. fro; Kadesh-
Barnea, attacked Hazazon Tamar, which is probably Engedi, that Paradise was localised by early tradition in the
hefore it reached the Vale of Siddim and encountered the king land of Jerahmeel. Cp P ARADISE , 5 6. I t is a most
of Sodom and his allies; that the name Gomorrah perhaps interesting fact that (if our restoration of the text is
exists in Tuhk ' A ~ z r j y e knear
, =?in el-Feskkhak; and that the
accepted) Sodom and Gomorrah were, like the primzeval
name of Zoar has been recovered in TPUShrigGr.
Paradise, placed by Israelitish writers in Jerahmeel.
' O n the other hand. however, a t the S . end of the
( c ) Gen. 14. T h e huge difficulties arising dut of this
Dead Sea there lay throughout Roman and medieval
passage are well-known. Critical opinion leans for the
times a city c d k d Zoara by the Greeks and Znghar by
most part to the view that it is a post-exilic Midrash in
the Arabs, which was identified by all with the Zoar of
honour of Abraham, but that it contains some material
1.ot. Jebel Usdum is the uncontested representative of
drawn directly or indirectly from a Babylonian sriurce.3
Sodom. Hazazon Tainar may be not Engedi, but the
Tamar of Ezekiel, SW. of the Dead Sea. T h e name
'' Kikkar '' may surely have been extended to the S . of 'Admah' and 'Zeboim were naturally added after the
redactor had succeeded in producing ' Sodom' and 'Gomorrah.'
the Dead Sea, just as to-day the Ghor is continued for 2' The words within [I are interpolated. ' Missur means the
ca ita1 of Misrim..
1 Cp Koran, Sur. 7 99f: 8 Moore, however, whilst not questioning the present text,
4671 4671
SODOM AND GOMORRAH SODOM AND GOMORRAH
Gunkel evm thinks that the scenes between Abraham doubtful. The Vale of Siddim, or rather had-Siddim which the
and Melchizedek and the king of Sodom sound &e traditional text (v. 3) identifieswith a piece of water h i e d ' the
Salt Sea,' together with the bitumen-pits also referred to in that
popular tradition. H e also remarks that the old text (v. IO) disappears, when the text has been closely examined
tradition speaks either of Sodom and Gomorrah, or of in the light of results of textual criticism elsewhere.1 See
Admah and Seboim;' the combination of the four Crit. Bib.
seems to him to rest on a later fusion of the current ( d ) Gen. 19 17-25. ' Zoar, on the SE. edge of the Dead
traditions. Winckler, too, deals with the question of the Sea, covered over now by the alluvium, once lay in a
names. In D. IO we hear only of the two kings of well-watered country with a tropical climate. The
Sodom and Goniorrah (6and Sam., a i a y l i ~;i the Israelite tradition is surprised that this little bit of land
verb is plural). This critic, however, thinks that, as in has escaped the ruin of Sodom, and explains this treat-
1820 and 19 24, both Sodom and Gomorrah are regarded ment by the intercession of Lot who desired Zoar as a
as subject to the same ruler ; later editors, amplifying place of refuge. Thus the legend of Zoar is a geo-
as usual, increased the number of kings. Far be it logical legend. At the same time it contains an
from us to deny the acuteness of previous critics, especi- etymological motive ; the city is called So'ar, because
ally Winckler ; it appears to the present writer, however, Lot said in his prayer, ( ' I t is only mi!'ar (something
that a keener textual criticism is urgently needed to bring small)." ' So Gunkel (Gen. 192), according to whom
out the real, as opposed to the imaginary, problems of the Zoar episode (including the incident about Lot's
the narrative. The true story seems to have stated that wife) is a later offshoot of the legend. W e accept
in the days of Abram war broke out between Jerahmeel Gunkel's analysis (see 2, n. 4), but cannot venture to
king of Geshur (disguised as ' Shinar ') or Ashhur accept his interpretation of the legend. The stress laid
(disguised as ' Arioch') and Ishmael king of SPlHm (or on iyyrn in D. 20 suggests that the real name of the city
S e ' u l i i ~ n ? ~ ) .For twelve years the latter had been was irxa, and thus agrees with the view that Sodom was
Jerahmeel's vassal; after this he rebelled. A year neither N. nor S. of the Dead Sea, but in Jerahmeel.
passed, and then king Jeragmeel came and made a raid ' Zoar ' therefore, needs emendation into ' Missur. ' a
among the Jerahmeelites of Zarephath, Rehoboth, and The Zoar-episode has been retouched ; originally it was,
Kadesh. The king of SdHm came out to oppose him ; not a geological, but an etymological myth.
but he and his army were put to flight; the city of Zoar-episode that underwent manipula-
m enables us with much probability to
S&ni was plundered, and Lot was one of the captives. answer this question. There are several reasons for suspecting
News of this came to Abram the Hebrew, who lived at that the text of v . 24 is corrupt. ( I ) The verb 793 in v. 25, as
Rehoboth (miswritten ' Hebron ') and was in close many critics have remarked, does not accord with the description
alliance with the Jerahmeelites. At once he called in our text of v. 24.3 ( 2 ) The reference to bitumen-pits in 1410
(see c) and to 'fire and brimstone' in Ps. 116 (see A) are due to
together his Kenite and Jerahmeelite neighbours," corruption of the text. Taking our passage in connection with
pursued the spoilers as far as Rehob in Cushan. and Ps. 116, we should not improbably emend it thus :-
brought back the captives and the property which the 'And Yahw.5 caused it to rain upon S€liim an$ upon 'Am6rah
[and upon] Rehohoth seven days4 from heaven.
spoilers had taken. On his return two kings came ont This is of importance with regard to the original form of the
to meet him. One was the king of ZIKLAG(Halusah?), legend. Note that in v. 25 'those cities' is equivalent to
a specially sacred city. whose king was also priest of '1333 $ 2 - i z . SNnni; 51, 'all Jerahmeel.' 'Sodom' is not
the God of Jerahnieel,6 and solemnly blessed Abram-a the only cit; which is caught in the net of its own wicked
deeds. We cannot but expect a reference to some other place
blessing which Ahrarn acknowledged by the payment of besides Sodom and its appendage Goniorrah. That in the
tithes (cp Gen. 2522). The other was the king of wiginal story the implied accusative to 'caused to rain was,
SEIHm. who offered Abrani the whole of the recovered not ' hrimstone and fire,' but 'rain,' is in accordance with D. 25,
property. Abram, however, generously refused this, where 153,'to overturn,' may be illustrated by Job1215, 'he
swearing by Yahw&, the God of Jernhmeel. that he rends them (the waters) out and they overturn the earth.'
' From Yahwh out of heaven '?as the traditional text reads) has
would not commit such a sin against Jerahmeel's land,6 lever yet been adequately justified.5 Tg. Jer. distinguishes
or receive anything that belonged to the king of SelHm, letween the Word of the Loyd and the Lord. Similarly the
lest the king should thus be entitled to say that he (and -hristian Council of Sirmium, Pluit Dei filius a Deo patre.'
not Yahwk) had enriched Abram. Only the clans which (e) Gen. 1930. T h e traditional text is so extraordinary
accompanied Abram-Eden [Aner], Heles [Eshcol], :hat we quote it in full. ' A n d Lot went up out of
and Jerahmeel [Mamrel-reqiured their just share of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters
the spoil. with him, for he feared to dwell in Zoar ; and he dwelt
The war was therefore between two branches cf the erah n a cave, he and his two daughters.' Kautzsch-Socin
meelite race, and Abram the Hebrew, himself half a ferab: igree with EV, except that they render i ; ,'Gebirge'
meelite,T interposed in the hour of need for his neighbours and 'mountain-country); they also remark in a note that
relatives. Selam, generally miswritten D i D (MT Sedom), hut M T has ' in the cave ' ( n p ? ) , ' perhaps with reference
once (v. I S MT Salem), was not situated anywhere near the
Dead Sea, but in Jerahmeel. Whether the earlier tradition :o a definite locality whic'h was connected with Lot.'
really knew anything of a place called 'Gomorrah,' is already We are then told (D.3.J ) that, in order to continue the
gmily, the two daughters agreed to ' make their father
thinks the assumption of a special source for the few details
about the campaign superfluous(GENESIS, 8 8 ; col. 1677). 1 The gloss on n'ivn ? ~ in y n. 3 is so absurd that Winckler
1 Admah and Zeboim, however, take the place of Sodom and
Gomorrah only in a single passage (Hos. 11 8), which is not free :ven identifies the ninn 09 with lake Hiileh in the N. His
from the suspicion of corruptness. .heory is a monument of ingenuity, but will not stand. D*
2 A O F l i o r f i : ; G1226-42. iian surely Comes from o h m i , , and n'ion gay from n3ya
i'wi3 (cp a more frequent transformatlon of the latter word-
3 Sa'ul beiug probably a name belonging to the Negeb.
Cp Semii'el, I-qma''el. %mi). m n niim niim is simply hnnv 1 . ~ 3('by the city of
Jerahmeel').
Read in v. 14 t o h y n v ~ lhnni. n'xi ovp-nar wip.1. 2 The presumption is that i y r everywhere should he Y ~ Y T , ;
'Three hundred and eighteen,' in which Hitzig sees Gematria, :ach alleged occurrence, however, needs to be separately con-
and Winckler ( C t 2 27) an astronomical number, is simply due sidered (see Crit. Bid.).
to an editor's manipulation of corrupt repeated fragments of J According to Gunkel, the raining of hrimstone from heaven
HYDV'. 'Ishmaelites.'
'7

ji'jy, like oiiy in 21 33, comes from 5Hani..


s analogous to the Assyrian custom of strewing salt on the site
I f a destroyed city (cp S A LT ). But surely when the rain of
ximstone fell, Sodom had not been destroyed. Nor can the
6 'If from a thread to a shoe-latchet and if I would take
anything,' is impossible. B relieves the c&struction by omitting :ustom referred to (which is really a symbol of consecration, qee
the second ON!. But the parallelistic arrangement is thus Elek. 43 24. and cp SALT, S 3) be illustrative of Yahwt's raining
)rimstone.
destroyed, and the improbability of the alleged proverb, 'Not a Read o n * n y ~ wfor mn- n m ~ N I .
thread nor a shoe-latchet,' remains. Read ,
!WXIl*.
vi& -~
NP~~K-DN ~
5 Ewald (GP-12 223) quotes thls passage in support o f the
heory that Yahwk was oriqina!ly a sky-god. He compares
7 ' Abram'=Ab-raham=Ab.jjaahmeel ; see REKEM and cp Mic. 5 7 161, 'as dew from Yahwk. But it is the tautology that
TENAH. 5 startling.

4673 4e4
SODOM AND GOMORRAH SODOM AND GOMORRAH
drink wine,' and to 'lie with him.' Gunkel rightly n h y i y mnw \unmv nvn, ' Cusham and Jerabmeel
points out that the original narrators of this story can (sfla11 be) a desolation for ever.' For us, the principal
have seen nothing wrong in the transaction ; the circum- result of this is that the ' S Q / ~ pits ' (which suggest the
stances which they have described rendered law and neighbourhood of the Dead Sea) disappear.'
custom inoperative (cp LOT). But the awkwardness of ( h ) Ps. 1 1 6 . The vagueness and also the excessive
the passage is evident. How could Lot have been afraid vehemence of this passage may %ell awaken suspicion.
to remain in the city which had been divinely granted Probably we should read-
him as a refuge? One can understand his taking refuge The Ishmaelites will give way, the Maacathites, the Keho-
in a cave in the mountains, if he was unaware that Zoar bothites ;
had immunity from destruction : but the present form of A blast of horror is tlia portion of Cusham.2
narrative is intolerable. And whence was the wine T h e fignre is taken from the simoom ; there is no
spoken of obtained ? Gunkel proposes to assign v. 30u, thought of the judgment of the 'ruined cities.'
together with the rest of the passage relative to Zoar, It will be at once noticed that three out of the four
to a supplementer. But it is not plain why, if the still remaining difficulties in the story of Sodom dis-
original narrative brought Lot safely to a cave in the .,
New theory. appear through the above criticism of
the text. I. The cities were really,
mountains, a supplementer should have complicated
matters by the introduction of the ' Zoar-episode.' I t according to the earlier tradition, overthrown,' not,
would be simpler to omit the cave-episode as an after- however, by an earthquake, but by floods of water
thought (to account for the names Moab and Ammon). from that upper ocean which formed a part of the
But this is not the true remedy, which is-to apply textual cosmic system of the Hebrews. z. The scene of the
criticism. There is a good parallel in I K. 16 4 13, where,another catastrophe was, not beside the Dead Sea, but in the
strange story is told about an occurrence ' in the cave ; prob- land of Jerahmeel, and we are justified in inferring
ably (P ROPHET $ 7) iiyn there is a corruption of a place-
name, and a b e h f u l donsistency is restored to the legends of from Gen. 13 IO that it was the district of Eden, where
Elijah if we emend niya into ngir, 'Zarephath'xboth Elijah in primeval times the divine wonder-land had been
and Elisha [see SHAPHAT]were connected with southern visible, that suffered. I t now becomes inevitable t o
Zarephath). It is plausible, therefore, to emend niyn here, conjecture that the original story of Sodom, or rather
too into naiy, comparing Josh. 134, where (see M EARAH ) the
oriiinal text probably had 'Zarephath that belongs to the perhaps S&m, was the Deluge-story, or one of the
Misrim.' To do this, we must make the not improbable Deluge-stories, of the Jerahmeelites. It is plain that
assumption that the city which in ZI. 20 the traditional text such a story is needed to complete the cycle of racy
calls iym, and in vu. zz$, 30 iyy, but which the original text Jerahmeelite tales of the Or-igines, and in dealing with
must have called iim (Missur), was more fully called i i x n ngis, the Deluge-story in Gen.6-8 we have already found
' Zarephath of Missur ' (cp Josh. 13 4, emended text). We shall
have to return to this later ([i IO). reason to hold that an earlier form of that story may
The alternative is to suppose that here, but not in the other have represented the Deluge as overwhelming the land
passages referred to, niyn.is a corruption of Missur. The of the Arabians and the Jerahrneelites, and the ark as
general sense of the passage IS the same.
settling on the mountains of Jerahmeel (P A R A DI S E , $ 6,
(f) Am. 4 11 Is. 1 7 . These are the two earliest of the
col. 3574, cp col. 3573, n. 3). The unexpected coin-
passages in which n3mn (cp n!?, Gen. 1925) occurs as cidences between the Deluge-story and the Sodom-story
a kind of technical term for the legendary destruction of confirm the view tentatively proposed before (P A R A DI S E ,
' Sodom.' In Is. 1 7 the phrase is n.11 nxnn3, but we Z.C.). W e may take it, therefore, to be extremely prob-
must, with most critics since Ewald, read n i p 'm (cp able that the Hebrew as well as, according to J a s t r o ~ , ~
Dt. 2922 rz3] Jer. 4918). In Am. 4 I T we find a longer the Babylonian narrative in its earliest form represented
and rather peculiar phrase, ' like Elijhim's overturning the Deluge as originally partial. Let us now trace the
of Sodom and Gomorrah' (so also Jer. 5040). This is parallelisms between the Hebrew and Babylonian Deluge-
generally supposed to be due to a consciousness that the story and the narrative in Gen. 19 (as emended).
Sodom tradition was originally connected not with the Deluge-story. Gen. 19.
religion of Yahwk, but with Canaanite ' heathenism ' ; I. Therighteousrnan,'Noah' I . The righteous man, Lot
cp Gen.19zg [PI, 'when Elohim overturned the (6 g), or rather Hanok (see (19 1-8).
cities,' etc. NOAH), or, as the great
Babylonian story said, Par-
The presumption is, however, that the Sodom-tradition is not napigtim.
of Canaanite but of Jerahmeelite origin. In this case it is not 2. [Anger of the divinity 2. [Angeroftheilahimagainst
safe to insist that the s t o j was not originally Yahwistic, for it
seems probable that Yabwl: was admitted by some of those who against the city of h i p - the city of Sodom (19).]
dwelt in the Negeb to be the god of the country. Some change pak.]
in our critical theory is indispensable, and, having regard to 3. The extreme corruptness 3. The culminating act of
what has been said elsewhere, it is not unreasonable to sup- of society (6 1 r . 1 3 8 ) . wickedness (19 4-11).
4. The divine revelation 4. The divine revelation
pose that nmy-nn OTD-nN, wherever it occurs in the phrase (6 13.83 (1912J: cp 182OJ).
referred to is a later insertion, and that the true 'technical 5. A long-continued, destruc- 5. For seven days a destruc-
phrase' is (;unni* nIgnn3, ' like the catastrophe of Jerahrnee1,'l tiverain-storm(7ro-Iz1 7 8 ) tive rain-storm OD the cities
with the possible alternative of 'n3, ' like the catastrophe of on the land of the Arabians of the whole of Jerahnieel
Sodom.' and Jerahmeelites (7 4), or (19 24x1.
(9) Hos. 11 8. I t is not probable ( I ) that ' Admah ' (with thunder and light-
and Zeboim ' should be corrupt in Gen. 142 8 and ning) on the Babylonian
correct in Hos. 11 8, and ( z ) that we should not be told city of Surippak.4 The
to whom Yahwk (in his present mood) declines to yield latter lasted for seven daw.
~

u p his people. There must be an error in the text ; 1 Schwally ( Z A T W 1 0 r s s f l : ) bas already noticed the diffi-
and, with 1 0 6 before us (where 'Asshur' means the culties of MT, but has no adequate emendations.
great N. Arabian power, and ' Jareb ' is a corruption of 2 See Ps.(zt Note that nygn has been corrupted from
ArHb=Arabia) we can hardly be far wrong in restoring m i m i (CP4.
3 Jastrow, who has partly traced the parallelism lpween the
hnm- for nniu3, hynw' for inwu, and ~ n n u for D ~ N X Y ~ . Sodom-story
~ and the Deluge-story, writes thus : Moreover,
Thus the passage becomes, How shall I give thee up there are traces in the Sodom narrative of a tradition which
[to] J e r e m e e l ? how shall I surrender thee [to] once gave a larger character to it, involving the destruction of
Ishmael ? ' all mankind much as the destruction of Surippak is enlarged h y
Eabvlonian 'traditions into a general annihilation of mankind
( h ) Zeph. 29. This very questionable bit of Hebrew (RBA 507).
I

needs emendation. Read (after niny3, ' as Goniorrah ') We assume here that a tradition of a storm which over-
4

1 @*n\u, like p,$y and nhy (see 5 6, n. a), is one of the current
whelmed Surippak has been fused with the tradition of a far
larger flood in the Deluge-story in the epic of GilgameX (cp
distortions of $unm.. D E L ~ G E ,zz ; and especially Jastrow, EsCig. Bad. Ass. 507).
2 1 was taken to be a fragment of r ; the final 0 comes from That even the former tradition i- historical we are far from
2. The editor manipulated the corrupt text under the influence asserting. Nor do we deny that the Deluge-&h in its earliest
of an exegetical theory. form related to all mankind. See DELUGE. (B 18, 22.
4675 4676
SODOM AND GOMORRAH SODOM AND GOMORRAH
6. ‘Noah’and his family de- 6. Lot and his family de. Egyptian story referred to is the nearest parallel to it.
livered (7 13 236). livered ( l e 153). Here the ‘ Divine eye’ is the executioner ; it takes the
7. The ark grounds on the 7. Lot warned to escape to the
mountainsofAram(soread) mountains [of Jerahmeel] form of the goddess Hathor, and slays men right and
-i.e. Jerahmeel (8 4), or (19 17). left ‘with great strokes of the knife.’ It s e e m to us,
(B.ab;lonian) on the moun- however, ( I ) that it is much more probable that the
tain of Nisir. Jerahmeelites had two forms of a proper Delnge-story
To these parallelisms we may add though with some reserve, than that one of the extant Deluge-stories was only such
the parallelism between Hanak ( d o c h ) father of Methuselah
(= hfethusael=Ishmael) and grandfathe; of Lamech (= Jerah- in a loose sense of the term, especially having regard to
meel), and Lay, nephew or perhaps originally (cp 14 14 16) the Babylonian Flood-stories, and ( 2 ) that the difficulties
brother of Abraham (=Ahrabm= Father of Jerahmeel) and of Gen. 1924f: call loudly for the application of textual
father of Moah (rather, Mi5gur ?) and Ammon (rather, Jerah-
meel‘?). This parallelism is of importance, not for the story criticism.
itself, but for ascertaining the particular ethnic origin of the
story. It is not appropriate that the escaped righteous man
Stucken seems happier - _ in his explanation’ of the
9, Judg. 1915-30 parallelism between Gen. 19 1-11 and
(who in the earliest Deluge-myth was a solar hero) should have
r.ny further concern with this earth. If Hanak (mythologically) the stranEe story in Tudg. 19 15-30. H e
was the father of iMethuselah (Ishmael) and Lot the father of thinks that both stories hive thLsame mythological ker-
hIissur and Jerahmeel, it must in the oiiginal story have been nel-viz., the tradition of the dividing of the body of the
hefire thc Deluge. And even if Noah (Naham?) was really primreval being Tiamat (thepersonifiedocean-flood),with
the name of the hero of the Deluge-story in chaps. 6-7, Naham
is certainly a name of the Negeh (see N A H A M , N AHAMANI). which compare also a series of myths of the division ot
Altogether, nothing can be more probable than that those who the bodies of supernatural beings (e.g., Osiris). It is in
first arranged the Hebrew legends had their minds full of Jerah- fact all the more difficult to believe that Gen. 191.11 and
meelite associations. We can now fully appreciate the remark
of Gunkel (Gen. 195) that since the story of Sodom says nothing Judg. 1915-30 stand at all early in the process of
at all of water, although the site so strongly suggested this, it is legendary development, because both the stories to
plain that the scene of the narrative must originally have been which these passages belong are ultimately of Jerah-
elsewhere. Of course, the present place of the story and much meelite origin. This may be assumed in the former
besides is due to a skilful redactor.
case ( I ) from the place which the ‘Sodom‘-story
It is true, the name of the hero is different. But
occupies among legends that are certainly in their
there were presumably different forms of the Jerahmeelite
origin Jerahmeelite, and ( 2 ) probably from the legend
as well as of the Babylonian Flood-story. Probably
of the origin of ‘ MisSur’ and ‘ Jerahmeel’ (so read for
enough, there was another version in which Abraham
was the hero ; comparing Gen. 8 I ( ’ God remembered
‘ Moab ’ and ‘ Ammon ’ in 19 37 f:) which is attached to
the Sodom’-story. And it is hardly less clear a
Noah ’ ) with 1929 ( ’ God remembered Abraham ’),
deduction in the latter case from the results of textual
one may, in fact, not unnatnrally expect that Abraham,
criticism. For the story in Judg. 19-20 can be shown to
not Lot, should be the chief personage of the second
have referred originally not to Benjamin but to some
story. T h e visit of the eldhim to Abraham is a n
district of the Jerahmeelite Negeb.a
uncffaced indication that he originally was so. Cer-
So far as the outward form of the story is concerned,
tainly, something can still be said for Lot, who may
originally have been greater than he now appears, and
our task is now finished. Now to resume and, if need
have been a worthy brother (see above) and rival of
lo. Result. be, supplement. Originally, it seems,
there was but one visit of the Eldhim ;
Abraham. nut this is a pure conjecture, and one
it is to Abraham, not to Lot, that the visit was
might even infer from 137-9 that Abraham and Lot
vouchsafed. Abraham ( L e . , in the Jerahmeelite story, a
originally belonged to the class (well represented in
personification of Jerahmeel) was the one righteous man
ancient legends) of hostik brothers,’ and that Abraham
in the land. H e received timely warning that those
corresponds to Abel (cp Remus) and Lot to Cain (cp
among whom he sojourned had displeased God, and the
Koniulus). The legend might have taken this turn.
Elohim took him away to be with God. Then came a rain-
It is also true that in chap. 19 there is nowhere any
storm submerging all Jerahmeel. This original story,
trace of an underlying reference to the box ’ or ‘ chest ’
however, received modifications and additions. Lot or
(a term specially characteristic of a n inland country) in
Lotan. the reputed son, not of Seir the Horite, but prob-
which the survivors were preserved, and that in 1928
ably of MisSur the Jerahmeelite, was substituted for Abm-
Abraham is said to have seen ‘ t h e smoke of the land
hanr, and a floating story of mythic origin (the myth spoke
going up as the smoke of a furnace.’ But on the first
of violeuce done to a supernatural being) was attached to
point we may answer that if only Lot and his family
the story of Lot in a manipulated form, so as to explain
were to be saved, no ark was necessary ; the ‘ Sl6him ‘
and justify the anger of the Eldhim. After this a legend
would convey the small party to a place of safety. And
as for the other point, we must, a t any rate, credit the was inserted to account for the name MiSsur ; Lot had
taken refuge a t MiSsur. by divine permission, because it
last redactor with enough capacity to adjust a muti-
lated narrative to his own requirements. was but a ‘little’ city, and again another legendwas added
to record the circumstance that the people of Missur and
Stucken has offered another explanation of the legend
Jerahmeel were descended from that righteous man,3
which now occupies US.^ According to him, the Sodom-
who with his two daughters alone remained (the
8. Stucken’s and-Gomorrah-story was originally a
removal of the hero to the company of the El6him had
‘ dry ’ Deluge-story-i. e . , a legend of the
,dry, .
deiuge.
theory a destruction of men by other means than R been forgotten) in the depopulated land. (Tlfe names
were afterwards corrupted. ) Finally, a corruption i n the
flood ; such a story he finds in the Iranian
legend of the Var (or square enclosure) constructed by text of 1 9 2 4 suggested that the scene of the story must
Kina (see D ELUGE , 206). in the Peruvian and other
have been in that ‘ awful hollow,’ that ‘ bit of the infernal
stories of a general conflagration, and in the Egyptian regions come to the surface ’ which was a t the southern
story of the destruction of men by the g o d s 3 Whether (?) end of the Dead Sea. And the singular columnar
formations of rock-salt at Jebel Usdum (cp D EAD SEA.
the combination of stories which refer to water with those
which make no such reference is either theoretically or 5 5 ) to which a myth resembling that of Niobe
practically justified, may be questioned ; but we may, (originally a Creation myth ?) may perhaps already have
at any rate, admit that if the present text of Gen. 1924 1 Stucken, op. cif., w f i
correctly represents the original story, the singular 2 There was probahly a confusion between 7,nyi (Benjamin)
and (x-ip = hcnl,-ii. nlln’ O h fl.3 (l3e;hlehem-judah)=
1 Stucken, however (AsfraZinyfken,87) points out that the 3~nm,n-1 (Beth-jerahmeel). The ‘ Gibeah’ of the story was
distinction between friendly and hostile brothers in mythology is perhaps the erahmeelhe Geba (Gibeah?)mentioned in 2 S. 5 25
a fluid one. (cp D. 22, anJsee’RmwAIM). The ‘Bethel ’ in Judg. 2018 is the
2 Astralmytlten. 96. southern Bethel, repeatedly spoken of b Amos (see PROPHETIC
3 See Naville, TSBA 4 1-19; cp Maspero, Dawn of Ciu. L ITERAT URE , S i IO, 35). Sec C d . B i z
1648 3 The genealogists often vary in particulars of relationship.

4677 4678

Você também pode gostar