Skip to main content

Full text of "Dictionary of the Bible"

See other formats


Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World 

This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in 
the world by JSTOR. 

Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other 
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the 
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. 

We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this 
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial 

Read more about Early Journal Content at 
journal-content . 

JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people 
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching 
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit 
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please 


CWNI, is a very useful book, and may often be applied to the 
Halaehah. It deserves to be widely known, and it is to be hoped 
that the editing of the second part will be entrusted to abler hands. 

Jerusalem, December, 1897. 

L. Gbunhut. 

Edited by James Hastings, M.A., D.D. (T. & T. Clark.) 

It was high time for the production of a new dictionary of the Bible. 
Smith's Dictionary in the later parts represents the state of biblical 
science as it was thirty years ago, and those thirty years have seen a 
greater change in point of view and accumulation of material than the 
three preceding centuries. Assyriology and Egyptology have become 
exact sciences in the interim ; the whole of biblical geography and 
archaeology has been placed upon a firm footing by actual survey 
and excavation ; Semitic philology has come to the aid of Hebrew 
grammar and dictionary, while the new sciences of institutional 
archaeology and history of religion, though still in the stage of guess- 
work, have valuable suggestions to make, at least as regards method. 
Besides all this, English biblical scholarship has assimilated during 
the past quarter of a century all that is best in German work, and 
it may be anticipated henceforth that England will before long 
commence to pay back some of her debts to Germany. Indeed, the 
works of Cheyne, Driver, and Robertson-Smith have not been without 
their influence on recent German scholarship. 

The new dictionary published by Messrs. Clark shows in many 
directions the influence of these new aids to biblical research. The 
physical archaeology and the geographical details show on all sides 
the vast strides made in these directions during the past quarter of a 
century, though it is but fair to add that Sir George Grove's con- 
tributions to Smith's Dictionary left little to be desired in the latter 
regard. The illustrations of archaeological objects are scattered 
rather sparsely, and even when they occur are not so clear as might 
be desired, and it was somewhat doubtful policy inserting them in 
such a form. One wonders rather what will be the appearance of the 
block on page 304 after a few thousand impressions have been taken 
from it. Indeed, throughout, what are technically known as " half- 
tone " blocks are very unsatisfactory. The illustrations contrast very 

B b 2 


unfavourably with those accompanying the English edition of the 
Polychrome Bible. If it was not intended to include in the new 
dictionary a tolerably complete atlas of Bible antiquities, it was 
scarcely worth while introducing these somewhat inelegant extracts 
from such an atlas. On the other hand, the three maps included in 
the present volume are admirably clear, and fully up to date. Thus 
much advantage would have been gained by a few sketch-maps of 
important localities, as Damascus, and the like. A notable feature 
of the new dictionary is the attention paid to the obsolete words of 
the A. V., which are mostly treated with great care by the editor 
himself. Here, again, the principle of competing with the ordinary 
Bible Word-books may be called into question. The subject generally 
has its interests more from the point of view of philology than from 
biblical antiquities ; excellent word-lists already exist, and there is 
not much object in multiplying parallel examples from Elizabethan 
writers. If, however, the task was to have been attempted of in- 
cluding a Bible Word-book in the Bible Dictionary, the list of 
selected words might have been made tolerably complete. A cursory 
comparison shows at once an absence of all explanation of the curious 
form " all to break " (Judges ix. 53) ; then the word " beaten," as used 
of oil in Exod. xxvii. 20, also deserves note, if anything like complete- 
ness in this connexion is aimed at. But why only English words ? 
There are numerous Hebrew and Greek words on which one would 
like to have monographs in a Bible Dictionary, if words are to be 
attended to at all. Words like ali>v or noon are as interesting to the 
biblical student as any obsolete form of Elizabethan English. 

Another reason for objecting to the insertion of this Word-book is 
the fact that so much of the matter elsewhere in the book is of a 
highly special character, seemingly intended only for specialist 
students of the Bible. Much of it might indeed be described not 
inappropriately as " minced manual." The elaborate division of 
the sources under the headings of Exodus and Deuteronomy, for 
example, seem to have wandered away from some technical Intro- 
duction to the Old Testament, and can be but disconcerting to a 
reader who requires to be informed of the exact meaning of " daub." 
If these sections were intended for the use of biblical students in the 
special sense of the word, they are too short and general ; if for the 
general reader, they are too long and special. What the editor has 
probably aimed at has been to cater for both classes, and one cannot 
help thinking that he is in the proverbial state of unstable equili- 
brium which a seat upon two stools confers. 

So much by way of general comment on the method which has 
been adopted in this new attempt to summarize modern knowledge 


about the Bible. One would be indeed ungrateful if one did not 
recognize what a large amount of new and accurate information has 
been placed at our disposal in these pages. The mere list of con- 
tributors is enough to indicate the high quality of the work. When 
we have Prof. Hommel writing upon Assyria and Babylonia, Prof. 
Flinders Petrie on the material remains of Semitic antiquity, Dr. 
Isaac Taylor upon the alphabet, Mr. Buchanan Gray on many of the 
proper names, Mr. Charles on Enoch, Prof. Jevons on divination, 
Prof. Davidson on special theological terms of the Old Testament, 
Colonel Conder on Palestinian Geography, and Prof. Ramsay on the 
Geography of Asia Minor, one must own that every attempt has been 
made to apply to the highest sources on most of the special topics. 
But one must in these pages enter a protest against the entire 
absence of Jewish names among the contributors to the dictionary. 
There are so many sides to biblical science nowadays which are 
strictly scientific, and therefore quite apart from any theological 
preconceptions, that there would be no impropriety, and indeed one 
would have thought special suitability, in allotting some subjects 
to Jewish writers. They would, at any rate, be able to contribute 
special information on the later development of biblical practice, 
which to them is still in large measure a living thing. One might 
mention the names of several in this country and in America, whose 
co-operation would have been specially valuable. Merely as a sign 
of the times, it would have been desirable to display in practice the 
common desire of Jew and Christian to reach the truth about biblical 

After these preliminary remarks, I may perhaps indicate under a 
few headings a number of additions or corrections, mainly as regards 
the bibliographies attached to the more important articles. 

Abraham. — Beer's book should have been referred to in connexion 
with the rabbinic traditions about Abraham, instead of the much 
over-rated Weber. Uncritical as Hamburger is, he also gives the 
facts of rabbinic tradition in tolerable fullness. 

Agriculture. — Vogelstein's treatise upon the agriculture of the Mishna 
would have given some useful parallels closer than those from 
Egypt and modern Syria. 

Algum Trees. — As the name of the peacocks which accompanied these 
from Ophir has been definitely traced to the Tamil, it seems 
unnecessary scepticism to doubt the identity of these trees with 
the Indian red sandalwood. 

Alphabet. — Some notice might have been taken here of the ingenious 
suggestion of the Rev. C. J. Ball that the true origin of the 


alphabet is not from Egypt, as De Rouge suggested, but from 
the Assyrian, the Archaic forms of which are at least as near the 
palaeography of the Moabite stone as the Hieratic forms. 

Altar.— The writer here is somewhat too ready to accept without 
criticism Robertson-Smith's views, which, it must be confessed, 
were very " viewy." The connexion of the altar with the blood 
of sacrifice is not so universally made out as Smith's hypothesis 
would require. 

Amulets. — A reference might here be made to Brecher's treatise Das 
Transcendentale im Talmud. 

Anah. — I have pointed out in my Studies in Biblical Archaeology 
that the evidence for the matriarchate among the Horites is very 

Angel. — Reference might have been made here to M. Schwab's 
elaborate list of names of angels and demons in later Jewish 
mysticism. More attention might also have been given to the 
elaborate lists in Enoch. 

Anointing. — The relation between this and baptism might have been 
adverted to. No savage ever washes without anointing, there 
may therefore be some relation between the purification pro- 
duced by contact with water according to all folklore, and the 
subsequent operation of anointing. It would have been inter- 
esting also to have discussed why extreme unction resolves itself 
into unction of the extremities : tips of fingers, toes, &c. 

Apes. — It should have been mentioned here that the Hebrew word is 
identical with, and probably therefore derived from, the Sanskrit. 

Apocrypha. — Reference should surely have been made here to the 
important fact that Sirach has now been recovered in Hebrew, 
and in any case Prof. Schechter's citation of the rabbinical extracts 
from it should have been referred to rather than Zunz's. 

Art.— The interesting fact noted by Prof. Flinders Petrie that the 
bell and pomegranate design on the dress of the high priest was 
really the Egyptian pattern of a lady's dress, should have been 
further referred to under the former heading. At the same time 
Prof. Petrie does not make it clear that his suggestion is at 
present only a suggestion. 

Astronomy and Assyriology, — Mr. Pinches' article on this subject is 
practically devoted to the influence of Chaldea upon Jewish 
astronomy, as is on the whole justified, but with regard to the 
Zodiac, reference should have been made to the Egyptian views 
which are fuller and present somewhat closer analogies. 


Atonement, Day of. — Though a few additional items are given from 
the Mishna, the Talmudic references are by no means adequately 
taken into account in this article. 

Azazel. — Many instructive parallels for the scape-goat are given in 
Andree's Ethnographische Parallelen. 

Baptism. — Here again is a case where Jewish sources are very in- 
adequately dealt with. The altogether obsolete treatment of 
Schneckenberger, 1829, is referred to as the leading authority on 
Jewish baptism. 

Benjamin. — It is possible that the late formation of this tribe may be 
connected with the rise of the house of Saul, rather than that 
the movement for a king should have arisen in the tribe. 

Blood. — The work of Trumbull which should have been referred to is 
The Blood Covenant, rather than his later work. 

Bridegroom's friend. — Reference might here have been made to the 
widespread custom of the " best man " as being a survival of 
marriage by capture. Maclennan's classic treatise on marriage 
affords numerous examples. 

Chronicles. — Zunz's discussion of the sources in his Gottesdienstliehe 
Vortr&ge should have been referred to as almost the earliest 
critical treatment of the subject. 

Chronology of the New Testament. — Reference should here have been 
made to Mr.Torr's recent suggestion, confirmed by early Christian 
iconographic art, that the earlier dates refer rather to John the 
Baptist than to Jesus. This solves many difficulties. 

Colours. — Delitzsch's treatment of this subject, in his work entitled 
Iris, should have been referred to and used, while with regard 
to the question raised by Mr. Gladstone as to the early colour 
sense of the Hebrews, Mr. Grant Allen's discussion on this subject 
in his work on The Colour Sense is of some importance. 

Confession. — Here again reference to later Jewish practice might have 
been included with advantage. 

Day. — Some consideration should here have been given to the Hebraic 
(? Semitic) conception of the beginning of the day at sunset. 

Debt. — This was a case in which the very elaborate Talmudic legisla- 
tion on the subject might have been compared with advantage. 
It certainly would have been desirable to mention the curious 
principle of the Prosbul, by which the debt enactments of the 
Jubilee were evaded. The elaborate information given by the 
Egibi tablets might also have been compared. 


Decalogue.— In connexion with the so-called Jahwistic Decalogue, the 
importance attributed by Jewish custom to the tenth command- 
ment — " Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk " — might 
have been referred to, as well as the possibility that the second 
commandment in the ordinary version was probably directed 
against totemism. 

Demon. — Here a section is devoted to the demonology of later 
Judaism, but the only authority used is that of Weber, instead 
of Brecher and Kohut. 

Dragon. — This article is almost entirely philological. Some reference 
should have been made to the Dragon Myths of Syria, and the 
interesting discussion on them prefixed by Mr. Keane to the 
translation of Bousset's Antichrist Legend. 

Education. — This article deserves attention as being one of the few 
in which Jewish research has been adequately utilized. 

These somewhat miscellaneous jottings may perhaps indicate the 
two chief directions in which the new Dictionary of the Bible is, in 
the opinion of the present writer, most deficient. The light thrown 
by later Jewish practice and research on biblical topics has not been 
adequately consulted, and, notwithstanding the influence of Robertson- 
Smith, the researches of comparative folklore have not been utilized 
as much as they might have been. On the other hand, it must be 
recognized that some of the contributors have used Jewish research, to 
some extent, while others are aware of the large volume of illustrative 
literature afforded by a study of savage practice and belief. It would, 
however, have been desirable to have made use of these two lines of 
research more consistently. 

It is natural that in reviewing a book of this kind, attention is 
concentrated upon those sides in which the reviewer can see faults. 
The better polished facets offer no opportunity for comment, but it 
would be unjust to part from the book without recognizing the very 
high average merit of the articles, and the scrupulous fairness with 
which all the writers have approached a subject crammed full of 
difficulties, both subjective and objective ; the completeness of the 
plan, which is at times almost excessively minute, and the general 
success with which the plan has so far been carried out. 

Joseph Jacobs.